Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Fuck You Favre

At least now I don't have to stretch to defend the guy anymore.


Anonymous said...

The question is, when do we want the Theismann to be delivered to Favre?

E.S.K. said...

Personally I don't want him to get hurt. I like this whole "fading into mediocrity" thing he is doing. Very satisfying to watch him waste away especially now that it will be to our benefit.

B-town Rob said...

We (the fans) are all just the innocent children getting screwed in the ugly, bitter, and vindictive divorce between two parents (Judas & TT).

Eric said...

Yeah. Screw Favre. And Edgar Bennet. and Reggie White. And Antonio Freeman. And Dorsey Levens. And Jackie Harris. And Craig Hentrich. And Mike Holmgren. and Andy Reid. And Steve Marriuci. Oh and the biggest ass hat of all Vince Lombardi.

Eric said...

The vikings will win the NFC North division. Here's why.

Vikings have 1 of the top 5 defenses in the league right now

last year

total yards # 6 @ 292.4
Packers # 20 @ 334.3

Passing yards allowed

Vikes # 18 324
Packers # 12 @ 287

Rushing yards allowed

Vikes #1 at 76 yards
Packers # 26 131.6

Biggest number here to look at is rushing yards allowed.

Vikings have been able to shut down the running game allowing them to free up players.

Packers have a soft front 7, you will not win the division with a soft front 7 when you have the Viking's running game as well as Chicago's.

Favre is not who he use to be, and not as good as Rodgers, but he can still play. He did go 8-8 last year with a less talented group of receivers.

E.S.K. said...

If memory serves not a single one of those listed went to a division rival.

Enjoy the Vikings, Eric.

PaulNoonan said...

Also, shutting down the run is really overrated. You run to stay ahead, you pass to get ahead.

You can't get gouged in the running game ans be successful, but being average is just fine. It really won't hurt you.

Eric said...

ESK your memory does not serve.

Here's a hint. He's currently a running backs coach within the NFC north.

Eric said...

Paul, you would agree yes? that staying ahead is important once you are ahead?

The Packers problem last year, and thus Rodgers problem as well, is that the Packers couldn't keep a lead. Rodgers can only do so much. At some point the defense has to hold its own and i don't see it this year.

PaulNoonan said...

Yup, but you can also pass to stay ahead. The Packers' mistake last year was trying to run when they could not. Keep passing and you win those games.

PaulNoonan said...

You don't really need to run at all.

E.S.K. said...

Oh yeah. Well, if Favre is as terrible for the Vikings as Bennet was for the Bears then all is forgiven.

Eric said...

Heh. Fair enough

Jon said...

Lol at not needing to run at all. i mean yea there's more than 1 way to skin a cat and if you're super amzing at passing ala 2007 patriots you dont need to run much, but for most teams its quite important. the Giants have won 3 super bowls with offenses that were run-heavy, and hopefully will make it 4 this year. lots of great teams have been excellent at running the ball. and yes passing is just as important but to say passing is alot more important than running, i think thats really not the case. and personally coming from a giant background, if i had to pick being awesome at 1 i'd pick rushing. actually just looked up some interestnig stuff - in the 1990's the SB winning teams were all awesome at passing (although they were great at rushing too, emmitt, terrell davis, ricky watters). Every single champ in the 1990's (10 for 10) ranked in the top 5 in adjusted passing ability (1990 giants 5th even though they rarely passed). However, in the 2000's the opposite has ocurred and only 1/9 champs so far has been a top 5 passing team (Colts). Pats champs were mediocre passing teams, ravens sucked at passing, tampa was very mediocre, giants were bad, and pittsburgh has been mediocre. So maybe its fluke, or maybe for some reason passing isn't as important as it used to be for playoff success?

E.S.K. said...

Where does Paul say passing is more important than running? All he said was that a team should play to its strengths.

PaulNoonan said...

Yes Jon, I'm surprised at you. You're usually more on point than that.

You really don't need to run at all. Sure, running is helpful, and yes, you can build a very good offense around running, but people (by which I mean mainstream media type people and popular opinion in general) elevate running to this undeserved plateau, and say things like "if you can't run, you can't win."

It's simply not true. Both Super Bowl teams last year were bad at running the ball. Arizona was almost comically bad, as they rushed for just under 1200 yards as a team, and averaged only 3.5 yards per carry. Pitt had more yards, but only because they're stubborn and ran a bunch more. They only averaged 3.7 yards per carry. They were 2nd and 4th last in the NFL in YPC.

Running continues to be overrated.

Also, in your Giants' most recent Super Bowl victory, they actually did a kind of shitty job of running. Especially Brandon Jacobs.

Unknown said...

well you don't have to wish pain on the guy... but you can join the cause... for a great little joke.


Jon said...

hmm thought i posted but now dont see it. apologies if this essentially gets added twice. i guess i misinterpreted paul's comment - thought he was saying running is not important, i agree that its not a 100% must have if your good at everything else. as for paul's examples - yes last year's super bowl teams are good examples of winners that werent good at running (just like i gave examples of winners who werent good at passing) - giants super bowl team is bad example though. even though it was a below ave running day for them jacobs/bradshaw had 87 yards on 23 carries which is decent, and jacobs converted a 4th and 1 on the winning drive that was essentially as important as tyree's catch, albeit far less difficult/amazing.

Anonymous said...

piracy affects porn but it's still winner during the crunch