Hello to Favre, goodbye to Jackson?

[Virtuoso]

You're throwing Percy's name around like he can really be an impact as a rookie. If that were the case, BJ and Clay would make the Packers 3-4 a top 12 D. You're also implying that Favre is THAT much of an upgrade over TJack/Sage. He is a minimal upgrade. His skills will help you win some games, but he more than compensates for that with INT's that help end games - don't believe that having AP will make any difference. Favre's ego will push himself into as many mistakes as he would have without an elite RB. Vikings have a very good defense, but if/when the Williams Bros are out 4 games, I would not believe that they would be, statistically speaking top 5.

Listen, historically speaking the Bears/Packers rival is IMO, #1 in all of football; and in many other NFL fans' eyes definitely a top 3 lock; where the recent Vikings/Packers rivalry is nowhere to be seen in the top 30-40. The Vikings/Packers rivalry has lessened IMO, with the Bears adding Jay and having the offseason they had. Now the Packers/Bears rivalry can be back on. What is the Packers record w/MM at HC vs. the Vikes. 5-2, 5-1, in the Packers favor, I believe?

Back to your second point, I did not state that you NEEDED a true #1 WR. Rather that you should at least be SB contenders with a franchise QB. Read, please.

And lastly, Brett Favre used to be a HoF QB. In his prime. His prime is what earned him HoF status. So don't go throwing around that statement like it means anything NOW. There's a reason why the Packers haven't won a SB in the last decade. Geez, FSU you are so condescending.

*Oops sorry, didn't mean to double post a quote...*

 

[FSUViking]

Off the top of my head I think that Branch had 11 catches for 140 yards in the 2004 SB win.

So what? Doesn't make him a #1 WR. What's he done without Brady? Exactly. Not a damn thing.

EDIT: And I'm pretty sure he got the SB MVP award as well that game.

Again, so what? That has nothing to do with deion Branch being a #1 WR.

Plax had an average season in 2007? GTFO with that crap.

The numbers don't lie.

But what happened last year again with the Vikings in the playoffs (which they had no business being in)?

What the fukk does that have to do with ANYTHING we're talking about? I'd also like to know how a team who wins their division has no business being in the playoffs? You're a complete idiot. I guess by your logic, the Giants had no business being in the playoffs in 2007. They were a #6 seed. Got in on the last week of the season. I mean, if you think a division winner has no business in the playoffs, I have to just assume you'll agree what a #6 seed doesn't either, right?

 

[FSUViking]

You're throwing Percy's name around like he can really be an impact as a rookie. If that were the case, BJ and Clay would make the Packers 3-4 a top 12 D.

Uhhh.....right, because rookies (Adrian Peterson, Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco) can't make an impact, right? That's a stupid argument to even make.
First of all, I can't even begin to follow whatever point you're trying to make here. What does one have to do with the other. And, the Packers have a pretty good defense. Who's to say they can't be Top 12 with Raji and Matthews?

You apparently have no concept of this thing they have called Rookie of the Year.

You're also implying that Favre is THAT much of an upgrade over TJack/Sage. He is a minimal upgrade.

:mellow: Not even going to address this.....

Vikings have a very good defense, but if/when the Williams Bros are out 4 games, I would not believe that they would be, statistically speaking top 5.

Go look who we play the first four weeks of the season, then get back to me.

Listen, historically speaking the Bears/Packers rival is IMO, #1 in all of football;

I never argued that, did I? I wasn't born last week.

where the recent Vikings/Packers rivalry is nowhere to be seen in the top 30-40.

Bullsh!t. Then why does ESPN and NBC air Vikings/Packers on primetime, every single year? Stop pulling BS out of your ass.

The Vikings/Packers rivalry has lessened IMO, with the Bears adding Jay and having the offseason they had.

What have the Bears done other than Cutler? The rivalry has lessened, that's why it's on MNF, yet again. Maybe in whatever world you obviously live in. Google "NFL rivalries" and Vikings/Packers is near the top. ESPN has it at #8...FOX and SI also in the Top 10.

Facts, son. Don't be afraid of them.

What is the Packers record w/MM at HC vs. the Vikes. 5-2, 5-1, in the Packers favor, I believe?

And? Could you expand your brain beyond 4 years? No rivalry in the NFL is CLOSER than Vikings/Packers. 49-45-1, Packers. And, it's the closest rivalry in terms of points scored 1,975-1,905 Packers. The fact that I even need to explain this rivalry to a so-called Packer fan, is ridiculous. I know a lot of packer fans, have some in my family, and they'd laugh in your face if they read this crap.

Back to your second point, I did not state that you NEEDED a true #1 WR. Rather that you should at least be SB contenders with a franchise QB. Read, please.

I never said you DID say that. Read please.

And lastly, Brett Favre used to be a HoF QB. In his prime. His prime is what earned him HoF status. So don't go throwing around that statement like it means anything NOW.

USED to be? So he's not now? He's not going to the Hall of Fame anymore? Your entire post was chock full of Epic Fail, but this....wow.

There's a reason why the Packers haven't won a SB in the last decade. Geez, FSU you are so condescending.

I know. I can't stand ignorance. Keep that in mind when you click "reply"

 

[VC15]

I didn't know that 70 catches for 1,025 yards and 12 TD's was "an extremely average season", and 8 of those TD's came in the first few games.

 

[Shadez]

Vikes/Packers rivalry is not a top 10 rivalry. Vikings haven't been good in years to even consider a rivalry. Packers/Bears goes back as far as the beginning.

 

[Virtuoso]

Please, FSU. :headsmack:

Go ahead grab 3 rookies that made an impact. What about all the others that were not playmakers, not gamechangers. Sure there's always a chance for a rookie to explode onto the scene, but its more likely that they will not. Now it seems like you're already throwing Percy into considerations for ROTY...your hopes are high, man.

Yes Brett Favre the soon-to-be 40 year old QB, who had surgery on his shoulder/arm. Refresh me, was it his throwing arm? The guy that threw 22 INTs, and had a 1:1 TD:INT ratio, last year. That's the data we're working with here. Recent data. Favre is certainly not the same legendary QB he was years ago. And if you think he's anywhere close to that status, keep dreaming. You seem to think Brett Favre can still lead a team to the playoffs. Tarvaris looked much better towards the end of the season, when he started again, unlike Favre. Unlike Favre, TJack is mobile, young, and athletic. He's been in the Vikings offense for 3-4 years now.

Look at last season. Look at the previous year's season. Teams change. Two good examples of this are: Falcons and Dolphins. To just assume that the Vikings can win the majority of those first 4 games w/o the Williams Wall because the opponents appear weak is foolish.

I'm glad we can agree that the Bears/Packers rivalry tops the Vikings/Packers rivalry.

You cannot discount Cutler and throw him to the side like that. Cutler is a young, franchise QB with a ton of tools and is already PROVEN. He is much better than Orton, TJack, Sage, and Favre. The Bears have improved their o-line (while still shaky, IMO) with Orlando Pace and Schaffer. The Bears had an IMO, great draft when you add in their situation (w/o a 1st rounder). I doubt any of their rookies have much of an impact, but if we use your method of rookie judgement. Then I guess we can compare them to Matt Ryan- Joe Flacco- Adrian Peterson, hmm? If that statement would ever be true, than you have a very formidable opponent in the Bears.

Listen, you already stated that you wouldn't argue that the Bears/Packers are #1 on the rivalries all time list. Whatever stats you pull up (did not know them beforehand, thanks), the one stat that is king is super bowl wins. I agree the Vikings/Packers rivalry currently is better than the Bears/Packers rivalry. But I take into factor some other things besides pure statistics. Maybe the fact that Chicago and Green Bay are both terribly cold in the winter, and that unlike Minnesota both of these teams actually will tough it out, outside. Watching a game in the snowy cold between the Bears and Packers is classic. I take past histories of the teams into consideration. The Bears always seem to have a mystique about their defense, even when its not that good. Historically, the Bears defense is seen as tough, and ready to pound your face in. The Packers have the '60s and a very deep history. Heck the Super Bowl trophy is named after a coach that was at his apex in fame and glory with the Packers. So for me to feel excited for the Bears and Packers to possibly be back on, its definitely not just assumptions. Its the past, and its the present.

On the #1 WR thing: You may not have said it in words, but your actions and simple gestures between the text is more than telling.

I should clear things up on the Brett Favre HoF QB. When I said he used to be a HoF QB, what I meant was: Brett Favre played like a HoFer in the past. He's still one now, because of his past. Favre is a Hall of Fame lock. His career was legendary. WAS. What I'm suggesting here is maybe the Vikings won't be getting that guy. They won't be getting the Brett Favre of the past, the Brett Favre that won a SB in 1996. Maybe just maybe, 13 years later Brett is washed up? Hmm...

Again FSU, you resort to personal attacks and use facetious comments to outline far-fetched expectations. Maybe once in your posts you could exclude indirect and direct insults.