September 27, 2009

Wow. That's the ol' Gunslinger for ya. Since there was no Panthers game this afternoon, the local sports radio station had this game's broadcast. I sat in the Lowe's parking lot listening to the last drive of the game and it was an exciting as hell thing to listen to. So, it was cool to see the video of that last play.

posted by NoMich at 08:03 PM on September 27, 2009

And at NBC studios in New York, Peter King just did this.

posted by holden at 08:54 PM on September 27, 2009

Helluva catch.

posted by aerotive at 10:00 PM on September 27, 2009

Favre says he did not know who it was, he just saw the receiver open and threw it where only he could throw it, paraphrasing of course. Helluva catch rookie! Number 4 is kinda famous for finding the unheralded newcomer, huh.

posted by kerrycindy at 10:30 PM on September 27, 2009

dviking,

In all fairness, this was the 1st team, as Simmons put it, that could even be described as mediocre, much less good. Even if they are a solid team, that still is Favre's 1st win as a vike against a decent team. Before the season even started, analysts were saying that the Vikes could be 4 or 5-0 before they played anyone of repute.

No sour grapes here, just saying let's keep this "Brett's still got it" in context. He didn't play bad the 1st half of the season last year either. I'm guessing most Jets fans are okay with him being gone.

He is a hall-of-famer, an icon, and all that. In addition to that, he is also a guy who for more than a decade has significantly contributed to his team's playoff demises. All i am saying is that few were "counting him out" against the Lions/Browns in September; they were counting him out in December/January. Great play/great win today, but that does nothing to change this assessment, sorry.

posted by brainofdtrain at 12:54 AM on September 28, 2009

Viking,

I understand that you never said verbatim "Brett has still got it." That is focusing a little narrowly on direct verbal correspondence, isn't it? I was more referring to a growing general sentiment about Favre after beating possibly the 2 worst teams in the NFL & a team from arguably the worst division in football (the AFC West might be worse, but that is another argument). These "i never said [insert phrase] verbatim" arguments are red herrings i think.

To address your points:

"BTW, many of the detractors were speaking to how it was going to take many weeks for Favre to be productive due to reporting to camp late, and how he was going to be a disruption to the team...that does not appear to be the case."

-Granted, many did say that. I will concede that; he has proven the naysayers wrong on that front, & good for him. However, this was only a part of the criticisms levelled at Favre from the beginning. One of the other main parts i referred to in my earlier post.

"As to Favre "significantly contributing" to his team's playoff demise...not sure what team you cheer for, but I'd gladly take two SB appearances, One SB win, four NFC championship games, and a 7 additional playoff appearances from 1992 to 2007."

-I am following you that he had a great run, but my point was that those SB's were a while ago, & the last several years his "gunslinger" mentality has led to INT's at the most inopportune moments. His last playoff game in Green Bay comes to mind. This has been pretty well documented I think.

Montana won a lot of SB's in his prime; did that make the Chiefs a favorite to win the AFC championship game when he was over the hill a bit? No, & they didn't. Did that tarnish his legacy? No.

At some point even the greats can't win the biggest games anymore. I think, given his age and recent health history, that is a perfectly valid concern, one not alleviated by beating down the Lions in September. That's all i am saying. I am not saying he isn't an all-time great or anything like that, or that his play yesterday wasn't fantastic. I just sensed that some are getting a little too excited at this point.

Would you agree Viking?

posted by brainofdtrain at 12:37 PM on September 28, 2009

One of the Boston talking heads said that if that play had required a short throw-and-catch, and a receiver had been wide open, Favre would have missed it. I agree with cjets. Let's just see how long it is before Favre unmercifully screws up another one.

posted by Howard_T at 01:53 PM on September 28, 2009

Only one QB wins the superbowl each year and Favre has done and has gotten very close on several occasions. He has already proved he is durable and can play still play at his age as his recent performances have suggest.

Sundays throw was not just lucky nor was it a fluke as he has done this is pressure situations for a long time. Watch the tape, he not only had to scramble to avoid the sack, dodge the arm swipe, and then step up in the pocket and throw a hail mary. He did not just throw up a hail mary for anyone to grab, he throw a fifty yard line drive bullet and put it in the only spot where a Viking receiver could possibly make a play. Credit to the receiver as he made a spectacular catch of a spectacular throw. Just another day in the career of Brett Favre.

This guy is still an assett to every team he plays on. Sure he has thrown some bad balls in critical situations but let's face it the teams he has played on are in the critical situations because of his performance. Just because the best homerun hitters in history sometimes strike out when in critical situations doesn't mean you don't want them at the plate when you need a homer.

Favre bashing should be over because regardless of what he does from here on out he has proven he can still do it. Until he can no longer make the kind of throw he made Sunday he should play as long as he likes.

posted by Atheist at 02:54 PM on September 28, 2009

Favre bashing should be over because regardless of what he does from here on out he has proven he can still do it.

Favre's success/failure will be judged on an entire season, not 3 games. What a ridiculous statement.

posted by justgary at 03:27 PM on September 28, 2009

The NFL season, coaches like to say, is not a sprint but a marathon.

Favre's success/failure will be judged on an entire season, not 3 games.

Yet, in another thread on this site, Kolb's glorious 1.5-game performance has people claiming that both Vick and McNabb are trade-bait.

I don't have a dog in this hunt and I'm not trying to speak for Atheist, but I think it's pretty safe to say that the amount and tone of Favre-bashing is/has been disproportionate to the slack or praise given other players, when you compare his performance to others of equal length this season.

posted by littleLebowski at 03:34 PM on September 28, 2009

Yet, in another thread on this site, Kolb's glorious 1.5-game performance has people claiming that both Vick and McNabb are trade-bait.

That's reading comprehension; taking the word "or" and interpreting it as "both". Brilliant.

posted by dfleming at 04:35 PM on September 28, 2009

Why all the Favre hate? The only thing that Brett has done was:

He was unsure sbout his retirement while with the Packers and got traded to the Jets and played well considering the season the Jets had the year before.

Then, he had to have surgery to repair his bicep after the season and when pursued by the Vikings (the team that he really wanted to play in the first place when he was originally traded by the Packers to the Jets), he wasn't ready to commit to another season with a new team since his bicep wasn't 'NFL' ready.

Once he felt that his arm was ready to throw to NFL-caliber recievers, he signed with the Vikings and they're now 3-0.

So.... what exactly has Farve done besides give the Viking a proven QB at the helm?

Who he has really hurt during this process?

posted by BornIcon at 06:45 PM on September 28, 2009

Why all the Favre hate

I can only speak for myself. I don't hate him. I just think he's a me-first media hog drama queen.

To retire or not to retire, that is the question. And my only answer to that is STFU Brett.

posted by cjets at 07:10 PM on September 28, 2009

It's easier to make all those consecutive starts when you lie on the injury report and play to the detriment of your team.

Since when does the quarterback write the injury report, not to mention have final say over both the head coach and GM?

All the hating is getting old. Favre has proven he can still play. He's proven his holdout has not been a detriment to the team. And to call attention to stats like Favre's playoff record since 1998 is all well and good but when he's killing himself for your team people tend to think differently (scroll down to comment number eight, cjets).

Why all the Favre hate.

I can only speak for myself. I don't hate him.

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

posted by MW12 at 07:39 PM on September 28, 2009

I didn't say you hated Favre. I said the question you asked is the same one that's asked and answered every single time Favre is criticized.

Favre's touchdown was an incredible pass and an incredible catch. A magical moment. Glad he came back, if only to see that. I still expect that he'll run out of gas this year. I guess this makes me a hater.

posted by rcade at 08:07 PM on September 28, 2009

Regarding the Jets-Favre story, anyone who thinks the NFL is serious about being against gambling is denying reality. Why would there otherwise be an injury report? To give an advantage to opponents? If you're a betting person, whoever is probable, questionable or out might have an effect on your selections.

posted by jjzucal at 10:19 PM on September 28, 2009

That's reading comprehension; taking the word "or" and interpreting it as "both". Brilliant.

a) The point still stands. Some folks are clamoring that any positive judgement of Favre must wait until the end of the season, which will most surely prove out that he can't hack it (the italics are me acknowledging slight exaggeration, but I stand by the point). On the flip-side, Kolb was provided as an example of where he has already made one or more of peers expendable - although that suggestion is based on a ridiculously short period of time.

b) Maybe revisit your "brilliant reading comprehension". By saying either Vick or McNabb can be traded, by definition, "both" are trade-able - not necessarily at the same time, but "both" still applies. ie : "LittleLebowski or dfleming might be asshats" ... that statement does not mean that asshattedness is mutually exclusive to only one of us; therefore ... "LittleLebowski and dfleming might both be asshats" is an entirely legitimate alternative. Not a perfect analogy - just a weak attempt at comedy and levity. Personally, I don't think either are being asshats, just discussing, but I don't think my reading comprehension is at issue, relative to the Favre-bashing.

posted by littleLebowski at 08:54 AM on September 29, 2009

I didn't say you hated Favre. I said the question you asked is the same one that's asked and answered every single time Favre is criticized

Then my apologies because I read it as you were saying that I hated Favre and I wanted to set the record straight. I understand that the question has been risen time after time but for whatever reason, Favre gets hated on more than others that have actually commited crimes, which he has not done to deserve this level of dissatisfaction.

No, they got better because of Rex Ryan and because they have a solid nucleus. Pennington was never going to be the solution there.

And they also got better because a Hall of Fame QB showed them what they can do if they played well together (as he's now doing with the Vikings), which they did before he injured his bicep. Bringing Favre over to the Jets also helped to send Pennington over to Miami and allowed the Jets to draft Vinnie Chase..., er Mark Sanchez. I get those two confused, my bad.

Everyone talks about his injury now but why didn't he say it then?...He was the starting QB and he choked down the stretch

As I recall, he did bring it up. Favre said that his arm was hurt but that he didn't think he would miss any time from the injury. I strongly doubt that he 'choked' considering his arm was like a wet noodle, sort of how Pennington's arm is when healthy.

I'm not a Favre apologist, I have never been a Packers fan but I've always enjoyed watching Favre play. I just don't understand why people remain blind to the fact that he was injured but didn't think that the injury was severe enough for him not to play. Obviously he was wrong considering he had to have surgery but still, the Jets had a better record with Favre's only stint there than the year before. People don't have surgery just to have them...unless you live in LA with the rest of the plastic people.

posted by BornIcon at 10:28 AM on September 29, 2009

And they also got better because a Hall of Fame QB showed them what they can do if they played well together

Soon to be a major motion picture starring Dennis Quaid.

posted by yerfatma at 10:55 AM on September 29, 2009

"Yes, he won a Super Bowl in 1996. That was a really long time ago. We are allowed to judge Favre, just like every other player, based on what he has done recently. A QB that makes as much as he does ought to be winning in the playoffs. We will see."

I believe his last year in Green Bay he took them to a 13 and 3 regular season record and did win in the playoffs falling short one play from the Superbowl. That means only two QB went further in the 2007 season. Then in 2008 he took a perenial looser the Jets to within a game of the playoffs winning twice as many games as the same team did a year before and changing the culture of loosing the team had. Sure they missed the playoffs by falling apart but that can be blamed on a severe injury and the fact the the entire team fell apart defensively. Let's face it, a good team would have found a way to win one of their last four with or without a healthy QB.

I think one of Brett Favre's problems is he has been too successful so now anything less than a superbowl victory is seen a a failure or dismal season, when in fact many great QBs have never won a SB and some have never gotten there. If Payton Manning never wins another one, will his remaining seasons be viewed as failures. The hall of fame is full of guys who did not win a SB. Making a statement like Favre won back in 96 and not since so therefore he is somehow failing is silly. He has consistently been one of the most exciting players in the league for almost 20 seasons and Sunday he proved that he still is. I just don't see how anybody can dispute that. Like him or not, he deserves credit and admiration for his accomplishments.

Most Jets fans I know will still say even though last year was a dissapointment at the end, at least the last two game of the season had some meaning, as opposed to the traditional statistical elimination by week 8. Jeez all they needed to do was play a little better defense or control a game with their ground attack. The only thing the injury did to Favre's arm is demonstrate just how much that team needed miracles from him, and that they could not win even one in four games without him playing really well.

It alway interesting to me that when a team is loosing a game and the QB has to make a last ditch come from behind effort to drive the team down the field with less than two minutes left, if he throws an INT when the defense is playing back waiting for the only option, which is a pass in that situation, it is the QB that blew the game. That is also silly.

posted by Atheist at 11:10 AM on September 29, 2009

Wow he has won less superbowls than Brady Warner or Roethlisberger. Of course he has won just as many or more than Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Archie Manning, Dan Marino. John Elway, Jim Kelly, Joe Namath, Drew Brees, Dan Fouts, Donovan McNabb, the list goes on and on. People are just having a problem with his off field persona. I don't expect everybody to like him. What I am having a problem with is all the nay sayers about how he shouldn't be playing or how he can't play anymore.

He felt like he could play, he wanted to play, teams want to hire him (for some pretty good money), and when he is on the field he gives his all and frankly there is no denying it, he is very successful, and is still playing at the highest level. Every QB has their critics and Favre's critics complain that he forces passes he should not make. Fair enough but all good QBs do it to some extent due to confidence. Sometimes you gotta make the tough throws and sometimes it goes bad. In all his years in Green Bay, I cannot believe his bad throws can erase all the great ones he made. Franklyt he has done more for the Vikes and Jets than the great Joe Montana did for KC after SF pushed him out the door.

Surely in a game like football when everyone thinks you are washed up at 33, it is natural for fans, ownership and oneself to contemplate how long it makes sense to play. In Favre's case, it only seems natural that after 35 years old, after every brutal and physical season the retirement issue would be there. I just don't begrudge him the right to as the beginning of the next season approaches he has revisited the decision and if feeling like he can play he accepts offers to do so. I think right now in Minnesota they can be happy that they have him and I seriously doubt TJ or any of their other QBs would have won that game on Sunday.

Frankly Minnesota does not look all that good to me. They have struggled to win in each game so far. For all the hype their defense and running game have gotten, they are not easily controlling their opponents, who have only been mediocre at best. The team (not Favre) is going to have to step up thier play this week if they want to win. If the Vikes are as good as they are hyped to be, Favre should only have to manage the games. Of course, thank goodness, last week he can do more since they were unable to stop a 49er team with a crippled running attack. It just seems Favre is exactly what the Vikes need if they are going to have any chance this year. If it were not for a big kick return and the big play from Favre ande Greg Lewis, the Vikes would have lost to an improved but still mediocre niner team. Of course if the Vikes fall short this year all the Favre haters will blame Favre but after watching the first three games, there is plenty of blame to go around on that team. They are going to have to improve a lot to make a good playoff run. If they do then Favre will not have to make the heroic mega plays to win games. In the event he does, well I still can't think of too many guys you would rather have try.

posted by Atheist at 01:45 PM on September 29, 2009

Franklyt he has done more for the Vikes and Jets than the great Joe Montana did for KC after SF pushed him out the door.

Now you are just libeling Montana. The Chiefs made the playoffs both years that Montana played, going all the way to the AFC Championship game in 1993. Montana, despite being a sure Hall of Famer and winning numerous Super Bowls, attended training camp with his teammates when he played and only retired once.

In the event he does, well I still can't think of too many guys you would rather have try.

I wouldn't have this guy on my team. I don't care if he makes the occasional clutch throw. Putting one player above the team in a game like football when all those other players give so much of themselves mentally and physically is just wrong.

posted by bperk at 02:39 PM on September 29, 2009

Not dissing Montana at all, as he is one of my all time favorites and I referred to him as the great Joe Montana. My only point being he did not go to a 4 and 12 team. Favre made a big impact. Nobody blamed Montana for falling short in the AFC championship game where as with Favre he threw an INT in overtime of an NFC championship game and he can't live it down.

People also forget that after his Superbowl win the Packer team was basically dismantled by free agency. In 2006 as I recal they had a terrible record with a very young inexperienced team and one year later as I recal they went to the NFC championship with one of the best records in football. All anyone remembers is one INT.

posted by Atheist at 02:59 PM on September 29, 2009

In 2006 as I recal they had a terrible record with a very young inexperienced team and one year later as I recal they went to the NFC championship with one of the best records in football. All anyone remembers is one INT.

The difference between those years was that Favre stopped throwing so many ints. His passer rating went up dramatically and his mistakes went down. That has always been the key and has always been his failing.

posted by bperk at 03:15 PM on September 29, 2009

Umm, BI, I think you are making the argument that haters don't hate or that hating on Favre doesn't mean someone is a hater. I'm confused. Please clarify.

posted by bperk at 04:25 PM on September 29, 2009

which makes the Jets look like the winners in both last years and this years trades,

Last year Pennington, cast off by the Jets, goes to Miami and is part of (notice I did not say "leads") Miami's unbelievable turnaround from 1-15 to 11-5 and division winners.

The Jets who bring in Favre, go 9-7 and are eliminated by Miami and Pennington on the last game of the season.

I'm the last to say that Pennington could have lead the Jets to the playoffs. But no Jet, or Jet fan, would consider themselves winners after last year's trade for Favre. And, in fact, the Jets owner Woody Johnson was so upset at losing to Miami at the end of the season that he fired Mangini.

Wait a sec......now I get it. You're saying that last year's failure lead to Rex Ryan and Mark Sanchez? Maybe I do need to thank Favre.

posted by cjets at 04:53 PM on September 29, 2009

Wait a sec......now I get it. You're saying that last year's failure lead to Rex Ryan and Mark Sanchez? Maybe I do need to thank Favre

Actually yeah, that's exactly the point. You may call it a failure but the Jets got better when Favre was in NY, just look at the win-loss column from the year before Favre got traded and tell me that they didn't.

Going 9-7 a season after a 4-12 campaign suggests that the team performed better with Favre at the helm and although they missed the playoffs, they were at least a threat in the AFC before Favre's injury.

Of course you being a Jets fan, you're going to be more critical of your team than those from the outside looking in. That's what make sports and sports talk so interesting.

posted by BornIcon at 08:59 AM on October 01, 2009