Page 1 of 19 123 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 184
  1. #1
    baumy300 is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,065

    Here is why getting Favre would be a bad move on our behalf.

    As it looks now, we could be in some sort of running for Brett Favre. Unless you've been living under a rock for the last few weeks, you know what has been going on in this Favre saga.

    So, to the point - The Vikings are better, way better off without Brett Favre.

    Here is why:

    1. He won't help out young Quarterbacks.
    Remember when the Pack drafted Aaron Rogers? Remember the media circus that ensued when Brett refused to mentor him? Yeah, he thinks he's too good to teach. He claims that it isn't his job. T-Jack and Booty would do nothing but lose confidence and precious playing time while sitting behind Captain Cock.

    2. He is too much money.
    Do you want to pay him 24 million dollars or more for the next two years? Me neither. We could use that space to sign a few good young free agents instead of spending it on a regressing, depreciating QB who doesn't really fit our style of play anyways.

    3. He won't fit in with Childress.
    I don't see him blending well with Childress. Childress likes to have control over his team, and I doubt Brett will be willing to start playing Childress style football. That would take away his "gun slinging" mentality and therefore make him feel like he isn't getting his way.

    4. We would have a media frenzy.
    We now have the face of our franchise in AD. The last thing we need is him overshadowed by Favre. Our whole team would be put on the back burner and everything would be "Favre this" and "Favre that."

    5. He cost the Pack the big game last year.
    If someone has that picture of Favre's last throw in the NFC Championship game last year, please post it. Yes Favre is an improvement over T-Jack, but he didn't get it done last year either. Now one year older, Favre is wanting to come back and try it again. He makes too many bad choices and he makes them at bad times. We don't need him trying to force passes when he shouldn't.

    If you have any other reasons why you feel this is a bad move, definitely post them here.

  2. #2
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,525

    Re: Here is why getting Favre would be a bad move on our behalf.

    I think it's a bad idea because he's Brett Favre... and this is the Vikings... I mean, come on...


    Good Reason? See the faces of Packers fans.
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,134

    Re: Here is why getting Favre would be a bad move on our behalf.

    "baumy300" wrote:
    As it looks now, we could be in some sort of running for Brett Favre. Unless you've been living under a rock for the last few weeks, you know what has been going on in this Favre saga.

    So, to the point - The Vikings are better, way better off without Brett Favre.

    Here is why:

    1. He won't help out young Quarterbacks.
    Remember when the Pack drafted Aaron Rogers? Remember the media circus that ensued when Brett refused to mentor him? Yeah, he thinks he's too good to teach. He claims that it isn't his job. T-Jack and Booty would do nothing but lose confidence and precious playing time while sitting behind Captain c**I love the word I used**k.

    2. He is too much money.
    Do you want to pay him 24 million dollars or more for the next two years? Me neither. We could use that space to sign a few good young free agents instead of spending it on a regressing, depreciating QB who doesn't really fit our style of play anyways.

    3. He won't fit in with Childress.
    I don't see him blending well with Childress. Childress likes to have control over his team, and I doubt Brett will be willing to start playing Childress style football. That would take away his "gun slinging" mentality and therefore make him feel like he isn't getting his way.

    4. We would have a media frenzy.
    We now have the face of our franchise in AD. The last thing we need is him overshadowed by Favre. Our whole team would be put on the back burner and everything would be "Favre this" and "Favre that."

    5. He cost the Pack the big game last year.
    If someone has that picture of Favre's last throw in the NFC Championship game last year, please post it. Yes Favre is an improvement over T-Jack, but he didn't get it done last year either. Now one year older, Favre is wanting to come back and try it again. He makes too many bad choices and he makes them at bad times. We don't need him trying to force passes when he shouldn't.

    If you have any other reasons why you feel this is a bad move, definitely post them here.
    It's a bad move because if you're a TRUE Vikings fan, getting Favre to win a Superbowl is like selling your soul. He has been the bane of our existence as Vikings fans for almost 2 decades, and anyone who wants him would probably also sell their child into sex-slavery for a Lombardi trophy. Keep #4 out of purple FOREVER.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Posts
    1,128

    Re: Here is why getting Favre would be a bad move on our behalf.

    "DeathtoDenny" wrote:
    "baumy300" wrote:
    As it looks now, we could be in some sort of running for Brett Favre. Unless you've been living under a rock for the last few weeks, you know what has been going on in this Favre saga.

    So, to the point - The Vikings are better, way better off without Brett Favre.

    Here is why:

    1. He won't help out young Quarterbacks.
    Remember when the Pack drafted Aaron Rogers? Remember the media circus that ensued when Brett refused to mentor him? Yeah, he thinks he's too good to teach. He claims that it isn't his job. T-Jack and Booty would do nothing but lose confidence and precious playing time while sitting behind Captain c**I love the word I used**k.

    2. He is too much money.
    Do you want to pay him 24 million dollars or more for the next two years? Me neither. We could use that space to sign a few good young free agents instead of spending it on a regressing, depreciating QB who doesn't really fit our style of play anyways.

    3. He won't fit in with Childress.
    I don't see him blending well with Childress. Childress likes to have control over his team, and I doubt Brett will be willing to start playing Childress style football. That would take away his "gun slinging" mentality and therefore make him feel like he isn't getting his way.

    4. We would have a media frenzy.
    We now have the face of our franchise in AD. The last thing we need is him overshadowed by Favre. Our whole team would be put on the back burner and everything would be "Favre this" and "Favre that."

    5. He cost the Pack the big game last year.
    If someone has that picture of Favre's last throw in the NFC Championship game last year, please post it. Yes Favre is an improvement over T-Jack, but he didn't get it done last year either. Now one year older, Favre is wanting to come back and try it again. He makes too many bad choices and he makes them at bad times. We don't need him trying to force passes when he shouldn't.

    If you have any other reasons why you feel this is a bad move, definitely post them here.
    It's a bad move because if you're a TRUE Vikings fan, getting Favre to win a Superbowl is like selling your soul. He has been the bane of our existence as Vikings fans for almost 2 decades, and anyone who wants him would probably also sell their child into sex-slavery for a Lombardi trophy. Keep #4 out of purple FOREVER.
    All the above, plus I just tried practicing "Yea Favre" and choked so bad the wife was dialing 911 before I recovered and told her I was alright....for now.
    Let him go down and be a Dolphin.

  5. #5
    baumy300 is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,065

    Re: Here is why getting Favre would be a bad move on our behalf.

    The way it sounds/looks he is going to be a Buccaneer.

    Smooth Gruden, smooth. He signed Garcia, Plummer, has Simms, ughh has some other QB on the roster, and now he is looking at Favre. This isn't like WR where you can play 4 players at the same position at once. I mean technically you could, but yeah....

  6. #6
    baumy300 is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,065

    Re: Here is why getting Favre would be a bad move on our behalf.

    Oh wait... Just remembered another one:

    He is on the cover of Madden.

  7. #7
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,525

    Re: Here is why getting Favre would be a bad move on our behalf.

    "baumy300" wrote:
    The way it sounds/looks he is going to be a Buccaneer.

    Smooth Gruden, smooth. He signed Garcia, Plummer, has Simms, ughh has some other QB on the roster, and now he is looking at Favre. This isn't like WR where you can play 4 players at the same position at once. I mean technically you could, but yeah....
    I've read those reports too, but I think that's just speculation. There's not many "facts" out there yet. A lot of writers are just writing off the chance of him coming to Minnesota though... with good reason. I don't know how Green Bay would EVER let that happen.
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  8. #8
    baumy300 is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,065

    Re: Here is why getting Favre would be a bad move on our behalf.

    Yeah, but Green Bay wouldn't have a say in the matter if he was released.

  9. #9
    Potus2028 is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,654

    Re: Here is why getting Favre would be a bad move on our behalf.

    Yes to Favre.

    In response:
    Won't help out the young quarterbacks
    1.) He has been teaching the young quarterback of Aaron Rodgers. Taking players is like the draft- take the best available player. Even if he doesn't teach the other qb's, it's not his job to. That's what coaches are for. The qb is out there to run the offense, and Favre knows how.

    Too much money
    2.) We have the cap room! If we have the money to pick up a QB like that.. why not?

    Won't fit in with Childress
    3.) What even makes you think that? Has he ever not worked out well with a coach?

    Media Frenzy
    4.) Two words: WHO CARES? I live in Dallas, and TO and ROMO get a ton of press! And they seem to be doing just fine (13-3 last year)

    Cost them the big Game
    5.) He is the biggest reason they got to the Championship game last year! He willed an extremely young team to their wins last year!

    I think there a ton of good reasons to bring him in:
    -Hall of Fame quarterback! He's better than any QB we have on our depth chart. If it was Elway, Marino, Montana, any of these guys would be welcomed on a team!
    -We have the cap space!
    -Take him away from the Packers! I think it would be extremely historic and story-esque if he came to his arch nemesis Vikings!

    I want him here!
    i m better than you, so just give up...

  10. #10
    olson_10's Avatar
    olson_10 is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,215

    Re: Here is why getting Favre would be a bad move on our behalf.

    all people need to do is look at the alternative..if favre doesnt play, jackson does
    People who see life as anything more than pure entertainment are missing the point.

Page 1 of 19 123 11 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Will the Favre move be considered a success even w
    By Marrdro in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 01-12-2010, 11:11 AM
  2. Help! Where should I move???
    By jkjuggalo in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 01-29-2008, 12:26 AM
  3. Vikings tried to move up!
    By D-Sharp in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 05-04-2006, 02:36 AM
  4. Vikes have the value to move up to #5
    By slinkey in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 03-19-2006, 01:33 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •