Vikings locker room divided on Favre?

[Prodigal Son]

Another ignorant statement. if there is any amount of truth to that article.Its not Bretts fault or problem. If theres any idiots like that in the locker room,They need to shut up, do their jobs and help the team win. I guarantee you, the receivers arent complaining-

Really? Wouldn't piss you off to have a guy who's in his early 40's coming onto your team, making 10 million, getting to miss the entire training camp and all the mini camps, and coming on to your team 3 weeks before the season after basically cock teasing the franchsie for the previous month or so?

The same guy who has a torn muscle in his throwing shoulder, and ended up disappearing in the 2nd half of the season because of shoulder problems.

I guarantee there's plenty of pissed Vikings on that team because he's basically done what he's wanted.

[Senser81]

Really? Wouldn't piss you off to have a guy who's in his early 40's coming onto your team, making 10 million, getting to miss the entire training camp and all the mini camps, and coming on to your team 3 weeks before the season after basically cock teasing the franchsie for the previous month or so?

The same guy who has a torn muscle in his throwing shoulder, and ended up disappearing in the 2nd half of the season because of shoulder problems.

I guarantee there's plenty of pissed Vikings on that team because he's basically done what he's wanted.

No, I wouldn't be pissed off. You act as if Brett Favre is the first veteran player in NFL history to avoid training camp. Come on.

If I were a Viking player, I would want the guy who gives me the best chance of winning playing at the QB spot. That would be Favre, IMO, until proven otherwise.

[shag773]

So Childress won't start Favre because of the 'divided lockerroom'?!

Do you think the lockerroom would be 'united' if Sage Rosenfels started and Favre sat on the bench? If so, then how could it be divided right now?

A coach letting the players dictate his decisions is a recipe for disaster. Players play. Coaches coach.

No, not bringing him in would of kept the lockeroom united. I'm sure you watched him with the Jets last year. A lot of people look at this situation and say "Brettt Favre over T. Jack and Sage, no brainer". Really? You realize his MVP days are long behind him. This isn't the same guy who took the Packers to 2 straight Super Bowls. Last year showed how much he has physically regressed. That's why he retired in the first place. The Vikings had to beg him to come back. Beg a 40 year old quarterback who really didn't want to play to try and lead your team to a Super Bowl. What message does that send to your team. That you want to win now? How about "desperation"? Football players are a different breed of athlete. All through the offseason and minicamp they were told to believe they can win with the 2 quarterbacks they have, and I'm sure a lot of them bought into that. Now they have to buy into a quarterback who could barely throw the ball 30 yards the last 4 games last year?

So again I ask, does the talent gap between Favre and T Jack/Rosenfels cancel out a divided lockeroom?

[Senser81]

No, not bringing him in would of kept the lockeroom united. I'm sure you watched him with the Jets last year. A lot of people look at this situation and say "Brettt Favre over T. Jack and Sage, no brainer". Really? You realize his MVP days are long behind him. This isn't the same guy who took the Packers to 2 straight Super Bowls. Last year showed how much he has physically regressed. That's why he retired in the first place. The Vikings had to beg him to come back. Beg a 40 year old quarterback who really didn't want to play to try and lead your team to a Super Bowl. What message does that send to your team. That you want to win now? How about "desperation"? Football players are a different breed of athlete. All through the offseason and minicamp they were told to believe they can win with the 2 quarterbacks they have, and I'm sure a lot of them bought into that. Now they have to buy into a quarterback who could barely throw the ball 30 yards the last 4 games last year?

So again I ask, does the talent gap between Favre and T Jack/Rosenfels cancel out a divided lockeroom?

Huh? I still don't get it. You are saying the Vikings never should have signed Favre. Are you kidding me?

[Warner2BruceTD]

Some of you people need your heads examined, as do any Vikings who truly think Favre gives them less of a chance to win.

Brett Favre played at a Pro Bowl level before he hurt his shoulder last year, and even post injury, was no worse than bums like T. Jackson and S. Rosenfels.

This signing was a no brainer, no matter what the RDE or #3 WR might think.

[The Messenger]

You're stating an opinion as if it were fact (Brett Farve > OL improvements in running game). I believe both helped the running game improve. Two former 1st round picks on the O-Line. I think you're giving Brett too much credit for this and not enough to the O-Line additions.

I would also give the improvements on DL some credit for the better record. And I also give QB credit, b/4 injury, for improved record.



To show that they had good seasons with old noodle arm. They even ran the ball successfully with old noodle arm.

2004 2388 4.5
2003 1635 4.0

I don't think that Brett was on the team them. You're not giving the O-Line nearly enough credit.

And, yes, faces do come and go. So why are you comparing the previous year? And then only recognize just one change of many?



2004 2388 4.5
2003 1635 4.0

Noodle arm was on the team in 2003, 2004, not Brett. The point is, NYJ were able to run the ball with old noodle arm.

Wanna explain Noodle arms success in Miami?

And way to give so little credit for the 2008 rushing numbers to the significant improvements at O-Line.



More than just some of the improvement comes from the O-Line. And you also can't take away the importance of getting 8-9 out of the box (agreed). I prefer to give credit all around, and not to just one personnel move.

Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if Brett tanked or had a decent year. At his age, you just don't know. If his arm loses much strength, he's done. He never had very good technique. He won't be able to fall back on it like other QB's do late in their career. And you have to keep him under control and not let him make those critical mistakes at crucial times. The kind he made even during his prime.

I'm a BF (GB) fan, but at his age, and his recent work ethic, I'm not sold on him until I see him play this season.

I've been doing the same with Kurt Warner every year (lately). Not sold on him until I see him play, only because of his age.

What it comes down to is me and you are basically agreeing on everything except for how much importance Brett Favre played in the Jets winning last season.

My argument as to why he is more important stems from the fact that that team went as Brett went. When Brett was playing well, that team won games. When Brett couldn't do it anymore, that team lost those games. That's why I think Brett had a little more to do with the Jets success than the O-line and D-line improvements, just a little.

[jeffx]

Some of you people need your heads examined, as do any Vikings who truly think Favre gives them less of a chance to win.

Brett Favre played at a Pro Bowl level before he hurt his shoulder last year, and even post injury, was no worse than bums like T. Jackson and S. Rosenfels.

This signing was a no brainer, no matter what the RDE or #3 WR might think.

All you need to know is Gang Green was 8-3, with big wins against NE & Tennessee. Favre made big throws in those games Chad could not. Then he got hurt and things went downhill.

[shag773]

Huh? I still don't get it. You are saying the Vikings never should have signed Favre. Are you kidding me?

I don't know, all I'm saying is it's not as cut and dry as people make it out to be. You bring in Favre, now all of the sudden it's "Superbowl or bust". Is it really fair to put that on Favre at this stage of his career? If you thought the Vikings were a playoff team before Favre, which many people did and they were last year, does a 40 year old Favre automatically thrust you past the Eagles, Giants, Bears, Cardinals and maybe the Packers? Not with the Favre I saw last year.

[The Messenger]

I don't know, all I'm saying is it's not as cut and dry as people make it out to be. You bring in Favre, now all of the sudden it's "Superbowl or bust". Is it really fair to put that on Favre at this stage of his career? If you thought the Vikings were a playoff team before Favre, which many people did and they were last year, does a 40 year old Favre automatically thrust you past the Eagles, Giants, Bears, Cardinals and maybe the Packers? Not with the Favre I saw last year.

The Cardinals were jack shit in the regular season and they've struggled to keep that mediocre defense together. The Bears aren't automatically a playoff team just because they got cutler. I'll give you the Eagles and Giants, but I don't see how you list the Packers who won all of 6 games last year. Minnesota won 10 without Favre. Giants are a toss-up because their receiver corps is trash now and they lost Ward.

[bucky]

What it comes down to is me and you are basically agreeing on everything except for how much importance Brett Favre played in the Jets winning last season.

Yes we are. We're not disagreeing on much at all.

Edit: NYJ went downhill when Brett started playing like hot trash due to injury. Not because he was playing just average. Not many teams will do well when there QB is playing so poorly.

That's the very reason I put Brett and Warner in the same category. I have a hard time trusting either one till I see them in action, because of age.

[bucky]

I'll give you the Eagles and Giants, but I don't see how you list the Packers who won all of 6 games last year. Minnesota won 10 without Favre. Giants are a toss-up because their receiver corps is trash now and they lost Ward.

I know it's just the pre-season, but the Packers are looking pretty deep at almost every position. So far their biggest concern seems to be punter.

The others:
depth at DL, backup QB.

[shag773]

The Cardinals were jack shit in the regular season and they've struggled to keep that mediocre defense together. The Bears aren't automatically a playoff team just because they got cutler. I'll give you the Eagles and Giants, but I don't see how you list the Packers who won all of 6 games last year. Minnesota won 10 without Favre. Giants are a toss-up because their receiver corps is trash now and they lost Ward.

Say what you want about the Cardinals, and trust me as an Eagles fan it sickens me to say this, but the playoff run was not a fluke. Unitil they prove otherwise and Warner is healthy, the Cardinals are a viable threat.

No the Bears are not a lock because they got Cutler, but you can't argue that it pushes them closer.

I said possibly the Packers. You can't tell me you project them at 6 wins again this year.

You're right, the Vikings won 10 without Favre, but the Jets won 9 with him. So what's your point?

[Senser81]

I don't know, all I'm saying is it's not as cut and dry as people make it out to be. You bring in Favre, now all of the sudden it's "Superbowl or bust". Is it really fair to put that on Favre at this stage of his career? If you thought the Vikings were a playoff team before Favre, which many people did and they were last year, does a 40 year old Favre automatically thrust you past the Eagles, Giants, Bears, Cardinals and maybe the Packers? Not with the Favre I saw last year.

IMO, you are overanalyzing this. The question is: does Favre give the Vikings a better chance of winning compared with Sage Rosenfels and T. Jackson? IMO, the answer is yes.

[killgod]

IMO, you are overanalyzing this. The question is: does Favre give the Vikings a better chance of winning compared with Sage Rosenfels and T. Jackson? IMO, the answer is yes.

If by yes you mean a 2% chance instead of a 1% chance....

[The Messenger]

Say what you want about the Cardinals, and trust me as an Eagles fan it sickens me to say this, but the playoff run was not a fluke. Unitil they prove otherwise and Warner is healthy, the Cardinals are a viable threat.

The Cardinals are a threat if they get rolling towards the end of the season and into the playoffs like they did last season. But like Bucky said, Warner is the same as Favre, you don't really know how age is going to affect his play until the season gets underway. And like I said, the Cardinals weren't that good last season in a division that got a little stronger this off-season with Seattle's additions and if Crabtree signs with the Niners. Not saying those two teams will be great, but last season the only competition in that division was an average 49ers team. It was basically 6 free wins.

No the Bears are not a lock because they got Cutler, but you can't argue that it pushes them closer.

I agree, but too many people are putting them up there with the elites just because they got Cutler. That defense is still aging and seems to be doing worse every season.

I said possibly the Packers. You can't tell me you project them at 6 wins again this year.

I don't project them to win 6 games. Last year I thought it was between them and the Vikings for that division. I'm pretty high on the Packers, but they did only win 6 games last year so you can't put them up there with those other teams yet until they step on the field in a meaningful game.

You're right, the Vikings won 10 without Favre, but the Jets won 9 with him. So what's your point?

The Jets won 4 the year before Favre got there. Yes, they added O-Line and D-Line help, but you can say the Vikings added WR and CB help. If you want to use your logic then the Vikings are set to win 15 games this season. I don't believe that, however I think adding Favre will help them win more games in the season and in the playoffs because he opens up the run so much. Teams can no longer stack 8-9 in the box against Minnesota like they did all of last season. Do you know how much that opens up the running game?