Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 184
  1. #11
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,493

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

    "baumy300" wrote:
    Yeah, but Green Bay wouldn't have a say in the matter if he was released.
    I don't think they would release him...

    [size=10pt]Packers: Favre stays with us[/size]

    http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-2-34/Packers--Favre-stays-with-us.html

    As a retired player, Brett has the option to apply for reinstatement with Commissioner Goodell.
    If that were to occur, he would become an active member of the Green Bay Packers.
    As always, the Packers will do what's right and in the best interest of the team.
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  2. #12
    CrazyVikingsFan is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    491

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

    Here are a few reasons why signing Brett Favre would be a good move on our behalf.

    1. Brett is a surefire upgrade over all of our qb's and the vikings are a win now team. Our players arnt getting any younger and we dont have time to wait for T-Jack to develop.

    2. Brett Favre would most likely come cheap. Brett will not get traded to the vikings so the only way we could get him is by signing him which would be a new contract. Favre is not coming back to make some money he is coming back to win.

    3. Favre and Childress may collide but chances are that this wont happen. Favre is coming to a system that he knows and a Coordinator he knows. Bevell will be able to handle Favre's problems leaving Chilly and the Favre situation handeled.

    4.Brett Favre may gain a lot of attention early on but I am not at all concerned about this at all. Because the media attention im not concerned about. Its the attention of the Defensive Coordinators that i will like. With all the hype of Brett Favre the three time mvp at quarterback that makes it hard for them to concentrate on Purple Jesus. This should make Purple Jesus jump right back to the top of the media if your concerned about that.

    5. This is Brett Favre. Not only the aspect of being a packer but this is numbers wise the greatest qb of all time. You may mention the time he makes bad decicions but how many times does he make moves and plays that you know in the back of your mind that only Brett Favre can do.

    This may be Brett Favre and you may hate him and can never imagine him playing for your team but Favre gives the Vikings the best possible chance to win the big one and if your going to let a little thing like who he once played for keep you from realizing that then your not really true fans.

    Thats right im calling you out Favre Haters! I still hate Favre the Packer but i can look past that because the love I have for the vikings and wanting to see them win it all and because of the respect i have for Favre and his accomplishments and the history of football.

  3. #13
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,493

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

    "olson_10" wrote:
    all people need to do is look at the alternative..if favre doesnt play, jackson does
    You may be ready to give up on TJack, but some some, me included, still have faith in him.
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  4. #14
    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.

    "C" wrote:
    "olson_10" wrote:
    all people need to do is look at the alternative..if favre doesnt play, jackson does
    You may be ready to give up on TJack, but some some, me included, still have faith in him.
    HE WOULD STILL BE ON THE ROSTER, AND HE WOULD STILL START 2 YEARS FROM NOW..i dont get what people are missing here..try to win now, and let jackson develop from the bench like he was supposed to in the first place..the plan was to bench the guy for 3 years, but they threw him out there and he was terrible..take a far better option in favre, try to actually win, then let the guy start when hes finally actually ready in a couple year

    the team is good enough to win now, but the quarterback isnt..maybe in 2 years he will be ready to live up the rest of the teams expectations
    People who see life as anything more than pure entertainment are missing the point.

  5. #15
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,493

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

    "olson_10" wrote:
    "C" wrote:
    "olson_10" wrote:
    all people need to do is look at the alternative..if favre doesnt play, jackson does
    You may be ready to give up on TJack, but some some, me included, still have faith in him.
    HE WOULD STILL BE ON THE ROSTER, AND HE WOULD STILL START 2 YEARS FROM NOW..i dont get what people are missing here..try to win now, and let jackson develop from the bench like he was supposed to in the first place..the plan was to bench the guy for 3 years, but they threw him out there and he was terrible..take a far better option in favre, try to actually win, then let the guy start when hes finally actually ready in a couple year

    the team is good enough to win now, but the quarterback isnt..maybe in 2 years he will be ready to live up the rest of the teams expectations
    Don't fucking talk down to us because we disagree with your Favre love...

    [size=10pt]WE DON'T WANT FAVRE!!!!

    HE HASN'T GOTTEN IT DONE IN 12 YEARS!!!!! WHAT MAKES YOU THINK HE'LL DO IT HERE?
    [/size]
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  6. #16
    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.

    "C" wrote:
    "olson_10" wrote:
    "C" wrote:
    "olson_10" wrote:
    all people need to do is look at the alternative..if favre doesnt play, jackson does
    You may be ready to give up on TJack, but some some, me included, still have faith in him.
    HE WOULD STILL BE ON THE ROSTER, AND HE WOULD STILL START 2 YEARS FROM NOW..i dont get what people are missing here..try to win now, and let jackson develop from the bench like he was supposed to in the first place..the plan was to bench the guy for 3 years, but they threw him out there and he was terrible..take a far better option in favre, try to actually win, then let the guy start when hes finally actually ready in a couple year

    the team is good enough to win now, but the quarterback isnt..maybe in 2 years he will be ready to live up the rest of the teams expectations
    Don't fricken talk down to us because we disagree with your Favre love...

    [size=10pt]WE DON'T WANT FAVRE!!!!

    HE HASN'T GOTTEN IT DONE IN 12 YEARS!!!!! WHAT MAKES YOU THINK HE'LL DO IT HERE?
    [/size]
    this franchise hasnt gotten it done in its existence, and tarvaris jackson is going to be the guy that, in your mind, gives us a way better chance of getting that done..HA
    People who see life as anything more than pure entertainment are missing the point.

  7. #17
    CrazyVikingsFan is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    491

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

    Favre is an upgrade over T-Jack and his experience and abilities give us the best chance to win now. The choice is simple: If we can get the guy we get the guy and I trust Ziggy will go out and do what is best for the team.

  8. #18
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,493

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

    "olson_10" wrote:
    "C" wrote:
    "olson_10" wrote:
    "C" wrote:
    "olson_10" wrote:
    all people need to do is look at the alternative..if favre doesnt play, jackson does
    You may be ready to give up on TJack, but some some, me included, still have faith in him.
    HE WOULD STILL BE ON THE ROSTER, AND HE WOULD STILL START 2 YEARS FROM NOW..i dont get what people are missing here..try to win now, and let jackson develop from the bench like he was supposed to in the first place..the plan was to bench the guy for 3 years, but they threw him out there and he was terrible..take a far better option in favre, try to actually win, then let the guy start when hes finally actually ready in a couple year

    the team is good enough to win now, but the quarterback isnt..maybe in 2 years he will be ready to live up the rest of the teams expectations
    Don't fricken talk down to us because we disagree with your Favre love...

    [size=10pt]WE DON'T WANT FAVRE!!!!

    HE HASN'T GOTTEN IT DONE IN 12 YEARS!!!!! WHAT MAKES YOU THINK HE'LL DO IT HERE?
    [/size]
    this franchise hasnt gotten it done in its existence, and tarvaris jackson is going to be the guy that, in your mind, gives us a way better chance of getting that done..HA
    Well, at least Jackson is young and mobile. He'll probably throw less interceptions than Favre next season too...

    Listen... I can see your true colors now. No self respecting Vikings fan would ever be supporting Favre playing for the Vikes as much as you are... so I could honestly care less about your opinion anymore.
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  9. #19
    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.

    "C" wrote:
    "olson_10" wrote:
    "C" wrote:
    "olson_10" wrote:
    "C" wrote:
    [quote author=olson_10 link=topic=46237.msg802301#msg802301 date=1215841794]
    all people need to do is look at the alternative..if favre doesnt play, jackson does
    You may be ready to give up on TJack, but some some, me included, still have faith in him.
    HE WOULD STILL BE ON THE ROSTER, AND HE WOULD STILL START 2 YEARS FROM NOW..i dont get what people are missing here..try to win now, and let jackson develop from the bench like he was supposed to in the first place..the plan was to bench the guy for 3 years, but they threw him out there and he was terrible..take a far better option in favre, try to actually win, then let the guy start when hes finally actually ready in a couple year

    the team is good enough to win now, but the quarterback isnt..maybe in 2 years he will be ready to live up the rest of the teams expectations
    Don't fricken talk down to us because we disagree with your Favre love...

    [size=10pt]WE DON'T WANT FAVRE!!!!

    HE HASN'T GOTTEN IT DONE IN 12 YEARS!!!!! WHAT MAKES YOU THINK HE'LL DO IT HERE?
    [/size]
    this franchise hasnt gotten it done in its existence, and tarvaris jackson is going to be the guy that, in your mind, gives us a way better chance of getting that done..HA
    Well, at least Jackson is young and mobile. He'll probably throw less interceptions than Favre next season too...

    Listen... I can see your true colors now. No self respecting Vikings fan would ever be supporting Favre playing for the Vikes as much as you are... so I could honestly care less about your opinion anymore.
    [/quote]
    "jackson is young and mobile"

    this is all you could muster up as to what you believe gives us a better chance to win than with a guy that put up 4155 yards, at 66.5% completion rate, 28 TDs, 15 INTs (notice more TDs than INTs), 95.7 rating..this is with an undrafted RB, on a team which was predicted to be terrible last season

    i dont need you to care about my opinion..if you take things so personally, then you shouldnt be on an internet forum, and i cant imagine how you felt after somebody told you they didnt like your shirt on your first day of school..just because i dont agree with your points doesnt mean im taking your comments personally, and it certainly doesnt mean it makes me upset..you gotta chill out and just make a real argument, not make some ridiculously childish comment like "oh i can see your favre boner, i dont need to see your opinion anymore"..grow up kiddo

    if anything, youve shown your "true colors" in holding a grudge over statistically the best quarterback to ever play the game simply because the team he played on..how bad does that sound?..any self respecting vikings fan knows the history of the franchise and its lack of a title and has seen how pathetic the QB position has been the last 3 years
    People who see life as anything more than pure entertainment are missing the point.

  10. #20
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,493

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

    "olson_10" wrote:
    if anything, youve shown your "true colors" in holding a grudge over statistically the best quarterback to ever play the game simply because the team he played on..how bad does that sound?..any self respecting vikings fan knows the history of the franchise and its lack of a title and has seen how pathetic the QB position has been the last 3 years
    For one, my argument is based on the fact that he can't get it done anymore... not what team he played for... again.... Laughably simple thought process.

    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 123412 ... 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
  •