Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 115
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,130

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "marstc09" wrote:
    "vikinggreg" wrote:
    "rttsbgtgb" wrote:
    "FreakinVikingsBaby" wrote:
    Aren't you gonna show me the way?
    Nope

    I just think it's pretty cheap that you take shots at his past mistakes rather than attacking his on the field character. If you've got nothing to attack on the field, just say that. Don't dance around it.

    You're free to feel how you want about him or like who you want to like. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

    All I'm saying is it doesn't help your argument to take those kinds of shots.
    How about the MVP/Sportsman of the year walking off before the 2 minute warning as the team is trailing the Cowboys....I believe Woodson stuck it out, and he wasn't playing either
    How come Moss does this and he is considered a cancer to the team but when Favre does it nobody says a thing.
    :
    That's what I was gonna say in response. Now can you show me the way?
    Wait, if there's cat food in this bag............................
    I HAVE TO CHECK ON JOLLY!!!!

  2. #102
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,139

    Re: shows how good packers are

    rttsbgtgb wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    No, you're simply continueing to alter the proposed criteria in order to favor Favre.
    No I'm not. I've stated throughout the discussion that I think the most valuable player to his team should get it while FACTORING IN the team's record. That's what I have said and I have never shifted away from that. Read all of my posts before you make that claim.
    Perhaps altering the criteria was a bit harsh.
    How about "ignoring all elements which don't support your point of view, regardless of their validity, then redefining your criteria to suit your original definition"?
    And, for the record, I have obviously read all your posts as I repost them in their entirety


    rttsbgtgb wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    Is I 2 dum fer youz?
    Really uncalled for. Be mature or don't talk to me.
    Being the torch bearer of maturity since your arrival here, are you really comfortable making that type of statement?


    rttsbgtgb wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    It's called credibility and consistancy.
    You gain the first by having the second.
    So, when the sitauation or scenario is constantly altering and changing, I tend to continue questioning.
    I have held to my opinion the whole time. You're just having an issue understanding it, or possibly it's that you're not reading all of my posts.
    Again, no problem understanding or reading your entire posts...just a problem with the selective manner in which you seem to choose to define things.
    You don't elaborate on the counter-points which would tend to refute your points other than to restate to original statement (which led to the refuting comment, rinse and repeat).


    Example:
    When asked why stats should be ignored but record factored in (A point of view which would blatantly favor Favre over several more viable candidates), your response was "If you have a valuable player on a good team, and a valuable player on a bad team, it should go to the one on the good team".


    Of course, when pressed on the subject, you counter charge that I (or anyone else) am trying to get you to shut up and go away (nothing could be further from the truth...I find this quite entertaining).


    Yet you fail to offer any kind of substantive support for your opinions other than to restate those same opinions.

    rttsbgtgb wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    If Brady should get it, why would you give it to Favre?
    I said Brady would get it. Meaning, he will get it this year. That's different from me saying that I would give it to Favre. Unless I'm the one that hands out MVP's, those two statements are different. Don't twist my words.
    You said, "That doesn't mean I don't think Brady should get it".
    What about that have I twisted?
    That's copied directly from your post.
    So, while I get that your statements are different, when I asked for clarification I got "If you have a problem accepting my opinion as my opinion and not fact, then ignore me".

    Are you trying to be the victim?
    Why would I ignore you when I have the freedom and luxury of asking more questions?
    I have no difficulty accepting your opinion as your opinion, I have trouble accepting your opinion on this particular topic as credible.
    But, since you opened this can of worms by putting Favre forward as an MVP candidate, I suppose that the burden of proof lies with you...
    And, now that you've put forth that opinion and it has been challanged, I'm still waiting for some acceptable response which would cause me - or anyone else reading this - to accept your point of view as viable.
    That hasn't happened yet.

    rttsbgtgb wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    So what justifies your decision to award it to Favre over Brady if you think Brady deserves it?
    More than one player can "deserve" it. That's what you're having trouble understanding.

    It's not like one player starts having an MVP season, and the rest have to start sucking, because only one player can deserve it. Only one player can GET it. But more than one player can DESERVE it.

    I'm saying Brady does deserve it, meaning he's played well enough to be a top candidate. But I personally would give it to Favre.

    So once again, you're either attempting to twist my words and failing miserably, or you're misreading what I'm saying. If you're misreading what I'm saying, ask for clarification before you make assumptions. It doesn't help your argument.

    And about 'Packer bias', does that mean if I say anything good about the Packers, it's bias just because I'm a Packers fan? By saying Favre is good and he's an MVP candidate, because I said that, and because I'm a Packers fan, that makes it un-true and just biased opinion?
    Wow, lots here, but I'll try to get it all...

    1st:
    I have no trouble accepting the idea that more than 1 player can deserve it when they actually do...in this case (As when Favre split it with Sanders), they don't.
    Based upon your criteria of "Most valuable to their team with record factored in", you'd have to place Brady and Romo above Favre simply because both are vital and both their teams are better (record wise) than Green Bay.
    Then you have to toss Manning in because Indy has the same record.
    That puts Favre in the 3rd or 4th slot for just QB's.
    Add in Moss and Owens, and where does he now fall?
    5th?


    But you'd still give it to Favre?
    How many Co-MVP's are you planning on this season?

    2nd:
    No one said that everyone else has to start sucking.
    I simply believe that the award should go to the INDIVIDUAL who had the best INDIVIDUAL season.
    To do otherwise smacks of the hyper-liberal "Nobody is a loser" philosophy, and that simply makes me gag.

    3rd:
    Again, you're saying that Brady "deserves" it (Your statement) but you'ld give it to Favre....and again, I have to ask "WHY???".
    If Brady deserves it, why should Favre get it...if not for Packer bias?

    4th:
    As for the repeat of the "twisting words" accusation, I really don't need to.
    If I was attempting to do so, I would be failing miserably, but I'm not.
    I'm quoteing you directly and asking you to explain or justify your comments.
    Oddly, you tell me to ask for clarification before making accusations, but you don't clarify anything, and you make all kinds of accusations without asking for clarification....hi, pot...I'm the kettle...

    5th:
    You are free to say good or bad things about any player on any team so long as you can adequately support those statements.
    You simply aren't.


    For example:
    I think Aaron Kampman should be a Pro-Bowler.
    He plays lights out every game, every down, and I sincerely wish we'd thrown a bigger offer at him when we had a shot at stealing him away from Green Bay.

    I believe that EJ Henderson is on the brink of turning into a legitimate Pro-Bowl caliber linebacker.

    I believe Brett Favre is still playing at a high enough level that he could start in the NFL for another 2 years easily.

    I believe Al Harris is one of the most over-rated Corners in the NFL.

    I believe that Driver and Jennings may be the most dangerous but unheralded receiver combo in the NFL.

    I believe that Adrian Peterson should be NFL MVP and Rookie of the year.
    Plenty of Viking bias there....

    I can back up, with plenty of supporting eveidence, any of the claims I've just made...except the last.
    That's why I won't make the last claim.

    So, just because you made it as a Packer fan doesn't make your claim untrue, the fact taht you've failed to support and defend that claim does.

    rttsbgtgb wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    Why?
    You still haven't answered that.
    I have. I said a player being valuable to a good team is overall more valuable than a valuable player to a bad team.
    That's not why, that's simply a restatement of what you already said...we call that "double-speak".
    Why is a good player on a good team (Which will likely have a better record) more valuable than a good player on a bad team (Which, because it's a bad team, will have a worse record) more valuable?


    After all, if you're a good player on a good team then you're likely surrounded by other good players who will make it easier for you to be good.
    If you're a good player on a bad team, you are forced to be better in order to achieve similar results (statistics, records, etc).
    So, wouldn't it be more impressive to be an amazing player on a crappy team than a great one on a great team?


    I think so.


    rttsbgtgb wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    Why should record matter when earlier you stated that stats shouldn't.
    I've stated that the valuable player should get it, while factoring in that team's record. If a player is valuable to a team with a good record, then clearly he helped out that team and was valuable. If he was valuable and helped out, then he clearly had good stats.

    I'm not saying stats shouldn't matter. What I meant was it shouldn't be based solely on stats. They need to factor in how valuable he was to that team and factor in that team's record.

    Good stats are inevitable for a valuable player. But it's the intangibles that player brings to his team. You have to factor in his role, how well he brings the team together, how big of a piece he is, how much he contributed to their good year.

    You can't just give it to a guy that throws for 4 TD's a game on a 2-14 team where that's all he does. You have to give it to the guy who throws 4 TD's, leading his team to victory, and being a major part of the puzzle.

    That's what I'm saying. That's what you aren't understanding. That's as good as I can sum it up for you. So if you still have trouble with understanding what I'm saying, then I'll just take it that you're not in this to have a serious discussion and I'll ignore you.
    In reverse, I'm taking this very seriously, you're simply not answering the questions asked.
    Let me put it another way.

    You and I are QB's on opposing teams.
    I have a team loaded with talented players who dominate in every phase of the game.
    You have a team loaded with gimps who have trouble tying their own shoelaces.

    In each game we play, we each throw for 4 TDs.
    The difference is, my loaded team shuts out opposing teams whereas your team allows them to score on every possession, and turns the ball over on every 3rd possession.
    My team record is 9-1, yours is 1-9.

    Who is the more "valuable" player?


    Well, based upon your criteria, I am.
    According to mine, you are.
    How does that make any sense?

    rttsbgtgb wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    Is it so that you can claim that Favre is an MVP candidate and justify it by altering the standards to favor Favre?
    The fact that you think he's not an MVP candidate damages your credibility.
    How could that possibly affect my credibility?
    I've covered in great detail why I don't believe he is.
    The fact that he's a Packer has NOTHING to do with it.
    You, on the other hand, haven't really done much more than run in circles.


    If, however, you're implying that it damages my credibility with YOU, then I must sadly inform you that there are about 5 opinions in the entire world that I give a rip about...and you aren't on the list.


    Caine

  3. #103
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,179

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "rttsbgtgb" wrote:
    "FreakinVikingsBaby" wrote:
    Remember he has the interception record too!
    And Warren Moon has the fumble record. Doesn't make him a bad quarterback.

    Dan Marino didn't win a Super Bowl. Doesn't make him a bad quarterback.

    He set the TD record, completion record, is going to set the yards record, has won a Super Bowl, and has his team at 10-2 despite him being "washed up". I can take the interception record if the upside is all of that.
    That will happen when you are in the league that long.

  4. #104
    pack93z's Avatar
    pack93z is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,465

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "marstc09" wrote:
    "rttsbgtgb" wrote:
    "FreakinVikingsBaby" wrote:
    Remember he has the interception record too!
    And Warren Moon has the fumble record. Doesn't make him a bad quarterback.

    Dan Marino didn't win a Super Bowl. Doesn't make him a bad quarterback.

    He set the TD record, completion record, is going to set the yards record, has won a Super Bowl, and has his team at 10-2 despite him being "washed up". I can take the interception record if the upside is all of that.
    That will happen when you are in the league that long.
    So how come 20 Plus year vet Vinny T doesn't own all the records.. since he has more time in the league than Favre?

    I know... hard to admit greatness of a Packer player on a Viking board.

  5. #105
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,602
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "pack93z" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:
    "rttsbgtgb" wrote:
    "FreakinVikingsBaby" wrote:
    Remember he has the interception record too!
    And Warren Moon has the fumble record. Doesn't make him a bad quarterback.

    Dan Marino didn't win a Super Bowl. Doesn't make him a bad quarterback.

    He set the TD record, completion record, is going to set the yards record, has won a Super Bowl, and has his team at 10-2 despite him being "washed up". I can take the interception record if the upside is all of that.
    That will happen when you are in the league that long.
    So how come 20 Plus year vet Vinny T doesn't own all the records.. since he has more time in the league than Favre?

    I know... hard to admit greatness of a Packer player on a Viking board.
    Because Fav-re is a better QB than Vinny.
    That's a no-brainer.

    Fav-re is an above average QB, border line great.
    But give even an above average QB enough seasons and anyone can break the records of attrition...
    BTW, you forgot to mention the INT record.
    Again, just like the other records, it is more of an indication of time than an indication of greatness or failure.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  6. #106
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,179

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "pack93z" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:
    "rttsbgtgb" wrote:
    "FreakinVikingsBaby" wrote:
    Remember he has the interception record too!
    And Warren Moon has the fumble record. Doesn't make him a bad quarterback.

    Dan Marino didn't win a Super Bowl. Doesn't make him a bad quarterback.

    He set the TD record, completion record, is going to set the yards record, has won a Super Bowl, and has his team at 10-2 despite him being "washed up". I can take the interception record if the upside is all of that.
    That will happen when you are in the league that long.
    So how come 20 Plus year vet Vinny T doesn't own all the records.. since he has more time in the league than Favre?

    I know... hard to admit greatness of a Packer player on a Viking board.
    Farve has played every game! 231 vs. 253, not a big number but 1 team compared to 7 different teams. This makes a huge difference. 6673 attempts for Vinny compared to Farves 8663.

  7. #107
    pack93z's Avatar
    pack93z is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,465

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "marstc09" wrote:

    Farve has played every game! 231 vs. 253, not a big number but 1 team compared to 7 different teams. This makes a huge difference. 6673 attempts for Vinny compared to Farves 8663.
    My point exactly... Favre has played well enough to start every game in 15 + years and play well in most of them... Time isn't the only factor is all. Montana played many years and isn't sniffing at any of these records.. The only point I was making is that it isn't only time that allowed Brett to set these records.. it was alot of Talent and Hard work that got him there as well.

    PS... Saying Favre is on a borderline great is like me trying to believe that AP is only an above average rookie that is getting lucky... I hate the media Love-fest with Favre... but you have to admit greatness when it is present.

    I hate the Bears... but respected Payton to no end. I honor the Viking greats for what they are.... which was great... Foreman, Eller, Marshall, Yary, Krause, Page,, etc.. etc... etc... Maybe I am wired a little different.. probably.

  8. #108
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,179

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "pack93z" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:

    Farve has played every game! 231 vs. 253, not a big number but 1 team compared to 7 different teams. This makes a huge difference. 6673 attempts for Vinny compared to Farves 8663.
    My point exactly... Favre has played well enough to start every game in 15 + years and play well in most of them... Time isn't the only factor is all. Montana played many years and isn't sniffing at any of these records.. The only point I was making is that it isn't only time that allowed Brett to set these records.. it was alot of Talent and Hard work that got him there as well.

    PS... Saying Favre is on a borderline great is like me trying to believe that AP is only an above average rookie that is getting lucky... I hate the media Love-fest with Favre... but you have to admit greatness when it is present.

    I hate the Bears... but respected Payton to no end. I honor the Viking greats for what they are.... which was great... Foreman, Eller, Marshall, Yary, Krause, Page,, etc.. etc... etc... Maybe I am wired a little different.. probably.
    No doubt. I never said Farve was not great. In fact I think he is the best ever. Although I think Manning and Brady are going to be taking over when they get to the end of their careers.

  9. #109
    pack93z's Avatar
    pack93z is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,465

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "marstc09" wrote:
    No doubt. I never said Farve was not great. In fact I think he is the best ever. Although I think Manning and Brady are going to be taking over when they get to the end of their careers.
    That is a strong possibilty... however Manning is starting to show signs of slippage with the decreasing talent around him.. still a great QB.. but comming back to earth so to speak.


  10. #110
    ejmat is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    8,849

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "pack93z" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:

    Farve has played every game! 231 vs. 253, not a big number but 1 team compared to 7 different teams. This makes a huge difference. 6673 attempts for Vinny compared to Farves 8663.
    My point exactly... Favre has played well enough to start every game in 15 + years and play well in most of them... Time isn't the only factor is all. Montana played many years and isn't sniffing at any of these records.. The only point I was making is that it isn't only time that allowed Brett to set these records.. it was alot of Talent and Hard work that got him there as well.

    PS... Saying Favre is on a borderline great is like me trying to believe that AP is only an above average rookie that is getting lucky... I hate the media Love-fest with Favre... but you have to admit greatness when it is present.

    I hate the Bears... but respected Payton to no end. I honor the Viking greats for what they are.... which was great... Foreman, Eller, Marshall, Yary, Krause, Page,, etc.. etc... etc... Maybe I am wired a little different.. probably.
    Favre is a great QB IMO.
    He has lead his team to a winning season all but 1 year.
    That was starting with a losing team as well.
    He has just about every passing record now.
    So what about the INTs.
    Let me put it this way.
    To throw that many INTs and still start every single game and be in the league this long tells me he must have done something right.
    Not everyone that plays that much can break records.

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 64
    Last Post: 03-30-2009, 08:54 PM
  2. MOVED: shows how good packers are
    By ultravikingfan in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-29-2007, 09:30 PM
  3. Packers: Aaron Rodgers shows signs of greatness
    By singersp in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-14-2007, 02:57 AM
  4. Good shows coming to town
    By renovikesfan in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-27-2006, 12:29 PM
  5. Research shows Packers to be the dumbest team in the NFL.
    By fred3105 in forum Trash the Pack
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-06-2005, 07:37 PM

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
  •