Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Kobe Bryant Isn't Up To Speed On Jeremy Lin, 'Linning'

Can you blame him??


Hi, friendly neighborhood Vikings fan here...  Just wanted to ask you guys a serious question...  Can you blame Brett Favre for wanting to "stick it" to Ted Thompson??  I don't really see this as BF hating on the organization, fans or state of Wisconsin, I just see it as Brett Favre being honest...  Professional athletes are some of the most competitive people in the worls by definition, and even to us average Joe's I think that idea makes sense...  If I was let go from my job and told that they had found someone younger and cheaper that they thought could do my job for a long time, and do it better than I could, I'd want to "stick it" to that guy too!  No doubt BF goes into the Hall as a Packer, and no doubt TT made the right call; I'd trade you BF for ARodg right now, he's the best QB in the Division...  Good Luck to the Pack tonight, and SKOL VIKINGS!!

Comment 192 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

um

yes

Or if Peterson's "troublesome" back gives out. Because he's, you know, carrying the team. And some of those guys are heavy.

Mitchell M

by blackoutsox on Oct 5, 2009 4:52 PM CDT reply actions  

Yes

Looking to buy: General Manager Deputy Badge

by Bush League All Star on Oct 5, 2009 6:05 PM CDT reply actions  

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Of course I can understand him wanting to “stick it” to us but he ultimately brought it upon himself.

by packallday555 on Oct 5, 2009 7:09 PM CDT up reply actions  

Please understand...

I think that the Packers made the right football decision in going with Aaron Rodgers. He was ready, it was a contract year, and they had to find out what they had for real… puddenhead brings up some nice points further down the thread that makes a lot of sense in the “revenge” angle…

by ctowner35 on Oct 6, 2009 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions  

And thanks

For being cordial to a purple guy… I really appreciate being able to have a forum of respectful commentary with people who may have opposing views, but are willing to have a conversation based on real life facts and not blind emotion.

by ctowner35 on Oct 6, 2009 11:15 AM CDT up reply actions  

Human Nature

SportsMumboJumbo.com
I don’t blame Favre one bit for wanting to win this game. Wanting revenge is human nature, I just don’t like how he is pretending how its just like any other game to him.

by EricFeld on Oct 5, 2009 9:43 PM CDT reply actions  

Well said....

He didn’t want Favre to play period! He did everything he could to make life unbearable on him, even going so far as to offer him $20M to stay retired. Once Favre refused, that is where TT tried to make life unbearable on BF started. Like Brett said…. “if I ain’t good enough for your team let me play for whomever I want”.

BF wanted to play, and wanted to play for the Pack. TT wouldn’t let that happen even after he just went 13-3, regardless of the hedging.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 6, 2009 9:42 AM CDT up reply actions  

If he wanted to play so bad why did he retire?

Now he has retired 3(?!?!?) times. Each time saying that he knows he can still play but doesn’t think he has the heart to play. Doesn’t it say something about you if you hear someone say that they don’t think they can dedicate themselves now the way they used to (need to) and still take them back?

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Oct 6, 2009 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions  

well...

Actually it was 2X. And as I said above, regardless of the hedging he ultimately decided he wanted to play. In the end, TT turned him down, not the other way around.

Besides the second time was all injury related and he even turned down the Vikes initially after trying to recover from the surgery. It was the persistance of Childress that got him to change his mind. He would have stayed retired if Chilly hadn’t called him back one more time.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 7, 2009 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions  

the first phony retirement was is March of ’08

the second phony retirement was in Feb of ’09

the third phony retirement was in June/July of ’09

He told the Jets that he was retiring because he didn’t feel that he could go through all of the work during the off-season and didn’t want to get the surgery he needed. Once they released him, surprisingly, the surgery wasn’t so much of an issue any more. He just made sure that it was late enough so that he could have an excuse to miss training camp. If you believe that he was content to stay retired if Childress didn’t call him and ask him again after he had claimed again that he was gonna stay retired, I don’t know what to tell you. By the way, didn’t Childress say after the third phony retirement that that was it and the Vikings were moving forward without him? Guess just like his dreamboat Favre his word doesn;t mean very much. You can ask Bobby Wade about that if you need confirmation.

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Oct 7, 2009 6:21 PM CDT up reply actions  

And also

How can you say that “regardless of the hedging he ultimately decided he wanted to play?” The constant hedging is what caused the issue to begin with. And when a guy tells you that he thinks that he is done and calls a press conference so he can cry and say that he doesn’t have anything left to give to football, are you not supposed to take him at his word? Or should the plan have been that Rodgers is now named the starter…at least for the stuff Brett doesn’t wanna do…and if he changes his mind and decides he wants to come back then everyone should just get out of his way? Sounds like great leadership to me.

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Oct 7, 2009 6:58 PM CDT up reply actions  

so what?

He can change his mind as often as he wants. The big differnce is that he is the biggest thing in the NFL and you as a packer fan….well your just not very big. Being a packer fan doesnot intitle you to have anything other than respect for Favre. If you are a GB season ticket owner TT reports to you. Get the bum fired.

THOMPSON IS A MORON

by 4 where-ever on Oct 9, 2009 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions  

And the NFL only exists to give us plebeians an avenue to properly appreciate the wonder that is Brett Favre. The 75 years or so before he was ready to play was merely preparation. THANK YOU NFL! With you I would never have known how pitiful my life would be without Brett Favre.

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Oct 9, 2009 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions  

Crazy how shit changes.

You’re talking like a Vikings fan 3 years ago.

by dsludo on Oct 10, 2009 12:08 AM CDT up reply actions  

remember

the crying and the “I just can’t take it anymore”

garbage

by PackaCracka on Oct 7, 2009 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions  

Don't forget this gem too

Ted and Mike have absolutely nothing to do with this, and that’s from the heart.

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Oct 7, 2009 2:33 PM CDT up reply actions  

which part don't you wish to listen to?

The fact that TT srcewed him after having a deal with Tampa, or the part where BF asked to come back to the Pack?

by PurpleJesus on Oct 7, 2009 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

How about both

1. Thompson doesn’t owe Brett a trade to wherever Brett wants to go just as Brett apparently doesn’t owe it to Ted or the Packers to let them know if he’s going to play or retire before the draft.

2. Yea, he asked to come back in June after they had said they moved forward (And unlike the Vikings, they actually can hold up to this statement regarding Brett) Besides, if you believe Brett wanted to play for the Packers, you’re crazy. The riff was already there after Thompson failed to pick up Moss so Brett pulled a phony retirement in hopes that the Pack would release him, like the Jets did. When they didn’t, he tried to force their hands by wanting to come back to the team and get a trade. They traded him to the Jets and the rest is history. He’s really a lot more manipulative than he gives off with his “Aw Shucks” attitude.

by Charlie Kelly on Oct 7, 2009 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions  

Let's also not forget

BF held the Pack hostage for years prior to his tear-laden 1st retirement.

The Favre fest Monday thoroughly disgusted me. He has been protrayed as only a victim in the whole mess, with no accountability whatsoever for his actions.

"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007

by peytonsthebest on Oct 7, 2009 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions  

Besides, if you believe Brett wanted to play for the Packers, you’re crazy.

Exactly.

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Oct 7, 2009 6:25 PM CDT up reply actions  

Well

We are glad to have him.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 7, 2009 6:29 PM CDT up reply actions  

for now

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Oct 7, 2009 6:37 PM CDT up reply actions  

I guess we will see

Either way it was a good move on a team that is missing a true experienced QB.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 7, 2009 8:59 PM CDT up reply actions  

that we can agree on

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Oct 7, 2009 9:27 PM CDT up reply actions  

" I just question that you all seem to give TT a free ride."

I’m not sure about others but I don’t give him a free ride. I think he had wrong doings as well, just not to the degree that Favre did.

“Did BF enjoy it the other night? No doubt he did. Did he feel some sort of revenge? Very likely. Now, with all that being said, that is absolutely not the only reason he came back. There is no doubt in my mind about that.”

That’s not the only reason he came back to play but I think that is the main reason he wanted to play for the Vikes. As soon as he realized he wasn’t going to be playing for the Packers he said he wanted to play somewhere within our division, preferrabley for the Vikes or Bears.

by packallday555 on Oct 8, 2009 5:22 PM CDT up reply actions  

packallday555, I thought I made myself clear, but I guess not

I do not question the decision to go with Rodgers instead of Favre. I never have, and I think you know that in fact I’ve actually posted many times that it was the right choice. I question how thompson handled Favre once that choice was made, once they decided Rodgers would stay and Favre would go.

I’m not sure I understand your point at all, sorry, I think you are bascially saying: Favre not being enthusiastic about camp in 2005 and 2006 made it was OK for Ted Thompson to pull the switcheroo on him in the middle of the night and send him to the Jets after he told him he was going to the Bucs? Favre being reluctant to go to training camp not last year, but the year before, somehow magically makes it ok to do that to him?

Huh?

Again, you are not even replying to what I said. I’m not talking aobut, I am not questioning the decision to go with Rodgers instead of Favre, or anything contribuing to that decision. Heck, as I said I AGREE with it, from the Packer perspective. I am talking about what went down AFTER that, something you don’t even address.

by puddnhead on Oct 9, 2009 5:17 PM CDT up reply actions  

Haha

None of this was directed at you. More so at PurpleJesus. I have already told you I understand your point about TT making a questionable move by trading him to the Jets the way he did. I have told you so many times I agree and see where your coming from. Haha I actually starting off my comment by saying I agree TT trading him the way he did was questionable! See: First paragraph, last sentence.

My point about training camp is that, that played into his whole retirement fiasco as well. And you actually proved my point by saying, “I’m not sure I understand your point at all, sorry, I think you are bascially saying.”

This is a prime example of why us Packers see and understand this situation differently. We know things that have happened present to 07’ which probably had an effect on TT deciding not to take Favre back.

“Again, you are not even replying to what I said. I’m not talking aobut, I am not questioning the decision to go with Rodgers instead of Favre, or anything contribuing to that decision. Heck, as I said I AGREE with it, from the Packer perspective. I am talking about what went down AFTER that, something you don’t even address.”

That’s because I wasn’t trying to respond to your point!!!! I know you agree with the Packers ultimately going with Rodgers, and you should know that I agree with your point of TT trading him to the Jets the way he did. I told you in my first comment that I agreed with you, and I have told you this many other seperate times.

I didn’t adress what happened after we chose Rodgers because I pretty much agree with everything you said. You and I have had this whole talk many times and everytime you have agreed with me on the Packers picking Rodgers and I have agreed with you about TT’s trading of Favre to the Jets being very questionable.

by packallday555 on Oct 10, 2009 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions  

Nice Argument.

You make good points.

I am a firm believer that Favre used retirement as a way to get out of any and all of training camps. Just look at the way he went to the Vikings, last minute signing.

Btw, which site has the documentation of the Brett Favre saga? It was a three part series with outstanding documentation.

Looking to buy: General Manager Deputy Badge

by Bush League All Star on Oct 8, 2009 12:02 PM CDT up reply actions  

Thompson doesn’t owe Brett a trade to wherever Brett wants to go just as Brett apparently doesn’t owe it to Ted or the Packers to let them know if he’s going to play or retire before the draft.

So you admit that, once Thompson decided that he (on behalf of the Packers) didn’t owe Favre any considertation, that meant that Favre did not owne him or Packers any either?

Well, if you think that, then … what exaclty is your problem with Favre joining a team that is paying him $25m and maybe also a sueprbowl ring?

by puddnhead on Oct 9, 2009 5:06 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

He tried to make life unbearable for him by offering him 20 million to stay retired?

I hope someone is that unbearable to me one day.

But anyways, I had never heard anything about a deal with him and Tampa. But I don’t think Favre has any reason to be upset with Thompson. Favre retired, he wasn’t let go. He wasn’t forced out. In fact, the Packers came back to him a few months later letting him know the job was there if he stayed retired. Guess what? He stayed retired. But then July comes and Favre gets the “itch” after the Packers have moved forward with Aaron Rodgers. So Thompson sends him to New York, now here’s where it’s sketchy. In my opinion, Thompson’s move is justified because in reality he doesn’t even have to trade Favre, he was still under contract, he could’ve just told him to rot on the bench. (A move I would’ve done) Favre is an employee to the Packers like you or I are employees to our respective organizations and like ours, the only thing the Packers owe Favre is a paycheck.

After all, Favre showed his dedication to the team with his retirement waffling since 2003 right?

by Charlie Kelly on Oct 6, 2009 2:39 PM CDT reply actions  

There was a night in August 2008 when Jon Gruden was certain the Tampa Bay Buccaneers had completed a trade with the Green Bay Packers to acquire Brett Favre.

Gruden said Wednesday he had talked to Favre on the phone and “both of us thought he was coming to Tampa.” When Gruden went to bed after midnight, in his mind, the deal was done.

“I was sure we had Brett Favre,” Gruden said. “My understanding was we had it done,” Gruden said. “Bruce Allen (then Bucs general manager) was working with (Packers general manager) Ted Thompson in terms of the compensation. I really don’t think that any of us knew there was another partner that was willing to get involved at that stage of the game. Remember, it was seven or eight or 10 days deep into training camp.”

So, you don’t know anything about this (or probably anything else), but your sure of yourself that Favre has no reason ot be upset, and he is the one totally in the wrong. Uhh … well, I’m not gonna argue with anyone who has already decide what his conclusion is before he even learns the facts.

by puddnhead on Oct 6, 2009 8:12 PM CDT up reply actions  

link

How Favre felt about this (from an interview in February:

link

An Orlando Sentinel reporter conducted an interview in February with Brett Favre at Disney World and got Favre to open up about how his preference had been to be traded to the Bucs. Favre said his heart had been set on joining Coach Jon Gruden. He called Tampa Bay’s offense a "a perfect fit."

So how did he wind up with the Jets?

Favre: I could have said, ‘No.’ But without coming to me, the Packers just went and made the trade, just agreed to it. Mike Tannenbaum and I have become good friends. He knew that by making that trade there was a chance I could turn it down, but when the trade was made and it was public news without my knowledge, how could I change my mind? [Tannenbaum is the Jets’ general manager.]

Chris Harry Sentinel: So you learned about the trade watching TV.

Favre: Yep. ESPN. I was laying down with my 9-year-old, and was gonna take her to her first day of school the next morning.

Chris Harry, Sentinel: The news of the day could have been, ‘Brett Favre rescinds trade to Big Apple.’

Favre: Yeah, but there had been enough dirt kicked around up to that point. That’s basically what happened. And it was a tough, tough decision. When that was done for me, without my consent, I was like, ‘I’m not going to make things any worse.’ And I think that’s exactly what the Packers were banking on.

by puddnhead on Oct 6, 2009 8:19 PM CDT up reply actions  

Glad

TT screwed him. It’s working out fine right now.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 7, 2009 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions  

Wait, so Ted didn't keep his word to Brett?

Like Brett didn’t keep his word to Ted about retiring twice? I’ll say it again, the Packers don’t owe Brett anything other than a paycheck. He doesn’t need to trade Favre or give him to the team that Favre wants to be with. Players get traded to places they don’t wanna go all the time, look at Seymour with the Raiders.

by Charlie Kelly on Oct 7, 2009 6:51 AM CDT up reply actions  

Two wrongs make a right?

Whatever.

By the way, don’t you thnk it’s a wee bit more important for the guy who, you know, his JOB is get personnel moves right, to do them right, than for the guy to gt it right who, you know, we were paying for what he did ON the filed, not off?

by puddnhead on Oct 7, 2009 6:59 AM CDT up reply actions  

maybe two wrongs don't make a right

but that doesn’t mean that a second wrong negates the first wrong either

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Oct 7, 2009 7:02 AM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

You guys

Sound like you are happy he is gone. So what’s the problem?

by PurpleJesus on Oct 7, 2009 6:34 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'm not saying two wrongs make a right

What I’m saying is that I’m tired of people making Favre out to be some helpless bystander who got screwed by the evil Ted Thompson.

by Charlie Kelly on Oct 7, 2009 7:26 AM CDT up reply actions  

/thread

Looking to buy: General Manager Deputy Badge

by Bush League All Star on Oct 8, 2009 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions  

its a business

and Ted Thompson is the boss,
Favre is the employee.

My mother worked for the same company for over 10 years, and trained her replacement before they fired her unexpectedly.

by PackaCracka on Oct 7, 2009 1:34 PM CDT up reply actions  

Right

And TT did what he wanted and eventually Brett got what he wanted. Case closed.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 7, 2009 6:36 PM CDT up reply actions  

What case?

The Favre is a jackass v. The Packer fans are correct ?

by PackaCracka on Oct 8, 2009 1:56 AM CDT up reply actions  

Have another piece of cheese

Packer Fans are seldom correct. They can’t even tell when TT is screwing them.

THOMPSON IS A MORON

by 4 where-ever on Oct 9, 2009 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

Well

In response I would say Favre fans are seldom correct. They can’t even tell when Favre is acting like a teenage girl.

by packallday555 on Oct 11, 2009 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions  

So, did people at the old company get mad at your mom when she got another job?

Did you agree that your mom was the one in the wrong for having the aucacity to get another job, and a job she liked?

And …. have you told her that? lol

by puddnhead on Oct 9, 2009 5:20 PM CDT up reply actions  

So based on your point

What’s the problem then? The Pack got their way and Brett eventually got his. Everybody should be happy.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 7, 2009 6:32 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

It is incredibly short-sighted

to say that everybody should be happy with the situation. Favre, yes. Packers management, yes. Why exactly should the fans be happy?

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Oct 7, 2009 6:39 PM CDT up reply actions  

Nothing wrong with Aaron Rodgers

Why should the fans be upset? Because Brett shouldn’t be allowed to play for the Vikings? Please remember, the Packers could have had them if they wanted him. Seems to me that if is what bothers you then it all points back to TT trading him. BF asked to stay.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 7, 2009 6:59 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

Well...

…because you think there might be some emotions tied up with seeing someone you cheered for and considered a hero for 16 years going to your archrival and saying he wanted to “stick it” to you? And after saying that he was motivated by revenge (before of course backtracking and changing his story again, a patented Brett Favre move by now)? And after signing with the hated Vikings has the gall to say, when asked about the potential negative reaction that Packer fans might have, that “true Packer fans will understand?” I guess he is the sole determinant of who is a “true Packer fan” and who isn’t, huh? My counter is that a true Packer player would understand why we are upset.

If you had a wife/girlfriend, husband/boyfriend for 16 years and then you split up and they got together with your most hated enemy, would you be able to just say “Oh well, we both got what we wanted” with no emotion involved at all?

We never got as hot and bothered when Darren Sharper, Ryan Longwell, or Robert Ferguson signed with the Vikings…because they didn’t mean as much to us as Favre did. None of those guys are gonna have their number retired or be placed in the Ring of Honor. Thats why fans are upset.

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Oct 7, 2009 7:16 PM CDT up reply actions  

I get it...

I just think it is more TT than BF. BF wanted to stay and TT started the whole revenge thing if there is such a thing. BF turned down the Vikes before being convinced later so the whole revenge doesn’t seem likely the only reason he came back. He had Jared Allen, Antoine Winfield, Adrian Peterson texting and calling him, nearly beggin him to come play and still said no at the end of July.

You guys have a good team. I honestly don’t look forward to playing you guys in Lambeau. I look forward to the game but I do believe it will be advantage Packers.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 7, 2009 8:52 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'm not saying either side is perfect in this situation

but if you believe all that you’re saying, where Brett was just an innocent bystander in all this, you are obviously drinking the Brett Favre kool aid like everyone at ESPN.

by Charlie Kelly on Oct 7, 2009 10:57 PM CDT up reply actions  

“He had Jared Allen, Antoine Winfield, Adrian Peterson texting and calling him, nearly beggin him to come play and still said no at the end of July.”

He said no because he wasn’t interested in coming to training camp.

by packallday555 on Oct 7, 2009 11:05 PM CDT up reply actions  

And he and Chilldress

probably already had a deal in place so the heat from the press would die down for the time that Favre couldn’t be bothered to come to training camp and then he could “miraculously” change his mind again and ride in refreshed and ready to go.

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Oct 7, 2009 11:30 PM CDT up reply actions  

Not true

He had stopped practicing altogether, even at the HS in Mississippi. He was convinced when he said no that his career was over.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 8, 2009 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions  

if you want to believe that

that’s your business. but after the track record of his since the off-season between 2006 and 2007 I would be very cautious about taking Brett at his word.

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Oct 8, 2009 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions  

The Media

The media was all over this even visiting the HS to see if he was there. So, although I know you are bitter, I would caution about taking everything Brett does as underhanded simply because you have a bad taste in your mouth.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 8, 2009 4:19 PM CDT up reply actions  

What media source?

Were you following?? He never stopped working out.

by packallday555 on Oct 8, 2009 5:27 PM CDT up reply actions  

No feelings either way

I just feel I am a lot less involved emotionally than any of you as I could care less either way. No feelings impacting my judgment of the situation. It was, what it was and I see both sides not just anti-BF because he joined the enemy.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions  

“He had stopped practicing altogether, even at the HS in Mississippi.”

No, actually he didn’t. No longer then 2 hours after Favre told Chilly he was going to stay retired, Steve Marriuci reported that he would continue to work out. He never stopped working out. He didn’t think his career was over. Again, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that he just wanted to avoid training camp.

by packallday555 on Oct 8, 2009 5:26 PM CDT up reply actions  

I take a different view because when he decided to say yes, which was on Aug 16(?), ESPN had reported he had stopped working out and Brett himself said he had all but stopped his visits to the HS, and even those were only as a help in coaching.

My view is that this is somewhat factual as I believe it as for this reason he wasn’t completely ready on that first preseason game he played when only played the 1st quarter when all other QB’s were playing the entire first half.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 4:56 PM CDT up reply actions  

Alright

Well I guess I completely disagree. The day after he told the Vikes no, Marriuci reported that he would continue to work out. This was on NFL network not ESPN, so maybe that’s why you never seemed to see or here about this, though they did talk about it on ESPN.

by packallday555 on Oct 10, 2009 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions  

Incorrect

He said no at the end of training camp. July 30 to be exact. Training camp was over.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 8, 2009 10:04 AM CDT up reply actions  

Exactly!!

“And after signing with the hated Vikings has the gall to say, when asked about the potential negative reaction that Packer fans might have, that "true Packer fans will understand?" I guess he is the sole determinant of who is a "true Packer fan" and who isn’t, huh? My counter is that a true Packer player would understand why we are upset.”

Exactly, exactly, exactly.

I hated seeing him go to the Vikes, which should be understandable (imagine AP doing all of this. I guarantee Vikes fans would feel the same way) but I also am ok with him going to the Vikes. He still wanted to play football, and the Vikes were willing to give him that chance. What I’m not ok with is all the bullshit he said about retiring again. It’s clear the only reason he retired after the 08’ season was to avoid having to go to the Vikes training camp. To be frank, he is kind of full of shit. He’s all about himself. He didn’t wanna go to training camp, so he told Chilly he was going to stay retired only to magically decide to come out of retirement as soon as training camp got done. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what he was doing.

by packallday555 on Oct 7, 2009 10:44 PM CDT up reply actions  

Uh

He actually did have surgery you know. Was all that BS too, along with the MRIs that the league just fined the Jets $125k over?

by puddnhead on Oct 9, 2009 5:25 PM CDT up reply actions  

What about it??

Him having surgery didn’t play into him telling Chilly that he was going to stay retired. In fact, his reason was that “his body just couldn’t withstand a 16 game season”.

So let me ask you a question. You seem to be a pretty intelligent individual and I’m curious to see what you think. Do you think he told Chilly he was going to stay retired because he truly thought "his body just couldn’t handle it? Or do you think he told told Chilly he was going to stay retired because he didn’t want to attend training camp?

by packallday555 on Oct 10, 2009 1:59 PM CDT up reply actions  

but in your analogy of the wife/girlfriend, you (the packers) chose a younger hotter girlfriend/wife over your girlfriend/wife of 16 years, and only then did your wife go off and be with your most hated enemy.

by deron williams on Oct 10, 2009 3:41 AM CDT up reply actions  

not everything is black and white

we love him for 16 years of excellence and hate him for toying with our emotions

Or if Peterson's "troublesome" back gives out. Because he's, you know, carrying the team. And some of those guys are heavy.

Mitchell M

by blackoutsox on Oct 8, 2009 9:48 PM CDT up reply actions  

That I clearly understand.

Well stated.

I hope the fans in Lambeau are bigger than most, and will show their years of appreciation as he enters the game. After that, competition is what it is and I would expect the fans to react negatively if he does well.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 1:10 PM CDT up reply actions  

+1

wow. couldn’t have said it any better

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Oct 9, 2009 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions  

First of all

I don’t come over here to chastise anyone. Nor did I say you “should” cheer him or openly say I would criticize anyone who doesn’t. Maybe you should look at my words once again, as the words I used were “I hope”.

As for your language and treatment of ANY fan, I don’t know about anyone else, or the person that runs “Acme Packing Company” but I personally would appreciate if you would choose your words a little more carefully before deciding to press “enter”. Using such words are clearly intended to start a fight, or incite some sort of angry response and I won’t have any of it. I am not here to troll and if you take the time to look at my other responses and some conversations I have had with “packallday” you can clearly see I respect the Packers and the treatment by most “Acme Packing Company” bloggers. I enjoy views that don’t always agree with mine and enjoy intelligent conversation which this clearly isn’t.

Have a good day.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions  

Calm down

Purple – cripes, someone can’t utilize profanity without you calling them stupid? What exactly was stupid about what I said? I took time and thought in crafting a personal observation that I think plenty of (although not all) Packer fans would also agree with. You can think it’s unfair or inappropriate, but that hardly makes my point of view stupid.

And qualifying your belief that “fans in Lambeau” should be “bigger than most, and will show their years of appreciation as he enters the game” with “I hope” doesn’t negate what is clearly a preemptive chastisement towards those who think Favre acted like a jerk over the last two years and might [gasp] boo or hiss at him entering Lambeau in a Vikings uniform, regardless of all the swell memories.

And how exactly to you envision “fans in Lambeau” showing “their years of appreciation” without cheering? Flashing supportive gang signs, perhaps? Maybe wearing Wrangler jeans?

But this goes to my point – this issue is a lot more complex on this side of the Mississippi than you can ever “hope” to understand because you never went through anything remotely resembling what Favre has put Packer fans through. He was our quarterback for sixteen years, and we supported him through good and bad. And now he’s the Vikings quarterback. While I realise that Minnesota is a perfect fit for him and I appreciate his desire to play football without any off-season conditioning or participation in training camps, that doesn’t mean he had to go and play with the Packers’ greatest current rival. Despite that fact, going to the Vikings was his 1st choice. Let me repeat that: Brett’s first choice was to go and quarterback the Packers’ most bitter division rival if he couldn’t get his way and just roll in at the tail-end of the ‘08 Packers training camp like he did the ’09 Vikings camp. That’s completely insensitive and inexcusable.

And for these reasons, I don’t have to support his decision; I don’t have to show him respect while he helps the Vikings win because he’s a Packers legend; and all the stories about how mean ‘ol Ted Thompson was to Brett Favre by putting the team first (i.e., getting the best draft pick) after the latter did everything within his power to turn the ’08 Packers training camp into a media circus so the team would give in to his demands isn’t going to change how I think.

by 400metres on Oct 9, 2009 6:24 PM CDT up reply actions  

Please read more carefully

Where did I say you were stupid?…Where did I say anything other than “I hope they show appreciation when he enters the game (standing ovation)”?…Where did I chastise anyone?

As I said earlier, I enjoy intelligent conversation and this isn’t headed that way so for me it’s over.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 8:02 PM CDT up reply actions  

“Where did I say you were stupid?”

I enjoy views that don’t always agree with mine and enjoy intelligent conversation which this clearly isn’t.

“Where did I chastise anyone?”

I hope the fans in Lambeau are bigger than most, and will show their years of appreciation as he enters the game

“As I said earlier, I enjoy intelligent conversation and this isn’t headed that way so for me it’s over.”

Purple, you said this in response to the fifth comment in this thread:

He didn’t want Favre to play period! He did everything he could to make life unbearable on him, even going so far as to offer him $20M to stay retired. Once Favre refused, that is where TT tried to make life unbearable on BF started. Like Brett said…. "if I ain’t good enough for your team let me play for whomever I want".

BF wanted to play, and wanted to play for the Pack. TT wouldn’t let that happen even after he just went 13-3, regardless of the hedging.

It’s nice to know where you draw the line on intelligent conversation.

by 400metres on Oct 9, 2009 8:30 PM CDT up reply actions  

I’m well aware of that puddn – but it just chafes at me a lot more when Vikings fans tell me how I should support Favre than it does when fellow Pack fans do. If that doesn’t make sense to you, I don’t know what to tell you.

by 400metres on Oct 9, 2009 6:28 PM CDT up reply actions  

who told you how to support anyone

Perhaps reading more carefully would keep the blood pressure down?

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 8:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

Again,
I hope the fans in Lambeau are bigger than most, and will show their years of appreciation as he enters the game.

And really Purple, you’ve been over here for two days, furiously defending your new personal hero Brett Favre (est. 2009) against all us mean Thompson/Packers supporters, and I’m the one who needs to worry about blood pressure?

by 400metres on Oct 9, 2009 8:39 PM CDT up reply actions  

As I said

Conversations over. You are obviously out to start some sort of fight and I won’t let that happen.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 10:09 PM CDT up reply actions  

I think

what you wont let happen is a genuine discussion about the topic you think you know so much about because you enjoy shouting from your ignorant, Favre-enamored corner and won’t stand for anyone who actually has firsthand experience with the subject contradicting your one-sided point of view.

You want to pretend you’re interested in some sort of real discussion but you’ve blatantly ignored every fact I’ve stated that contradicts your position.

by 400metres on Oct 12, 2009 11:21 AM CDT up reply actions  

LOL
It’s the equivalent of chastising a guy who’s wife of 16 years left him because he’s a bit upset about the fact that she’s taken up with someone else.

By the way, it should be “he’s” (TT) has taken up with someone else (Aaron Rodgers) and boy does that make your point look really bad…. Any wife would leave at that point.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 10:20 PM CDT up reply actions  

Um,

Mr. “Please read more carefully”, the “guy” is us fans, not Ted Thompson.

Remember, you preemptively chastised us Packer fans who won’t cheer Brett when he graces Lambeau in a Vikings uniform as “small”:

I hope the fans in Lambeau are bigger than most, and will show their years of appreciation as he enters the game.

Furthermore, Thompson didn’t “take up” with Rodgers until Favre retired. He also took up with two other quarterbacks (Matt Flynn and Brian Brohm) in the draft because Favre retired.

Later, Favre sent out waves that he might be contemplating un-retiring, so the Packers sent reps down to Mississippi. Favre decided to remain retired.

Finally, Favre officially un-retired during training camp (sound familiar?). The Packers management took a stand against being held hostage anymore and told Favre to do us all a favor and stay retired (i.e., here’s $20 million to go ride your tractor). Favre, as the spoiled, self-absorbed celebrity he is, pitched a fit and eventually Thompson traded him to the Jets for draft picks. And to make a big deal about the Packers not personally calling Favre about the decision to accept the Jets stronger offer over Tampa Bay’s reveals a real lack of knowledge about the situation, because neither side was talking to the other at all by that point.

Favre initially told Thompson, et al., that he wished to go to the Vikings, but there’s no way any professional sports team would ever trade a disgruntled star to a division rival. That’s just commonsense. Nevertheless, commonsense hasn’t stopped ignorant Thompson-haters from repeatedly asking “if Favre wasn’t good enough for the Packers, why not release him and let him go wherever he wanted?”

That’s the point: the Packers never said Brett couldn’t play anymore, they just wanted to move on as an organization after years of playing “will Brett retire?” every offseason. And it would have been ridiculous to allow Brett to go to a division rival as well as receiving no compensation in return. That would have been bad management.

Of course, none of these facts takes anything away from how great Favre has played so far this year and how perfect a fit it is for him as well as the Vikings to be in Minnesota. But to turn that reality into evidence that “TT sux!!!! ZOMG!!!” is simply not a logical conclusion. The Packers could still have Favre right now and they wouldn’t be any better and arguably would be worse since Rodgers would have likely left as a FA after the 2008 season.

by 400metres on Oct 12, 2009 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions  

Right!!!

This is exactly what I was trying to get at earlier. Vikes fans just don’t have the same understanding of the situation that Packers fans do. Period.

It’s just kind of funny when people who just so happen to be Vikes try and tell you why we shouldn’t be mad at Favre or how Favre plays (this one especially bugs me. They act like I didn’t watch the guy for 16 years of my life, week in and week out.).

And like I said above, I’m not trying to be disrepectful when I say this. If Favre weren’t playing for the Vikes now, I have a feeling a lot of your opinions on this matter would be much, much different.

by packallday555 on Oct 10, 2009 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions  

I don't believe

I ever said Favre is without blame. I made a couple of points…

1) TT is equally to blame
2) Favre is the only one to be man enough to stand up and say both sides handled it poorly
3) I just “hoped” that Packers fans would show him the appreciation they have of him in the past when he enters the field in Lambeau by giving him a standing ovation. Gametime, I understand wanting to beat his brains in…Is any of that off base?

Just about everyone loves the way Brett loves and plays the game and if you boo him then so be it. In my mind thta just shows how little respect you have for the game.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 10, 2009 9:27 PM CDT up reply actions  

Just another thought

Personally, it would be FAR more pleasurable, as I am sure you can imagine, to hear all Packers fans boo like there is no tomorrow and then witness Brett beat you again.

So, going back to my point… For respect fo the game and the man, I hope it is different…. Vikings fan, Packers fan, or not.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 10, 2009 9:36 PM CDT up reply actions  

When has he shown the Packer fans any respect recently?

Was it by saying that “true Packer fans” would understand? Say what you will about respecting the game and all of that nonsense but the guy has shown absolute zero respect for Packer fans.

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Oct 12, 2009 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions  

Ya, the “true Packers fans” comment was a low blow. The guy will be booed at Lambeau.

by packallday555 on Oct 12, 2009 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

Are you really Mike Sherman? Mad that Ted took away your dream job?

"I agree but dont agree"

by juggernaut400 on Oct 9, 2009 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions  

Where the heck does this retiring twice come from?

As far as I know he officially retired from the Packers once after 2007. The Jets retirement was after he screwed his arm up and had nothing to do with TT or the Packers.

Oh, and no doubt the Packers don’t owe Brett anything. Likewise, Brett doesn’t owe TT or the Packers anything after he was traded either. You had your chance to keep him and didn’t.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions  

If he retired from the Packers, came back, then retired with the Jets

that would be two retirements. And he only retired from the Jets so they could release him and then he would have his chance to sign with Minnesota. We already know Favre didn’t really want to be in New York, and we all know he still harbored ill will towards the Packers.

And Brett Favre might not owe the Packers, but I would think he owes the fans. The fans who supported him during both the highs and the lows. The fans who helped to make him a very wealthy man. That is why many feel upset at him switching over to the rivals.

The thing with Brett Favre is it seems with all the media hype surrounding him and his legacy and the ego that has been created due to that, is that he is forgetting who made him what he is. Yes, the Packers were a terrible franchise for many years before Favre arrived and yes, Favre was one of the pieces (Along with Wolf, Holmgren, and White) to help bring them back. But people always seem to forget that Brett needed the Packers as much if not more than they needed him. The Packers might have never reached the same amount of success without Favre but chances are they’d still be around. Favre, on the other hand had already drunken his way off of one team (Teams don’t usually trade a second round player a year after drafting him unless there are a lot of issues) and without Holmgren’s discipline and a new setting in Green Bay, who’s to say Favre doesn’t party himself out of the league and never end up becoming the player we see today.

by Charlie Kelly on Oct 9, 2009 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions  

And Brett Favre might not owe the Packers, but I would think he owes the fans. The fans who supported him during both the highs and the lows. The fans who helped to make him a very wealthy man. That is why many feel upset at him switching over to the rivals.

Both him and his family. How many copies of his mom’s book and his wife’s book did they sell? How much support went to the Breast Cancer Research Fund after his wife was diagnosed with cancer, granted that didn’t benefit the family directly but shows the type of support that GB and Wisconsin as a whole offered to his family. Let alone the support after his Dad died and then his brother-in-law. He was a near deity in the state and now that is almost all gone (except for the nut-jobs who think he’s infallible)

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Oct 9, 2009 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions  

Jesus

I’m so sick of this discussion. It’s a business. If Green Bay wanted Favre on their team, they could’ve ponied up the 12 million he’s making in Minnesota. If the Pack wanted Favre on the team as their QB, they would not have traded him away. The packers twice had opportunities to keep favre, and chose to not get him.

He just did what was best for him, and I can’t fault him for that. Show me another team that was willing to pay him $12 million??? There isn’t one. You can’t fault him for taking the vikings money.

Get the f*ck over it already people.

"That's not a weird stat. Rickie is a run-scorer," Yost said. "It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter," Yost told reporters. "See, you guys have no concept. He's a run-scorer. So there's nothing weird about it. That's what he does."

by Hyatt on Oct 7, 2009 9:16 AM CDT reply actions   1 recs

Was there another team that was willing to pay him anything?

The Vikings were bidding against themselves, with the possible exception of Favre’s own ego. Would you be in favor of a team offering someone a $12 million contract when no one else is bidding against them?

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Oct 7, 2009 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions  

So wait… using your logic when Minnesota traded for Jared Allen, who had a contract and no one else could bid against them, they were wrong for renegotiating to make sure he was happy and wanted to be in Minnesota?

The Vikings have the cap room and compensate key players very well, regardless of competition. Seems to me that this would be the type of team I would want to play for.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 7, 2009 6:40 PM CDT up reply actions  

There is no similarity between the two

Signing a player to an extension when you have just traded for him and talking a retired player out of retirement with no other suitors willing to offer a contract are two completely different situations. One would have been a free agent in a year had he completed his contract (at which point he would have gotten the money from either the Vikings or someone willing to pay the price for signing a Franchised player) and the other would have continued to ride a tractor in Mississippi and throwing balls to high schoolers without a $12 million offer from the Vikings.

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Oct 7, 2009 7:26 PM CDT up reply actions  

then care to explain?

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Oct 7, 2009 9:31 PM CDT up reply actions  

If I need to clear it up for you...

In both circumstances, as you claim, there is no competition for either’s services for the current year. Therefore there is NO competition to worry about when signing a contract, or renewing one. Therefore, in either case, when Minnesota gave the players enough money to satisfy them financially, they met their emotional needs keeping them focused on one thing, and one thing only, playing football for the Minnesota Vikings….Is that clear enough for you?

The Viking organization keeps all the players it views as key components very happy financially. They have the financial room in their cap, and it is a delight to have an owner willing to give it out to keep us competitive and to try and build a winner. Frankly, this new regime has done a great job since taking over and has clearly built a team that is equipped to compete at a high level.

So, trying to criticize the management team of the Vikings doesn’t fly with me. They have been first class all the way and I am glad to have them.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions  

Even though the owner is openly considering moving the team

if the taxpayers don’t pony up enough money for a new stadium, that he has the money to build himself?

by Charlie Kelly on Oct 9, 2009 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions  

Yes, I support them

They have pleaded with the city and put up with it much longer than they should have. The city helped build the Twins a stadium, the Gophers a stadium, so what is different with the Vikings? Is it because they have sold out so many consecutive games and the city doesn’t feel pressured? Business is business. The Wilfs offered to put up half of the amount required and even invested and bought most of the property around the stadium promising improvements.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 3:46 PM CDT up reply actions  

As a Twin Cities resident, I disagree

the same way I did with the Twins and the Gophers. I’m currently a senior at the U of M and don’t get me wrong I love the hockey and football games, but I went to college to get a degree and I want my money to go towards that, not towards a new stadium. As for the Twins, I didn’t support their new stadium especially since the owner was amongst the cheapest in the league despite having plenty of money.

I just don’t think public money should go towards giant playgrounds for billionaires especially not in a recession. Now I know I would probably not even notice the amount of my tax money that would go to the stadium, it’s the principle of us covering a majority of the costs for something that we then have to pay $90 a week to get into.

Yes, it is a business and the Wilfs wouldn’t be smart business men if they bought something themselves that they could get publicly funded, but I still don’t want one. The Metrodome is a dump but all that should matter is the team that is on the field, and the Vikings have put out a pretty good product.

by Charlie Kelly on Oct 9, 2009 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions  

Fair enough

I will say I did go to the Dallas Cowboys new stadium “Jerryworld” on the opening night against the Giants. I can clearly see how such a “playground” can put people to work and generate sales tax pretty darn easily to pay for such a building. That being said, I don’t want the Vikings to leave and maybe the state legislators need to take a trip down there to see how people flood such an entertainment experience even in this economy.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions  

But it's only a temporary surge of employment

and I just feel that the money can be spent in better ways especially when there is a shortage of it. But agree to disagree as I don’t feel like this is the place to have this discussion. And despite being a Packers fan, I don’t want to see the Vikings leave either. As much as I hate them, they make for a good rivalry but I think they need to make do with what they have. I think football is a game meant to be played outside but I’ve been to a few at Lambeau and a few at the the dome and there were some games where I was glad I was inside.

by Charlie Kelly on Oct 9, 2009 4:22 PM CDT up reply actions  

" Is it because they have sold out so many consecutive games and the city doesn’t feel pressured?"

Honestly, ya it probably is. I live in MN, and the past 2-3 years pretty much everyone of your games has been subject to blackout but Fox9 buys enough tickets so this doesn’t happen. Even your playoff game against the Eagles was subject to blackout.

Pretty much everyone LOVES the Twins in MN. Their really in no danger of being moved to another city, and the Metrodome is a dump. And the U of M isn’t going anywhere either. All 3 of these teams were sharing the Dome, and they picked the 2 most popular teams, and decided to build them new facilities. Again everyone LOVES the Twins, and since the additions of Brewster and Tubby, people seem much more into the Gophers sports programs as a whole.

With that being said, I would like to see the Vikes stay here. I love the rivalry we our two teams have.

by packallday555 on Oct 10, 2009 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions  

Also, he was saying the comparison of Favre and Allen isn't the same because

they traded for Allen, they signed Favre as a free agent. Now I don’t know if any other teams were lobbying for a trade for Allen but once he was traded to the Vikings, the Vikings obviously were going to try to sign him to a long deal, if they didn’t he would have been a free agent and then there would of been competition to resign him as other teams would be making offers.

With Favre, there were no offers from other teams and Brett wanted to play for Minnesota, they had all the leverage in the world here yet they gave him 12 million. So these two situations are not at all similar. Now, like I already said, will overpaying for Favre really hurt them probably not, but it’s just kind of funny.

by Charlie Kelly on Oct 9, 2009 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions  

With Favre

He wasn’t coming back for an offer of 8 million, 6 million, etc. In a lot of ways that would be like openly saying he isn’t worth what he once was. That is not a way to start a relationship with someone you want that badly. I agree with them paying the $12M to get him and start the relationship off the right way.

Same with Jared Allen, commit up front that you want him here.

By the way, I am one of the few people who believe every player should get every dollar they can. Whether that be BF or anyone else. If you can get the money congrats to you.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions  

I think you're underestimating Favre's desperation to play agin

Do you think Favre needs the money? I highly doubt it. What he wanted was to play for the Vikings, now am I criticizing Favre for getting as much as he can? No. All I’m saying is I highly doubt the Vikings needed to pay him that. As you recall, Favre turned down 20 million to stay retired, so my guess is the desire to play exceeded the desire for money.

by Charlie Kelly on Oct 9, 2009 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions  

Exactly!

Your last sentence says it all!…. The man’s desire to play outweighs everything else. I don’t believe he can give up the feeling of competition as much as he may try to each year.

Now that being said, I do believe when he retired both times, his body was beaten up and he thought in his mind he could walk away and spend some time with his wife and daughter. But each year, as he starts to see the players practice, and then compete, his inside urges start up again.

Hey look, how many players walk away while they could still start at their position? Not many. Most wait until they are a backup and then retire.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions  

Solely revenge... Well I thought that was a bigger part...

Until I saw him run 40 yards downfield in the SF game to throw a block for Bernard Berrian. The man just loves football because he gave up his entire body. That alone sold me.

As for revenge, my take on it now is that it is human emotion and an “added extra” if he wins against the Packers both times. I do not think that is the sole reson he came back.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

I definitely believe there was a fair mix of both

I have never doubted his desire to play. But I think the way he has gone about returning to the league has shown that his desire for playing is about as equal for his desire to prove Thompson wrong. Anyways, I’ve criticized him a lot here but when it comes down to it, I’ll always be a fan, but I refuse to wish him any good will other than that he stays healthy while he wears purple. And it’s been rough I’m sure for the people of Green Bay but I think ten years down the road when he retires, their will be a reconciliation between Green Bay and him.

by Charlie Kelly on Oct 9, 2009 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions  

When he retires

It will be as a Packer. We all know that.

Hey, I always kind of liked the guy even when he was with the Packers. I liked the way he played, the emotion he showed and I even rooted for them in the Super Bowl. But like you, I never rooted for him against my team on the field.

Again, it is just my hope as a football fan (not as a Vikings fan), that the Packer fans show just how classy they can be by standing and giving him an ovation when he eventually runs onto the field at Lambeau. To me, this would simply say “we loved you when you were here” as it is understood you want to beat his brains in on the field.

Personally, I wish all football players played the game he does no matter what team they are on. Too bad for all of us not many do.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

+1

I appreciate your posts on here man. It’s good to see a Vikes fan perspective. And you present your perspectives in a smart and civil way.

by packallday555 on Oct 10, 2009 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions  

I believe revenge is a very small part of his return.

Brett’s main motivation IMO is having his ego stroked. This is why he doesn’t put in the offseason and preseason work and comes back only when the games count. There is no glory in offseason conditioning or training camp 2-a-days.

Brett wanted to go to the Vikes only because they had a strong base for a team and If they could get to a Super Bowl then HE would be the reason why. HE would be the only real difference between an underachieving 2008 playoff team and a really good Super Bowl contending 2009 team. HE wants to leave the game like Elway did- riding off on the shoulders of his teammates and I can’t blame him for that.

The only thing I hate about him (and I don’t really hate him for it) is that the media makes it sound like Brett did nothing wrong and that Ted went out of his way to screw him over. Not the case, Ted’s job is to look out for both the present and the future of the Packers. It was clear that Favre was not the “future” and Favre was waffling on if he would even be the “present”. Ted had to make a decision.

I think the main reason that Favre has pulled the on again- off again retirement thing over the years is the fact that ESPN eats it up like no other. He just likes to see that people are still interested in talking about him. He likes his name in headlines.

"I agree but dont agree"

by juggernaut400 on Oct 9, 2009 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions  

Good points

I actually agree with a good part of that. Especially the 2-a-days, the Vikes being a good choice (or match) and maybe even stroking his own ego.

I don’t think the media has been unfair to Ted. Ted had his part in all of this and, while I respect his offer of $20M to simply ride away, I definitely feel once he was turned down he went out of his way to screw Brett.

That being said, I think we all know there was no way he was trading him to the Vikings and I think even Brett knew that. But Brett who then was also equally as mad as TT, and then at that point probably started a “I will make this guy pay for that” promise to himself.

Hey, my view is that Brett is the only one of the two of them that I believe has come out and said both parties were wrong in the way it was handled. Please correct me if I am wrong there, but I don’t think Ted has ever had the guts to stand up and say that.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 5:19 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

He's criticizing them for overpaying for Favre.

Which they did. There was nobody else trying to sign Brett, he wanted to come back to football as much as the Vikings wanted him, but since there are no other bidders, they have all the leverage in the world, yet Favre still managed to get 12 million? Now money probably wasn’t that big of a factor for Brett, he’s probably not short on cash and won’t be anytime soon. But he knew as well as we all do that the Vikings ownership is desperate to get asses in the seats of the dome and will throw any amount of money at someone who they think can do that.

Ultimately, the revenue brought in by Favre will exceed the cost of bringing him there, but it still shows the desperation of the Vikings front office.

by Charlie Kelly on Oct 7, 2009 11:04 PM CDT up reply actions  

Ultimately, the revenue brought in by Favre will exceed the cost of bringing him there, but it still shows the desperation of the Vikings front office.

There is no doubt about that. I may not like him anymore but I can’t deny that the guy can sell some jerseys.

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Oct 7, 2009 11:32 PM CDT up reply actions  

Desperation?

Charlie…. Minnesota has sold out how many consecutive games? Somewhere over a hundred in a row for your information. So the old asses in the seats excuse doesn’t fly with me.

You would have been far more accurate to say " the Vikings have AP and realize the life of a star running back is short. They are desperate to get an experienced QB to lead the team while they have the team they assembled". This I would believe.

As far as overpaying, see my response above as it relates to key components.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 1:24 PM CDT up reply actions  

Very little help

Considering the economy it is hard to find teams who don’t scramble at some points during the season to sell the last few thousand seats…. The fact is, they have sold out over 100 consecutive games and using sellouts adnan excuse to get BF doesn’t make sense. To get more city recognition, buyin and a new stadium, maybe, but not to sell out the Metrodome. They already do that pretty darn consistently.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions  

Apples to Oranges...

Looking to buy: General Manager Deputy Badge

by Bush League All Star on Oct 8, 2009 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions  

Dah Dah Dah?

He fit and they knew it. How come you didn’t?

THOMPSON IS A MORON

by 4 where-ever on Oct 9, 2009 2:00 PM CDT up reply actions  

I think

Favre is a better fit with the Vikings than Rodgers would be. Rodgers definitely has more talent but given the West Coast offense, and managing the game qualifications, Brett is the better fit.

For the Packers, I do believe at some point they needed to cut Brett loose and the time they did it probably was the right time. Look at AR’s stats and I think that shows it was. However, TT walking away scott free from any blame or hard feelings on what transpired just doesn’t make sense.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions  

However, TT walking away scott free from any blame or hard feelings on what transpired just doesn’t make sense.

Brett walking away scott free doesn’t make sense either

"I agree but dont agree"

by juggernaut400 on Oct 9, 2009 5:18 PM CDT up reply actions  

I am not saying that nor did Brett

To my knowledge, Brett is the only one of the two to stand up and say “both parties handled this poorly”.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions  

this and your comment above are both good ones

I do not like TT and wish he would go, and I did not like Farve for leaving the way he did

but I realize TT made a team with an good chance of being great and I will love Farve again in the future.

Or if Peterson's "troublesome" back gives out. Because he's, you know, carrying the team. And some of those guys are heavy.

Mitchell M

by blackoutsox on Oct 9, 2009 9:19 PM CDT up reply actions  

He hasn't

You guys are all crucifying him in Wisconsin.

Err, excuse me, wrong analogy. you guys are all calling him “Judas.”

You guys do realize that the average league opinion of Packers fans/Wisconsinites dropped about two notches when you guys started buying those & the “we’ll never forget you Brent” shirts, right?

by puddnhead on Oct 9, 2009 5:34 PM CDT up reply actions  

I am not referring to him playing for the Vikings and I really could care less. I am referring to the events that led up to him being traded to the Jets.

my main source of animosity lies with the media coverage. To continue your biblical analogy-You would think Jesus was walking the earth again.

"I agree but dont agree"

by juggernaut400 on Oct 9, 2009 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions  

I don't think Viking fans think Jesus walks the earth again

Personally I think he makes our team better. In fact, I think we already have two wins we wouldn’t have had last year (SF and GB games). So instead of 2-2 we are 4-0 and that’s it.

Now does that make him Jesus? Not even close….After STL we have Balt and Pitt back to back and then you guys right after that. If anything, we are going to be beat to a pulp after those two AFC games against teams that like to play physical. That is a tough stretch and one I believe gives you a chance to fight back in it.

Personally, I limit my opion to the fact we are two games better and that’s it right now. If he beats both Balt and Pitt then I may have a different opinion and the Jesus talk, well…..nah!

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions  

once again, I am not referring to the Vikings or their fans or any game results. I am referring to people like Chris Berman and the rest of the sports reporting world blowing the story way out of proportion. Favre doesn’t even need a jock strap with people like Berman cradling his huevos.

In ESPN’s eyes, the only way Brett could be a bigger story is if he unretired to play for the Yankees or Red Sox and that would make Bristol Connecticut so happy it would implode on itself.

"I agree but dont agree"

by juggernaut400 on Oct 9, 2009 6:33 PM CDT up reply actions  

Has no control over

Who do you think sends all those text messages to Peter King and helps get this media circus going. ESPN and the rest of the media are primarily to blame, but if you think Favre is just minding his tractor while all this goes on around him, you’re naive.

by Charlie Kelly on Oct 12, 2009 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions  

this is highly ironic

Or if Peterson's "troublesome" back gives out. Because he's, you know, carrying the team. And some of those guys are heavy.

Mitchell M

by blackoutsox on Oct 9, 2009 9:20 PM CDT up reply actions  

look

you are a reasonable fan,
but you are not a packer fan, so you do not just quite understand it
did you cheer for this guy for 16 years? no

you have no shame if you truly love him now

Or if Peterson's "troublesome" back gives out. Because he's, you know, carrying the team. And some of those guys are heavy.

Mitchell M

by blackoutsox on Oct 8, 2009 9:51 PM CDT up reply actions  

Yep

He is definitely a reasonable fan, and one of the Vikes fans that I enjoy the most but it’s a different situation not being a Packers fan looking at this situation.

by packallday555 on Oct 8, 2009 11:54 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'm a packer fan and I can see clearly

Been rooting for the Pack since 62. I will always cheer the great player over the insane managemant or coaching.

THOMPSON IS A MORON

by 4 where-ever on Oct 9, 2009 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

Haha no your not

Your a troll. You’re a Favre fan and that is it.

by packallday555 on Oct 10, 2009 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions  

If you're actually old enough to have been a fan since 62

and you spend any amount of your free time trolling a message board with childish posts, that’s just sad my friend.

by Charlie Kelly on Oct 12, 2009 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions  

I get that

I really do… But it is so controversial because he first asked to come back to the Packers and then was asked to take $20M to sit and ultimately he still wanted to play. So here is a man who doesn;t want the money and just wants to play.

Next, your team made a choice, the choice to trade him, and this is where I think all all the anger starts.

So, are you mad a Brett because he still wanted to play? Or are you taking the anger out on Brett because he still wanted to play and TT decided to trade him? As a outsider, it is hard to understand completely as I see both sides and I think I wouldn’t completely blame Brett if I were a Packer fan but who knows..?

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions  

He had until draft day

at that point TT had to go forward and draft for a team with out Farve, including two new quarterbacks

Farve untires and wants to come back, and TT trades him after basically banning him from Lambeau

I strongly dislike TT for what happened that day, (not hate, because he was forced to, but he certainly dealt with it badly if the Tampa Bay trade was indeed about to happen) but TT did that, not the packer fans.

Farve needs another way for revenge that doesnt include the Packer fans. This is the only qualm I have with Farve

and lastly, why do you contine to defend the guy who destroyed you for 16 years? :)

Or if Peterson's "troublesome" back gives out. Because he's, you know, carrying the team. And some of those guys are heavy.

Mitchell M

by blackoutsox on Oct 9, 2009 9:24 PM CDT up reply actions  

That is the way I see and understand it too.

I have been a Viking fan since the early 70’s. Many of those years the Packers had a bad team. I never truly grew a dislike for the Packers as much as I did the Bears—mostly because of the Superbowl Shuffle 86 Bears.

That being said, although I always wanted to win against you guys there was never the real knock ’em out, finish line battle in virtually all of those years. As a result, when we were somewhat bad, you were good. All of that time, I enjoyed Brett and the way he played never dreaming he would some day wear purple.

Then earlier this year when word trickled out it may be possible, I hoped we would do something, if only for a year just to see how good we may be. Then on July 30, as I was listening to ESPN, I finally heard that he made a decision and had turned us down and would stay retired. In that moment, and in the days to follow, I grew more and more disappointed at the prospect of TJack and Rosenfels. Then finally on August 16, I hear the BF announcement and watch an OJ Simpson like helicopter chase on TV that gave me, a 40 year suffering Vikings fan some hope.

I will enjoy this year, either way it ends up. I have enjoyed the begining, but over the last 40 years have learned not to ever be optimistic when it comes to wearing purple.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 10:01 PM CDT up reply actions  

Green Bay Offensive Line

I don’t know what was said privately between BF and TT, but I imagine what Jon Gruden said is the truth.
Regardless, seeing GB’s poor pass protection in Monday night’s game reminded me of the last year’s of BF’s tenure with the Packers – he spent a lot of time on the run, having to decide whether to take the sack or just throw the pass and hope for the best. I’m sure he’s delighted to be playing on a team with good players around him, especially on the offensive line.
When Green Bay had the ball, he was probably sitting on the sideline thinking, “I’m glad it’s Aaron Rodgers and not me!”
So sort of like you said, ctowner, who can blame an almost-40 year old QB for not wanting to play on a team where he’ll be getting beat up every week? At his age, you’d want to go where you’d have a better chance of staying healthy and winning a championship.

by MissButterfly on Oct 7, 2009 7:04 PM CDT reply actions  

I completely agree

The man just can’t stop the competitive urge inside him. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he even comes back next year as well regardless of what happens this year.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 7, 2009 8:56 PM CDT up reply actions  

Really??

“Regardless, seeing GB’s poor pass protection in Monday night’s game reminded me of the last year’s of BF’s tenure with the Packers – he spent a lot of time on the run, having to decide whether to take the sack or just throw the pass and hope for the best. I’m sure he’s delighted to be playing on a team with good players around him, especially on the offensive line.”

Is that the excuse we’re going to make for him throwing a lot of picks?? And in 07’ the line was bad? I’m not sure what you were watching if you reall think that…Clifton made the Pro Bowl and Tasucher was very good all year. Haha and your last sentence is ridiculous. A team with good players around him?? Did the Packers not have that? Were Grant, Jennings, Driver, Clifton, Tauscher, Corey Williams, Kampman, Jenkins, Barnett, Woodson, Harris, and Collins not good? And the bit about the offensive line is a bogus statement as well. In 07’ the Vikes didn’t protect the QB well at all, and they didn’t in 08’ either.

“So sort of like you said, ctowner, who can blame an almost-40 year old QB for not wanting to play on a team where he’ll be getting beat up every week?”

Haha he wanted to play on the Packers. Otherwise he wouldn’t have gotten so upset over TT not taking him back. It was only after TT “screwed him” as you Favre lovers would like to say, that he decided he wanted revenge on him, and wanted to play for the Vikes.

“At his age, you’d want to go where you’d have a better chance of staying healthy and winning a championship.”

Are you talking about him deciding where to go after the 07’ season or after the 08’ season? Because like I said above, in 07’ our line was very good, and the Vikes was not. The last time I checked Favre isn’t a psychic, and if he indeed decided where he wanted to play like you seem to be saying he did because of o-line play, the logical choice would have been the Packers based off the 07’ season. If your talking about after the 08’ season, he didn’t have a choice of where he could go to play. It wasn’t like he was choosing between the Packers and Vikings. The Vikings were his only choice.

I get some of you absolutely love the guy but some the things you guys say in defense for him are absolutely ridiculous. Take the Favre shades off for a bit and look at the situation logically. And keep in mind at one time all of us were probably big Favre fans who have sided against him, and there is a reason for that.

by packallday555 on Oct 7, 2009 11:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

Right

It’s easy for the Vikes fans to side with Favre because he is now on their team and gives them twice the chance to win a Super Bowl that Jackson or Rosenfels does. But again if we put AP in this exact situation, I have a feeling they would feel a bit differently.

People have to keep in mind that all of who have sided against Favre, once absolutely loved the guy. There is a reason we have decided to side against him.

by packallday555 on Oct 7, 2009 11:08 PM CDT up reply actions  

So you are saying...

If AP had a falling out with his team and somehow he landed in the lap of the Packers, the Vikings fans would be similarly supportive of AP and his new-found team? Good question… :P

The difference here though, controlling for QB’s, the Vikings have a better team. I think role reversing Rodgers and Favre, the outcome of the game would have been the same.

Looking to buy: General Manager Deputy Badge

by Bush League All Star on Oct 8, 2009 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions  

If...

The Vikings let AP go then they get what they deserve.

I can far more easily relate this to trading Moss a number of years ago. He almost went to the Pack and frankly I would have been one of the fans to stand and cheer as he took the field out of respect for what he had done for us over the years even if it were with the Packers.

It is a business and it is what it is. If you trade a player how can you expect him not to play hard against you if he still wants to play?

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions  

Loving it...

AP runs for 50+ yards and we totally handle a big game before going into prevent late that makes a blowout look much closer. Honeymoon? Maybe…. Just enjoying every minute of it either way.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions  

whats with the blow-out comments?

It wasn’t even close in my book.

28-14 going to the forth quarter is a blow out now?

by PackaCracka on Oct 9, 2009 1:34 PM CDT up reply actions  

Other than the score?

Then are you referring to:

Total plays? (62 for both teams)
Total yards? Pack 424 to Vikes 334
Rushing yards? Pack 82 on 17 atts. to Vikes 63 on 30 atts.
Passing yards? Pack 342 to 271

The bottom line is that this game was not a blowout by any objective analysis. Both the Packers and the Vikings moved the ball well offensively. The final result was due to the Packers turning the ball over three times within the Vikings 30 yard line (int., fumble, downs) and their inability to get any kind of pass rush on Favre.

I’m not trying to diminish how well the Vikings and particularly Favre played, but I cannot abide declarations that the Vikings won by a blowout; that’s just ridiculous.

 

by 400metres on Oct 9, 2009 2:46 PM CDT up reply actions  

Look at the stats with 5 minutes left before telling me what type of game it was

When it was 30-14 and before the defensive change on the Minnesota side.

I am not taking anything away from what the Packers did. It is tough to come into the Metrodome on such a emotional night. Aaron Rodger hung together even though he was sacked 8 times and was it many more. By the same token, I don’t feel you can take away from what the Vikings did to beat you guys soundly on the score board until we played prevent for the last 5 minutes.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions  

And you can't deny how many times the Packers shot themselves in the foot

The dropped touchdown pass by Donald Lee
The horrid playcalling when we were on the goal line
The soft route ran by Jennings on the Winfield pick.

I’m not trying to take away from the Vikings, they won and played well (Although I think I could get a sack or two playing against Darryn Colledge or Barbre) but you can’t deny the Packers made quite a few miscues that helped cost them the game.

by Charlie Kelly on Oct 9, 2009 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions  

They certainly did

Whether that was pressure related, noise related, whatever. They did have a chance and didn’t get it done. As a Viking fan, I like to believe it was home field advantage.

I just argued the fact that these supposed stats at the end of the game tell the story. They don’t.

On another note, Favre has made a big difference in this team. Way too often over the last few years we would get into the redzone and only walk away with a FG. This has changed BIG time since Favre has come over and that has been huge for us.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions  

You guys

Didn’t play prevent the last 5 minutes. Prevent is used to prevent long TDs, Nelson scored on a 40 yard TD. If you were in prevent you would have had guys back who would have been able to stop Nelson after he got by the 2nd level. You guys were still bringing blitzes, and playing the same defense you had started in.

Our offense did very well against your defense for most of the game. We sustained drives, but made too many costly mistakes. Now credit should be given to your defense for those mistakes, but a lot of them were just our players messing up as opposed to you guys forcing them.

It was a closer game then the score indicated had someone turned it on in the 4th and seen that is was 30-14. It’s unfortunate our oline has been so poor and was so poor against you guys. Hoepfully us probably bringing Tauscher back and getting Clifton back will patch things up a bit for our next game.

by packallday555 on Oct 11, 2009 10:18 PM CDT up reply actions  

Just so we're clear...

… I don’t think anyone is saying the Vikings aren’t good. I know I’m not. Nor am I saying that they aren’t better than GB. They are right now, and I think they probably will be better than GB at the end of the year too. Time will tell. Right now I think they’re in the top 3 in conference and the top 5 in the league, and that’s more than pretty good. Any one of those 5 teams has a decent shot at winning a title. I just don’t think they’re head and shoulders above the other 4 in that group.

If I had to pick the best team in the league right now it would be the Giants.

But we all know that teams can be among the best in the league in October and still miss the playoffs entirely if things go south. So let’s just wait before we apply the annointing oil, ok?

Personally, I don't give a crap about Brett Favre.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 12, 2009 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions  

Nothing personal...

But it was 30-14 before the Vikes went into prevent with about 4 or 5 minutes left if I recall correctly. I am sure we can all check the timing of the scores as it relates to the Viking defensive change.

I also have said elsewhere that I don’t look forward to playing you guys again in Lambeau. I fully expect a more competitive game that could go either way.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions  

"I fully expect a more competitive game that could go either way."

But this well describes the Monday game. Yes, the Vikings eventually took a commanding lead, but that was due to the Packers turning the ball over three times within the Vikes 30 yard line and playing some of the sloppiest pass defense I’ve ever seen this squad muster.

Again, all due credit to the Vikes – two of those turnovers were the direct result of a great play on defense (Winfield’s jumping the route for the int. and the sack of Rodgers causing the fumble), but the fact remains, that those great plays were necessary to keep the Packers from themselves taking control of the game; i.e., a very competitive game that could have gone either way.

by 400metres on Oct 9, 2009 6:43 PM CDT up reply actions  

Don't give me this, went in to prevent mode.

Despite the fact Rodgers was being hassled all game, he still managed almost 400 yards on the Vikings defense, that should be a concern, as it proves once again the pass defense is a huge liability.

by Charlie Kelly on Oct 9, 2009 2:51 PM CDT up reply actions  

Hey, with 5 minutes left in the game you had 150 less yards than the 400 you wound up with. The Vikings absolutely went into prevent. I am not sure what you were watching.

by PurpleJesus on Oct 9, 2009 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions  

What exactly did the Vikings defense prevent?

I’m not sure what the argument here is… does the prevent defense mean the game doesn’t matter anymore? Does it mean the defense doesn’t need to play anymore?

If the game is being played, points are being scored, yards are gained.. and you don’t think it matters, then I’m not sure what game YOU are watching.

by PackaCracka on Oct 10, 2009 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions  

No prevent

Happened in the 4th quarter. On our 96 yard drive you guys were still running the same defense you had been. You guys even blitzed 3 times and that is a lot for you guys.

by packallday555 on Oct 10, 2009 2:21 PM CDT up reply actions  

Quite incorrect

They are in the superbowl phase.

THOMPSON IS A MORON

by 4 where-ever on Oct 9, 2009 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions  

Didn't realize the Super Bowl was played in October

Well you learn something new everyday, huh?

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Oct 9, 2009 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions  

So I'm curious...

… were the Vikings in the Superbowl phase in 98 when they won, what, 15 games in the regular season only to lose to the Falcons in the playoffs? Or how about 2001 when they went 11-5 only to lose 41-0 in the NFC championship game?

Or were they in the Superbowl phase just in ’70? And ’74? And ’75? and ’77?

Look, the Vikings are pretty good right now. You don’t win 5 in a row in the NFL without being pretty good regardless of how easy your schedule is. But that defense gives up a TON of yards. They did so last week against GB and today against St. Louis. So far, they aren’t giving up a corresponding amount of points to go along with those yards. The Rams, like the Packers before them, turned the ball over in the red zone. That speaks well of the Vikings defense. But sooner or later the Vikings will play a team that doesn’t turn the ball over in the red zone and plays defense as well as they do. When that happens, we’ll see how they do. They’ve only played one game like that so far and Favre and Lewis made a spectacular play to win it in the closing seconds. That speaks well of them too. But right now, I have a hard time seeing the Vikings beating the Giants and Saints in this conference, and I have a hard time seeing them beating the Pats and Steelers and maybe the Ravens in the AFC. And I think a couple of other teams, like the Colts, Cards and Bengals might give them a run for their money too.

But hey, if you want to crown ‘em, then crown their asses. As for me, I’ll wait to see if they get beat in the end just like that Bears team did not so long ago.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 11, 2009 9:50 PM CDT up reply actions  

“So far, they aren’t giving up a corresponding amount of points to go along with those yards. The Rams, like the Packers before them, turned the ball over in the red zone. That speaks well of the Vikings defense. But sooner or later the Vikings will play a team that doesn’t turn the ball over in the red zone and plays defense as well as they do. When that happens, we’ll see how they do.”

Right. Now again, you got to give them credit for winning 5 straight but your point about them giving up a lot of yards is spot on. They gave up 400+ too us, and 320+ to the Rams. Whether they want to admit it or not, Boller really drove the Rams up and down the field against them. But like us they made to many mistakes, and really mistakes that are just dumb. Like Jackson just having the ball slip out of his hands.

It will be interesting to watch them play the Ravens next week. Their offense is much better and their run game is very, very good. The Vikes run defense does not look like it’s on the same level as it was last year, and McGahee and Rice could have some success.

The Giants and Saints both look very, very good. Especially the Giants.

by packallday555 on Oct 11, 2009 10:25 PM CDT up reply actions  

Yes, and I will continue to do so.

by Weldon on Oct 8, 2009 6:20 PM CDT reply actions  

I dont glame him at all, seeing dead tead wanted him out so arron could play. Howcould youdo that to the one of the greatest ever to play trhe position or if you look at the records the greatest ever! I am glad he is still not on the packers time only reason is , seeing arron rogers does not get any protection to pass and the vikings give him plenty of time. I hope when he goes to greenbay to play them he puts it to them again. Also I love the packers and always will, but my heart goes to brett and always have.

by rocketarmfavre on Oct 11, 2009 8:25 AM CDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Acme Packing Company, the SBNation blog for fans of the Green Bay Packers.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Gassertaylor_small
APC Open Thread #33: Ron Dayne Thread? Why Not?
Packer_brewer_badger_logo_small
The APC Helmet Logo Bracket Tournament: Sweet Sixteen

Recent FanPosts

Small
When And Why
Small
Where were you?
Ukcat_small
How about a little love for Cobb!!!
Jordy_nelson_small
MVP baby!
Football-funny-pic_small
NFL could add two new teams
Ukcat_small
Nike taking over Jerseys
Small
Free Agency Opinions
Small
NFL needs to fix its playoff system...

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Manager

Acmepackingco_small Brandon

Author

Rubberducky_small Mitchell Maurer

Ayrton_senna_1988_canada_small Vermont Cubs Fan

Texbucky_small texwestern

Gassertaylor_small OBrienSchofieldismyHero

Img00243_small Kevin McCauley