Bret Frave is a Viking

[Craig Edwards]

He showed up at camp today with the head coach and ESPN is reporting he signed a 2 year deal

 

So what do you guys all make of this. This is the 3rd year in a row that Frave has retired and than came back a few months later.

[chris caulfield]

He was great for the Packers, Good for the Jets at the start of the season, below average for them at the end of the season and I don't expect him to do that good for the Vikings really, but he is still an upgrade over the current QB's.

[CQI13]

I'm tired of him. And he hasn't been very impressive the last few years. He fizzles out at the end of the year.

[Remianen]

<p>It's a good thing.</p><p> </p><p>

The one major thing the Vikings lacked was a good quarterback. They've got the defense, they've got the running game, and a good quarterback can make decent receivers look awesome (and speed their development). Adding Percy Harvin meant that the only thing the Vikings really and truly needed, was an experienced signal caller. Hate him or love him but Favre is a first-ballot Hall of Famer, no question. With All Day and Chester in the backfield (as well as Harvin on occasion), he won't have to win or lose games singlehandedly. You also can't stack 8 men in the box with him under center. Tarvaris Jackson is not an NFL caliber quarterback (especially not if you expect to go deep into the playoffs). Neither is Sage Rosenfels (good backup, but no one's going to stake their coaching career and legacy on him taking a team all the way).</p><p> </p><p>

No team he has played for in recent years has had what the Vikings have. Not the Pack and sure as hell not the Jets. He's walking into a surefire playoff team with the chance to elevate them to conference championship caliber.</p><p> </p><p>

Folks need to understand that now, more than any other time in league history, teams (except the Bengals and Raiders) are going to do everything in their power to chase that silver trophy. If your team isn't a brand in and of itself (like the Cowboys), you have to do whatever you can to produce numbers and fans like teams that win. Especially in this economy, you can't expect fans to shell out for PSLs and companies to kick out for luxury boxes when your team can't even place second in the worst division in football (Just <em>lose</em>, baby?).</p><p> </p><p>

The Vikes got a steal IMO.</p><p> </p><p>

P.S. Every player in the league longer than 10 years wishes they could "retire" for all of the unnecessary and over the top "mandatory workouts" before training camp and come out of retirement for training camp. Ask Strahan about that.</p>

[darthsiddus2]

*facepalms and shakes head* if he's ichin to play just COACH! he can be a quaterback coach for either the packers or the vikings!

[Eisen-verse]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="darthsiddus2" data-cite="darthsiddus2" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="24243" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>*facepalms and shakes head* if he's ichin to play just COACH! he can be a quaterback coach for either the packers or the vikings!</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> not even close to being a NFL quarterback. Coaching may itch something but it won't itch the feeling of wanting it to be 4 and 1 and in need of a score.</p>

[randomfreeze]

<p>But the Vikings didn't just sign a good Quarterback....?</p><p> </p><p>

Brett Favre lead the league in INTs last year. And it wasn't because he had bad receivers (I'd take Coles and Cotchery over Berrian and the rookie Harvin), it's because Favre just makes bad decisions, forces the ball when he doesn't need to, or he thinks he can still make the throws he made 12 years ago. The Vikings are a really good team, and while they don't have a dynamic offense, one of the only things that slowed them down last year was turnovers. Now, they just signed the Quarterback that was the worst at giving the ball away last year. He's one of the ten worst starting Quarterbacks in football now because he doesn't know his own limitations, and will continue to make bad plays without learning from his mistakes.</p><p> </p><p>

Thankfully, the Vikings get to play the Lions twice, the Browns, 49ers, Rams, Seahawks, and Bengals. So if they just beat who they are supposed to beat and the rest of the team plays well the other games, they can win 10 games again. But I don't see them beating any of the other good NFC teams (Eagles, Giants, Panthers, Cardinals) to get past the second round...or even the first round depending on who they match up against.</p>

[CQI13]

What randomfreeze said. I will laugh heartily when Favre fails to lead the Vikings to a Super Bowl win (which, if they don't get there it would be a failure -- especially if he's the "missing piece").

[Remianen]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="darthsiddus2" data-cite="darthsiddus2" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="24243" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>*facepalms and shakes head* if he's ichin to play just COACH! he can be a quaterback coach for either the packers or the vikings!</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Um, are you serious? I've done both and they're worlds apart. Go look at some coaches and tell me these guys could strap on pads and do anything but hurt themselves. Coaching is for people who can't play anymore but still want to be involved with the game. You go from directly influencing the outcome of games to <em>indirectly</em> doing it. When your defense needs a key third down stop, you gonna call Mike Singletary....or Ray Lewis? It's like going from playing checkers ("stay in your gap, shed your blocker, cover your assigned man/zone, stiffarm your pursuer") to playing chess ("See what they'll do in this situation with this play", "Move your free safety into the box and see how the QB reacts", "What personnel do they bring in on 3rd and 4 on their own 28 yard line?"). Instead of taking it one play at a time on a personal level, you're planning to take advantage of tendencies a quarter or more in the future, with the entire team.</p><p> </p><p> People like Strahan and Favre and Derrick Mason want to play (and still can play. Favre is still in a different galaxy, skill wise, than Sage or Tarvaris) but don't want have to go through all the BS teams have been doing in recent years that runs down their veterans. The season has gotten longer and longer every year with "voluntary" offseason workouts (that are really mandatory) as well as mandatory OTAs and camps on top of training camp, preseason, a 17 week regular season and (if you're lucky) the playoffs which now go into February. And then teams get huffy when you choose not to come load up on staph infections (hi Browns!) and work out where you want to work out.</p><p> </p><p> And randomfreeze, I don't know what to tell you. Coles is so great, he had every team interested in him when he asked for (and was granted) his release. Oh wait, he didn't. Berrian's a better blocker (which is what the Vikings value) and Harvin is too versatile and explosive to even try to compare to Cotchery (who is neither). Neither of them is a deep threat (both Berrian and Harvin are) which means Favre was often having to work in a small area since defenses knew neither of the Jets primary receivers could really beat them deep. Yes, he made many questionable decisions given his bum arm. But I'm no more willing to condemn a quarterback for trying to make something out of nothing than I am to condemn a running back for doing the same thing (Barry Sanders made the Hall doing that).</p><p> </p><p> The Vikings are better today than they were yesterday, I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that. Even if the only thing Favre does is smarten up Sage and Tarvaris, the signing is worth it.</p>

[CQI13]

<p>Well, Super Bowl or bust really. I'm leaning with the latter. And if for some reason Brett Favre doesn't turn into what Brett Favre has turned into in late December/January the last several years, I will gladly admit I'm wrong.</p><p> </p><p>

The only difference between Barry Sanders trying to make something out of nothing is that at worst you're looking at some lost yardage while with Favre you're looking at a pick/pick 6. Haven't the last 2 or 3 years ended with a Favre interception? I have no reason to believe it will be any different.</p>

[randomfreeze]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Remianen" data-cite="Remianen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="24243" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>And randomfreeze, I don't know what to tell you. Coles is so great, he had every team interested in him when he asked for (and was granted) his release. Oh wait, he didn't. Berrian's a better blocker (which is what the Vikings value) and Harvin is too versatile and explosive to even try to compare to Cotchery (who is neither). Neither of them is a deep threat (both Berrian and Harvin are) which means Favre was often having to work in a small area since defenses knew neither of the Jets primary receivers could really beat them deep. Yes, he made many questionable decisions given his bum arm. But I'm no more willing to condemn a quarterback for trying to make something out of nothing than I am to condemn a running back for doing the same thing (Barry Sanders made the Hall doing that).</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Berrian is better than both Coles and Cotchery, but I’m not going to say an injury plagued receiver who hasn’t played an NFL game is better than those two. Harvin is quick, but Favre doesn’t need deep threats. He can’t throw the ball accurately with any consistence deep downfield. Favre having receivers that will run routes that encourage him to make throws he can’t make isn’t a good thing. But, my main point in comparing receivers is that Favre isn’t walking into a better situation this year for him to succeed, but an equal one at best. You can’t expect him to play better this year than last year based on personnel of the Vikings and his own performance. So if we are saying that Favre is an upgrade when he was the worst QB at keeping his offense on the field last year, I don‘t see it. The Vikings would have been better off calling short passing plays with Sage and running to win games, rather than risk losing the game in the air and hope you can make up your Quarterbacks mistakes running the ball.</p>

[lazorbeak]

The Vikings are better today than they were yesterday, I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that. Even if the only thing Favre does is smarten up Sage and Tarvaris, the signing is worth it.

 

If the measure of the team is how many games they win, I will take issue with it: Brett Favre will lose games for the Vikings. He is not a great decision-maker and is not interested in doing all the things six days a week that make you a good quarterback in the NFL (or at least he wasn't a year ago). Do the Vikings gain the potential to be better on offense? Sure. But tell that to the Vikings defense that has to take over every time Brett tries to thread the needle instead of check down.

[Remianen]

But, my main point in comparing receivers is that Favre isn’t walking into a better situation this year for him to succeed, but an equal one at best. You can’t expect him to play better this year than last year based on personnel of the Vikings and his own performance. So if we are saying that Favre is an upgrade when he was the worst QB at keeping his offense on the field last year, I don‘t see it. The Vikings would have been better off calling short passing plays with Sage and running to win games, rather than risk losing the game in the air and hope you can make up your Quarterbacks mistakes running the ball.

 

Um, an equal one? I can't agree with that for one, very simple reason: Adrian Peterson. The Jets had NO ONE who could force defenses to pay attention to the run game. I would say that Thomas Jones (who's largely trade bait right now) and Leon Washington put together, don't equal one Adrian Peterson. Seriously, it's an entirely different game for a quarterback when defenses stack 8 people in the box because they know you can't beat them any other way. I'm also not going to use last year as a judge of Favre's arm (it was busted, after all) considering the fact that his last year with the Packers saw him make downfield throws with little issue (ask Greg Jennings and Donald Driver).

 

If the measure of the team is how many games they win, I will take issue with it: Brett Favre will lose games for the Vikings. He is not a great decision-maker and is not interested in doing all the things six days a week that make you a good quarterback in the NFL (or at least he wasn't a year ago). Do the Vikings gain the potential to be better on offense? Sure. But tell that to the Vikings defense that has to take over every time Brett tries to thread the needle instead of check down.

 

Seriously, do you guys judge Joe Namath's career based on his time with the Rams? Go look at those people in the Hall of Fame. Every one of them you could take one season from their career and say they don't belong there because of that one season. Every single one. Last year, Favre played with a bum arm that got worse as the season progressed. That's like a running back or receiver playing a season on a torn ACL. Quarterbacks can still play with a torn ACL (right Philip Rivers?) but they can't really be effective with a busted gun. I give him a pass for that because it happens to everyone at some point. He's a gunslinger. Hard to do that with no gun. The only issue I have with him is the fact that he didn't change his approach given his situation. He just kept trying to drop bombs from a Cessna.

 

If the measure of a team is how many games they win, what's the Bengals excuse? Would you say Carson Palmer is a good quarterback? How can that be when his team (when he's healthy) can't win games (32-33 record as a starter)? If the Vikings go 14-2 this year, what then? If Adrian Peterson breaks 2k yards rushing this year, what then? Do you credit it to Favre or do you say they could've done the same thing with Sage or Tarvaris (hahahaha!)?

 

I've seen this before. People started writing off Elway late in his career. Then he gets a running game (specifically, Terrell Davis) that allows him to pick defenses apart since their focus is no longer on him and wins two titles as a result. Did Elway have All World receivers those two years (a case can be made for Shannon but nobody's voting Rod Smith into the Hall)? Honestly, I don't think you guys are giving the big picture as much emphasis as it deserves. An excellent defense gets you better field position (as do excellent special teams - ask the Bears). An excellent running game gets you softer pass coverage, which makes your receivers (and your quarterback) look a lot better than they really are. The Vikings have both. And now, they have a quarterback that can exploit that to the fullest. Plus, as the Jets can easily tell you, Favre is awesome for the bottom line. The first time he hits Harvin in-stride on a skinny post, every purple wearing fan is going to cream their pants (and look to buy tickets and merch). Consider also the lingering benefits of having Favre. It's no question playing with/behind him is going to help Sage and Tarvaris (especially Tarvaris). Having Favre in the locker room is also going to deflect attention from the Williams' lingering drug issue. It's going to lead to a better locker room environment which can be attributed to winning teams (or at least toxic locker rooms can be attributed to losing - right Jerry Jones?).

[lazorbeak]

Seriously, do you guys judge Joe Namath's career based on his time with the Rams?

 

 

No but if Joe Namath tried to play today I would judge him by his present ability not the physical gifts he had ten years ago. Which approach makes more sense? The guy turns 40 in October, and is coming off surgery to his throwing arm. He can't move in the pocket any more, and has accuracy issues. Can he still make the big play? Probably? Is he going to keep defenses honest? We'll see.

 

I give him a pass for that because it happens to everyone at some point. He's a gunslinger. Hard to do that with no gun. The only issue I have with him is the fact that he didn't change his approach given his situation. He just kept trying to drop bombs from a Cessna.

 

And that's Favre for you: if you ask him "do you want to play" he will always say yes. Always. And he's cost the Packers and Jets W's because it was more important for him to be on the field than for him to admit he was a liability to his team. Also do you give Favre a pass on most of the past decade? He's had more picks than last year's total four times including a whopping Twenty Nine picks in 2005. With Holmgren, some very good receivers and decent running backs Favre was one of the best players ever to play the game... from 1994 to 1998. That was eleven years ago for those of you keeping score.

 

If the measure of a team is how many games they win, what's the Bengals excuse? Would you say Carson Palmer is a good quarterback? How can that be when his team (when he's healthy) can't win games (32-33 record as a starter)?

 

The Bengals have mostly been a bad team? But this is apples and oranges because Carson Palmer didn't cause losses for the Bengals: their porous secondary did. But again, Brett Favre is a player that will cost a team games. The Vikings could have left Gus Frerotte in there and they would be a ten win team. They have a good defense and the best running attack in football. A lot of guys in this league would kill for a situation like that because it is far easier to play from ahead than it is to play catch-up.

 

If the Vikings go 14-2 this year, what then? If Adrian Peterson breaks 2k yards rushing this year, what then? Do you credit it to Favre or do you say they could've done the same thing with Sage or Tarvaris (hahahaha!)?

 

I'm telling you in no uncertain terms that Brett Favre will cause losses. I'm not saying their level of talent is necessarily worse, but that I don't think he is the answer and they won't make it to the super bowl barring some incredible defensive performances. Minnesota has a pretty soft schedule but unless Brett commits to being a role player and a "good enough to not get you beat quarterback" (since the Vikings just need a guy who can stretch the defense a little and not make mistakes), the Vikings will lose their (few) games against elite competition. I don't see them winning in Pittsburgh, Green Bay, or Arizona. And two of those teams aren't even "elite." Teams that can actually put up some points and try to make the Vikings play catch-up will potentially cause issues.

 

I've seen this before. People started writing off Elway late in his career.

 

I'm sorry WHA? Did Elway piss away a shot at the super bowl through his poor playoff performances, then retire, un-retire, play poorly for the Jets who went from outside super bowl contenders to missing the playoffs, retire again amidst comments from teammates that doubted his commitment to watch film and be part of the team, then unretire AGAIN because he's probably still better than a journeyman backup who can't throw a long ball and a guy that turns the ball over constantly? How are these situations the same at all? Favre deserves a certain amount of credulity. Can he stay healthy? Can he avoid throwing 25 picks? Is he willing to be a team player? If the answer to all of the above is yes, then good for the Vikings. If not, well they'll probably need a new quarterback in a year.

[Wallbanger]

As a Vikings fan, this is satisfying for no other reason than because anything that pisses off da cheeseheads is a good thing.

 

Posted this in another thread, but it's more appropriate here:

 

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s59/Wallbanger1071/backups.jpg

[SaySo]

The big question is, Can Farve win in the dome???

[Mr T Jobs To Me]

I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN just hires Jim Ross to scream "BRETT FAVRE!!!! BRETT FAVRE!!!! BAH GOD!!!! IT'S BRETT FAVRE!!!" for 24 hours a day now.

[randomfreeze]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Remianen" data-cite="Remianen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="24243" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Um, an equal one? I can't agree with that for one, very simple reason: Adrian Peterson. The Jets had NO ONE who could force defenses to pay attention to the run game. I would say that Thomas Jones (who's largely trade bait right now) and Leon Washington <strong><em>put together</em></strong>, don't equal one Adrian Peterson. Seriously, it's an entirely different game for a quarterback when defenses stack 8 people in the box because they know you can't beat them any other way. I'm also not going to use last year as a judge of Favre's arm (it was busted, after all) considering the fact that his last year with the Packers saw him make downfield throws with little issue (ask Greg Jennings and Donald Driver).</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Obviously Peterson is better than the Jets backfield. But the mistakes Favre made last year weren’t because defenses were keying in on the pass against the Jets. It wasn’t because he was confused by the different types of coverages thrown at him. It’s because he misjudges his own abilities. Put him against eight in the box with single coverage all day, if he still thinks he can get a seven yard slant there in two seconds when it actually him takes three, he’s going to lead the league in interceptions again. Favre will be in pressure situations, regardless the defense. So in the split second when he decides whether or not he is going to make a questionable pass, Favre has shown he is going to make that pass. Hell or high water, Favre is going to make the tough throw even if it’s not in the best interest of winning the game.</p><p> </p><p> Ignoring Favre’s last year, regardless of injury, is why we still hold this perception that he can still compete. It’s easy to get lost in the legacy and ignore the mistakes he makes when the media doesn‘t present them to you. Look at his actual output. The season you speak of is the only time in the past four years he’s had more touchdowns than interceptions. Favre has 37 fumbles over the same time span. As I said, the only way the Vikings are in trouble this year is if they turn the ball over. Favre turned the ball over more than anyone last year. Putting Sage or Jackson (who wasn’t bad last year) to throw safe, short passes and rely on the run game would put them exactly where they were last year, an elite NFC team. Favre won’t be content with that type of offense, thus making them a worse team. </p><p> </p><p> That’s the last of Favre news I want to talk about, but in general, isn’t it great it’s football season again?</p>

[Eisen-verse]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Mr T Jobs To Me" data-cite="Mr T Jobs To Me" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="24243" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN just hires Jim Ross to scream "BRETT FAVRE!!!! BRETT FAVRE!!!! BAH GOD!!!! IT'S BRETT FAVRE!!!" for 24 hours a day now.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Seems fitting. ha.</p>

[BHK1978]

I hope Brett does good but he is giving me a Willie Mays vibe. You know a great player who has played well past his prime and soon has people saying why do you keep coming back to the well. I really hope that he proves me wrong though.

[GruntMark]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Mr T Jobs To Me" data-cite="Mr T Jobs To Me" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="24243" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN just hires Jim Ross to scream "BRETT FAVRE!!!! BRETT FAVRE!!!! BAH GOD!!!! IT'S BRETT FAVRE!!!" for 24 hours a day now.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> This is the best thing ever.</p><p> </p><p> I think it breaks down as</p><p> </p><p> Winners: Favre, who gets to keep thinking he's relavent. Some random DBs who are going to score themselves some picks and pad stats. Madden who gets a reason to keep on living. Al Michaels who no longer has to listen to Madden talk about Favre despite him being in the league.</p><p> </p><p> Loser: Everyone who watches ESPN and doesnt care about the NFC North.</p><p> </p><p> Probably mostly a push for the Vikings who still arent going to be good enough to overcome the actually talented teams, but should fairly easily spank their division. Except maybe Chicago.</p><p> </p><p> They will probably sell some jerseys and put butts in the seats though. And he is some upgrade over Sage/Jackson.</p>

[CQI13]

Madden is no longer in the booth. And ever since he retired I haven't seen him. Oddly, that's the way it should be.

[Actarus]

<p>BOOM!</p><p> </p><p>

*While next play is being set up *</p><p> </p><p>

You know, that reminds of the last barbecue I went to. The cook was making fried twix bars, and let me tell you, that lineman can put away a lot of fried twix bars...</p>

[CQI13]

Anyone find it funny that in the weeks/months leading up to this, the "sources close to Brett Favre" was Brett Favre texting the media? Awesome. And yet again, Jay Glazer broke the story before ESPN's army of reporters. It was joked about yesterday that Glazer no longer can give an opinion on anything, as it would probably get published as actual news.

[Dublin Sky]

Brett Favre is a douche he should have bowed out gracefully.