Thread: Brad Childress has questions about his team

"marstc09" wrote:

"singersp" wrote:

"marstc09" wrote:

"singersp" wrote:

"marstc09" wrote:

[quote author=singersp link=topic=52516.msg974002#msg974002 date=1248621470]
[quote author=marstc09 link=topic=52516.msg973976#msg973976 date=1248617293]

Q: Jared Allen said the Favre saga was "annoying" . . .

(Childress jumps in.)

A: What else did he say about it? He qualified it. He said: But if you can get Brett Favre, you get Brett Favre. Then he said: When we get him, we're going to go out and try to get Lawrence Taylor. It wasn't all that you're making it out to be.

Interesting. The haters thought it was a big deal.

And many of the lovers loved the idea they thought JA & others were texting Favre. What's your point?

Oh you mean that other ESPN story? Do you have a quote from a lover that proves that? All I remember is a bunch of people doubting another ESPN story.

LOL! You made a specific point to quote that part of the article you posted so all would see it & then when I called you on it & asked if you believed it, then you said you didn't believe it.

What the hell are you even talking about? Just like Marr, you are making no sense in your Favre rambles. Of course I believe what Childress said in a interview. Really, I mean really. Sad. This interview has nothing to do with Allen texting Favre.

I'm talking about this quote, you know the one I responded to? Or did you forget what you said already.

marstc09 wrote:

Oh you mean that [size=10pt]other[/size] ESPN story? Do you have a quote from a lover that proves that? All I remember is a bunch of people doubting another ESPN story.

[/quote]

You have clearly lost it. That statement was referring to you post. I posted a comment by Chilly and you start blabbing about texting. I called you out on the fact that nobody fell in love with Nichols or Weiners stories. You really need to reread before you make another post.
[/quote]

You're the one not getting it. You said "The haters thought it was a big deal" meaning because it was anti-Favre, they jumped all over it. So I can back with "And many of the lovers loved the idea they thought JA & others were texting Favre. What's your point?" meaning that the lovers think it's a big deal when something is pro-Favre, so what the fucks the difference? Doesn't necessarily mean just this article, pick any one of the pro-Favre articles you've slobbered over.

"singersp" wrote:

"marstc09" wrote:

"singersp" wrote:

"marstc09" wrote:

"singersp" wrote:

[quote author=marstc09 link=topic=52516.msg974008#msg974008 date=1248622323]
[quote author=singersp link=topic=52516.msg974002#msg974002 date=1248621470]
[quote author=marstc09 link=topic=52516.msg973976#msg973976 date=1248617293]

Q: Jared Allen said the Favre saga was "annoying" . . .

(Childress jumps in.)

A: What else did he say about it? He qualified it. He said: But if you can get Brett Favre, you get Brett Favre. Then he said: When we get him, we're going to go out and try to get Lawrence Taylor. It wasn't all that you're making it out to be.

Interesting. The haters thought it was a big deal.

And many of the lovers loved the idea they thought JA & others were texting Favre. What's your point?

Oh you mean that other ESPN story? Do you have a quote from a lover that proves that? All I remember is a bunch of people doubting another ESPN story.

LOL! You made a specific point to quote that part of the article you posted so all would see it & then when I called you on it & asked if you believed it, then you said you didn't believe it.

What the hell are you even talking about? Just like Marr, you are making no sense in your Favre rambles. Of course I believe what Childress said in a interview. Really, I mean really. Sad. This interview has nothing to do with Allen texting Favre.

I'm talking about this quote, you know the one I responded to? Or did you forget what you said already.

marstc09 wrote:

Oh you mean that [size=10pt]other[/size] ESPN story? Do you have a quote from a lover that proves that? All I remember is a bunch of people doubting another ESPN story.

[/quote]

You have clearly lost it. That statement was referring to you post. I posted a comment by Chilly and you start blabbing about texting. I called you out on the fact that nobody fell in love with Nichols or Weiners stories. You really need to reread before you make another post.
[/quote]

You're the one not getting it. You said "The haters thought it was a big deal" meaning because it was anti-Favre, they jumped all over it. So I can back with "And many of the lovers loved the idea they thought JA & others were texting Favre. What's your point?" meaning that the lovers think it's a big deal when something is pro-Favre, so what the fucks the difference? Doesn't necessarily mean just this article, pick any one of the pro-Favre articles you've slobbered over.
[/quote]

You still have not answered my question.....

Please show me a link to a post that has a lover slobbering over the report from Nichols about the texting!

So again, what are you not getting here?

Talent is talent. There will always be only one ball in football. You have to be able to mix it up.

That's been the whole Childress argument.
So, far he hasn't been able to "mix it up."

You just do as many things as you can to get playmakers the ball.

At first, I got excited about this quote, thinking, "Chilly's going to unleash the full playbook."
Then I remembered hearing that he and Bevell would simplify or tone down the offense for Favre, if he signs.
Again this is another argument, he talks a big game but has trouble producing solid results.


"marstc09" wrote:

Interesting. [s]The haters[/s] ^{Vikings fans} thought it was a big deal.

:P

"so-cal" wrote:

Talent is talent. There will always be only one ball in football. You have to be able to mix it up.

That's been the whole Childress argument.
So, far he hasn't been able to "mix it up."

You just do as many things as you can to get playmakers the ball.

At first, I got excited about this quote, thinking, "Chilly's going to unleash the full playbook."
Then I remembered hearing that he and Bevell would simplify or tone down the offense for Favre, if he signs.
Again this is another argument, he talks a big game but has trouble producing solid results.


"marstc09" wrote:

Interesting. [s]The haters[/s] ^{Vikings fans} thought it was a big deal.

:P

They don't have to tone down anything. I bet Favre knows it better than Chilly. Singer is right about something, I bet Favre will change a lot plays. That IMO is a good thing. Favre will help Chilly and Bevell mix it up.

BS: This may seem to have an obvious answer, but I want to hear from you in case there's something the rest of us aren't taking into consideration: What does Favre give the Vikings that Tarvaris Jackson and Sage Rosenfels don't?

PB: I think what Favre does — and this is talking from my coaching days — is he beats teams before the ball is snapped. You don't see too many guys who can walk up to the line of scrimmage and see the blitz that's coming and know exactly what to call. And Favre, especially in his last year in Green Bay, threw the best deep ball I have seen (him throw). When you have eight guys in the box trying to stop Adrian Peterson, Favre has that ability to get that ball out there.

http://www.twincities.com/vikings/ci_12911418

"marstc09" wrote:

"so-cal" wrote:

Talent is talent. There will always be only one ball in football. You have to be able to mix it up.

That's been the whole Childress argument.
So, far he hasn't been able to "mix it up."

You just do as many things as you can to get playmakers the ball.

At first, I got excited about this quote, thinking, "Chilly's going to unleash the full playbook."
Then I remembered hearing that he and Bevell would simplify or tone down the offense for Favre, if he signs.
Again this is another argument, he talks a big game but has trouble producing solid results.


"marstc09" wrote:

Interesting. [s]The haters[/s] ^{Vikings fans} thought it was a big deal.

:P

They don't have to tone down anything. I bet Favre knows it better than Chilly. Singer is right about something, I bet Favre will change a lot plays. That IMO is a good thing. Favre will help Chilly and Bevell mix it up.

I really do hope you're right.
I seriously doubt it, but I hope.

BS: This may seem to have an obvious answer, but I want to hear from you in case there's something the rest of us aren't taking into consideration: What does Favre give the Vikings that Tarvaris Jackson and Sage Rosenfels don't?

PB: I think what Favre does — and this is talking from my coaching days — is he beats teams before the ball is snapped. You don't see too many guys who can walk up to the line of scrimmage and see the blitz that's coming and know exactly what to call. And Favre, especially in his last year in Green Bay, threw the best deep ball I have seen (him throw). When you have eight guys in the box trying to stop Adrian Peterson, Favre has that ability to get that ball out there.

http://www.twincities.com/vikings/ci_12911418


Yes Favre has the ability to get the ball out there.
The problem is, "out there" often means up for grabs.

"marstc09" wrote:

"so-cal" wrote:

Talent is talent. There will always be only one ball in football. You have to be able to mix it up.

That's been the whole Childress argument.
So, far he hasn't been able to "mix it up."

You just do as many things as you can to get playmakers the ball.

At first, I got excited about this quote, thinking, "Chilly's going to unleash the full playbook."
Then I remembered hearing that he and Bevell would simplify or tone down the offense for Favre, if he signs.
Again this is another argument, he talks a big game but has trouble producing solid results.


"marstc09" wrote:

Interesting. [s]The haters[/s] ^{Vikings fans} thought it was a big deal.

:P

They don't have to tone down anything. I bet Favre knows it better than Chilly. Singer is right about something, I bet Favre will change a lot plays. That IMO is a good thing. Favre will help Chilly and Bevell mix it up.

BS: This may seem to have an obvious answer, but I want to hear from you in case there's something the rest of us aren't taking into consideration: What does Favre give the Vikings that Tarvaris Jackson and Sage Rosenfels don't?

PB: I think what Favre does — and this is talking from my coaching days — is he beats teams before the ball is snapped. You don't see too many guys who can walk up to the line of scrimmage and see the blitz that's coming and know exactly what to call. And Favre, especially in his last year in Green Bay, threw the best deep ball I have seen (him throw). When you have eight guys in the box trying to stop Adrian Peterson, Favre has that ability to get that ball out there.

http://www.twincities.com/vikings/ci_12911418

You wait though, you'll have Childress sending in the plays & Favre saying to himself "WTF?" & changing it on the LOS.

What you have is two huge egos trying to each run their "show" & sooner or later, they're going to clash.

First off though, Favre needs to learn the plays, providing he even signs with the Vikings. It's Sunday today & all players are to report to TC on Wednesday, just 3 days from now.

"singersp" wrote:

"marstc09" wrote:

"so-cal" wrote:

Talent is talent. There will always be only one ball in football. You have to be able to mix it up.

That's been the whole Childress argument.
So, far he hasn't been able to "mix it up."

You just do as many things as you can to get playmakers the ball.

At first, I got excited about this quote, thinking, "Chilly's going to unleash the full playbook."
Then I remembered hearing that he and Bevell would simplify or tone down the offense for Favre, if he signs.
Again this is another argument, he talks a big game but has trouble producing solid results.


"marstc09" wrote:

Interesting. [s]The haters[/s] ^{Vikings fans} thought it was a big deal.

:P

They don't have to tone down anything. I bet Favre knows it better than Chilly. Singer is right about something, I bet Favre will change a lot plays. That IMO is a good thing. Favre will help Chilly and Bevell mix it up.

BS: This may seem to have an obvious answer, but I want to hear from you in case there's something the rest of us aren't taking into consideration: What does Favre give the Vikings that Tarvaris Jackson and Sage Rosenfels don't?

PB: I think what Favre does — and this is talking from my coaching days — is he beats teams before the ball is snapped. You don't see too many guys who can walk up to the line of scrimmage and see the blitz that's coming and know exactly what to call. And Favre, especially in his last year in Green Bay, threw the best deep ball I have seen (him throw). When you have eight guys in the box trying to stop Adrian Peterson, Favre has that ability to get that ball out there.

http://www.twincities.com/vikings/ci_12911418

You wait though, you'll have Childress sending in the plays & Favre saying to himself "WTF?" & changing it on the LOS.

What you have is two huge egos trying to each run their "show" & sooner or later, they're going to clash.

First off though, Favre needs to learn the plays, providing he even signs with the Vikings. It's Sunday today & all players are to report to TC on Wednesday, just 3 days from now.

All signed players, Harvin and Loadholt won't be there unless they have a contract

"singersp" wrote:

"marstc09" wrote:

"so-cal" wrote:

Talent is talent. There will always be only one ball in football. You have to be able to mix it up.

That's been the whole Childress argument.
So, far he hasn't been able to "mix it up."

You just do as many things as you can to get playmakers the ball.

At first, I got excited about this quote, thinking, "Chilly's going to unleash the full playbook."
Then I remembered hearing that he and Bevell would simplify or tone down the offense for Favre, if he signs.
Again this is another argument, he talks a big game but has trouble producing solid results.


"marstc09" wrote:

Interesting. [s]The haters[/s] ^{Vikings fans} thought it was a big deal.

:P

They don't have to tone down anything. I bet Favre knows it better than Chilly. Singer is right about something, I bet Favre will change a lot plays. That IMO is a good thing. Favre will help Chilly and Bevell mix it up.

BS: This may seem to have an obvious answer, but I want to hear from you in case there's something the rest of us aren't taking into consideration: What does Favre give the Vikings that Tarvaris Jackson and Sage Rosenfels don't?

PB: I think what Favre does — and this is talking from my coaching days — is he beats teams before the ball is snapped. You don't see too many guys who can walk up to the line of scrimmage and see the blitz that's coming and know exactly what to call. And Favre, especially in his last year in Green Bay, threw the best deep ball I have seen (him throw). When you have eight guys in the box trying to stop Adrian Peterson, Favre has that ability to get that ball out there.

http://www.twincities.com/vikings/ci_12911418

You wait though, you'll have Childress sending in the plays & Favre saying to himself "WTF?" & changing it on the LOS.

What you have is two huge egos trying to each run their "show" & sooner or later, they're going to clash.

First off though, Favre needs to learn the plays, providing he even signs with the Vikings. It's Sunday today & all players are to report to TC on Wednesday, just 3 days from now.

I have always questioned his play calling so I see nothing but good from this.

I really think Chilly would trust a 18 year Veteran. I don't see this being a problem.

I have a funny feeling Favre has the playbook.

"singersp" wrote:

"marstc09" wrote:

"so-cal" wrote:

Talent is talent. There will always be only one ball in football. You have to be able to mix it up.

That's been the whole Childress argument.
So, far he hasn't been able to "mix it up."

You just do as many things as you can to get playmakers the ball.

At first, I got excited about this quote, thinking, "Chilly's going to unleash the full playbook."
Then I remembered hearing that he and Bevell would simplify or tone down the offense for Favre, if he signs.
Again this is another argument, he talks a big game but has trouble producing solid results.


"marstc09" wrote:

Interesting. [s]The haters[/s] ^{Vikings fans} thought it was a big deal.

:P

They don't have to tone down anything. I bet Favre knows it better than Chilly. Singer is right about something, I bet Favre will change a lot plays. That IMO is a good thing. Favre will help Chilly and Bevell mix it up.

BS: This may seem to have an obvious answer, but I want to hear from you in case there's something the rest of us aren't taking into consideration: What does Favre give the Vikings that Tarvaris Jackson and Sage Rosenfels don't?

PB: I think what Favre does — and this is talking from my coaching days — is he beats teams before the ball is snapped. You don't see too many guys who can walk up to the line of scrimmage and see the blitz that's coming and know exactly what to call. And Favre, especially in his last year in Green Bay, threw the best deep ball I have seen (him throw). When you have eight guys in the box trying to stop Adrian Peterson, Favre has that ability to get that ball out there.

http://www.twincities.com/vikings/ci_12911418

You wait though, you'll have Childress sending in the plays & Favre saying to himself "WTF?" & changing it on the LOS.

What you have is two huge egos trying to each run their "show" & sooner or later, they're going to clash.

First off though, Favre needs to learn the plays, providing he even signs with the Vikings. It's Sunday today & all players are to report to TC on Wednesday, just 3 days from now.

That is actually the one positive thing I can see in having him as the QB. There are many times over the past 3 years where I would have loved to have a 18 year vet look over to the sideline and say WTF are you thinking and then call a play that would actually work.

"UffDaVikes" wrote:

"singersp" wrote:

"marstc09" wrote:

"so-cal" wrote:

Talent is talent. There will always be only one ball in football. You have to be able to mix it up.

That's been the whole Childress argument.
So, far he hasn't been able to "mix it up."

You just do as many things as you can to get playmakers the ball.

At first, I got excited about this quote, thinking, "Chilly's going to unleash the full playbook."
Then I remembered hearing that he and Bevell would simplify or tone down the offense for Favre, if he signs.
Again this is another argument, he talks a big game but has trouble producing solid results.


"marstc09" wrote:

Interesting. [s]The haters[/s] ^{Vikings fans} thought it was a big deal.

:P

They don't have to tone down anything. I bet Favre knows it better than Chilly. Singer is right about something, I bet Favre will change a lot plays. That IMO is a good thing. Favre will help Chilly and Bevell mix it up.

BS: This may seem to have an obvious answer, but I want to hear from you in case there's something the rest of us aren't taking into consideration: What does Favre give the Vikings that Tarvaris Jackson and Sage Rosenfels don't?

PB: I think what Favre does — and this is talking from my coaching days — is he beats teams before the ball is snapped. You don't see too many guys who can walk up to the line of scrimmage and see the blitz that's coming and know exactly what to call. And Favre, especially in his last year in Green Bay, threw the best deep ball I have seen (him throw). When you have eight guys in the box trying to stop Adrian Peterson, Favre has that ability to get that ball out there.

http://www.twincities.com/vikings/ci_12911418

You wait though, you'll have Childress sending in the plays & Favre saying to himself "WTF?" & changing it on the LOS.

What you have is two huge egos trying to each run their "show" & sooner or later, they're going to clash.

First off though, Favre needs to learn the plays, providing he even signs with the Vikings. It's Sunday today & all players are to report to TC on Wednesday, just 3 days from now.

That is actually the one positive thing I can see in having him as the QB. There are many times over the past 3 years where I would have loved to have a 18 year vet look over to the sideline and say WTF are you thinking and then call a play that would actually work.

That's actually the negative.
Childress would then have to chew out Favre in front of the team lest any players get the same idea, and we all know big ego Brett wouldn't have that.
You now have the beginings of a team split.
Could Brad hold the team together in such a crisis?
Let's hope we never have to find out.