PDA

View Full Version : Will the Favre move be considered a success even w



Marrdro
01-06-2010, 11:21 AM
Will the Favre move be considered a success even without a Super Bowl victory? (http://grants-tomb.blogspot.com/2010/01/will-favre-move-be-considered-success.html)

Marrdro
01-06-2010, 11:22 AM
Judging the Favre Experiment in Minnesota (http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/8452/judging-the-favre-experiment-in-minnesota#more)

V4L
01-06-2010, 11:32 AM
I do believe so

He single handily won us a couple games that Jackson wouldn't have

He was atleast an improvement which is what we were lookin for

Zeus
01-06-2010, 11:34 AM
Marrdro wrote:

Will the Favre move be considered a success even without a Super Bowl victory? (http://grants-tomb.blogspot.com/2010/01/will-favre-move-be-considered-success.html)

LOL - Old Dogs, new tricks. Marty! You know the Subject line is limited! When you paste it, do some editing!

=Z=

Marrdro
01-06-2010, 11:39 AM
Zeus wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Will the Favre move be considered a success even without a Super Bowl victory? (http://grants-tomb.blogspot.com/2010/01/will-favre-move-be-considered-success.html)

LOL - Old Dogs, new tricks. Marty! You know the Subject line is limited! When you paste it, do some editing!

=Z=
Thats all you got out of that? Thanks Mr. Mod.

Marrdro
01-06-2010, 11:40 AM
Favre, Four Others Hit QB Triple Crown (http://www.vikings.com/news/article-1/Favre-Four-Others-Hit-QB-Triple-Crown/507ca14e-ae58-40ad-b381-e94a5fa553b8)

NodakPaul
01-06-2010, 11:47 AM
Marrdro wrote:

Will the Favre move be considered a success even without a Super Bowl victory? (http://grants-tomb.blogspot.com/2010/01/will-favre-move-be-considered-success.html)


ESPN's Kevin Seifert examines that question in this post and determines, that, yes, the move will be a success if Favre even leads the Vikings to the NFC Championship game...

I think it is obvious that Favre was a success. Getting to the NFC Championship game and beyond will just make that success that much more...

Zeus
01-06-2010, 11:48 AM
Marrdro wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Will the Favre move be considered a success even without a Super Bowl victory? (http://grants-tomb.blogspot.com/2010/01/will-favre-move-be-considered-success.html)

LOL - Old Dogs, new tricks. Marty! You know the Subject line is limited! When you paste it, do some editing!


Thats all you got out of that? Thanks Mr. Mod.

What I got out of it has nothing to do with encouraging you to make your subject titles more helpful, rather than having them be cutoff mid-sentence.

How hard is it for you to take a couple seconds so that people can accurately judge whether or not to open a thread based upon the subject?

"Will Favre move be considered a success w/out SB win?"

For example.

=Z=

Marrdro
01-06-2010, 11:53 AM
Zeus wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Will the Favre move be considered a success even without a Super Bowl victory? (http://grants-tomb.blogspot.com/2010/01/will-favre-move-be-considered-success.html)

LOL - Old Dogs, new tricks. Marty! You know the Subject line is limited! When you paste it, do some editing!


Thats all you got out of that? Thanks Mr. Mod.

What I got out of it has nothing to do with encouraging you to make your subject titles more helpful, rather than having them be cutoff mid-sentence.

How hard is it for you to take a couple seconds so that people can accurately judge whether or not to open a thread based upon the subject?

"Will Favre move be considered a success w/out SB win?"

For example.

=Z=
You are aware that the whole title is there right and like it or not, there is only so much that fits in the the subject line, no matter how you edit it.

But hey, thanks for your input.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to hack on the cat who spelled CC's name wrong again yesterday.

Prophet
01-06-2010, 12:06 PM
After finishing the season at 12-4 with a first round bye in the playoffs it is rather obvious that the Vikings would have been much better off starting Tarvaris Jackson or Sage Rosenfels.

marstc09
01-06-2010, 12:06 PM
Funny Marrdro is happy when Favre threads get locked but then makes more.

Drama Queen.

marstc09
01-06-2010, 12:08 PM
Marrdro wrote:

Will the Favre move be considered a success even without a Super Bowl victory? (http://grants-tomb.blogspot.com/2010/01/will-favre-move-be-considered-success.html)

Yes

jmcdon00
01-06-2010, 12:10 PM
NodakPaul wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Will the Favre move be considered a success even without a Super Bowl victory? (http://grants-tomb.blogspot.com/2010/01/will-favre-move-be-considered-success.html)


ESPN's Kevin Seifert examines that question in this post and determines, that, yes, the move will be a success if Favre even leads the Vikings to the NFC Championship game...

I think it is obvious that Favre was a success. Getting to the NFC Championship game and beyond will just make that success that much more...
So far it has been a success, however an epic fail in the playoffs could still render this a failed experiment. We must beat the Pack.

BloodyHorns82
01-06-2010, 12:17 PM
jmcdon00 wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Will the Favre move be considered a success even without a Super Bowl victory? (http://grants-tomb.blogspot.com/2010/01/will-favre-move-be-considered-success.html)


ESPN's Kevin Seifert examines that question in this post and determines, that, yes, the move will be a success if Favre even leads the Vikings to the NFC Championship game...

I think it is obvious that Favre was a success. Getting to the NFC Championship game and beyond will just make that success that much more...
So far it has been a success, however an epic fail in the playoffs could still render this a failed experiment. We must beat the Pack.

I like JmC's point here...while in my eyes the season is a success no matter what at this point...the league as a whole, and many Vikings fans will see it as a faiure if Favre fails (as he has done in the semi-recent past), in the playoffs.

The argument that he couldn't hold up an entire season will again have wings.

Regardless, it was a very fun and entertaining season and in my opinion the Favre experiment was loads of fun.

tastywaves
01-06-2010, 12:22 PM
For example, if Tarvaris Jackson is the starting quarterback in 2009, with the way the defence has played, maybe the Vikings finish 7-9 or 8-8, which would be disappointing. But that kind of record would give the Vikings a decent shot at drafting a Sam Bradford or Colt McCoy two potential franchise quarterbacks expected to be picked early in the first round of this April's college draft

A bit off topic, but are Sam and Colt still expected to be early first round picks? I thought they moved to late first rounders or even early second.

And Yes, the answer to the original topic line.

BleedinPandG
01-06-2010, 12:31 PM
I'd say no... not without a playoff win...

To defend this... what was the major knock on TJ after last season? How he performed in his first playoff game against the Eagles. We needed to bring someone in that could perform in that environment.

As has been repeated several times this week as people are getting fired... the status quo is not good enough... simply returning a playoff team back to the playoffs is not good enough. We must win a playoff game.

Would we be 12 - 4 without Favre? Hard to say. Obviously the team would have been much different. I believe the Defense would have played better under more pressure (i.e. the offense scoring less points)... I believe AD would have had more yards due in part to more carries but more due to a concentration from our O Line on run blocking and more double tight end sets. If you look at our schedule, we maybe would have lost a few games with TJ instead of Favre against some tough opponents but we also may have won a few games we let get away even with Favre under center.

Regardless, we didn't bring Favre in for a regular season record, we didn't bring him in to lead us back to the playoffs, we brought him in to lead us "THROUGH" the playoffs.

Midge Resurrected
01-06-2010, 12:32 PM
tastywaves wrote:


For example, if Tarvaris Jackson is the starting quarterback in 2009, with the way the defence has played, maybe the Vikings finish 7-9 or 8-8, which would be disappointing. But that kind of record would give the Vikings a decent shot at drafting a Sam Bradford or Colt McCoy two potential franchise quarterbacks expected to be picked early in the first round of this April's college draft

A bit off topic, but are Sam and Colt still expected to be early first round picks? I thought they moved to late first rounders or even early second.

And Yes, the answer to the original topic line.

Most mock drafts have Bradford going No. 4 to the Redskins. And I think McCoy is still considered a mid to late first rounder. But a lot can change with combines and pro-days.

Midge Resurrected
01-06-2010, 12:35 PM
I would say it is an absolute success even if we lose the first game in the playoffs.

It has shown us how productive these players and this offense CAN be and has made us realize that T-Jack will deserve the blame if he cannot perform with these guys.

Also, whether we win or lose at this point, we already made it further than last season, won two more games than last season and will have a home game in the second round of the playoffs.

Clearly a success. Especially because he is coming back next year anyways.

tastywaves
01-06-2010, 12:36 PM
BloodyHorns82 wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Will the Favre move be considered a success even without a Super Bowl victory? (http://grants-tomb.blogspot.com/2010/01/will-favre-move-be-considered-success.html)


ESPN's Kevin Seifert examines that question in this post and determines, that, yes, the move will be a success if Favre even leads the Vikings to the NFC Championship game...

I think it is obvious that Favre was a success. Getting to the NFC Championship game and beyond will just make that success that much more...
So far it has been a success, however an epic fail in the playoffs could still render this a failed experiment. We must beat the Pack.

I like JmC's point here...while in my eyes the season is a success no matter what at this point...the league as a whole, and many Vikings fans will see it as a faiure if Favre fails (as he has done in the semi-recent past), in the playoffs.

The argument that he couldn't hold up an entire season will again have wings.

Regardless, it was a very fun and entertaining season and in my opinion the Favre experiment was loads of fun.

If Favre screws up in the playoff game, then there would be some merit in a failed experiment with Favre. However, losing the playoff game with a good performance by Favre, is hard for me to agree with a failed hire.

He has shown us if nothing else, that our offense can be effective with the right QB running the show. Before Favre, there were a lot of doubts in many people's minds including mine whether the KAO had an chance of success.

ejmat
01-06-2010, 12:40 PM
BleedinPandG wrote:

I'd say no... not without a playoff win...

To defend this... what was the major knock on TJ after last season? How he performed in his first playoff game against the Eagles. We needed to bring someone in that could perform in that environment.

As has been repeated several times this week as people are getting fired... the status quo is not good enough... simply returning a playoff team back to the playoffs is not good enough. We must win a playoff game.

Would we be 12 - 4 without Favre? Hard to say. Obviously the team would have been much different. I believe the Defense would have played better under more pressure (i.e. the offense scoring less points)... I believe AD would have had more yards due in part to more carries but more due to a concentration from our O Line on run blocking and more double tight end sets. If you look at our schedule, we maybe would have lost a few games with TJ instead of Favre against some tough opponents but we also may have won a few games we let get away even with Favre under center.

Regardless, we didn't bring Favre in for a regular season record, we didn't bring him in to lead us back to the playoffs, we brought him in to lead us "THROUGH" the playoffs.

Let's put it this way. Without Favre, the Vikings probably don't make the playoffs. Without at least 11 wins you don't get a wildcard in the NFC this year. The worst record in the playoffs was a divisional winner (Cards) at 10-6. Both wild cards had 11 wins.

That being said, if the Favre "experiment" isn't considered a success I don't know what is.

tastywaves
01-06-2010, 12:41 PM
Midge Resurrected wrote:

tastywaves wrote:


For example, if Tarvaris Jackson is the starting quarterback in 2009, with the way the defence has played, maybe the Vikings finish 7-9 or 8-8, which would be disappointing. But that kind of record would give the Vikings a decent shot at drafting a Sam Bradford or Colt McCoy two potential franchise quarterbacks expected to be picked early in the first round of this April's college draft

A bit off topic, but are Sam and Colt still expected to be early first round picks? I thought they moved to late first rounders or even early second.

And Yes, the answer to the original topic line.

Most mock drafts have Bradford going No. 4 to the Redskins. And I think McCoy is still considered a mid to late first rounder. But a lot can change with combines and pro-days.

I just looked up a bunch of mocks and you're right most have Bradford going in the top 6. I thought with his injury that people would be a bit more hesitant on plugging him in so high. He definitely showed the talent before the injury though.

I see you beat me on the whole KAO validity with Favre thing.

Prophet
01-06-2010, 12:45 PM
Midge Resurrected wrote:

I would say it is an absolute success even if we lose the first game in the playoffs.

It has shown us how productive these players and this offense CAN be and has made us realize that T-Jack will deserve the blame if he cannot perform with these guys.

Also, whether we win or lose at this point, we already made it further than last season, won two more games than last season and will have a home game in the second round of the playoffs.

Clearly a success. Especially because he is coming back next year anyways.

+1, seems obvious. Already deeper in the playoffs without playing a game. The offense clicked this season and that helps in discerning where the problem was. Like BPG said it's not easy to compare because it would have been totally different with TJack at the helm. I would say that there is not a chance in hell that TJack would bring the team to a 12 win season this year. Last year they were in the playoffs in spite of TJack, he wasn't 'the man' that got them the 10 wins...although he did get a couple of them along the way after losing the job to a career hack the beginning of last season. TJack has had hangnailitis every year since he has been on the team while Favre has started every game for eons whether he has had pain or not.

The QB slot is a failure right now on the Vikings. When Favre leaves there is nothing. Aaron Rodgers is the long-term solution for the Packers. I haven't been worried about the Bears in decades, except for their occasional rise and falls and the Lions are sunk as long as old man Ford has his claws within reach of the team.

Flidais
01-06-2010, 01:00 PM
Midge Resurrected wrote:

Most mock drafts have Bradford going No. 4 to the Redskins. And I think McCoy is still considered a mid to late first rounder. But a lot can change with combines and pro-days.

Oh god help us all. The Jason Campbell situation has been heartbreaking enough. I don't think I could deal with it if they decided to ruin a new quarterback.

To the subject at hand, I think it will take a Superbowl appearance for most Vikings fans to feel it was worth the time and effort. I don't think a Superbowl win is necessary, but we've been epic failures in playoffs without Favre's help for over three decades now. We don't necessarily need his help to not become the NFC Champions.

Prophet
01-06-2010, 01:02 PM
Flidais wrote:

... I don't think a Superbowl win is necessary, but we've been epic failures in playoffs without Favre's help for over three decades now. We don't necessarily need his help to not become the NFC Champions.

lmao

i_bleed_purple
01-06-2010, 01:07 PM
It all depends on who you ask. People against the signing like C Mac or Marrdro will probably say no, but I think, if he gives us a better chance, he's absoluetly worth it. If we lose in the NFCC BECAUSE of favre, then I'l reconsider, but I'd say, if we go to the nFCC, thats better than TJ would do for us, therefore a good signing.

VikingLance
01-06-2010, 01:16 PM
Depends. Is it what the team deems a success? What were their goals at the beginning of the season? I believe they brought Favre in to bring them at the very least a Super Bowl appearance. Even if they fail to do that though, I think it is a success.

Look at the rising stars on this team. Sid, Percy, Shianco. Getting AP more involved in the passing game. I think having Favre under center has helped these players improve their game by leaps and bounds compared to what they may or may not have done without him. The confidence & guidance that he has given them has improved this team. While these should be natural progressions regardless of who the quarterback is, I feel he has done (almost) all we have asked of him.


The Brett Favre experiment is a success.

purplepat
01-06-2010, 01:40 PM
Depends on how you measure success...

I really think that Favre was brought in to take the Vikings further in the playoffs than they got last year. I probably interpret that as winning at least one game in the playoffs. However, I think you could argue that by virtue of securing the first round bye through good play during the regular season, the Vikings have already advanced to the Divisional Round of the playoffs...which is further than they advanced last year.

In terms of fan support, it's an unequivocal success. Once they got a few victories under their belt, you didn't hear a peep about the Vikings having trouble selling tickets, needing to sell several thousand a day or two before the deadline to keep the sellout streak alive and to avoid having the game blacked out. When playoff tickets went on sale, what tickets were available were virtually gone in less than 24 hours. Contrast that to last season, when they required an extension to sell out the playoff game. And (like it or not, for whatever reasons), many Vikings fans were pretty ambivalent about their team and their QB in particular. It's clearly obvious that the fan base has rallied around Favre as their leader, and with him, the team in general.

In terms of media attention, Minnesota hadn't seen this much since Moss' rookie season. The MNF game that matched Favre up against the Packers was the highest rated cable TV broadcast of all time. OF ALL TIME!!! The Vikings were either nationally broadcast, or shown as the primary game around the country, numerous times this season. 700 miles away in Cincinnati, the Vikings were on my local TV (or ESPN) for ten games this season. I'm sure Vikings merchandise sales are off the hook, and that has to put some money back into the Wilf's pockets.

I think the Wilf's are looking for Favre to take this team to a championship, so I don't know if they will feel the investment was worth it unless they reach the Super Bowl. But from all other accounts, this season has been a special one and it's pretty much all attributable to #4

tastywaves
01-06-2010, 02:04 PM
purplepat wrote:

Depends on how you measure success...

I really think that Favre was brought in to take the Vikings further in the playoffs than they got last year. I probably interpret that as winning at least one game in the playoffs. However, I think you could argue that by virtue of securing the first round bye through good play during the regular season, the Vikings have already advanced to the Divisional Round of the playoffs...which is further than they advanced last year.

In terms of fan support, it's an unequivocal success. Once they got a few victories under their belt, you didn't hear a peep about the Vikings having trouble selling tickets, needing to sell several thousand a day or two before the deadline to keep the sellout streak alive and to avoid having the game blacked out. When playoff tickets went on sale, what tickets were available were virtually gone in less than 24 hours. Contrast that to last season, when they required an extension to sell out the playoff game. And (like it or not, for whatever reasons), many Vikings fans were pretty ambivalent about their team and their QB in particular. It's clearly obvious that the fan base has rallied around Favre as their leader, and with him, the team in general.

In terms of media attention, Minnesota hadn't seen this much since Moss' rookie season. The MNF game that matched Favre up against the Packers was the highest rated cable TV broadcast of all time. OF ALL TIME!!! The Vikings were either nationally broadcast, or shown as the primary game around the country, numerous times this season. 700 miles away in Cincinnati, the Vikings were on my local TV (or ESPN) for ten games this season. I'm sure Vikings merchandise sales are off the hook, and that has to put some money back into the Wilf's pockets.

I think the Wilf's are looking for Favre to take this team to a championship, so I don't know if they will feel the investment was worth it unless they reach the Super Bowl. But from all other accounts, this season has been a special one and it's pretty much all attributable to #4

Very good post Pat. I would thing that the Wilf's were probably looking for two things from the Favre signing; 1) increased fanbase/revenue and 2) a legitimate chance to win a SB. At this point #4's helped (notice I said helped Marrdro) do both. If he has a colossal meltdown in the first playoff game, then more questions will follow.

And like you stated, the fan base to date has deemed it a resounding success.

Opportunity lost by signing Favre vs. going with Sage/TJ or bringing in a new guy is pure speculation that very well might have ended up with a number of more mediocre seasons.

Addressing our longer term QB situation should remain a top priority regardless of how this year ends up, but considering our options at the time, I applaud the Vikings for bringing Favre to town.

BloodyHorns82
01-06-2010, 02:13 PM
I think without Favre the Vikings miss the playoffs this year. The Packers are much improved and would have taken the division. Could we have gotten a wildcard spot? Possible, but doubtful.

The Dropper
01-06-2010, 02:37 PM
Nope.

I've gone on record saying that bringing in Favre was a net plus for the season. But, when I say that, I am referring to games won and his overall performance (which has been phenomenal).

If the Vikes don' win the Super Bowl this year, where does that put us?

Well, first, it gives us a lower draft pick, which decreases the likelihood that we can finally find a QB for the future. Favre jerks the whole league around for another six months, then maybe decides to put his old bones on the field again. Tarvaris and Sage have lost out on an entire season of playing time, so they basically need to start all over again building chemistry with the rest of the offense.

Oh, and Childress has already received a contract extension and at least a few more years to inspire a team full of all stars to underachieve. Joy.


Edit: I'll say this. If Favre agrees to return, immediately after the season ends without a Super Bowl win, then I will consider the season a success because it will have given the whole team more playoff experience and the same starting QB two years in a row. The latter is something we have yet to experience in the Childress era.

purplejokr
01-06-2010, 06:02 PM
a bit of background...

My first love was basketball and I am from southern California. I have lived in Los Angeles for the last 14 years or so.

With that said, I am a Laker fan and a UCLA fan. At the end of each basketball season, someone is crowned champion. If it isn't the Bruins or Lakers, those teams feel that they have failed. This is evidenced by the fact that those teams do not hang division champion banners in their gyms. They hang ONLY championship banners.

So, do I feel that the Favre experiment is a success without a Super Bowl win?

Absolutely not.

Favre was brought to Minnesota to win a Super Bowl. Favre came to Minnesota to win a Super Bowl. Any other outcome is failure.

Yes, there are silver linings to that cloud and many of you have articulated them wonderfully. However, the Vikings were a championship caliber team last year and the QB position was the only thing holding them back. Now that QB is in place and it is the Vikings' time.

Win or lose I will still be a BIG fan but I believe that without a Super Bowl victory, this season is a failure.

Midge Resurrected
01-06-2010, 06:19 PM
The Dropper wrote:

Nope.

I've gone on record saying that bringing in Favre was a net plus for the season. But, when I say that, I am referring to games won and his overall performance (which has been phenomenal).

If the Vikes don' win the Super Bowl this year, where does that put us?

Well, first, it gives us a lower draft pick, which decreases the likelihood that we can finally find a QB for the future. Favre jerks the whole league around for another six months, then maybe decides to put his old bones on the field again. Tarvaris and Sage have lost out on an entire season of playing time, so they basically need to start all over again building chemistry with the rest of the offense.

Oh, and Childress has already received a contract extension and at least a few more years to inspire a team full of all stars to underachieve. Joy.


Edit: I'll say this. If Favre agrees to return, immediately after the season ends without a Super Bowl win, then I will consider the season a success because it will have given the whole team more playoff experience and the same starting QB two years in a row. The latter is something we have yet to experience in the Childress era.

Actually ... Childress has only been the coach for four seasons ... and the middle two ... T-Jack came in the starter ... so we have had the same quarterback two seasons in a row.

ejmat
01-06-2010, 08:52 PM
purplejokr wrote:

a bit of background...

My first love was basketball and I am from southern California. I have lived in Los Angeles for the last 14 years or so.

With that said, I am a Laker fan and a UCLA fan. At the end of each basketball season, someone is crowned champion. If it isn't the Bruins or Lakers, those teams feel that they have failed. This is evidenced by the fact that those teams do not hang division champion banners in their gyms. They hang ONLY championship banners.

So, do I feel that the Favre experiment is a success without a Super Bowl win?

Absolutely not.

Favre was brought to Minnesota to win a Super Bowl. Favre came to Minnesota to win a Super Bowl. Any other outcome is failure.

Yes, there are silver linings to that cloud and many of you have articulated them wonderfully. However, the Vikings were a championship caliber team last year and the QB position was the only thing holding them back. Now that QB is in place and it is the Vikings' time.

Win or lose I will still be a BIG fan but I believe that without a Super Bowl victory, this season is a failure.

Every team goes into a season wanting and thinking they can win a superbowl. Only one team wins it. That doesn't mean there are 31 failures in the league. Your post would deem every teams' QB that doesn't win a superbowl is a failure.

Favre was brought in because he gives a "better chance" to win a superbowl. Expecting and holding a superbowl win as the only standard of success is asking a lot out of anyone. A better chance to win is a lot different than being brought in to win the superbowl.

The truth is he gives them a better chance to win. Without him they wouldn't have made the playoffs as they would have needed at least 11 wins. Maybe speculation but let's be real. We don't get that with TJ or Sage. Favre took this team on his back a few games this year and judging by history neither TJ or Sage has been able to do that on a consistent basis if ever.

The Favre experiment is a success based solely on the fact they made the playoffs with 12 wins. Because if they finished at 10 like last year they are sitting at home on their coach. There would be no chance at all then.

Bars92
01-06-2010, 11:12 PM
A playoff win would be a success I think. ;)

marstc09
01-06-2010, 11:29 PM
Bars92 wrote:

A playoff win would be a success I think. ;)

I agree. That gets us in the NFC Championship game. That is a big step up from last year.

skum
01-07-2010, 02:13 AM
tastywaves wrote:


For example, if Tarvaris Jackson is the starting quarterback in 2009, with the way the defence has played, maybe the Vikings finish 7-9 or 8-8, which would be disappointing. But that kind of record would give the Vikings a decent shot at drafting a Sam Bradford or Colt McCoy two potential franchise quarterbacks expected to be picked early in the first round of this April's college draft

A bit off topic, but are Sam and Colt still expected to be early first round picks? I thought they moved to late first rounders or even early second.

And Yes, the answer to the original topic line.

Sam might have fallen because of injuries, Colt McCoy is still a proven leader with a rocket arm.. So he will go way early i think.

However i hate that statement, yes Favre is better i think that we could have sneaked in the the playoffs with Tarvaris Jackson as the starting quarterback - you can't just take Favres numbers and replace them a statline that Tarvaris might have put him, you will also have to take into account that Adrian would have gotten more touches and won some games for us..

How many games can you say that Tarvaris Jackson would have had no shot at winning, that Brett Favre won for us?

Also the guys makes it look like our defence have been horrible all year and it has been all Favre.. that is not the case..

(i know the statement is from the article and not you)

Marrdro
01-07-2010, 06:47 AM
marstc09 wrote:

Funny Marrdro is happy when Favre threads get locked but then makes more.

Drama Queen.
LOL, I know, I'm a sick man. On a side note, did you read the articles? Some good discussion points in there.

Marrdro
01-07-2010, 06:59 AM
tastywaves wrote:

Midge Resurrected wrote:

tastywaves wrote:


For example, if Tarvaris Jackson is the starting quarterback in 2009, with the way the defence has played, maybe the Vikings finish 7-9 or 8-8, which would be disappointing. But that kind of record would give the Vikings a decent shot at drafting a Sam Bradford or Colt McCoy two potential franchise quarterbacks expected to be picked early in the first round of this April's college draft

A bit off topic, but are Sam and Colt still expected to be early first round picks? I thought they moved to late first rounders or even early second.

And Yes, the answer to the original topic line.

Most mock drafts have Bradford going No. 4 to the Redskins. And I think McCoy is still considered a mid to late first rounder. But a lot can change with combines and pro-days.

I just looked up a bunch of mocks and you're right most have Bradford going in the top 6. I thought with his injury that people would be a bit more hesitant on plugging him in so high. He definitely showed the talent before the injury though.

I see you beat me on the whole KAO validity with Favre thing.
This might sound kindof silly, but I don't put much stock in all the mocks out there right now. Most of them are being done by yutz's like me.

What will drive his status is if he can a) throw at the combine and b) what guys are going to decide to declare early (i.e. Mallett).

Marrdro
01-07-2010, 07:06 AM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

It all depends on who you ask. People against the signing like C Mac or Marrdro will probably say no, but I think, if he gives us a better chance, he's absoluetly worth it. If we lose in the NFCC BECAUSE of favre, then I'l reconsider, but I'd say, if we go to the nFCC, thats better than TJ would do for us, therefore a good signing.
You are correct, I would say no, I don't think we need to win a SB to consider it a success.

My disdain for the man has nothing to do with his play this year, but rather his play in the past.

Whats so hard to understand about that. Not sure, maybe its because you guys want me to like him so bad or something.

As to TJ, I still like how you guys seem to use him as the bench mark for the Noodles reason for being here. Lets not forget, the front office pukes brought Sage in to be the answer and TJ still wound up being the backup.

When I look at TJ, I look at him as a product that is still under the scrutiny of a work in progress. Ole Rodgers, that some of you are putting up, looked like crap his first few outings with the Noodle still on the staff.

Truth of the matter is, he wasn't ready until about year 4. Now going into year 5 he is lights out, but still making mistakes. How about Romo.....same same.

To sit here and try to compare a 4 year QB with a HOF'r is comical at best.

Marrdro
01-07-2010, 07:09 AM
VikingLance wrote:

Depends. Is it what the team deems a success? What were their goals at the beginning of the season? I believe they brought Favre in to bring them at the very least a Super Bowl appearance. Even if they fail to do that though, I think it is a success.

Look at the rising stars on this team. Sid, Percy, Shianco. Getting AP more involved in the passing game. I think having Favre under center has helped these players improve their game by leaps and bounds compared to what they may or may not have done without him. The confidence & guidance that he has given them has improved this team. While these should be natural progressions regardless of who the quarterback is, I feel he has done (almost) all we have asked of him.


The Brett Favre experiment is a success.
Ya see, this man is talking sense. Props my friend. Consider yourself bumped on the ole spreadsheet. ;)

Marrdro
01-07-2010, 07:12 AM
purplepat wrote:

Depends on how you measure success...

I really think that Favre was brought in to take the Vikings further in the playoffs than they got last year. I probably interpret that as winning at least one game in the playoffs. However, I think you could argue that by virtue of securing the first round bye through good play during the regular season, the Vikings have already advanced to the Divisional Round of the playoffs...which is further than they advanced last year.

In terms of fan support, it's an unequivocal success. Once they got a few victories under their belt, you didn't hear a peep about the Vikings having trouble selling tickets, needing to sell several thousand a day or two before the deadline to keep the sellout streak alive and to avoid having the game blacked out. When playoff tickets went on sale, what tickets were available were virtually gone in less than 24 hours. Contrast that to last season, when they required an extension to sell out the playoff game. And (like it or not, for whatever reasons), many Vikings fans were pretty ambivalent about their team and their QB in particular. It's clearly obvious that the fan base has rallied around Favre as their leader, and with him, the team in general.

In terms of media attention, Minnesota hadn't seen this much since Moss' rookie season. The MNF game that matched Favre up against the Packers was the highest rated cable TV broadcast of all time. OF ALL TIME!!! The Vikings were either nationally broadcast, or shown as the primary game around the country, numerous times this season. 700 miles away in Cincinnati, the Vikings were on my local TV (or ESPN) for ten games this season. I'm sure Vikings merchandise sales are off the hook, and that has to put some money back into the Wilf's pockets.

I think the Wilf's are looking for Favre to take this team to a championship, so I don't know if they will feel the investment was worth it unless they reach the Super Bowl. But from all other accounts, this season has been a special one and it's pretty much all attributable to #4
Thats a damn fine post........Problem for me is that when I read it the first time I almost thought you were gonna call the Vikings fans "Fairweather" at some point. ;)

Marrdro
01-07-2010, 07:16 AM
tastywaves wrote:

purplepat wrote:

Depends on how you measure success...

I really think that Favre was brought in to take the Vikings further in the playoffs than they got last year. I probably interpret that as winning at least one game in the playoffs. However, I think you could argue that by virtue of securing the first round bye through good play during the regular season, the Vikings have already advanced to the Divisional Round of the playoffs...which is further than they advanced last year.

In terms of fan support, it's an unequivocal success. Once they got a few victories under their belt, you didn't hear a peep about the Vikings having trouble selling tickets, needing to sell several thousand a day or two before the deadline to keep the sellout streak alive and to avoid having the game blacked out. When playoff tickets went on sale, what tickets were available were virtually gone in less than 24 hours. Contrast that to last season, when they required an extension to sell out the playoff game. And (like it or not, for whatever reasons), many Vikings fans were pretty ambivalent about their team and their QB in particular. It's clearly obvious that the fan base has rallied around Favre as their leader, and with him, the team in general.

In terms of media attention, Minnesota hadn't seen this much since Moss' rookie season. The MNF game that matched Favre up against the Packers was the highest rated cable TV broadcast of all time. OF ALL TIME!!! The Vikings were either nationally broadcast, or shown as the primary game around the country, numerous times this season. 700 miles away in Cincinnati, the Vikings were on my local TV (or ESPN) for ten games this season. I'm sure Vikings merchandise sales are off the hook, and that has to put some money back into the Wilf's pockets.

I think the Wilf's are looking for Favre to take this team to a championship, so I don't know if they will feel the investment was worth it unless they reach the Super Bowl. But from all other accounts, this season has been a special one and it's pretty much all attributable to #4

Very good post Pat. I would thing that the Wilf's were probably looking for two things from the Favre signing; 1) increased fanbase/revenue and 2) a legitimate chance to win a SB. At this point #4's helped (notice I said helped Marrdro) do both. If he has a colossal meltdown in the first playoff game, then more questions will follow.

And like you stated, the fan base to date has deemed it a resounding success.

Opportunity lost by signing Favre vs. going with Sage/TJ or bringing in a new guy is pure speculation that very well might have ended up with a number of more mediocre seasons.

Addressing our longer term QB situation should remain a top priority regardless of how this year ends up, but considering our options at the time, I applaud the Vikings for bringing Favre to town.
Another good post with some fine points.

Again, I am not so sure that TJ can't be the long term answer here. I am almost convinced by what little play we have seen out of him, he seems to have taken another step forward, which he has done by the way, each and every year.

I really look to see this staff address D early in draft, at least first pick, possibly second, but QB early as well, 2nd or 3rd.

That allows the Noodle to play one more year, TJ to remain the back/continue to learn, and have arguably the best "Project" QB sitting on the shelf learning from the bench like they are supposed to do, instead of on the field in front of a bunch of "Unforgiving" fans.

Marrdro
01-07-2010, 07:23 AM
The Dropper wrote:

Nope.

I've gone on record saying that bringing in Favre was a net plus for the season. But, when I say that, I am referring to games won and his overall performance (which has been phenomenal).

If the Vikes don' win the Super Bowl this year, where does that put us?

Well, first, it gives us a lower draft pick, which decreases the likelihood that we can finally find a QB for the future. Favre jerks the whole league around for another six months, then maybe decides to put his old bones on the field again. Tarvaris and Sage have lost out on an entire season of playing time, so they basically need to start all over again building chemistry with the rest of the offense.

Oh, and Childress has already received a contract extension and at least a few more years to inspire a team full of all stars to underachieve. Joy.


Edit: I'll say this. If Favre agrees to return, immediately after the season ends without a Super Bowl win, then I will consider the season a success because it will have given the whole team more playoff experience and the same starting QB two years in a row. The latter is something we have yet to experience in the Childress era.
Good stuff as always drop. Man this is turning into a good thread.

Anyway, I'm not so sure TJ is completely out of synch per se with the team. Hasn't the staff been giving the Noodle reps off during the week and TJ has been splitting with him?

If thier smart they should've been. TJ needs to be ready going into the playoffs, just in case.

Marrdro
01-07-2010, 07:29 AM
purplejokr wrote:

a bit of background...

My first love was basketball and I am from southern California. I have lived in Los Angeles for the last 14 years or so.

With that said, I am a Laker fan and a UCLA fan. At the end of each basketball season, someone is crowned champion. If it isn't the Bruins or Lakers, those teams feel that they have failed. This is evidenced by the fact that those teams do not hang division champion banners in their gyms. They hang ONLY championship banners.

So, do I feel that the Favre experiment is a success without a Super Bowl win?

Absolutely not.

Favre was brought to Minnesota to win a Super Bowl. Favre came to Minnesota to win a Super Bowl. Any other outcome is failure.

Yes, there are silver linings to that cloud and many of you have articulated them wonderfully. However, the Vikings were a championship caliber team last year and the QB position was the only thing holding them back. Now that QB is in place and it is the Vikings' time.

Win or lose I will still be a BIG fan but I believe that without a Super Bowl victory, this season is a failure.
Here's my take on this......

The Noodles presence now is something you can see/measure. What he brings to the table with respect to the success of this team will be felt for many years to come based on the growth that this team has had since his arrival.

Every skilled offensive player (especially the young cats) now know how the offense is supposed to be run even though cats like PL and Big Mac struggle at times. The tape the coaches have now will go along way this offseason as a means to correct those minor errors.

Marrdro
01-07-2010, 07:32 AM
Midge Resurrected wrote:

The Dropper wrote:

Nope.

I've gone on record saying that bringing in Favre was a net plus for the season. But, when I say that, I am referring to games won and his overall performance (which has been phenomenal).

If the Vikes don' win the Super Bowl this year, where does that put us?

Well, first, it gives us a lower draft pick, which decreases the likelihood that we can finally find a QB for the future. Favre jerks the whole league around for another six months, then maybe decides to put his old bones on the field again. Tarvaris and Sage have lost out on an entire season of playing time, so they basically need to start all over again building chemistry with the rest of the offense.

Oh, and Childress has already received a contract extension and at least a few more years to inspire a team full of all stars to underachieve. Joy.


Edit: I'll say this. If Favre agrees to return, immediately after the season ends without a Super Bowl win, then I will consider the season a success because it will have given the whole team more playoff experience and the same starting QB two years in a row. The latter is something we have yet to experience in the Childress era.

Actually ... Childress has only been the coach for four seasons ... and the middle two ... T-Jack came in the starter ... so we have had the same quarterback two seasons in a row.
Good point Midge. And lets not forget, that during those two season, we had more issues than just a young QB learning on the field.

OL that couldn't pass block.
WR's who couldn't stay healthy/get off the line
RB's missing blocks
Players who didn't fit the scheme

Based on the success of the draft class this year and the class looking at us, along with a more mature team, I am very excited about next year, with or without the Noodle.

Big Matt
01-07-2010, 07:40 AM
Sorry if this has been discussed but you also have to look at long term success v short term success. If we win the SB this year, yes it will be considered a success. Absolutley. But assume we do and Favre rides off into the susnset.
What will be the longer term effects of him going? Will there be a drop off as everyone thinks that now the saviour has gone were back to competting for the NFC North and going no further. Or will there be more posistive lingering effects. A lot of players seemed to have improved their play this year, Shiancoe and Rice immediatley spring to mind. Will their continued improvement be sustained with a different QB. Possibly, their increased confidence could continue after hes gone and we could continue to compete deeper into the playoffs.

In the short term we have a legitimate shot at the SB, we won the NFC North and have a first round bye, so even if we dont win it all you gotta say its a success. Dissapointing ultimatley, yes of course but still a big step in the right direction.

Marrdro
01-07-2010, 07:47 AM
Big Matt wrote:

Sorry if this has been discussed but you also have to look at long term success v short term success. If we win the SB this year, yes it will be considered a success. Absolutley. But assume we do and Favre rides off into the susnset.
What will be the longer term effects of him going? Will there be a drop off as everyone thinks that now the saviour has gone were back to competting for the NFC North and going no further. Or will there be more posistive lingering effects. A lot of players seemed to have improved their play this year, Shiancoe and Rice immediatley spring to mind. Will their continued improvement be sustained with a different QB. Possibly, their increased confidence could continue after hes gone and we could continue to compete deeper into the playoffs.

In the short term we have a legitimate shot at the SB, we won the NFC North and have a first round bye, so even if we dont win it all you gotta say its a success. Dissapointing ultimatley, yes of course but still a big step in the right direction.
Good post. Kindof the point a couple of us have been making.

On a side note, Shanc was good last year with Gus and TJ.

ejmat
01-07-2010, 07:53 AM
Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

It all depends on who you ask. People against the signing like C Mac or Marrdro will probably say no, but I think, if he gives us a better chance, he's absoluetly worth it. If we lose in the NFCC BECAUSE of favre, then I'l reconsider, but I'd say, if we go to the nFCC, thats better than TJ would do for us, therefore a good signing.
You are correct, I would say no, I don't think we need to win a SB to consider it a success.

My disdain for the man has nothing to do with his play this year, but rather his play in the past.

Whats so hard to understand about that. Not sure, maybe its because you guys want me to like him so bad or something.

As to TJ, I still like how you guys seem to use him as the bench mark for the Noodles reason for being here. Lets not forget, the front office pukes brought Sage in to be the answer and TJ still wound up being the backup.

When I look at TJ, I look at him as a product that is still under the scrutiny of a work in progress. Ole Rodgers, that some of you are putting up, looked like crap his first few outings with the Noodle still on the staff.

Truth of the matter is, he wasn't ready until about year 4. Now going into year 5 he is lights out, but still making mistakes. How about Romo.....same same.

To sit here and try to compare a 4 year QB with a HOF'r is comical at best.

Great post Marr but I have to diagree with you on one part. If my memory serves correct, Rodgers filled in for Favre one game against Dallas a couple of years ago and did a great job. In fact, I recall (could be wrong) the Packers were losing by a decent margin when Favre left the game and Rodgers almost brought them back to win.

His first couple of starts weren't great but he won them. Against us he only had like 179 yards passing but it was good enough to get the win. Plus he secured the ball pretty well that game.

I do agree with every other point but there are many QBs that come in and do well from the start. Even when they start their rookie season. Even VY, who we seem to like to compare numbers to TJ. VY didn't have great passing numbers when he took over his first year but he knew how to win games. He was able to take the team on his shoulders a couple of times that rookie season. Similar to this year the Titans started slow that year and he brought them back to almost make the playoffs.

Truth is some people get it and some don't. TJ hasn't got it yet but he shows a lot of promise imo. All we can do is wait and see.

gagarr
01-07-2010, 08:45 AM
Very good thread, read the whole thing. Thanks Marr

Here's summing up my Success and Failure on the subject:

Success:
* 12-4, gotta like winning (not that another QB wouldn't too)
* $$$$ which the Vikes need
* Making Puckers hate Favre, former "god"
* BEAT THE PACK TWICE!! A good Pack team. Favre 135 rating to win by 7 & 128 rating. In there FACE!
* Improvement of players, off and def, most say so
* Havin ROY, doubt he would without Favre, because of extra attention to the Vikes
* TJ learning under a HOFer, game prep, leadership, play adjustments, not how to throw the ball
* Vikings as a whole made ESPN more than any other team
* Helped in the stadium drive a bit, maybe, more than TJ


Failure:
* EXPECTATIONS... losing w/o is better than with IMO
* TJ... developed or bust... ??? Can't tell IMO
* Still no clear mid to long term QB
* $$$$ paid alot, but with capless next year only Wilf cares
* Losing in playoffs or SB because of Favre, esp. a INT
* Worse yet, losing to Pack in playoffs, because of a bad Favre day
* Pack winning the SB with Rodgers, proving they didn't need Favre anyway
* No, "Vikings NFL Champions" tattoo

skum
01-07-2010, 08:53 AM
ejmat wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

It all depends on who you ask. People against the signing like C Mac or Marrdro will probably say no, but I think, if he gives us a better chance, he's absoluetly worth it. If we lose in the NFCC BECAUSE of favre, then I'l reconsider, but I'd say, if we go to the nFCC, thats better than TJ would do for us, therefore a good signing.
You are correct, I would say no, I don't think we need to win a SB to consider it a success.

My disdain for the man has nothing to do with his play this year, but rather his play in the past.

Whats so hard to understand about that. Not sure, maybe its because you guys want me to like him so bad or something.

As to TJ, I still like how you guys seem to use him as the bench mark for the Noodles reason for being here. Lets not forget, the front office pukes brought Sage in to be the answer and TJ still wound up being the backup.

When I look at TJ, I look at him as a product that is still under the scrutiny of a work in progress. Ole Rodgers, that some of you are putting up, looked like crap his first few outings with the Noodle still on the staff.

Truth of the matter is, he wasn't ready until about year 4. Now going into year 5 he is lights out, but still making mistakes. How about Romo.....same same.

To sit here and try to compare a 4 year QB with a HOF'r is comical at best.

Great post Marr but I have to diagree with you on one part. If my memory serves correct, Rodgers filled in for Favre one game against Dallas a couple of years ago and did a great job. In fact, I recall (could be wrong) the Packers were losing by a decent margin when Favre left the game and Rodgers almost brought them back to win.

His first couple of starts weren't great but he won them. Against us he only had like 179 yards passing but it was good enough to get the win. Plus he secured the ball pretty well that game.

I do agree with every other point but there are many QBs that come in and do well from the start. Even when they start their rookie season. Even VY, who we seem to like to compare numbers to TJ. VY didn't have great passing numbers when he took over his first year but he knew how to win games. He was able to take the team on his shoulders a couple of times that rookie season. Similar to this year the Titans started slow that year and he brought them back to almost make the playoffs.

Truth is some people get it and some don't. TJ hasn't got it yet but he shows a lot of promise imo. All we can do is wait and see.

I also think the TJ/VY comparison is unfair when you look at their backgrounds and the way to got in the the NFL, Vince Young was the 3rd overall pick out of the huge school of Texas, where he already was on a big stage - won the National Championship..

Tarvaris played for Alabama A&M(who?) a Division II school who didnt even have their own pro day.. and i also think that we can all agree on that Vince Youngs talent level is in another world than what Tarvaris is. Their are also complete different players - Vince Young relies on his feet and vision to run the ball himself, Tarvaris best thing was that he could throw the ball 80 yards..

But to just get back on topic, i think that with the way the defence played - Adrian Peterson getting more carries and Tarvaris only being asked to do a limited amount of passing - he also could have gotten us the division titel..

However Favre did fill the seat and to be honest i think that was just a big a deal for the owners than getting to the superbowl, not being able to sell out the Playoff game vs the Eagles was killer for them..

purplepat
01-07-2010, 08:57 AM
BloodyHorns82 wrote:

I think without Favre the Vikings miss the playoffs this year. The Packers are much improved and would have taken the division. Could we have gotten a wildcard spot? Possible, but doubtful.

Disagree. Packers might (and I said might) have won the division, but I still think the Vikings are at least a wild card. After the Vikings whipped the Giants, the next best record in the NFC was Atlanta at 9-7. I firmly believe the Vikes could have won 9-10 games with Jackson or Rosenfels at QB. It's hard to say how the individual games would have changed, because it's very possible that the entire game would have been played differently with a different QB under center (especially Jackson). AD's running might have been more emphasized. We'll never know for sure, but I think the Vikings do make the playoffs.

Marrdro
01-07-2010, 09:17 AM
ejmat wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

It all depends on who you ask. People against the signing like C Mac or Marrdro will probably say no, but I think, if he gives us a better chance, he's absoluetly worth it. If we lose in the NFCC BECAUSE of favre, then I'l reconsider, but I'd say, if we go to the nFCC, thats better than TJ would do for us, therefore a good signing.
You are correct, I would say no, I don't think we need to win a SB to consider it a success.

My disdain for the man has nothing to do with his play this year, but rather his play in the past.

Whats so hard to understand about that. Not sure, maybe its because you guys want me to like him so bad or something.

As to TJ, I still like how you guys seem to use him as the bench mark for the Noodles reason for being here. Lets not forget, the front office pukes brought Sage in to be the answer and TJ still wound up being the backup.

When I look at TJ, I look at him as a product that is still under the scrutiny of a work in progress. Ole Rodgers, that some of you are putting up, looked like crap his first few outings with the Noodle still on the staff.

Truth of the matter is, he wasn't ready until about year 4. Now going into year 5 he is lights out, but still making mistakes. How about Romo.....same same.

To sit here and try to compare a 4 year QB with a HOF'r is comical at best.

Great post Marr but I have to diagree with you on one part. If my memory serves correct, Rodgers filled in for Favre one game against Dallas a couple of years ago and did a great job. In fact, I recall (could be wrong) the Packers were losing by a decent margin when Favre left the game and Rodgers almost brought them back to win.

His first couple of starts weren't great but he won them. Against us he only had like 179 yards passing but it was good enough to get the win. Plus he secured the ball pretty well that game.

I do agree with every other point but there are many QBs that come in and do well from the start. Even when they start their rookie season. Even VY, who we seem to like to compare numbers to TJ. VY didn't have great passing numbers when he took over his first year but he knew how to win games. He was able to take the team on his shoulders a couple of times that rookie season. Similar to this year the Titans started slow that year and he brought them back to almost make the playoffs.

Truth is some people get it and some don't. TJ hasn't got it yet but he shows a lot of promise imo. All we can do is wait and see.
Good stuff.

QB, IMHO, are a unique critter and its tough to compare ones progress to anothers with respect to draft classes but you are correct, sometimes one will shine from the beginning (Flaco/Ryan), others will take a couple of years and some just won't pan out. Heck, most won't pan out.

As to your point about TJ and not getting it. I think the staff would have agreed with you at the beginning of the year, thus the signing of Sage (I think this was Spielman) and then the Noodle (I think this was the Chiller) but I don't take that as an idicator that the staff doesn't think TJ doesn't have a future on this team.

Truth of the matter is, at least for me, the indicators are there that he does appear to have a future or else he would't be the number 2. The second highest paid QB on this roster would be.

Long story short, TJ has done nothing consistently yet, but what he has done is shown that he is willing to work to get better, and has gotten better each year, is well respected by most of his teamates (from all that we can gather) and seems to be able to move the team this year against the opposing teams number 1 defense, often times with the number 2 and number 3 offense on the field.

As much as I hate to say it, I really think that he would probably benifit sitting one more year behind the Noodle as the WR's, OL and RB's continue to mature so that when he does step on the field, he steps out there with a functioning team for him to run.

Using Rodgers as the example, if the team in front of him isn't up to snuff (started with a poor OL), his play will reflect that but if you put a good offense around him (Improved OL), he will perform.

Marrdro
01-07-2010, 09:24 AM
gagarr wrote:

Very good thread, read the whole thing. Thanks Marr

Here's summing up my Success and Failure on the subject:

Success:
* 12-4, gotta like winning (not that another QB wouldn't too)
* $$$$ which the Vikes need
* Making Puckers hate Favre, former "god"
* BEAT THE PACK TWICE!! A good Pack team. Favre 135 rating to win by 7 & 128 rating. In there FACE!
* Improvement of players, off and def, most say so
* Havin ROY, doubt he would without Favre, because of extra attention to the Vikes
* TJ learning under a HOFer, game prep, leadership, play adjustments, not how to throw the ball
* Vikings as a whole made ESPN more than any other team
* Helped in the stadium drive a bit, maybe, more than TJ


Failure:
* EXPECTATIONS... losing w/o is better than with IMO
* TJ... developed or bust... ??? Can't tell IMO
* Still no clear mid to long term QB
* $$$$ paid alot, but with capless next year only Wilf cares
* Losing in playoffs or SB because of Favre, esp. a INT
* Worse yet, losing to Pack in playoffs, because of a bad Favre day
* Pack winning the SB with Rodgers, proving they didn't need Favre anyway
* No, "Vikings NFL Champions" tattoo
Thanks my friend. Started a bit slow, but it did even out rather nicely didn't it. ;)

Lots of good stuff in there........

One thing though, even if we do loose to the PUKERS in the playoffs, regardless of the cause, I still say that some goals were achieved and in the end, the Chiller got what he was looking for......

Someone to help mature the team, which he hasn't had since his arrival/Pepp bagged ass on us.

The Wilf's got what they were looking for, increased revenue, don't think anything can help the stadium effort because of MN's economy.

A superbowl would be outstanding, but in the end, the team got better with the Noodle on it, just as it did with the addition of PL and PH. Some things that also can be attributed to getting better are possible changes at C and S. Hell even Tahi caught a TD pass...... ;)

Marrdro
01-07-2010, 09:28 AM
skum wrote:

ejmat wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

It all depends on who you ask. People against the signing like C Mac or Marrdro will probably say no, but I think, if he gives us a better chance, he's absoluetly worth it. If we lose in the NFCC BECAUSE of favre, then I'l reconsider, but I'd say, if we go to the nFCC, thats better than TJ would do for us, therefore a good signing.
You are correct, I would say no, I don't think we need to win a SB to consider it a success.

My disdain for the man has nothing to do with his play this year, but rather his play in the past.

Whats so hard to understand about that. Not sure, maybe its because you guys want me to like him so bad or something.

As to TJ, I still like how you guys seem to use him as the bench mark for the Noodles reason for being here. Lets not forget, the front office pukes brought Sage in to be the answer and TJ still wound up being the backup.

When I look at TJ, I look at him as a product that is still under the scrutiny of a work in progress. Ole Rodgers, that some of you are putting up, looked like crap his first few outings with the Noodle still on the staff.

Truth of the matter is, he wasn't ready until about year 4. Now going into year 5 he is lights out, but still making mistakes. How about Romo.....same same.

To sit here and try to compare a 4 year QB with a HOF'r is comical at best.

Great post Marr but I have to diagree with you on one part. If my memory serves correct, Rodgers filled in for Favre one game against Dallas a couple of years ago and did a great job. In fact, I recall (could be wrong) the Packers were losing by a decent margin when Favre left the game and Rodgers almost brought them back to win.

His first couple of starts weren't great but he won them. Against us he only had like 179 yards passing but it was good enough to get the win. Plus he secured the ball pretty well that game.

I do agree with every other point but there are many QBs that come in and do well from the start. Even when they start their rookie season. Even VY, who we seem to like to compare numbers to TJ. VY didn't have great passing numbers when he took over his first year but he knew how to win games. He was able to take the team on his shoulders a couple of times that rookie season. Similar to this year the Titans started slow that year and he brought them back to almost make the playoffs.

Truth is some people get it and some don't. TJ hasn't got it yet but he shows a lot of promise imo. All we can do is wait and see.

I also think the TJ/VY comparison is unfair when you look at their backgrounds and the way to got in the the NFL, Vince Young was the 3rd overall pick out of the huge school of Texas, where he already was on a big stage - won the National Championship..

Tarvaris played for Alabama A&M(who?) a Division II school who didnt even have their own pro day.. and i also think that we can all agree on that Vince Youngs talent level is in another world than what Tarvaris is. Their are also complete different players - Vince Young relies on his feet and vision to run the ball himself, Tarvaris best thing was that he could throw the ball 80 yards..

But to just get back on topic, i think that with the way the defence played - Adrian Peterson getting more carries and Tarvaris only being asked to do a limited amount of passing - he also could have gotten us the division titel..

However Favre did fill the seat and to be honest i think that was just a big a deal for the owners than getting to the superbowl, not being able to sell out the Playoff game vs the Eagles was killer for them..
Great post.....

3 things......

1. You don't have to stay on topic in threads I originate. I start them for discussion purposes.

2. Love your point on VY. Even though he was picked that high, it still took him a certain amount of time to "Get it" which can/could be said for almost every QB drafted, except for the rare case (Flacco/Ryan) and even then, those cats struggle a bit after the opposing staffs get tape on them or thier team degrades a bit, ala Ravens/Falcons.

3. Never thought of the Iggles playoff game. Great point, but couldn't you also look at RT, S, C, and possibly LB as areas of concern from that game and not just the QB, thus the changes we saw during the offseason?

gagarr
01-07-2010, 09:37 AM
Marrdro wrote:

gagarr wrote:

Very good thread, read the whole thing. Thanks Marr

Here's summing up my Success and Failure on the subject:

Success:
* 12-4, gotta like winning (not that another QB wouldn't too)
* $$$$ which the Vikes need
* Making Puckers hate Favre, former "god"
* BEAT THE PACK TWICE!! A good Pack team. Favre 135 rating to win by 7 & 128 rating. In there FACE!
* Improvement of players, off and def, most say so
* Havin ROY, doubt he would without Favre, because of extra attention to the Vikes
* TJ learning under a HOFer, game prep, leadership, play adjustments, not how to throw the ball
* Vikings as a whole made ESPN more than any other team
* Helped in the stadium drive a bit, maybe, more than TJ


Failure:
* EXPECTATIONS... losing w/o is better than with IMO
* TJ... developed or bust... ??? Can't tell IMO
* Still no clear mid to long term QB
* $$$$ paid alot, but with capless next year only Wilf cares
* Losing in playoffs or SB because of Favre, esp. a INT
* Worse yet, losing to Pack in playoffs, because of a bad Favre day
* Pack winning the SB with Rodgers, proving they didn't need Favre anyway
* No, "Vikings NFL Champions" tattoo
Thanks my friend. Started a bit slow, but it did even out rather nicely didn't it. ;)

Lots of good stuff in there........

One thing though, even if we do loose to the PUKERS in the playoffs, regardless of the cause, I still say that some goals were achieved and in the end, the Chiller got what he was looking for......

Someone to help mature the team, which he hasn't had since his arrival/Pepp bagged ass on us.

The Wilf's got what they were looking for, increased revenue, don't think anything can help the stadium effort because of MN's economy.

A superbowl would be outstanding, but in the end, the team got better with the Noodle on it, just as it did with the addition of PL and PH. Some things that also can be attributed to getting better are possible changes at C and S. Hell even Tahi caught a TD pass...... ;)

I'm looking at it from both sides, but I've always been on the success side.

Another success point: Larger fan base, because of the media storm followed by success. Hopefully, they will stick.

Marrdro
01-07-2010, 09:41 AM
gagarr wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

gagarr wrote:

Very good thread, read the whole thing. Thanks Marr

Here's summing up my Success and Failure on the subject:

Success:
* 12-4, gotta like winning (not that another QB wouldn't too)
* $$$$ which the Vikes need
* Making Puckers hate Favre, former "god"
* BEAT THE PACK TWICE!! A good Pack team. Favre 135 rating to win by 7 & 128 rating. In there FACE!
* Improvement of players, off and def, most say so
* Havin ROY, doubt he would without Favre, because of extra attention to the Vikes
* TJ learning under a HOFer, game prep, leadership, play adjustments, not how to throw the ball
* Vikings as a whole made ESPN more than any other team
* Helped in the stadium drive a bit, maybe, more than TJ


Failure:
* EXPECTATIONS... losing w/o is better than with IMO
* TJ... developed or bust... ??? Can't tell IMO
* Still no clear mid to long term QB
* $$$$ paid alot, but with capless next year only Wilf cares
* Losing in playoffs or SB because of Favre, esp. a INT
* Worse yet, losing to Pack in playoffs, because of a bad Favre day
* Pack winning the SB with Rodgers, proving they didn't need Favre anyway
* No, "Vikings NFL Champions" tattoo
Thanks my friend. Started a bit slow, but it did even out rather nicely didn't it. ;)

Lots of good stuff in there........

One thing though, even if we do loose to the PUKERS in the playoffs, regardless of the cause, I still say that some goals were achieved and in the end, the Chiller got what he was looking for......

Someone to help mature the team, which he hasn't had since his arrival/Pepp bagged ass on us.

The Wilf's got what they were looking for, increased revenue, don't think anything can help the stadium effort because of MN's economy.

A superbowl would be outstanding, but in the end, the team got better with the Noodle on it, just as it did with the addition of PL and PH. Some things that also can be attributed to getting better are possible changes at C and S. Hell even Tahi caught a TD pass...... ;)

I'm looking at it from both sides, but I've always been on the success side.

Another success point: Larger fan base, because of the media storm followed by success. Hopefully, they will stick.
Agree, however, that fan base will drop by quite a bit when the Noodle leaves as most of them follow him.

Hopefully, as with the 98'rs, and the AD crowd, a few of them will fall in love with the team as a whole and stick around for the roller coaster ride most of us have grown to love and hate all at the same time.

ejmat
01-07-2010, 12:39 PM
skum wrote:

ejmat wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

It all depends on who you ask. People against the signing like C Mac or Marrdro will probably say no, but I think, if he gives us a better chance, he's absoluetly worth it. If we lose in the NFCC BECAUSE of favre, then I'l reconsider, but I'd say, if we go to the nFCC, thats better than TJ would do for us, therefore a good signing.
You are correct, I would say no, I don't think we need to win a SB to consider it a success.

My disdain for the man has nothing to do with his play this year, but rather his play in the past.

Whats so hard to understand about that. Not sure, maybe its because you guys want me to like him so bad or something.

As to TJ, I still like how you guys seem to use him as the bench mark for the Noodles reason for being here. Lets not forget, the front office pukes brought Sage in to be the answer and TJ still wound up being the backup.

When I look at TJ, I look at him as a product that is still under the scrutiny of a work in progress. Ole Rodgers, that some of you are putting up, looked like crap his first few outings with the Noodle still on the staff.

Truth of the matter is, he wasn't ready until about year 4. Now going into year 5 he is lights out, but still making mistakes. How about Romo.....same same.

To sit here and try to compare a 4 year QB with a HOF'r is comical at best.

Great post Marr but I have to diagree with you on one part. If my memory serves correct, Rodgers filled in for Favre one game against Dallas a couple of years ago and did a great job. In fact, I recall (could be wrong) the Packers were losing by a decent margin when Favre left the game and Rodgers almost brought them back to win.

His first couple of starts weren't great but he won them. Against us he only had like 179 yards passing but it was good enough to get the win. Plus he secured the ball pretty well that game.

I do agree with every other point but there are many QBs that come in and do well from the start. Even when they start their rookie season. Even VY, who we seem to like to compare numbers to TJ. VY didn't have great passing numbers when he took over his first year but he knew how to win games. He was able to take the team on his shoulders a couple of times that rookie season. Similar to this year the Titans started slow that year and he brought them back to almost make the playoffs.

Truth is some people get it and some don't. TJ hasn't got it yet but he shows a lot of promise imo. All we can do is wait and see.

I also think the TJ/VY comparison is unfair when you look at their backgrounds and the way to got in the the NFL, Vince Young was the 3rd overall pick out of the huge school of Texas, where he already was on a big stage - won the National Championship..

Tarvaris played for Alabama A&M(who?) a Division II school who didnt even have their own pro day.. and i also think that we can all agree on that Vince Youngs talent level is in another world than what Tarvaris is. Their are also complete different players - Vince Young relies on his feet and vision to run the ball himself, Tarvaris best thing was that he could throw the ball 80 yards..

But to just get back on topic, i think that with the way the defence played - Adrian Peterson getting more carries and Tarvaris only being asked to do a limited amount of passing - he also could have gotten us the division titel..

However Favre did fill the seat and to be honest i think that was just a big a deal for the owners than getting to the superbowl, not being able to sell out the Playoff game vs the Eagles was killer for them..

You have a good point that the QB comparison maybe unfair. However remember TJ went to a Div 1 school before going to ASU. The only reason I pointed it out was because there have been a lot of comparisons made to the two looking at numbers on this site.

ejmat
01-07-2010, 12:48 PM
Marrdro wrote:

ejmat wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

It all depends on who you ask. People against the signing like C Mac or Marrdro will probably say no, but I think, if he gives us a better chance, he's absoluetly worth it. If we lose in the NFCC BECAUSE of favre, then I'l reconsider, but I'd say, if we go to the nFCC, thats better than TJ would do for us, therefore a good signing.
You are correct, I would say no, I don't think we need to win a SB to consider it a success.

My disdain for the man has nothing to do with his play this year, but rather his play in the past.

Whats so hard to understand about that. Not sure, maybe its because you guys want me to like him so bad or something.

As to TJ, I still like how you guys seem to use him as the bench mark for the Noodles reason for being here. Lets not forget, the front office pukes brought Sage in to be the answer and TJ still wound up being the backup.

When I look at TJ, I look at him as a product that is still under the scrutiny of a work in progress. Ole Rodgers, that some of you are putting up, looked like crap his first few outings with the Noodle still on the staff.

Truth of the matter is, he wasn't ready until about year 4. Now going into year 5 he is lights out, but still making mistakes. How about Romo.....same same.

To sit here and try to compare a 4 year QB with a HOF'r is comical at best.

Great post Marr but I have to diagree with you on one part. If my memory serves correct, Rodgers filled in for Favre one game against Dallas a couple of years ago and did a great job. In fact, I recall (could be wrong) the Packers were losing by a decent margin when Favre left the game and Rodgers almost brought them back to win.

His first couple of starts weren't great but he won them. Against us he only had like 179 yards passing but it was good enough to get the win. Plus he secured the ball pretty well that game.

I do agree with every other point but there are many QBs that come in and do well from the start. Even when they start their rookie season. Even VY, who we seem to like to compare numbers to TJ. VY didn't have great passing numbers when he took over his first year but he knew how to win games. He was able to take the team on his shoulders a couple of times that rookie season. Similar to this year the Titans started slow that year and he brought them back to almost make the playoffs.

Truth is some people get it and some don't. TJ hasn't got it yet but he shows a lot of promise imo. All we can do is wait and see.
Good stuff.

QB, IMHO, are a unique critter and its tough to compare ones progress to anothers with respect to draft classes but you are correct, sometimes one will shine from the beginning (Flaco/Ryan), others will take a couple of years and some just won't pan out. Heck, most won't pan out.

As to your point about TJ and not getting it. I think the staff would have agreed with you at the beginning of the year, thus the signing of Sage (I think this was Spielman) and then the Noodle (I think this was the Chiller) but I don't take that as an idicator that the staff doesn't think TJ doesn't have a future on this team.

Truth of the matter is, at least for me, the indicators are there that he does appear to have a future or else he would't be the number 2. The second highest paid QB on this roster would be.

Long story short, TJ has done nothing consistently yet, but what he has done is shown that he is willing to work to get better, and has gotten better each year, is well respected by most of his teamates (from all that we can gather) and seems to be able to move the team this year against the opposing teams number 1 defense, often times with the number 2 and number 3 offense on the field.

As much as I hate to say it, I really think that he would probably benifit sitting one more year behind the Noodle as the WR's, OL and RB's continue to mature so that when he does step on the field, he steps out there with a functioning team for him to run.

Using Rodgers as the example, if the team in front of him isn't up to snuff (started with a poor OL), his play will reflect that but if you put a good offense around him (Improved OL), he will perform.

Great stuff on your end as well my friend. Going back to Rodgers though he had a very poor OL and handled it pretty well or as well as anyone could have expected of him. He took a lot of hits at the beginning of this year and kept plugging. His turnovers were down and he still was able to have the numbers he had. Not bad if you ask me even when the OL wasn't performing. Heck, I think he had his most yards in a game against the Vikings this year when we were beating the hell out of him. Rodgers has it. He gets it. His only problem I see is he has the Big Ben syndrome in sometimes holding the ball too long. If he can work on that and not try to be so greety at times this guy is going to be a hell of a QB. He already is but he will be even better.

You wouold think I'm a Puker fan huh? :) Not really. I just enjoy watching great football players. I think Rodgers is one of them. Wehterh it is attributed to Favre or not, I really don't care. In the end the person has to want to improve to improve. Rodgers has proven to me at least that the Packers made the right decision letting Favre go. Regardless of who beat who Rodgers has what it takes in this league. That is because of his efforts and patience.

marshallvike
01-07-2010, 05:11 PM
Marrdro wrote:

Will the Favre move be considered a success even without a Super Bowl victory? (http://grants-tomb.blogspot.com/2010/01/will-favre-move-be-considered-success.html)


no!

ejmat
01-07-2010, 07:02 PM
marshallvike wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Will the Favre move be considered a success even without a Super Bowl victory? (http://grants-tomb.blogspot.com/2010/01/will-favre-move-be-considered-success.html)


no!

Great input. LOL

Midge Resurrected
01-07-2010, 07:09 PM
skum wrote:

ejmat wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

It all depends on who you ask. People against the signing like C Mac or Marrdro will probably say no, but I think, if he gives us a better chance, he's absoluetly worth it. If we lose in the NFCC BECAUSE of favre, then I'l reconsider, but I'd say, if we go to the nFCC, thats better than TJ would do for us, therefore a good signing.
You are correct, I would say no, I don't think we need to win a SB to consider it a success.

My disdain for the man has nothing to do with his play this year, but rather his play in the past.

Whats so hard to understand about that. Not sure, maybe its because you guys want me to like him so bad or something.

As to TJ, I still like how you guys seem to use him as the bench mark for the Noodles reason for being here. Lets not forget, the front office pukes brought Sage in to be the answer and TJ still wound up being the backup.

When I look at TJ, I look at him as a product that is still under the scrutiny of a work in progress. Ole Rodgers, that some of you are putting up, looked like crap his first few outings with the Noodle still on the staff.

Truth of the matter is, he wasn't ready until about year 4. Now going into year 5 he is lights out, but still making mistakes. How about Romo.....same same.

To sit here and try to compare a 4 year QB with a HOF'r is comical at best.

Great post Marr but I have to diagree with you on one part. If my memory serves correct, Rodgers filled in for Favre one game against Dallas a couple of years ago and did a great job. In fact, I recall (could be wrong) the Packers were losing by a decent margin when Favre left the game and Rodgers almost brought them back to win.

His first couple of starts weren't great but he won them. Against us he only had like 179 yards passing but it was good enough to get the win. Plus he secured the ball pretty well that game.

I do agree with every other point but there are many QBs that come in and do well from the start. Even when they start their rookie season. Even VY, who we seem to like to compare numbers to TJ. VY didn't have great passing numbers when he took over his first year but he knew how to win games. He was able to take the team on his shoulders a couple of times that rookie season. Similar to this year the Titans started slow that year and he brought them back to almost make the playoffs.

Truth is some people get it and some don't. TJ hasn't got it yet but he shows a lot of promise imo. All we can do is wait and see.

I also think the TJ/VY comparison is unfair when you look at their backgrounds and the way to got in the the NFL, Vince Young was the 3rd overall pick out of the huge school of Texas, where he already was on a big stage - won the National Championship..

Tarvaris played for Alabama A&M(who?) a Division II school who didnt even have their own pro day.. and i also think that we can all agree on that Vince Youngs talent level is in another world than what Tarvaris is. Their are also complete different players - Vince Young relies on his feet and vision to run the ball himself, Tarvaris best thing was that he could throw the ball 80 yards..

But to just get back on topic, i think that with the way the defence played - Adrian Peterson getting more carries and Tarvaris only being asked to do a limited amount of passing - he also could have gotten us the division titel..

However Favre did fill the seat and to be honest i think that was just a big a deal for the owners than getting to the superbowl, not being able to sell out the Playoff game vs the Eagles was killer for them..
First off ... Alabama State ... and that is a Division I school, NOT Division II.

I do not think we would have won the division with T-Jack but who knows. I do think that a season on the bench with Favre at the helm showing T-Jack and the rest of the world what this offense can and SHOULD look like will be huge when we finally get back to the T-Jack experiment.

There will be no more excuses ... we all have seen what the offense can do.

purplejokr
01-08-2010, 02:23 AM
ejmat wrote:
Every team goes into a season wanting and thinking they can win a superbowl. Only one team wins it. That doesn't mean there are 31 failures in the league. Your post would deem every teams' QB that doesn't win a superbowl is a failure.

I agree and my post deems no such thing.

The question is specifically about Favre and the Vikings. It is not about the ENTIRE NFL.

Is it a failure if the Chiefs do not win the Super Bowl? Absolutely not. The Chiefs have not been in a legitimate position to win a Super Bowl in many, many years & to expect them to do so in 2009 would be foolish.


ejmat wrote:
Favre was brought in because he gives a "better chance" to win a superbowl. Expecting and holding a superbowl win as the only standard of success is asking a lot out of anyone. A better chance to win is a lot different than being brought in to win the superbowl.

The truth is he gives them a better chance to win. Without him they wouldn't have made the playoffs as they would have needed at least 11 wins. Maybe speculation but let's be real. We don't get that with TJ or Sage. Favre took this team on his back a few games this year and judging by history neither TJ or Sage has been able to do that on a consistent basis if ever.

The Favre experiment is a success based solely on the fact they made the playoffs with 12 wins. Because if they finished at 10 like last year they are sitting at home on their coach. There would be no chance at all then.

Again, I agree with much of what you are saying.

However, it is what has been asked. Favre was signed and Favre signed to win a Super Bowl. Ownership believed that this team was close enough talent-wise to sign an aging veteran with a chip on his shoulder for one last shot at the whole thing.

Let's not kid ourselves here. Favre signed in Minnesota because he felt this was his best chance at recapturing Super Bowl glory. Favre did not sign in Minnesota to reach the playoffs or have an exciting run in the postseason. Favre signed in Minnesota to end the season with a win.

It is alot to ask?

Absolutely.

It is what is asked?

Absolutely.

Ownership has spent tons of money to reach this point and have traded away entire draft classes to reach this point. I really don't think that ownership signed Favre to give him a high five after losing in the playoffs. Favre was hired as a mercenary to win the whole thing and I believe that that is what that $12 million was spent for.

AngloVike
01-08-2010, 05:02 AM
A lot depends on how you want to define success and from where you look at it from.

From Childress's point of view it would have been a success as he gained a contract extension which not have happened with TJ as starter - and without seeing Sage play then we'll never know. That was his driving force to bring in Favre and the only reason as he knew his butt was on the line this year. Now he can point and say ' look the KAO does work with the right QB' whilst ignoring the fact that Favre took a few games under his own wing and run it his way and not baldy's.

From the ownerhip and fanbase then its not so easy to answer. Without doubt we had the regular season that we did because of Favre's influence and without him we would not be in the post season as NFCN champions. Given that the media, and coaching staff hinted at, indicated that we were just a QB away from being in the SuperBowl come February then not to win it would mean we fell short on expectations.

Either way I do believe that it has put us back in terms of a long term solution at the QB position. Despite what many say I don't believe that TJ is the answer and I'm annoyed that we have wasted years when we could have picked up a good FA QB ( prior to Favre being available )or drafted a better prospect. Then again with the current coaching staff then even drafting a QB would have been wasted as they have neither the foresight or talent to bring along a player to compete at the NFL level.

ejmat
01-08-2010, 06:31 AM
purplejokr wrote:


ejmat wrote:
Every team goes into a season wanting and thinking they can win a superbowl. Only one team wins it. That doesn't mean there are 31 failures in the league. Your post would deem every teams' QB that doesn't win a superbowl is a failure.

I agree and my post deems no such thing.

The question is specifically about Favre and the Vikings. It is not about the ENTIRE NFL.

Is it a failure if the Chiefs do not win the Super Bowl? Absolutely not. The Chiefs have not been in a legitimate position to win a Super Bowl in many, many years & to expect them to do so in 2009 would be foolish.


ejmat wrote:
Favre was brought in because he gives a "better chance" to win a superbowl. Expecting and holding a superbowl win as the only standard of success is asking a lot out of anyone. A better chance to win is a lot different than being brought in to win the superbowl.

The truth is he gives them a better chance to win. Without him they wouldn't have made the playoffs as they would have needed at least 11 wins. Maybe speculation but let's be real. We don't get that with TJ or Sage. Favre took this team on his back a few games this year and judging by history neither TJ or Sage has been able to do that on a consistent basis if ever.

The Favre experiment is a success based solely on the fact they made the playoffs with 12 wins. Because if they finished at 10 like last year they are sitting at home on their coach. There would be no chance at all then.

Again, I agree with much of what you are saying.

However, it is what has been asked. Favre was signed and Favre signed to win a Super Bowl. Ownership believed that this team was close enough talent-wise to sign an aging veteran with a chip on his shoulder for one last shot at the whole thing.

Let's not kid ourselves here. Favre signed in Minnesota because he felt this was his best chance at recapturing Super Bowl glory. Favre did not sign in Minnesota to reach the playoffs or have an exciting run in the postseason. Favre signed in Minnesota to end the season with a win.

It is alot to ask?

Absolutely.

It is what is asked?

Absolutely.

Ownership has spent tons of money to reach this point and have traded away entire draft classes to reach this point. I really don't think that ownership signed Favre to give him a high five after losing in the playoffs. Favre was hired as a mercenary to win the whole thing and I believe that that is what that $12 million was spent for.

Again I am going to say Favre was brought in because he gives us a BETTER chance to win the superbowl. There is a difference. The guy has won one superbowl his career. To automatically presume or expect the Vikings (a franchise that has never won a superbowl since their existance) to win a superbowl just because they signed a QB is ridiculous.

Your example of KC. They brought in Cassell for more money than Favre. There are teams out there that are perenniel playoff teams. Shouldn't they have the same expectations then? McNabb with Philly. Are thye a failure if they don't win a superbowl? How much money is he making? How much money is Brady making? Afterall they trusted him enough coming back from a major injury to go out and win a superbowl by letting Cassell (their insurance policy) go to KC. I'm pretty sure Manning gets paid as much or more without looking at his salary than Favre does. If they don't win is he a failure?

You can't hold one guy to more expectations than anyone else in the leaague. That is totally unfair. Favre was brought in because they have a BETTER chance not to presume they win a superbowl. Winning a superbowl isn't a given. Therefore, I disagree that your post doesn't suggest that. IMO it does.

I do agree with you in that they all want to win a superbowl. All coaches / ownerships make moves every year with the objective to win a superbowl. To me, your post suggests that if the Vikings do not win the superbowl than the Favre deal wasn't a success at all. When, in fact there's a good chance this team doesn't make the playoffs at all if they didn't bring Favre in.

Mark_The_Viking
01-08-2010, 07:50 AM
Don't know that I can add anything to some great posts in here already but my 2c.

Up to now do we consider it a success I think that the answer is yes. Why? I like TJ but the facts are he is inconsistant and has bad mechanics that he has displayed in games he has taken over in this season (still jump passes and panics in the pocket)I don't think we would have won 10 games this year with him at QB

The jury is out on him as far as I'm concerned but next year may make or break him either way a decision will be made as to his future.

Point 2 Failure up to now also yes. Why? Having BF at the helm has been a huge boon to the team at all levels but it was and is a short term measure and I don't think the teams success this year has helped us in getting ready for when he does finally hang up the cleats. I think we need to look beyond TJ because next year we may not have Favre at the helm and TJ may or may not be ready a big risk when all you have is Sage to look too.

From here on in a playoff win other than the 1st round bye will be considered a success, doing it again against the packers will solidify that if only in the hearts of the purple faithful.

All in all a lot of what is determined a successful season may be what the FO and Wilf families think. Did it increase exposure, increase revenue, make a stadium more likely, without a playoff win they may consider it a success if these things are true.

/2c over

purplejokr
01-09-2010, 01:57 AM
ejmat wrote:


Again I am going to say Favre was brought in because he gives us a BETTER chance to win the superbowl. There is a difference. The guy has won one superbowl his career. To automatically presume or expect the Vikings (a franchise that has never won a superbowl since their existance) to win a superbowl just because they signed a QB is ridiculous.

I disagree. Favre was signed to win a Super Bowl. Favre signed to win a Super Bowl. Anything less is a disappointment/failure.

Let's make another thing clear too. It isn't that I believe that the Vikings should be handed the Lombardi or that the Vikings are a lock to win it. What I believe is that Favre was brought to Minnesota and Favre came to Minnesota for one reason: Winning a Super Bowl.

It is by this yardstick that I believe that he and the Vikings will be measured. This is one of those times in professional sports that you see where the organization puts all of its eggs in one basket. The Vikings are going all out to win a Super Bowl and I think it is the right thing to do. I don't think that it is arrogant to believe it to be so either. The second that Favre signed that contract it was Super Bowl victory or bust for Minnesota.

ejmat wrote:

Your example of KC. They brought in Cassell for more money than Favre. There are teams out there that are perenniel playoff teams. Shouldn't they have the same expectations then? McNabb with Philly. Are thye a failure if they don't win a superbowl? How much money is he making? How much money is Brady making? Afterall they trusted him enough coming back from a major injury to go out and win a superbowl by letting Cassell (their insurance policy) go to KC. I'm pretty sure Manning gets paid as much or more without looking at his salary than Favre does. If they don't win is he a failure?

I believe that your making a comparison that I didn't make. I do not care how much anyone gets paid. My point in using Kansas City is that to expect them to win a Super Bowl in 2009 is foolish. There are not close, they have not been close in years, and they probably won't be close for another few years.

If we take Minnesota and apply the same criteria, we find that Minnesota has a stud RB, a fantastic defense, a solid O-Line, young, talented receivers, & recently a remarkable rookie in Harvin and a QB that is head & shoulders above anything the Vikings had prior.

Kansas City just isn't where Minnesota is on the contiuum. Kansas City is still a few years away at least from being one piece away from being a contender.

Therein lies the difference, last season the Vikings were obviously held back by the QB position. Peterson was running over 7, 8, & 9 man fronts while Jackson could not move the football through the air. Meanwhile, the defense was holding opposing offenses to a league leading 76.9 ypg rushing. The weak spot on the team last season was the QB position and had Favre got his wish last season, the Vikings may have been celebrating a Super Bowl title last season.

The Eagles are an interesting study if only because they had been to 4 straight NFC title games. Do you really believe that after that 2nd NFC title game that the Eagles felt that a successful season was another NFC title game appearance? I doubt that very much. I would wager that a Super Bowl, and only a Super Bowl appearance, would make that following season a success.

One last point, no one is calling any one player a failure. What I am saying is that this gambit of bringing in Favre is a failure if the Vikings DO NOT win a Super Bowl.

ejmat wrote:

You can't hold one guy to more expectations than anyone else in the leaague. That is totally unfair. Favre was brought in because they have a BETTER chance not to presume they win a superbowl. Winning a superbowl isn't a given. Therefore, I disagree that your post doesn't suggest that. IMO it does.

Really?

Do you honestly feel that JaMarcus Russell is held to the very same standard that Mark Sanchez is? Now that Sanchez is in the playoffs and Russell is not do you not hold either QB to different standards? Did Sanchez not earn the right to be held to a higher standard than his counterpart by virtue of his performance? There are different standards all over the NFL and this is one of those times. Saying that Minnesota SHOULD win a Super Bowl is a standard that is easy to defend. Saying that Oakland SHOULD win a Super Bowl is a bit tougher. These are just honest assessments of a team's potential.

Again, I presume nothing. The games have to be played and Super Bowl titles are earned. However, to say that the Vikings signed Favre to help develop their young receivers and make a nice playoff run is foolish. Favre wanted to come to Minnesota to win a Super Bowl. Favre didn't come to be a respectable second place. If he wanted to have a nice 2nd place finish, he could've stayed in NY for that. Or GB for that matter.

Why do you think that Favre was so hot on Randy Moss when he was available while Favre was in GB? Favre's goal is to win a Super Bowl. That is why he wears purple now. He sees that this team unlike others in the league is ready to win today.

ejmat wrote:

I do agree with you in that they all want to win a superbowl. All coaches / ownerships make moves every year with the objective to win a superbowl. To me, your post suggests that if the Vikings do not win the superbowl than the Favre deal wasn't a success at all. When, in fact there's a good chance this team doesn't make the playoffs at all if they didn't bring Favre in.

In terms of the excitement brought to Minnesota football and the revenue that generates, there is ALWAYS a positive there but I am responding to the question as it was stated....

Without a Super Bowl victory was the Favre experiment a failure?

Yes, I believe it is.

I believe that he was signed to do one thing. I believe he signed to do one thing. As many other posters have pointed out, I don't think he signed to help build confidence in a young WR corps but he did it. I don't think he signed to mentor Jackson and Rosenfels but he did it. I don't think he signed to create excitement about Viking football but he did. I don't think he signed to win 12 games this season but he did.

I think he signed in Minnesota to win a Super Bowl. It is a lofty goal to be sure but that is why I think he signed in Minnesota. He never even looked at other teams and other teams never even looked at him because from the day Favre decided he was no longer going to be a Packer he wanted to play in Minnesota. I also believe that Favre thought this way because he felt he could win in Minnesota.

I think that Favre said it best during his introductory press conference when he said, "All I want to do is win."

Last point, let's not forget that my entire premise is based on how good this team was BEFORE Favre signed on. What with the play of the Bears and Lions this season, I am confident that Jackson or Rosenfels could've led this team to a playoff spot. Heck, the Vikings were led by Jackson when they won the NFC North in 2008. I think that this season would've been alot like last season in that there would be HEAVY doses of Peterson and the Vikings would play a field position football game. If it was good enough to win the North last season, why wouldn't it be good enough to qualify for a wildcard spot this season?

NordicNed
01-09-2010, 11:00 AM
ejmat wrote:

purplejokr wrote:


ejmat wrote:
Every team goes into a season wanting and thinking they can win a superbowl. Only one team wins it. That doesn't mean there are 31 failures in the league. Your post would deem every teams' QB that doesn't win a superbowl is a failure.

I agree and my post deems no such thing.

The question is specifically about Favre and the Vikings. It is not about the ENTIRE NFL.

Is it a failure if the Chiefs do not win the Super Bowl? Absolutely not. The Chiefs have not been in a legitimate position to win a Super Bowl in many, many years & to expect them to do so in 2009 would be foolish.


ejmat wrote:
Favre was brought in because he gives a "better chance" to win a superbowl. Expecting and holding a superbowl win as the only standard of success is asking a lot out of anyone. A better chance to win is a lot different than being brought in to win the superbowl.

The truth is he gives them a better chance to win. Without him they wouldn't have made the playoffs as they would have needed at least 11 wins. Maybe speculation but let's be real. We don't get that with TJ or Sage. Favre took this team on his back a few games this year and judging by history neither TJ or Sage has been able to do that on a consistent basis if ever.

The Favre experiment is a success based solely on the fact they made the playoffs with 12 wins. Because if they finished at 10 like last year they are sitting at home on their coach. There would be no chance at all then.

Again, I agree with much of what you are saying.

However, it is what has been asked. Favre was signed and Favre signed to win a Super Bowl. Ownership believed that this team was close enough talent-wise to sign an aging veteran with a chip on his shoulder for one last shot at the whole thing.

Let's not kid ourselves here. Favre signed in Minnesota because he felt this was his best chance at recapturing Super Bowl glory. Favre did not sign in Minnesota to reach the playoffs or have an exciting run in the postseason. Favre signed in Minnesota to end the season with a win.

It is alot to ask?

Absolutely.

It is what is asked?

Absolutely.

Ownership has spent tons of money to reach this point and have traded away entire draft classes to reach this point. I really don't think that ownership signed Favre to give him a high five after losing in the playoffs. Favre was hired as a mercenary to win the whole thing and I believe that that is what that $12 million was spent for.

Again I am going to say Favre was brought in because he gives us a BETTER chance to win the superbowl. There is a difference. The guy has won one superbowl his career. To automatically presume or expect the Vikings (a franchise that has never won a superbowl since their existance) to win a superbowl just because they signed a QB is ridiculous.

Your example of KC. They brought in Cassell for more money than Favre. There are teams out there that are perenniel playoff teams. Shouldn't they have the same expectations then? McNabb with Philly. Are thye a failure if they don't win a superbowl? How much money is he making? How much money is Brady making? Afterall they trusted him enough coming back from a major injury to go out and win a superbowl by letting Cassell (their insurance policy) go to KC. I'm pretty sure Manning gets paid as much or more without looking at his salary than Favre does. If they don't win is he a failure?

You can't hold one guy to more expectations than anyone else in the leaague. That is totally unfair. Favre was brought in because they have a BETTER chance not to presume they win a superbowl. Winning a superbowl isn't a given. Therefore, I disagree that your post doesn't suggest that. IMO it does.

I do agree with you in that they all want to win a superbowl. All coaches / ownerships make moves every year with the objective to win a superbowl. To me, your post suggests that if the Vikings do not win the superbowl than the Favre deal wasn't a success at all. When, in fact there's a good chance this team doesn't make the playoffs at all if they didn't bring Favre in. By far, one of the best post made so far.....And YES, Favre was a very big part in acheiving the success this team as made, as a whole, so far this season. May we continue to play well and play hard. Anything is possible from this point on...

Go Vikings

snowinapril
01-09-2010, 11:52 AM
tastywaves wrote:

BloodyHorns82 wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Will the Favre move be considered a success even without a Super Bowl victory? (http://grants-tomb.blogspot.com/2010/01/will-favre-move-be-considered-success.html)


ESPN's Kevin Seifert examines that question in this post and determines, that, yes, the move will be a success if Favre even leads the Vikings to the NFC Championship game...

I think it is obvious that Favre was a success. Getting to the NFC Championship game and beyond will just make that success that much more...
So far it has been a success, however an epic fail in the playoffs could still render this a failed experiment. We must beat the Pack.

I like JmC's point here...while in my eyes the season is a success no matter what at this point...the league as a whole, and many Vikings fans will see it as a faiure if Favre fails (as he has done in the semi-recent past), in the playoffs.

The argument that he couldn't hold up an entire season will again have wings.

Regardless, it was a very fun and entertaining season and in my opinion the Favre experiment was loads of fun.

If Favre screws up in the playoff game, then there would be some merit in a failed experiment with Favre. However, losing the playoff game with a good performance by Favre, is hard for me to agree with a failed hire.

He has shown us if nothing else, that our offense can be effective with the right QB running the show. Before Favre, there were a lot of doubts in many people's minds including mine whether the KAO had an chance of success.

Was it really the KAO or the FKAO? Time will tell when BF retires and writes a book on the inner working of the last few years, a tell all. LOL!

JmC's post changed my mind a bit on this. My initial answer was a definitive "yes" to success. But, even finishing the season slightly less than what we did we still might have made the playoffs. So I think the "win" at least one game in the playoffs needs to happen for this to be a success.

On the other hand, I think that the Pack would have won our division with TJ or Sage at the QB position. We would have split the season with them and we would have lost at least one more game in addition to a Pack game. That would have put us at 10-6 possibly 9-7.

ejmat
01-09-2010, 08:49 PM
purplejokr wrote:

ejmat wrote:


Again I am going to say Favre was brought in because he gives us a BETTER chance to win the superbowl. There is a difference. The guy has won one superbowl his career. To automatically presume or expect the Vikings (a franchise that has never won a superbowl since their existance) to win a superbowl just because they signed a QB is ridiculous.

I disagree. Favre was signed to win a Super Bowl. Favre signed to win a Super Bowl. Anything less is a disappointment/failure.

Let's make another thing clear too. It isn't that I believe that the Vikings should be handed the Lombardi or that the Vikings are a lock to win it. What I believe is that Favre was brought to Minnesota and Favre came to Minnesota for one reason: Winning a Super Bowl.

It is by this yardstick that I believe that he and the Vikings will be measured. This is one of those times in professional sports that you see where the organization puts all of its eggs in one basket. The Vikings are going all out to win a Super Bowl and I think it is the right thing to do. I don't think that it is arrogant to believe it to be so either. The second that Favre signed that contract it was Super Bowl victory or bust for Minnesota.

ejmat wrote:

Your example of KC. They brought in Cassell for more money than Favre. There are teams out there that are perenniel playoff teams. Shouldn't they have the same expectations then? McNabb with Philly. Are thye a failure if they don't win a superbowl? How much money is he making? How much money is Brady making? Afterall they trusted him enough coming back from a major injury to go out and win a superbowl by letting Cassell (their insurance policy) go to KC. I'm pretty sure Manning gets paid as much or more without looking at his salary than Favre does. If they don't win is he a failure?

I believe that your making a comparison that I didn't make. I do not care how much anyone gets paid. My point in using Kansas City is that to expect them to win a Super Bowl in 2009 is foolish. There are not close, they have not been close in years, and they probably won't be close for another few years.

If we take Minnesota and apply the same criteria, we find that Minnesota has a stud RB, a fantastic defense, a solid O-Line, young, talented receivers, & recently a remarkable rookie in Harvin and a QB that is head & shoulders above anything the Vikings had prior.

Kansas City just isn't where Minnesota is on the contiuum. Kansas City is still a few years away at least from being one piece away from being a contender.

Therein lies the difference, last season the Vikings were obviously held back by the QB position. Peterson was running over 7, 8, & 9 man fronts while Jackson could not move the football through the air. Meanwhile, the defense was holding opposing offenses to a league leading 76.9 ypg rushing. The weak spot on the team last season was the QB position and had Favre got his wish last season, the Vikings may have been celebrating a Super Bowl title last season.

The Eagles are an interesting study if only because they had been to 4 straight NFC title games. Do you really believe that after that 2nd NFC title game that the Eagles felt that a successful season was another NFC title game appearance? I doubt that very much. I would wager that a Super Bowl, and only a Super Bowl appearance, would make that following season a success.

One last point, no one is calling any one player a failure. What I am saying is that this gambit of bringing in Favre is a failure if the Vikings DO NOT win a Super Bowl.

ejmat wrote:

You can't hold one guy to more expectations than anyone else in the leaague. That is totally unfair. Favre was brought in because they have a BETTER chance not to presume they win a superbowl. Winning a superbowl isn't a given. Therefore, I disagree that your post doesn't suggest that. IMO it does.

Really?

Do you honestly feel that JaMarcus Russell is held to the very same standard that Mark Sanchez is? Now that Sanchez is in the playoffs and Russell is not do you not hold either QB to different standards? Did Sanchez not earn the right to be held to a higher standard than his counterpart by virtue of his performance? There are different standards all over the NFL and this is one of those times. Saying that Minnesota SHOULD win a Super Bowl is a standard that is easy to defend. Saying that Oakland SHOULD win a Super Bowl is a bit tougher. These are just honest assessments of a team's potential.

Again, I presume nothing. The games have to be played and Super Bowl titles are earned. However, to say that the Vikings signed Favre to help develop their young receivers and make a nice playoff run is foolish. Favre wanted to come to Minnesota to win a Super Bowl. Favre didn't come to be a respectable second place. If he wanted to have a nice 2nd place finish, he could've stayed in NY for that. Or GB for that matter.

Why do you think that Favre was so hot on Randy Moss when he was available while Favre was in GB? Favre's goal is to win a Super Bowl. That is why he wears purple now. He sees that this team unlike others in the league is ready to win today.

ejmat wrote:

I do agree with you in that they all want to win a superbowl. All coaches / ownerships make moves every year with the objective to win a superbowl. To me, your post suggests that if the Vikings do not win the superbowl than the Favre deal wasn't a success at all. When, in fact there's a good chance this team doesn't make the playoffs at all if they didn't bring Favre in.

In terms of the excitement brought to Minnesota football and the revenue that generates, there is ALWAYS a positive there but I am responding to the question as it was stated....

Without a Super Bowl victory was the Favre experiment a failure?

Yes, I believe it is.

I believe that he was signed to do one thing. I believe he signed to do one thing. As many other posters have pointed out, I don't think he signed to help build confidence in a young WR corps but he did it. I don't think he signed to mentor Jackson and Rosenfels but he did it. I don't think he signed to create excitement about Viking football but he did. I don't think he signed to win 12 games this season but he did.

I think he signed in Minnesota to win a Super Bowl. It is a lofty goal to be sure but that is why I think he signed in Minnesota. He never even looked at other teams and other teams never even looked at him because from the day Favre decided he was no longer going to be a Packer he wanted to play in Minnesota. I also believe that Favre thought this way because he felt he could win in Minnesota.

I think that Favre said it best during his introductory press conference when he said, "All I want to do is win."

Last point, let's not forget that my entire premise is based on how good this team was BEFORE Favre signed on. What with the play of the Bears and Lions this season, I am confident that Jackson or Rosenfels could've led this team to a playoff spot. Heck, the Vikings were led by Jackson when they won the NFC North in 2008. I think that this season would've been alot like last season in that there would be HEAVY doses of Peterson and the Vikings would play a field position football game. If it was good enough to win the North last season, why wouldn't it be good enough to qualify for a wildcard spot this season?

It wouldn't be good enough because the NFC has more talent this year then they had in the past. It is evident by the records that made the playoffs.

Look, I'm going to make this very simple. You have your views and I have mine. Just because a team doesn't win a superbowl doesn't mean the year or a move was a failure. You may think the Vikes would have made the playoffs without Favre. I totally disagree. Favre himself took over games this year in which Sage or TJ have never been able to do. So for you to assume that would have happened doesn't really jive with my thinking.

The words that were used by the team was Favre was brought in because he gives the Vikings the BEST chance to win. They said over and aver again nothing was given. My point with KC was that you used Favre's salary as a basis as to why it would be a failure. That's all. As far as the Eagles are concerned they made the move to keep McNabb after the controversy last year. Therefore why wouldn't he be held to the same standards as Favre?

The standards you are trying to hold Favre to is not fair. No one is saying he was brought in to develope WRs or anyone else on the team except for maybe TJ. He was brought in because he gives the Vikings (a good team already) a better chance to win a superbowl. Whether you think you did it or not you ARE holding Favre to a higher standard than any other QB to include Brady, Manning, McNabb and everyone else. If you think you are not I disagree because of your own words. When you say if the Vikings don't win a superbowl, the Favre move wasn't successful that means any other team that doesn't win the superbowl had a failed season. There are many teams out there that have been successful over the past few years. Even more successful than MN. So that argument doesn't even make sense to me. Every team I mentioned other than KC have been much more successful than MN over the past few years.

oaklandzoo24
01-09-2010, 08:58 PM
He should be. Without his play and if our opponents continued to limit APs effectiveness we could have been 4-12 rather than 12-4. Maybe be a bit of an exaggeration but we would have been very limited offensively.

ejmat
01-09-2010, 08:59 PM
snowinapril wrote:

tastywaves wrote:

BloodyHorns82 wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Will the Favre move be considered a success even without a Super Bowl victory? (http://grants-tomb.blogspot.com/2010/01/will-favre-move-be-considered-success.html)


ESPN's Kevin Seifert examines that question in this post and determines, that, yes, the move will be a success if Favre even leads the Vikings to the NFC Championship game...

I think it is obvious that Favre was a success. Getting to the NFC Championship game and beyond will just make that success that much more...
So far it has been a success, however an epic fail in the playoffs could still render this a failed experiment. We must beat the Pack.

I like JmC's point here...while in my eyes the season is a success no matter what at this point...the league as a whole, and many Vikings fans will see it as a faiure if Favre fails (as he has done in the semi-recent past), in the playoffs.

The argument that he couldn't hold up an entire season will again have wings.

Regardless, it was a very fun and entertaining season and in my opinion the Favre experiment was loads of fun.

If Favre screws up in the playoff game, then there would be some merit in a failed experiment with Favre. However, losing the playoff game with a good performance by Favre, is hard for me to agree with a failed hire.

He has shown us if nothing else, that our offense can be effective with the right QB running the show. Before Favre, there were a lot of doubts in many people's minds including mine whether the KAO had an chance of success.

Was it really the KAO or the FKAO? Time will tell when BF retires and writes a book on the inner working of the last few years, a tell all. LOL!

JmC's post changed my mind a bit on this. My initial answer was a definitive "yes" to success. But, even finishing the season slightly less than what we did we still might have made the playoffs. So I think the "win" at least one game in the playoffs needs to happen for this to be a success.

On the other hand, I think that the Pack would have won our division with TJ or Sage at the QB position. We would have split the season with them and we would have lost at least one more game in addition to a Pack game. That would have put us at 10-6 possibly 9-7.

Or possibly 8-8 or worse. The way Favre played this season there is no way of telling how TJ or Sage would have played. Most likely (going by their history only) they would not have had the same success. There is no way Rice has 1000 yards receiving. There's no way Harvin wins ROY. Te guy was mentioned as an MVP candidate. There is no way TJ or Sage comes close to that. We weren't a team to blow other teams out like we did this year. Anything could have happened. We made the playoffs because Favre was the QB. Yes he had help. He has a good cast around him. But how many teams made the playoffs this year that didn't have a good passing game?

Indy - good passing game
Chargers - good passing game
Bengals - decent passing game but better un game
Jets - Better run game
Baltimore - Better passing game
New England - Better passing game

Saints - better passing game
Vikings - better passing game
Dallas - better passing game
Philly - better passing game
GB - better passing game
AZ - better passing game

Every single NFC team had a better passing game thenrunning game. Which tells me the Vikings would not have been able to keep up with them if they were depending on the run.

carnage
01-09-2010, 11:07 PM
i think its a fail because we got him to win the superbowl nothing less

CCthebest
01-09-2010, 11:39 PM
Farve coming here was the best thing that happened since Childress came to town. Can you imagine if we had even a decent Oline to protect him a bit more and open up a few holes for AD? We'd be unstoppable.

i_bleed_purple
01-10-2010, 12:14 AM
carnage wrote:

i think its a fail because we got him to win the superbowl nothing less

then I guess every new player we ever sign is a failure then if we don't win right?

The way I look at it, If we don't win, then yes, getting Favre wasn't successful. Same can be said for any player.

Like Herm Edwards said "You play to win the game". To say losing int he playoffs is a success is a big lie. We aren't the lions, content with a few wins, We expect to win the superbowl.


Having said that. IF we do lose, although it was not a success, it will still have been a good move. Favre gave us a far better opportunity to succeed than TJ or Sage would have. We bettered the team, and That is important.

NO player makes a team 100% sure to win. Brady, Manning, Rivers or Brees wouldn't make us sure superbowl winners. Favre gives us just as good a chance, and for that, it was a good move.

If say for example, we signed Favre, but in doing so, we had to release numerous key players, and didn't come close to winning, then no, it wouldn't be a success. But that isn't the case.

ejmat
01-10-2010, 08:57 AM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

carnage wrote:

i think its a fail because we got him to win the superbowl nothing less

then I guess every new player we ever sign is a failure then if we don't win right?

The way I look at it, If we don't win, then yes, getting Favre wasn't successful. Same can be said for any player.

Like Herm Edwards said "You play to win the game". To say losing int he playoffs is a success is a big lie. We aren't the lions, content with a few wins, We expect to win the superbowl.


Having said that. IF we do lose, although it was not a success, it will still have been a good move. Favre gave us a far better opportunity to succeed than TJ or Sage would have. We bettered the team, and That is important.

NO player makes a team 100% sure to win. Brady, Manning, Rivers or Brees wouldn't make us sure superbowl winners. Favre gives us just as good a chance, and for that, it was a good move.

If say for example, we signed Favre, but in doing so, we had to release numerous key players, and didn't come close to winning, then no, it wouldn't be a success. But that isn't the case.

Great post. I agree with 100% of it. Everyone is brought in because they are expected to make the team better. There are good moves and bad moves (successful and unsuccessful). The Favre move was successful being we made the playoffs. Without him I personally don't think they make the playoffs given the improvement of NFC teams this year.

snowinapril
01-10-2010, 10:02 AM
Without BF, where to we finish next year in the NFCN?

Ponder on that one for a while. When you come up with behind the Packers and possibly behind the Bears or Lions too, was BF a fail or a success?

Unless you think that the NFCN is the new NFCE with two top tier teams every year, we will be on the verge of not making the playoffs.

For the most part the Packers are young and have a solid future with Rodgers at QB. I didn't want to believe it after beating them twice this season, but AR is solid.

BF helped us beat the Pack twice and without that help, this season would have been a tough one to swallow possibly not making the playoffs. BF allows us one more year of drafts and FA to help us stay on top.

gregair13
01-10-2010, 11:13 AM
Favre was brought in to take us to the Superbowl and win. Anything short of that would be a failure.

oaklandzoo24
01-10-2010, 12:07 PM
Even if we lose, bringing Favre in has done wonders for this squad. Look at the confidence he has given Rice. This season Favre has been praising him and he seems to be much more aggressive as he feels that he has something to prove. He's helped guide Percy along the way, and IMO that will have huge benefits in his future. Also T-Jack and Rosey have had time to watch one of the greatest of all-time. If T-Jack is worth keeping around, he must have picked up on a few elements of Favre's game that makes him great.

singersp
01-10-2010, 01:38 PM
If we are one & done in the playoffs, we haven't gotten any further with Favre than what we were last year.

For those who claimed we didn't have a successful year last year because of the loss to the Eagles, I would think they'd feel the same way again this year.

But I'm betting they won't. ;)

If you feel like I do that winning the NFCN crown & making the playoffs is a success, then we were successful even though we fell short of winning the SB.

If you feel a team isn't successful unless they win the SB, then I don't see how you can see the Vikings were successful with Favre.

ejmat
01-10-2010, 01:53 PM
singersp wrote:

If we are one & done in the playoffs, we haven't gotten any further with Favre than what we were last year.

For those who claimed we didn't have a successful year last year because of the loss to the Eagles, I would think they'd feel the same way again this year.

But I'm betting they won't. ;)

Last year the Vikings were successful by making the playoffs. It was a step up from the year before. This year they are already more successful than last year for earning a 1st round bye.

Just because we made the playoffs last year doesn't earn the right to be in the playoffs this year. See teams like the Steelers, Giants, Titans and Panthers as a few examples.

Without Favre this year the team would have been lucky to make the playoffs and personally I don't think they do. Favre did well so many games to where having TJ or Sage in there may have caused a totally different season all together.

I realize everyone has their opinions but to say getting Favre this year wasn't a success if they don't win a superbowl like some are trying to say, is just not true. He was brought in to give a better chance at the superbowl. As we all know nothing is guaranteed. For that reason only the standard of success shouldn't be whether or not he wins a superbowl. All the other factors that have been pointed out such as success of other players should count. The mere fact they earned a 1st round bye should count. Rice having an 1000 yard season should count. Harvin winning ROY should count. The team having the 2nd highest scoring offense should count. The offense being a two-dimensional offense should count.

There are just to many positives from the acquisition of Favre to hold a superbowl victory as the only standard or measurement of success.

marstc09
01-10-2010, 03:09 PM
singersp wrote:

If we are one & done in the playoffs, we haven't gotten any further with Favre than what we were last year.

For those who claimed we didn't have a successful year last year because of the loss to the Eagles, I would think they'd feel the same way again this year.

But I'm betting they won't. ;)

If you feel like I do that winning the NFCN crown & making the playoffs is a success, then we were successful even though we fell short of winning the SB.

If you feel a team isn't successful unless they win the SB, then I don't see how you can see the Vikings were successful with Favre.

Technically we already won a playoff game. Favre did enough to get a 1st round bye.

Prophet
01-11-2010, 08:46 AM
singersp wrote:

If we are one & done in the playoffs, we haven't gotten any further with Favre than what we were last year.

For those who claimed we didn't have a successful year last year because of the loss to the Eagles, I would think they'd feel the same way again this year.

But I'm betting they won't. ;)

If you feel like I do that winning the NFCN crown & making the playoffs is a success, then we were successful even though we fell short of winning the SB.

If you feel a team isn't successful unless they win the SB, then I don't see how you can see the Vikings were successful with Favre.

I am of the belief that anything less than a super bowl victory is not a success. I am also of the belief that any player that is signed on the roster that improves the team is a success for the team. If the team is moving forward toward the ultimate goal of winning the SB it is on the right track. I cannot say that it was ever moving in that direction during the meathead years or the end of the Green years or any years since Grant. This is the first time I can honestly say that the team is moving in the direction of getting the elusive rings. That is a success.

jmcdon00
01-11-2010, 09:59 AM
We beat the packers, the Favre aquisition was a success to me.

BloodyHorns82
01-11-2010, 10:02 AM
jmcdon00 wrote:

We beat the packers, the Favre aquisition was a success to me.

Yep, this coupled with the fact we made it to at least the 2nd round of the playoffs.

jmcdon00
01-11-2010, 10:03 AM
marstc09 wrote:

singersp wrote:

If we are one & done in the playoffs, we haven't gotten any further with Favre than what we were last year.

For those who claimed we didn't have a successful year last year because of the loss to the Eagles, I would think they'd feel the same way again this year.

But I'm betting they won't. ;)

If you feel like I do that winning the NFCN crown & making the playoffs is a success, then we were successful even though we fell short of winning the SB.

If you feel a team isn't successful unless they win the SB, then I don't see how you can see the Vikings were successful with Favre.

Technically we already won a playoff game. Favre did enough to get a 1st round bye.
Technically, no we havn't.

marstc09
01-11-2010, 10:04 AM
snowinapril wrote:

Without BF, where to we finish next year in the NFCN?

Ponder on that one for a while. When you come up with behind the Packers and possibly behind the Bears or Lions too, was BF a fail or a success?

Unless you think that the NFCN is the new NFCE with two top tier teams every year, we will be on the verge of not making the playoffs.

For the most part the Packers are young and have a solid future with Rodgers at QB. I didn't want to believe it after beating them twice this season, but AR is solid.

BF helped us beat the Pack twice and without that help, this season would have been a tough one to swallow possibly not making the playoffs. BF allows us one more year of drafts and FA to help us stay on top.

+1 very good point

marstc09
01-11-2010, 10:05 AM
jmcdon00 wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

singersp wrote:

If we are one & done in the playoffs, we haven't gotten any further with Favre than what we were last year.

For those who claimed we didn't have a successful year last year because of the loss to the Eagles, I would think they'd feel the same way again this year.

But I'm betting they won't. ;)

If you feel like I do that winning the NFCN crown & making the playoffs is a success, then we were successful even though we fell short of winning the SB.

If you feel a team isn't successful unless they win the SB, then I don't see how you can see the Vikings were successful with Favre.

Technically we already won a playoff game. Favre did enough to get a 1st round bye.
Technically, no we havn't.

Actually we have. Brett did enough so we did not have to play in the 1st round. That is a win IMO.

BloodyHorns82
01-11-2010, 10:07 AM
marstc09 wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

singersp wrote:

If we are one & done in the playoffs, we haven't gotten any further with Favre than what we were last year.

For those who claimed we didn't have a successful year last year because of the loss to the Eagles, I would think they'd feel the same way again this year.

But I'm betting they won't. ;)

If you feel like I do that winning the NFCN crown & making the playoffs is a success, then we were successful even though we fell short of winning the SB.

If you feel a team isn't successful unless they win the SB, then I don't see how you can see the Vikings were successful with Favre.

Technically we already won a playoff game. Favre did enough to get a 1st round bye.
Technically, no we havn't.

Actually we have. Brett did enough so we did not have to play in the 1st round. That is a win IMO.

Except teams don't get a 'W' during the bye week.

marstc09
01-11-2010, 10:08 AM
BloodyHorns82 wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

singersp wrote:

If we are one & done in the playoffs, we haven't gotten any further with Favre than what we were last year.

For those who claimed we didn't have a successful year last year because of the loss to the Eagles, I would think they'd feel the same way again this year.

But I'm betting they won't. ;)

If you feel like I do that winning the NFCN crown & making the playoffs is a success, then we were successful even though we fell short of winning the SB.

If you feel a team isn't successful unless they win the SB, then I don't see how you can see the Vikings were successful with Favre.

Technically we already won a playoff game. Favre did enough to get a 1st round bye.
Technically, no we havn't.

Actually we have. Brett did enough so we did not have to play in the 1st round. That is a win IMO.

Except teams don't get a 'W' during the bye week.

They get rest. That is a big W that we needed badly.

jmcdon00
01-11-2010, 10:34 AM
marstc09 wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

singersp wrote:

If we are one & done in the playoffs, we haven't gotten any further with Favre than what we were last year.

For those who claimed we didn't have a successful year last year because of the loss to the Eagles, I would think they'd feel the same way again this year.

But I'm betting they won't. ;)

If you feel like I do that winning the NFCN crown & making the playoffs is a success, then we were successful even though we fell short of winning the SB.

If you feel a team isn't successful unless they win the SB, then I don't see how you can see the Vikings were successful with Favre.

Technically we already won a playoff game. Favre did enough to get a 1st round bye.
Technically, no we havn't.

Actually we have. Brett did enough so we did not have to play in the 1st round. That is a win IMO.
Technically you are wrong.

marstc09
01-11-2010, 10:42 AM
jmcdon00 wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

singersp wrote:

If we are one & done in the playoffs, we haven't gotten any further with Favre than what we were last year.

For those who claimed we didn't have a successful year last year because of the loss to the Eagles, I would think they'd feel the same way again this year.

But I'm betting they won't. ;)

If you feel like I do that winning the NFCN crown & making the playoffs is a success, then we were successful even though we fell short of winning the SB.

If you feel a team isn't successful unless they win the SB, then I don't see how you can see the Vikings were successful with Favre.

Technically we already won a playoff game. Favre did enough to get a 1st round bye.
Technically, no we havn't.

Actually we have. Brett did enough so we did not have to play in the 1st round. That is a win IMO.
Technically you are wrong.

OK Zeus.

jmcdon00
01-11-2010, 01:57 PM
marstc09 wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

singersp wrote:

If we are one & done in the playoffs, we haven't gotten any further with Favre than what we were last year.

For those who claimed we didn't have a successful year last year because of the loss to the Eagles, I would think they'd feel the same way again this year.

But I'm betting they won't. ;)

If you feel like I do that winning the NFCN crown & making the playoffs is a success, then we were successful even though we fell short of winning the SB.

If you feel a team isn't successful unless they win the SB, then I don't see how you can see the Vikings were successful with Favre.

Technically we already won a playoff game. Favre did enough to get a 1st round bye.
Technically, no we havn't.

Actually we have. Brett did enough so we did not have to play in the 1st round. That is a win IMO.
Technically you are wrong.

OK Zeus.
I was just trying to make a point, no reason to get mean about it. :dry:

marstc09
01-11-2010, 02:13 PM
jmcdon00 wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

singersp wrote:

If we are one & done in the playoffs, we haven't gotten any further with Favre than what we were last year.

For those who claimed we didn't have a successful year last year because of the loss to the Eagles, I would think they'd feel the same way again this year.

But I'm betting they won't. ;)

If you feel like I do that winning the NFCN crown & making the playoffs is a success, then we were successful even though we fell short of winning the SB.

If you feel a team isn't successful unless they win the SB, then I don't see how you can see the Vikings were successful with Favre.

Technically we already won a playoff game. Favre did enough to get a 1st round bye.
Technically, no we havn't.

Actually we have. Brett did enough so we did not have to play in the 1st round. That is a win IMO.
Technically you are wrong.

OK Zeus.
I was just trying to make a point, no reason to get mean about it. :dry:

I was just messing with you. Cheer up the Packers lost.

BloodyHorns82
01-11-2010, 10:23 PM
jmcdon00 wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

singersp wrote:

If we are one & done in the playoffs, we haven't gotten any further with Favre than what we were last year.

For those who claimed we didn't have a successful year last year because of the loss to the Eagles, I would think they'd feel the same way again this year.

But I'm betting they won't. ;)

If you feel like I do that winning the NFCN crown & making the playoffs is a success, then we were successful even though we fell short of winning the SB.

If you feel a team isn't successful unless they win the SB, then I don't see how you can see the Vikings were successful with Favre.

Technically we already won a playoff game. Favre did enough to get a 1st round bye.
Technically, no we havn't.

Actually we have. Brett did enough so we did not have to play in the 1st round. That is a win IMO.
Technically you are wrong.

OK Zeus.
I was just trying to make a point, no reason to get mean about it. :dry:

LMAO, by making that statement, you are in a large way being mean to Zeus, lol. :lol:

Marrdro
01-12-2010, 06:50 AM
BloodyHorns82 wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

singersp wrote:

If we are one & done in the playoffs, we haven't gotten any further with Favre than what we were last year.

For those who claimed we didn't have a successful year last year because of the loss to the Eagles, I would think they'd feel the same way again this year.

But I'm betting they won't. ;)

If you feel like I do that winning the NFCN crown & making the playoffs is a success, then we were successful even though we fell short of winning the SB.

If you feel a team isn't successful unless they win the SB, then I don't see how you can see the Vikings were successful with Favre.

Technically we already won a playoff game. Favre did enough to get a 1st round bye.
Technically, no we havn't.

Actually we have. Brett did enough so we did not have to play in the 1st round. That is a win IMO.
Technically you are wrong.

OK Zeus.
I was just trying to make a point, no reason to get mean about it. :dry:

LMAO, by making that statement, you are in a large way being mean to Zeus, lol. :lol:
Boy did this thread degrade quickly.

VikingsFan661
01-12-2010, 11:11 AM
Marrdro wrote:

Will the Favre move be considered a success even without a Super Bowl victory? (http://grants-tomb.blogspot.com/2010/01/will-favre-move-be-considered-success.html)

I think it will, yeah. I mean we need to understand the goal of any team is to win the Superbowl. If a team wins the Superbowl but only went 8-8 in the regular season it wouldn't even matter because the won the only game that truly matters anyway, right? We had a good regular season outing though by going 12-4. There were a few bumps in the road so to speak at the end of the season but overall I think it was great. Favre utilized the weapons around him (Rice, Harvin, Shiancoe) and actually really helped Rice blossom into one of the best receivers this year. Even if we don't win the Superbowl, I think people will look book and say that it was the right thing to do.