PDA

View Full Version : If only we had a O-Line to protect him!



tornadospotter
07-08-2008, 03:24 PM
Where have we seen this before?

Jul 08, 2008, 3:01:05 AM by Jonathan Rand (http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/jonathan_rand/) - FAQ (http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2004/01/20/jonathan_rand_faq/)



The unfolding Brett Favre soap opera should seem familiar to Chiefs fans. Didn’t we see a similar show at Arrowhead Stadium a year ago, albeit with a less famous quarterback?
A young quarterback, Brodie Croyle, was the presumptive starter a few months before he stumbled in the preseason. Former Pro Bowler Trent Green complained he wasn’t getting a fair chance to keep the job he’d held for six years, and he was given permission to seek a trade.
Yet, even as the Chiefs were trying to move him to the Dolphins, Green reported to Arrowhead for voluntary spring workouts. He was trying to turn up the pressure on the Chiefs, whose negotiations were stalemated. It took another month for them to close the deal.
What should have been a routine spat between the Chiefs and Green turned into major nationwide sports news. Public demand for NFL news in the offseason far exceeds the supply.
It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to envision the circus that would surround Favre and the Packers if developments continue the direction they seemed headed. First, he retired, setting his five-year clock for Hall of Fame induction. Early rumors of his return seemed unfounded.
More recently, however, Favre’s relatives gave legs to talk of Favre’s return. His brother, Scott, claimed a comeback was a 50-50 possibility. His mother, Bonita, claimed that Packers general manager Ted Thompson lacked enthusiasm for bringing Favre back, and that Favre no longer felt welcome with the team. Favre, meanwhile, hasn’t said much.
The Packers prepared carefully for life after Favre, who had a bang-up season in 2007 before ending it with an interception that allowed the Giants to continue their championship run. The Packers named Aaron Rodgers to start and drafted quarterbacks Brian Brohm and Matt Flynn.
Should Favre notify the NFL office that he wishes to return, the Packers would have to activate or release him. If they’d want him back, there’d be no problem. But if they don’t want his back, they’d face a touchy situation, to say the least.
They Packers obviously wouldn’t release him because of his trade value and because they don’t want him calling signals for a division rival, or any other NFC team for that matter.
If Favre wants to play but he’s not wanted in Green Bay, the Packers could well face the predicament the Chiefs faced last spring. If they don’t trade him before training camp begins July 27, they could not prevent him from taking snaps along with Rodgers and the rookies. That circus would make the Chiefs’ episode with Green seem like a backyard juggling act.
Cable channels would be showing us Favre 24/7 and everybody in camp, right down to the ball boys, would get the chance to tell America whether they think Favre should be the team’s starter.
The Packers obviously would not relish the spectacle of their foremost franchise icon since the Lombardi era griping about being held hostage.
Because Favre’s coming off a strong season – 4,155 yards and 28 touchdown passes – it’s tempting to assume he’s still in his prime. But he’ll turn 39 in October and had back-to-back mediocre seasons before 2007.
The Chiefs have more experience than most teams with successful quarterbacks who needed a change in scenery near the end of their careers. The club’s evaluations have proved accurate.
Green took over as the Dolphins’ starter only to suffer a concussion for the second straight season. He’s now moved on to the Rams as Marc Bulger’s backup.
In 1993, the Chiefs traded for Joe Montana, arguably the best quarterback of all time, but who was coming off injury problems that led to his replacement in San Francisco by Steve Young. Though Montana in his two years with the Chiefs was no longer the great player he’d once been, he led them to the AFC championship game in 1993. They haven’t advanced that far since.
Montana’s departure from San Francisco and the fans’ enduring loyalty to him made Young’s life difficult, and filled with boos, until he threw six touchdown passes in a Super Bowl victory over the Chargers in the January, 1995 Super Bowl. So you can imagine the pressure that would hound Rodgers in Green Bay if Favre winds up in another uniform.
If Favre wants to come back to the Packers and they’re willing to tear up their succession plan for now, perhaps both can live happily ever after. Otherwise, ill will could pollute the skies of Green Bay.
Once egos, money and public opinion get involved, there’s no civil way to resolve these things.



If only? I would try to get him, for a season or two. He could help develop our young QB's and wins some games for us! Just my thoughts anyway.
Post away what if Brett became a Chief?

DrunkHillbilly
07-08-2008, 07:03 PM
I'd take him!!!!!!

m0ef0e
07-08-2008, 07:56 PM
I'd take him!!!!!!

In a heartbeat.

rbedgood
07-08-2008, 09:16 PM
I wish the 49ers would get in line for his services.

texaschief
07-08-2008, 11:49 PM
:lol: I'm sorry, but no thanks. this would do nothing but set the organization back another year.

Let's say we DID sign the guy and we managed a .500 record, then the next year even, we make the playoffs and actually win a game.... then what?

Brett Favre retires and a team that is ready to start competing has to take a step backward and try to compete with either another free agent QB or a guy who's been sitting on the bench for a couple years....and his name won't be Brodie Croyle because there's no way he'll re-sign if we don't start him in 08.

Signing Favre is a really bad idea for the long term goals of this team. We need to see what Croyle can do as a starter while we're still a relatively bad team so that we can draft a top rated QB early in the draft if indeed Croyle can't handle it.


so.... i say pass on Favre....not that i really need to say that cuz there's absolutely no way he'd sign here in the first place.

DrunkHillbilly
07-09-2008, 12:02 AM
:lol: I'm sorry, but no thanks. this would do nothing but set the organization back another year.

Let's say we DID sign the guy and we managed a .500 record, then the next year even, we make the playoffs and actually win a game.... then what?

Brett Favre retires and a team that is ready to start competing has to take a step backward and try to compete with either another free agent QB or a guy who's been sitting on the bench for a couple years....and his name won't be Brodie Croyle because there's no way he'll re-sign if we don't start him in 08.

Signing Favre is a really bad idea for the long term goals of this team. We need to see what Croyle can do as a starter while we're still a relatively bad team so that we can draft a top rated QB early in the draft if indeed Croyle can't handle it.


so.... i say pass on Favre....not that i really need to say that cuz there's absolutely no way he'd sign here in the first place.
Well then.....If signing he means there is no way we re sign Croyle.... I say we sign Favre TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree, it will never happen!

rbedgood
07-09-2008, 03:24 AM
Well then.....If signing he means there is no way we re sign Croyle.... I say we sign Favre TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree, it will never happen!


Didn't see this coming after the previous post...:lol:

Three7s
07-09-2008, 08:31 AM
No way we sign him, too old, the Chiefs won't make those kind of signings for awhile. Am I opposed to it? Not really, I think Favre could teach Croyle a thing or two about QBing, I'm just being realistic.

jerhart
07-09-2008, 09:26 AM
Honestly....I dont want him...I'd rather give BC a shot behind this line. Yes nobody likes BC, but I don't want to have a new QB every season. Some consistency would be nice, and if we are rebuilding, Brett isnt going to help us rebuild. What happens if we finish above .500 next year and brett retires? We wont be high enough in the draft to pickup 'THE' qb of the draft.


Give BC a chance behind this line, if he flops....good, no Herm, no CP, and a new Tebow next season! :sign0098:

Three7s
07-09-2008, 09:45 AM
Honestly....I dont want him...I'd rather give BC a shot behind this line. Yes nobody likes BC, but I don't want to have a new QB every season. Some consistency would be nice, and if we are rebuilding, Brett isnt going to help us rebuild. What happens if we finish above .500 next year and brett retires? We wont be high enough in the draft to pickup 'THE' qb of the draft.


Give BC a chance behind this line, if he flops....good, no Herm, no CP, and a new Tebow next season! :sign0098:
That's exactly why we won't get Favre. The Chiefs have lived off of old free agents to fill needs for the short-term and giving up draft picks for them for years! There is absolutely no way the Chiefs get him, no matter how much some of the members want him.

chief31
07-09-2008, 10:21 AM
While I agree that this will never happen, I would be all for it.

Croyle/Thigpen is just going to get their asses handed to them all year, since we failed to make any attempt to protect a QB. And Favre has made a career of playing behind mediocre-to-bad o-lines.

Granted, this doesn't play to the notion that being the worst team in the NFL is a good thing because you get to continually draft high, but I hate that notion anyway.

Any other QB that would be on the team with Favre would learn alot from him. And he would get us another shot at trying to get an offensive line in place for them too.

But none of that matters, because Favre is smart enough to stay away from Herm Edwards' QB-killing ways.

Baltimore would be the best fit for him, if he does return and get traded, IMO.

milkman
07-09-2008, 11:23 AM
While I agree that this will never happen, I would be all for it.

Croyle/Thigpen is just going to get their asses handed to them all year, since we failed to make any attempt to protect a QB. And Favre has made a career of playing behind mediocre-to-bad o-lines.

Granted, this doesn't play to the notion that being the worst team in the NFL is a good thing because you get to continually draft high, but I hate that notion anyway.

Any other QB that would be on the team with Favre would learn alot from him. And he would get us another shot at trying to get an offensive line in place for them too.

But none of that matters, because Favre is smart enough to stay away from Herm Edwards' QB-killing ways.

Baltimore would be the best fit for him, if he does return and get traded, IMO.

This O-Line isn't going to be nearly as bad as you think it will.

But if it was, Favre would throw 30 ints behind it.

Favre is the most overrated QB in NFL history, with only Joe Namath as competition.

DrunkHillbilly
07-09-2008, 11:49 AM
This O-Line isn't going to be nearly as bad as you think it will.

But if it was, Favre would throw 30 ints behind it.

Favre is the most overrated QB in NFL history, with only Joe Namath as competition.
I love starting my day off with a laugh!!!!! Thanks!!!!

jerhart
07-09-2008, 12:01 PM
This O-Line isn't going to be nearly as bad as you think it will.

But if it was, Favre would throw 30 ints behind it.

Favre is the most overrated QB in NFL history, with only Joe Namath as competition.

hmmmmmmm....not sure if I agree with this. Did he not just come off of a 13-3 season? Got knocked off by the superbowl champs? And started our...9 game losing streak?

Probably one of the last guys who played because he loved the game....not for the money....

rbedgood
07-09-2008, 12:55 PM
This O-Line isn't going to be nearly as bad as you think it will.

But if it was, Favre would throw 30 ints behind it.

Favre is the most overrated QB in NFL history, with only Joe Namath as competition.

Wow...as an NFC fan, and an avid-Packer hater even I have to completely laugh at this response. Okay, forget the career accolades, the records he's broken on the field, the Pro Bowl appearances, the fact that he's almost single-handedly carried some bad teams to winning seasons, Favre is anything but over-rated.

The guy is a leader first of all, which is a primary difference between HOF QBs and average QBs. There are guys in the HOF like Namath or Montana that didn't have the best physical tools, but out-performed the guys who did when it mattered most. Favre had both...one of the best arms ever in this game, and the ability to inspire his teammates and will them to victory. He had a sharp mind and an uncanny ability to make plays. He wasn't the most nimble, but he could get away from a pass rush and flick the ball 50+ yards better than just about anyone. And if the time and play called for it, he'd dive headfirst for the yardage. He was tough as nails, yet could display deft touch on a pass when needed. The guy was supremely confident, yet late in his career learned to scale back for the betterment of the team.

Favre is a top 5 ALL TIME quarterback in my book. I don't know how you'd say that is over-rated. For numbers he's #1, but when you toss charisma and leadership in, I think 2 or 3 guys squeak past him. However being behind Montana & Unitas isn't anything to scoff at. I've got a massive headache and left a spot there as I'm sure I'm forgetting someone...still even if I forgot 2 or 3 guys that's a long way from making him OVERRATED.

milkman
07-09-2008, 01:30 PM
Wow...as an NFC fan, and an avid-Packer hater even I have to completely laugh at this response. Okay, forget the career accolades, the records he's broken on the field, the Pro Bowl appearances, the fact that he's almost single-handedly carried some bad teams to winning seasons, Favre is anything but over-rated.

The guy is a leader first of all, which is a primary difference between HOF QBs and average QBs. There are guys in the HOF like Namath or Montana that didn't have the best physical tools, but out-performed the guys who did when it mattered most. Favre had both...one of the best arms ever in this game, and the ability to inspire his teammates and will them to victory. He had a sharp mind and an uncanny ability to make plays. He wasn't the most nimble, but he could get away from a pass rush and flick the ball 50+ yards better than just about anyone. And if the time and play called for it, he'd dive headfirst for the yardage. He was tough as nails, yet could display deft touch on a pass when needed. The guy was supremely confident, yet late in his career learned to scale back for the betterment of the team.

Favre is a top 5 ALL TIME quarterback in my book. I don't know how you'd say that is over-rated. For numbers he's #1, but when you toss charisma and leadership in, I think 2 or 3 guys squeak past him. However being behind Montana & Unitas isn't anything to scoff at. I've got a massive headache and left a spot there as I'm sure I'm forgetting someone...still even if I forgot 2 or 3 guys that's a long way from making him OVERRATED.

Numbers are overrated.

Vinnie Testeverde had 42-43,000 career passing yards.

If I needed a QB to get me a win late in a game, I would much rather have Montana, Elway, Brady, Manning, Unitas, Staubach, Aikman, Hadl, Fouts and Dawson.

Those are guys just off the top of my head.

Brett Favre was/is a terrible decision maker.

jerhart
07-09-2008, 02:09 PM
Numbers are overrated.

Vinnie Testeverde had 42-43,000 career passing yards.

If I needed a QB to get me a win late in a game, I would much rather have Montana, Elway, Brady, Manning, Unitas, Staubach, Aikman, Hadl, Fouts and Dawson.

Those are guys just off the top of my head.

Brett Favre was/is a terrible decision maker.

....here is something I found from another site...

...BTW quit while your behind....

Favre played 65 more games than Joe did in just two more seasons. This means he was reliable, and if you being out of the lineup for your team brings you losses, that devalues you as a quarterback.

He had 1968 more completions for 21,104 yards, both more than a 50% upgrade over Montana’s numbers. He threw 169 more touchdowns and made one more Pro Bowl.

The biggest thing Favre is criticized for is his interceptions, but the margin is smaller than it is for touchdowns (149). That does make his touchdown to interception ratio worse than Joe’s (almost everyone’s is), but it is still better than Troy Aikman, Johnny Unitas, Dan Fouts, and many others often cited as all-time greats.

I concede that if all else was equal, this would be advantage Joe. He also completed 1.8% fewer passes, averaged a half yard less per completion and had a career passer rating six and a half points lower. No one had a better winning percentage than Montana.

But that is also a team accomplishment: Montana had a great defense, the best offensive line in the game, a solid running game, the best receiving corps ever assembled, and a coach who had refined a system still used to this day because it is so hard to defend. When Young took over for Montana, three more offensive teammates made the Pro Bowl then the year before with Joe passing to them.

Brett Favre had a pourous offensive line and no running game for the first seven years with the Packers. His best receiver was Sterling Sharpe, who was out after three seasons with Brett. After that, he had Antonio Freeman, who had average speed and never did anything without Brett throwing to him, and Mark Chmura at tight end, who was basically a big target with exceptional hands but no particular athletic ability.

Later in his career, Favre had even less in the receiving corps (Donald Driver being his lone Pro Bowl receiver), but he did get Ahman Green and for about four years was behind one of the best lines in the game. He also was protected by a pretty good defense most of his years, so the fact that he had a .500 post-season winning percentage after Holmgren left is the reason I cannot consider him the best in the game’s history. But it hardly moves him below the top five.

Give Montana that offensive line for his first nine seasons and it is a fluke for him to make it through all sixteen games. Take away the plethora of All-Pro receivers–the undisputed greatest of all-time Jerry Rice, plus John Taylor, Freddie Solomon, Dwight Clark, Brent Jones, and even Roger Craig and Tom Rathman–and replace them with Favre’s compliment.

Sharpe played about as many seasons with Favre as Solomon with Montana. Advantage Sharpe, no question. William Henderson was also probably a better receiver and maybe even better fullback than Rathman. Dwight Clark and Antonio Freeman were great route runners with great hands, and neither had speed or many years with their QB, but I might say Freeman had a slight advantage. I might even give Green an edge over Craig.

However, Jones was a better receiving tight end than Chmura with more staying power in the league. John Taylor was better than anyone else Favre had and Jerry Rice was better than anyone. Can you honestly tell me you would trade Montana’s compliment for Favre’s?

Moreover, Favre never had all the parts at once like Montana did. If he had Green and that line when he had the receiving corps he relied on early in his career, that would be a fair comparison. In that case, I have no doubt he would have won more than one championship and taken one or two away from Joe.

I can even accept someone saying Montana is ahead of Favre, but you must admit when you factor in their supporting casts, they both have a good case. And who else are you putting ahead of Favre?

Dan Marino? I guess I didn’t have to convince you of the championships being a team accomplishment argument. But Dan’s completions, yards, and touchdowns are padded by the fact that he had to pass every down because he had no running game and not much defense. (That is also the only reason he did not win a ring.) His lower interception total is his best argument.

Terry Bradshaw? He had a tremendous running game, great receivers, and one of the best defenses ever assembled. He had barely even kept his starting job the seaosn of his first championship.

Peyton Manning? Tom Brady? If they got hurt before this season and never played again, they would have about 65-70% and less than half, repsectively, Favre’s numbers despite playing more games in a passer-friendly era. You can’t assume what someone will continue to put up the numbers they have–will they have the staying power Favre did?

Personally, the only quarterback I list ahead of Favre is the one he lost to in the Superbowl. It was Terrell Davis that beat the Packers in Superbowl XXXII, but Elway did his share. In the 80’s and 90’s when he was losing Superbowls, he did more than his share. He had only one 30TD season, but he revolutionized the position (following more successfully in Fran Tarkenton’s footsteps) with his mobility.

Remember, we are measuring one player’s accomplishments. Bottom line: he won more games than anyone but Favre with even less supporting cast.

milkman
07-09-2008, 02:33 PM
....here is something I found from another site...

...BTW quit while your behind....

Favre played 65 more games than Joe did in just two more seasons. This means he was reliable, and if you being out of the lineup for your team brings you losses, that devalues you as a quarterback.

He had 1968 more completions for 21,104 yards, both more than a 50% upgrade over Montana’s numbers. He threw 169 more touchdowns and made one more Pro Bowl.

The biggest thing Favre is criticized for is his interceptions, but the margin is smaller than it is for touchdowns (149). That does make his touchdown to interception ratio worse than Joe’s (almost everyone’s is), but it is still better than Troy Aikman, Johnny Unitas, Dan Fouts, and many others often cited as all-time greats.

I concede that if all else was equal, this would be advantage Joe. He also completed 1.8% fewer passes, averaged a half yard less per completion and had a career passer rating six and a half points lower. No one had a better winning percentage than Montana.

But that is also a team accomplishment: Montana had a great defense, the best offensive line in the game, a solid running game, the best receiving corps ever assembled, and a coach who had refined a system still used to this day because it is so hard to defend. When Young took over for Montana, three more offensive teammates made the Pro Bowl then the year before with Joe passing to them.

Brett Favre had a pourous offensive line and no running game for the first seven years with the Packers. His best receiver was Sterling Sharpe, who was out after three seasons with Brett. After that, he had Antonio Freeman, who had average speed and never did anything without Brett throwing to him, and Mark Chmura at tight end, who was basically a big target with exceptional hands but no particular athletic ability.

Later in his career, Favre had even less in the receiving corps (Donald Driver being his lone Pro Bowl receiver), but he did get Ahman Green and for about four years was behind one of the best lines in the game. He also was protected by a pretty good defense most of his years, so the fact that he had a .500 post-season winning percentage after Holmgren left is the reason I cannot consider him the best in the game’s history. But it hardly moves him below the top five.

Give Montana that offensive line for his first nine seasons and it is a fluke for him to make it through all sixteen games. Take away the plethora of All-Pro receivers–the undisputed greatest of all-time Jerry Rice, plus John Taylor, Freddie Solomon, Dwight Clark, Brent Jones, and even Roger Craig and Tom Rathman–and replace them with Favre’s compliment.

Sharpe played about as many seasons with Favre as Solomon with Montana. Advantage Sharpe, no question. William Henderson was also probably a better receiver and maybe even better fullback than Rathman. Dwight Clark and Antonio Freeman were great route runners with great hands, and neither had speed or many years with their QB, but I might say Freeman had a slight advantage. I might even give Green an edge over Craig.

However, Jones was a better receiving tight end than Chmura with more staying power in the league. John Taylor was better than anyone else Favre had and Jerry Rice was better than anyone. Can you honestly tell me you would trade Montana’s compliment for Favre’s?

Moreover, Favre never had all the parts at once like Montana did. If he had Green and that line when he had the receiving corps he relied on early in his career, that would be a fair comparison. In that case, I have no doubt he would have won more than one championship and taken one or two away from Joe.

I can even accept someone saying Montana is ahead of Favre, but you must admit when you factor in their supporting casts, they both have a good case. And who else are you putting ahead of Favre?

Dan Marino? I guess I didn’t have to convince you of the championships being a team accomplishment argument. But Dan’s completions, yards, and touchdowns are padded by the fact that he had to pass every down because he had no running game and not much defense. (That is also the only reason he did not win a ring.) His lower interception total is his best argument.

Terry Bradshaw? He had a tremendous running game, great receivers, and one of the best defenses ever assembled. He had barely even kept his starting job the seaosn of his first championship.

Peyton Manning? Tom Brady? If they got hurt before this season and never played again, they would have about 65-70% and less than half, repsectively, Favre’s numbers despite playing more games in a passer-friendly era. You can’t assume what someone will continue to put up the numbers they have–will they have the staying power Favre did?

Personally, the only quarterback I list ahead of Favre is the one he lost to in the Superbowl. It was Terrell Davis that beat the Packers in Superbowl XXXII, but Elway did his share. In the 80’s and 90’s when he was losing Superbowls, he did more than his share. He had only one 30TD season, but he revolutionized the position (following more successfully in Fran Tarkenton’s footsteps) with his mobility.

Remember, we are measuring one player’s accomplishments. Bottom line: he won more games than anyone but Favre with even less supporting cast.

You're giving me numbers and supporting cast.

I don't give a rat's *** about any of that.

I am talking about QBs who made plays in critical situations, and while Favre has this rep as some big time playmaker, the fact is, he's had more than his share of boneheaded passes that cost his taem the opportunity to mount winning drives,

The QBs I listed off the top of my head were all better decision makers in the clutch, and I didn't even think of Bradshaw and Marino, who I would want with the game on the line more than Favre.

As the the supporting cast argument, who the hell did Montana have as his supporting cast in KC when he took them to the AFC Championship game?

I don't even like Montana, and to this day believe that trading for him was a shortsighted decision, but the fact remains, he was a better clutch QB, by far, than Favre.

jerhart
07-09-2008, 03:23 PM
As the the supporting cast argument, who the hell did Montana have as his supporting cast in KC when he took them to the AFC Championship game?



ummmm...Marcus Allen?


...and did you see this game? Pretty sure Brett in the huddle just said "let's get this over with, I just wanna go home"

YouTube - BRET FAVRE WINNING TD IN OT

....no numbers here...

milkman
07-09-2008, 03:34 PM
ummmm...Marcus Allen?

Marcus Allen was a shadow of his former self in his early years.



...and did you see this game? Pretty sure Brett in the huddle just said "let's get this over with, I just wanna go home"

YouTube - BRET FAVRE WINNING TD IN OT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihLwKu8bGio&feature=related)

....no numbers here...

I'm not saying that Favre didn't make plays, or engineer game winning drives, but if I had to have one QB to give the ball in the clutch, he'd be way down on the list, because he was a guy that could make boneheaded decisions as well.

He just didn't inspire the same kind of confidence that the others did in those situations.

DrunkHillbilly
07-09-2008, 06:04 PM
Marcus Allen was a shadow of his former self in his early years.




I'm not saying that Favre didn't make plays, or engineer game winning drives, but if I had to have one QB to give the ball in the clutch, he'd be way down on the list, because he was a guy that could make boneheaded decisions as well.

He just didn't inspire the same kind of confidence that the others did in those situations.
Did you just say you would rather have Hadl, Fouts, Dawson, Aikman and Staubach before Favre????? Dude, you should stick to delivering the milk!!!!!!! Your in the 5 percentile of the entire world that doesn't think Favre is a top 5-7 QB of all time!!!!

milkman
07-09-2008, 09:32 PM
Scoff all you want, but when the game is on the line, Brett Favre has made more costly errors than any of the QBs I named.

Among the "great" QBs, he is by far the worst decision maker of the lot.

DrunkHillbilly
07-09-2008, 11:57 PM
Scoff all you want, but when the game is on the line, Brett Favre has made more costly errors than any of the QBs I named.

Among the "great" QBs, he is by far the worst decision maker of the lot.
I would bet that none of the above mentioned would have his numbers had they played as long as he did!

rbedgood
07-10-2008, 01:33 AM
Numbers are overrated.

Vinnie Testeverde had 42-43,000 career passing yards.

If I needed a QB to get me a win late in a game, I would much rather have Montana, Elway, Brady, Manning, Unitas, Staubach, Aikman, Hadl, Fouts and Dawson.

Those are guys just off the top of my head.

Brett Favre was/is a terrible decision maker.

Okay you've gone from the ridiculous to the sublime. You pulled out "Vinny"...???

I agree with you on montana, Unitas, and Elway. As for Brady and Manning they're great but I'll still take Favre. You say you don't care about supporting cast...ummm I'd argue without the Pats supporting cast (O-line, Deion Branch, Randy Moss, etc.) Brady wouldn't be in this discussion. I think Manning would be, but I didn't include them or for that matter any other "active players" as the full picture of their career. And you included Aikman...he was great, but top 5 or 10 all-time?

Including just "retired" guys here is how I'd rank the top 10 all-time

Joe Montana
Johnny U
John Elway
Brett Favre
Dan Marino
Roger Staubach
Joe Namath
Fran Tarkenton
Bob Griese
Warren Moon

I'll stop putting them in order there, but other guys that I would include in front of Aikman would include Fouts, Bradshaw, Starr, Lawson, Jim Kelly and Otto Graham...


...and if they retired today PManning and Brady would probably be #5 & #7 sliding Tarkenton & Griese off the list.

chief31
07-10-2008, 01:47 AM
Wow. Simply, wow.

I don't see any reason to say anything about this.

And I am supposed to trust your football knowledge on Branden Albert?


@#%^#$!!!!!!!!!!! Now I feel even worse about this season.:D

Three7s
07-10-2008, 07:36 AM
Favre.........overrated? LOL! You keep saying that he makes bone-headed moves in critical positions to take his team out of a drive. All of the great QBs have done that, none of them are perfect!

Have you even TRIED looking at some of the GAME-WINNING plays this guy has made through out his career? I think I'll take Favre in a heart beat.

Seek
07-10-2008, 10:16 AM
If the Chiefs were truly interested in playing a QB that is at the end of their career. Trent Green would still be here, and even then, Huard would have finished the season as the starter instead of handing it over to Croyle.

Favre does not fit this team and any attempt to trying to sign him is a step backwards in the direction of this team.

Second, Brett Favre has single turned games around while his offense was sputtering by taking the game over with Gut Renching Heart and determination. Yes he threw many interceptions, that is because he was forcing play trying to make things happen. Yes he had some talent over the years, but nothing compared to the talent that Joe Montana had. I am not saying he is better than Montana, but he is certainly no Grbac.

jakesmith
07-10-2008, 12:48 PM
I agree that Farve would not be a good pickup for us with the current philosiphy. Also, if Farve goes to another team, he would not be interested in us, we are rebuilding he knows he only has about 1-2 years left and I'm sure he wants to go somewhere where he can compete right away.

KiNgSmOkEy
07-10-2008, 04:59 PM
Favre.........overrated? LOL! You keep saying that he makes bone-headed moves in critical positions to take his team out of a drive. All of the great QBs have done that, none of them are perfect!

Have you even TRIED looking at some of the GAME-WINNING plays this guy has made through out his career? I think I'll take Favre in a heart beat.
Montana holds post-season records for most career touchdown passes (45), and passing yards (5,772) among others. In his four Super Bowls, Montana completed 83 of 122 passes for 1,142 yards and 11 touchdowns, with an impressive zero interceptions, earning him a passer rating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer_rating) of 127.8. Montana led his team to victory in each game, and is the only player ever to win three Super Bowl MVP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_MVP) awards. He played in eight Pro Bowls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_Bowl).SO WHEN PEOPLE SAY FARVE IS THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME. THEN YES HE IS OVERRATED!

jerhart
07-10-2008, 05:41 PM
Montana holds post-season records for most career touchdown passes (45), and passing yards (5,772) among others. In his four Super Bowls, Montana completed 83 of 122 passes for 1,142 yards and 11 touchdowns, with an impressive zero interceptions, earning him a passer rating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer_rating) of 127.8. Montana led his team to victory in each game, and is the only player ever to win three Super Bowl MVP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_MVP) awards. He played in eight Pro Bowls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_Bowl).SO WHEN PEOPLE SAY FARVE IS THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME. THEN YES HE IS OVERRATED!

Those are numbers...milkman doesnt like numbers. Nobody said he is the greatest qb ever. ...he's just not the most overrated qb ever as stated by milkman.

BTW...pretty sure Favre would have won more games with Rice and Taylor at his sides.

Welcome to the forum. :bananen_smilies046:

KiNgSmOkEy
07-10-2008, 06:30 PM
Those are numbers...milkman doesnt like numbers. Nobody said he is the greatest qb ever. ...he's just not the most overrated qb ever as stated by milkman.

BTW...pretty sure Favre would have won more games with Rice and Taylor at his sides.

Welcome to the forum. :bananen_smilies046:
This is where that argument is lacking. Montana s game was a methodical approach as to favre s free spirited improvise approach. Hence all Favres interceptions. This making favre more appealing to watch but not nearly as dedicated the craft of awarness and accuracy as Montana. So no his post season stats would not be even nearly as close to montanas. With or without Rice.

DrunkHillbilly
07-10-2008, 06:51 PM
This is where that argument is lacking. Montana s game was a methodical approach as to favre s free spirited improvise approach. Hence all Favres interceptions. This making favre more appealing to watch but not nearly as dedicated the craft of awarness and accuracy as Montana. So no his post season stats would not be even nearly as close to montanas. With or without Rice.
Forget reg. season or post season! His numbers are not what Montana's are because he did'nt have ANY of the players that Montana did! Montana had some of the best players to ever play the game with him. Favre.......uh, well, he didn't so his style of play is due to the talent he had around him.

KiNgSmOkEy
07-10-2008, 07:01 PM
I hate when people say well with rice this Qb would of been greater! Why is you think rice excells montanas career and not montana who excelled rices career. Was brady not great before moss? And who did he have for WRs? NOBODY! but how was Moss's career going without a great QB in oakland? HORRIBLE! Now with brady hes a champ again. The truth is rice is my favorite player of all time but he has great QBs throwing to him his whole career. ALL WHO TROW VERY CATCHABLE BALLS INCLUDING RICH GANNON UNLIKE FAVRE WHO THROWS BULLET PASS EVEN WHEN ITS NOT NECESSARY. INFACT I BELIEVE RICE'S STATS WOULD HAVE SUFFERED IF HE HAD PLAYED WITH FAVRE.

DrunkHillbilly
07-10-2008, 08:24 PM
I hate when people say well with rice this Qb would of been greater! Why is you think rice excells montanas career and not montana who excelled rices career. Was brady not great before moss? And who did he have for WRs? NOBODY! but how was Moss's career going without a great QB in oakland? HORRIBLE! Now with brady hes a champ again. The truth is rice is my favorite player of all time but he has great QBs throwing to him his whole career. ALL WHO TROW VERY CATCHABLE BALLS INCLUDING RICH GANNON UNLIKE FAVRE WHO THROWS BULLET PASS EVEN WHEN ITS NOT NECESSARY. INFACT I BELIEVE RICE'S STATS WOULD HAVE SUFFERED IF HE HAD PLAYED WITH FAVRE.
OH BOY!!!!!! Another Raider Fan!!!! Lets see, did Brady have a better year this past season with Moss or did he have a better season the year before Moss got there?:drunkhb:

KiNgSmOkEy
07-10-2008, 08:32 PM
OH BOY!!!!!! Another Raider Fan!!!! Lets see, did Brady have a better year this past season with Moss or did he have a better season the year before Moss got there?:drunkhb:
First of all i hate the raiders! Second of all did moss have a better year with brady or out brady? hmmm. DIDNT EVERY ONE THINK MOSS's CAREER WAS OVER BEFORE HE GOT WITH BRADY? YES! and acuatlly no brady didnt do better with moss! i believe he won the super bowl without him and lossed it with him.

KiNgSmOkEy
07-10-2008, 08:34 PM
in fact he won many superbowls with out him even if wasnt the year before moss came over!

rbedgood
07-11-2008, 12:40 AM
I hate when people say well with rice this Qb would of been greater! Why is you think rice excells montanas career and not montana who excelled rices career. Was brady not great before moss? And who did he have for WRs? NOBODY! but how was Moss's career going without a great QB in oakland? HORRIBLE! Now with brady hes a champ again. The truth is rice is my favorite player of all time but he has great QBs throwing to him his whole career. ALL WHO TROW VERY CATCHABLE BALLS INCLUDING RICH GANNON UNLIKE FAVRE WHO THROWS BULLET PASS EVEN WHEN ITS NOT NECESSARY. INFACT I BELIEVE RICE'S STATS WOULD HAVE SUFFERED IF HE HAD PLAYED WITH FAVRE.

Resident 49er fan here...ummm Rice played just fine with QBs other than Montana...Bono, Young and even for a short time Garcia all "made Rice look good"...or the other way around... :D Heck Rice didn't really diminish until he played in the ugliest uniform in the NFL.

Rice is the GOAT WR...Favre as most people have agreed is at least top 10 if not top 5. I have yet to hear anyone say he is the GOAT at his position. The argument there is usually between Montana and Unitas, some people have started trying to put Manning or Brady there, but to me an active player has to be well into the twilight of their career before such discussions are relevant.

KiNgSmOkEy
07-11-2008, 02:06 AM
Resident 49er fan here...ummm Rice played just fine with QBs other than Montana...Bono, Young and even for a short time Garcia all "made Rice look good"...or the other way around... :D Heck Rice didn't really diminish until he played in the ugliest uniform in the NFL.

Rice is the GOAT WR...Favre as most people have agreed is at least top 10 if not top 5. I have yet to hear anyone say he is the GOAT at his position. The argument there is usually between Montana and Unitas, some people have started trying to put Manning or Brady there, but to me an active player has to be well into the twilight of their career before such discussions are relevant.
I agree> Rice is the greatest WR of ALL TIME. But my argument was that montana was the greatest QB of ALL TIME. and NOT BECAUSE OF RICE. Some douters of montana claim Favre would been just as good if not better with rice. THIS IS NOT TRUE! Rice was not known for pure speed, he was known though as the best route runner ever. WHICH DOESNT PLAY INTO FAVRES LONG ROCKET ARM ON PURE DEEP STRAIGHT PASSES. But DOES PLAY INTO MONTANAS MORE METHODICAL APPROACH HIGHLIGHTED BY HIS MORE AWARE,ACCURATE, AND TOUCH PASSING ABILITY. THIS MADE PERFECTION WITH RICE S CRISP ROUTE RUNNING, KNOWLEDGE, AND AWARNESS TOO. THEY BOTH(RICE AND MONTANA) HAD SUCH A SIMILAR GAME APPROACH THEY ENHANCED EACH OTHER NOT ONE OVER THE OTHER!
BOTH WERE PURLEY DEDICATED TO CRAFT AND ALL ABOUT THE TEAM. AS FAVRE IS GREAT(THAT IS TRUE) BUT HE ASLO PLAYS WITH MORE OF A SELFISH DEMEANOR. LIKE BRETT FAVRE IS GREENBAY! EVEN THOUGH HE DOES LOVE THE TEAM AND GREEN BAY. EXAMPLE: NEVER PRACTICING WITH THE TEAM IN OFFSEASON NON MANDITORY CAMPS. OR ALWAYS WANTING THE TEAM TO COURT HIM BACK EACH YEAR AS HE WAIVERS ON HIS DECISION WHILE HOLDS THEM HOSTAGE ON THE FUTURE. BUT SAYING ALL THAT I WANT BRETT FAVRE BACK JUST AS EVERY ONE ELSE BECAUSE HE IS A LEGEND! BUT HE STILL IS NO JOE MONTANA. MONTANA IS THE BEST AND THAT WILL NEVER CHANGE!

jerhart
07-11-2008, 09:29 AM
I agree> Rice is the greatest WR of ALL TIME. But my argument was that montana was the greatest QB of ALL TIME. and NOT BECAUSE OF RICE. Some douters of montana claim Favre would been just as good if not better with rice. THIS IS NOT TRUE! Rice was not known for pure speed, he was known though as the best route runner ever. WHICH DOESNT PLAY INTO FAVRES LONG ROCKET ARM ON PURE DEEP STRAIGHT PASSES. But DOES PLAY INTO MONTANAS MORE METHODICAL APPROACH HIGHLIGHTED BY HIS MORE AWARE,ACCURATE, AND TOUCH PASSING ABILITY. THIS MADE PERFECTION WITH RICE S CRISP ROUTE RUNNING, KNOWLEDGE, AND AWARNESS TOO. THEY BOTH(RICE AND MONTANA) HAD SUCH A SIMILAR GAME APPROACH THEY ENHANCED EACH OTHER NOT ONE OVER THE OTHER!
BOTH WERE PURLEY DEDICATED TO CRAFT AND ALL ABOUT THE TEAM. AS FAVRE IS GREAT(THAT IS TRUE) BUT HE ASLO PLAYS WITH MORE OF A SELFISH DEMEANOR. LIKE BRETT FAVRE IS GREENBAY! EVEN THOUGH HE DOES LOVE THE TEAM AND GREEN BAY. EXAMPLE: NEVER PRACTICING WITH THE TEAM IN OFFSEASON NON MANDITORY CAMPS. OR ALWAYS WANTING THE TEAM TO COURT HIM BACK EACH YEAR AS HE WAIVERS ON HIS DECISION WHILE HOLDS THEM HOSTAGE ON THE FUTURE. BUT SAYING ALL THAT I WANT BRETT FAVRE BACK JUST AS EVERY ONE ELSE BECAUSE HE IS A LEGEND! BUT HE STILL IS NO JOE MONTANA. MONTANA IS THE BEST AND THAT WILL NEVER CHANGE!

Here...let's just take this back where it started with milkman saying he is the most overrated qb ever....I feel this thread has shifted from Favre to Montana....


so kings...leave montana out of this...Milkman is saying favre is the most overrated qb ever...the rest of us say he is looney.


Is Favre the most overrated qb ever? Nobody said he is better than Montana...

DrunkHillbilly
07-11-2008, 09:41 PM
First of all i hate the raiders! Second of all did moss have a better year with brady or out brady? hmmm. DIDNT EVERY ONE THINK MOSS's CAREER WAS OVER BEFORE HE GOT WITH BRADY? YES! and acuatlly no brady didnt do better with moss! i believe he won the super bowl without him and lossed it with him.
Look at the numbers!!!!!

jakesmith
07-12-2008, 12:07 AM
I would have to say that yes milkman is loonie. Probably a suffering purple people eater or something.

And No, Farve is not overrated.

To pull this back to the Chiefs (afterall this is a Chiefs fan website. :sign0103: ). If the Chiefs had a QB with the caliber of Brett Farve in the late nineties and early 2000s. We would probably be talking dynasty.

KiNgSmOkEy
07-12-2008, 05:19 AM
Here...let's just take this back where it started with milkman saying he is the most overrated qb ever....I feel this thread has shifted from Favre to Montana....


so kings...leave montana out of this...Milkman is saying favre is the most overrated qb ever...the rest of us say he is looney.


Is Favre the most overrated qb ever? Nobody said he is better than Montana...
No, Favre is not overrated if you consider him in the top 10 QBs ALL TIME. What im saying though is more to what i hear on tv and around me every day( WHEN THEY SAY FAVRE IS THE GREATEST QB OF ALL TIME.) That irritates me. So, to people who say that then yes he is overrated.

chief31
07-12-2008, 06:57 AM
This is where that argument is lacking. Montana s game was a methodical approach as to favre s free spirited improvise approach. Hence all Favres interceptions. This making favre more appealing to watch but not nearly as dedicated the craft of awarness and accuracy as Montana. So no his post season stats would not be even nearly as close to montanas. With or without Rice.


Both Montana and Rice were aided by a revolutionary offensive gameplan, and by the presence of each other.

So, for the Montana/Favre comparison, Montana had Rice and Walsh, while Favre had Favre.

I think the argument is a fair one, from either side.

milkman
07-12-2008, 09:17 AM
Those are numbers...milkman doesnt like numbers. Nobody said he is the greatest qb ever. ...he's just not the most overrated qb ever as stated by milkman.

BTW...pretty sure Favre would have won more games with Rice and Taylor at his sides.

Welcome to the forum. :bananen_smilies046:
But you see, smokey has hit the nail on the head.

Brett Favre has entered the discussion in the media as the greatest ever, and because he has, he is the most overrated.

milkman
07-12-2008, 09:24 AM
Favre.........overrated? LOL! You keep saying that he makes bone-headed moves in critical positions to take his team out of a drive. All of the great QBs have done that, none of them are perfect!

Have you even TRIED looking at some of the GAME-WINNING plays this guy has made through out his career? I think I'll take Favre in a heart beat.

I didn't say that any of them are perfest.

I said that Brett Favre is more inclined than any of the QBs I named to make boneheaded mistakes in critical situations.

Some of the QBs I named are not among the greatest ever, although I think that John Hadl might be the most underrated, and should be in the HoF.

But they are all guys I would trust with the ball in their hands with the game on the line more than I would trust Favre.

And, yes, I've seen the game winning drives that Favre has engineered,
But I've also seen the boneheaded decisions he's made that has cost the Pack.

OTR Chiefs fan
07-12-2008, 12:19 PM
I didn't say that any of them are perfest.

I said that Brett Favre is more inclined than any of the QBs I named to make boneheaded mistakes in critical situations.

Some of the QBs I named are not among the greatest ever, although I think that John Hadl might be the most underrated, and should be in the HoF.

But they are all guys I would trust with the ball in their hands with the game on the line more than I would trust Favre.

And, yes, I've seen the game winning drives that Favre has engineered,
But I've also seen the boneheaded decisions he's made that has cost the Pack.

Favre has that gun slinger mentality, hence the propensity to make more mistakes than a more disciplined QB. I think he is a top 10 QB, but not the best ever. I think the best thing for the Packers is to trade or let Favre go. It's time to move on and see what they have in Rodgers. Favre was great for them and they should give him all the respect in the world, but there comes a time when you have to move on, ala.... 49ers/Montana. :D

Coach
07-12-2008, 12:20 PM
:lol: I'm sorry, but no thanks. this would do nothing but set the organization back another year.

Let's say we DID sign the guy and we managed a .500 record, then the next year even, we make the playoffs and actually win a game.... then what?

Brett Favre retires and a team that is ready to start competing has to take a step backward and try to compete with either another free agent QB or a guy who's been sitting on the bench for a couple years....and his name won't be Brodie Croyle because there's no way he'll re-sign if we don't start him in 08.

Signing Favre is a really bad idea for the long term goals of this team. We need to see what Croyle can do as a starter while we're still a relatively bad team so that we can draft a top rated QB early in the draft if indeed Croyle can't handle it.


so.... i say pass on Favre....not that i really need to say that cuz there's absolutely no way he'd sign here in the first place.


Honestly....I dont want him...I'd rather give BC a shot behind this line. Yes nobody likes BC, but I don't want to have a new QB every season. Some consistency would be nice, and if we are rebuilding, Brett isnt going to help us rebuild. What happens if we finish above .500 next year and brett retires? We wont be high enough in the draft to pickup 'THE' qb of the draft.


Give BC a chance behind this line, if he flops....good, no Herm, no CP, and a new Tebow next season! :sign0098:

These posts pretty much sum up my thoughts on Favre. I think he is one of the best of all time, but I wouldn't want him on the squad even if he played for free. We are trying to build something here. Brett would not be happy happy riding the bench here, and we need to evaluate Brodie.

DrunkHillbilly
07-12-2008, 12:23 PM
These posts pretty much sum up my thoughts on Favre. I think he is one of the best of all time, but I wouldn't want him on the squad even if he played for free. We are trying to build something here. Brett would not be happy happy riding the bench here, and we need to evaluate Brodie.
Not going to happen but if he were to come here, he definetly would not be "riding the bench" behind Croyle just for evaluation purposes!!!

milkman
07-12-2008, 12:27 PM
To be very clear, I'm not saying he's not a top 10 all time.
Hell, he might be top 5.

But he should never, ever, be entered into a discussion about "greatest ever".

Three7s
07-12-2008, 12:32 PM
To be very clear, I'm not saying he's not a top 10 all time.
Hell, he might be top 5.

But he should never, ever, be entered into a discussion about "greatest ever".
I'll admit, at first I didn't know what you meant by "overrated". I thought you meant that he was worse than the top 5-10 that most, including myself, were giving him credit for. I agree he's not the absolute best. There's two QBs playing right now that'll probably be better than him too when they're done.

chief31
07-12-2008, 07:26 PM
To be very clear, I'm not saying he's not a top 10 all time.
Hell, he might be top 5.

But he should never, ever, be entered into a discussion about "greatest ever".


Generally, whenever you are discussing the "best ever", each of the top five goes into the conversation.

I wouldn't classify him as the best ever, but I really can't compare them like that, for such different situations.

When forced to do so, I just like to throw Marinos name in. :D

KiNgSmOkEy
07-12-2008, 11:25 PM
Both Montana and Rice were aided by a revolutionary offensive gameplan, and by the presence of each other.

So, for the Montana/Favre comparison, Montana had Rice and Walsh, while Favre had Favre.

I think the argument is a fair one, from either side.
Yes, thats true there coach was a genius! But part of being a genius is not trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Meaning going after talent that best suits your offencienive style. ONE KEY BEING MONTANA. Walsh made the original WESTCOAST OFFENCE which went away from the vertical passing game of other teams and favored a more predominantly horinzontal passing approach. MEANING TAKING CHUNKS OF 5 YARDS AT A TIME. This allowed for QB arm strength not to be a key attribute needed.Thus making patience the key attribute needed by his QB, highlighted by the skill of awareness, accuracy, and touch. His QB had to have the willingness to make the smart play and take short methodical chunks at a time. Meaning style of play: a more snazzy form of ball control. All this playing into montana ,not so much to favre. Example:Even when favre plays similar west coast styles of offence he does not put up the same numbers as montana. BECAUSE HE CAN NOT LOOSE THAT GUN SLINGER MIND SET. LOTS OF YARDS,LOTS OF TOUCHDOWNS, AND LOTS OF PICKS! U ARGUE FAVRE DID NOT HAVE THE SAME OFFENECIVE MASTER MIND, BUT DID YOU KNOW INFACT FAVRES FOMER COACH FOR MANY YEARS MIKE HOLMGREN WAS A DIRECT DISCIPLE OF BILL WALSH? AND UTILIZED BILL WALSH'S WEST COAST SYSTEM WITH FAVRE. AND YET FAVRE HAS THE MOST INTERCEPTIONS IN NFL HISTORY AND MONTANA HAS 4 SUPERBOWL TROPHIES. SO NO, ITS CLEAR THE ARGUMENT CAN NOT GO BOTH WAYS! MONTANA BY FAR IS THE BETTER QUARTER BACK! AND NO FAVRE WOULDNT OF BEEN JUST AS GREAT IN THAT OFFENCE BECAUSE HES ALREADY PLAYED IN A SIMILAR STYLE OF THAT OFFENCE AND WASNT! BECAUSE HE JUST CAN STOP THROWING PICKS! AND AS FAR AS MONTANAS- RICE, FAVRE HAD STERLING SHARPE WHO ONE OF THE MOST DOMINANT WR FOR MANY YEARS UNTILL INJURIES MADE HIM RETIRE. ALLTHOUGH ONLY PLAYING ABOUT 3 YEARS WITH FAVRE.

KiNgSmOkEy
07-12-2008, 11:26 PM
Both Montana and Rice were aided by a revolutionary offensive gameplan, and by the presence of each other.

So, for the Montana/Favre comparison, Montana had Rice and Walsh, while Favre had Favre.

I think the argument is a fair one, from either side.
Yes, thats true there coach was a genius! But part of being a genius is not trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Meaning going after talent that best suits your offencienive style. ONE KEY BEING MONTANA. Walsh made the original WESTCOAST OFFENCE which went away from the vertical passing game of other teams and favored a more predominantly horinzontal passing approach. MEANING TAKING CHUNKS OF 5 YARDS AT A TIME. This allowed for QB arm strength not to be a key attribute needed.Thus making patience the key attribute needed by his QB, highlighted by the skill of awareness, accuracy, and touch. His QB had to have the willingness to make the smart play and take short methodical chunks at a time. Meaning style of play: a more snazzy form of ball control. All this playing into montana ,not so much to favre. Example:Even when favre plays similar west coast styles of offence he does not put up the same numbers as montana. BECAUSE HE CAN NOT LOOSE THAT GUN SLINGER MIND SET. LOTS OF YARDS,LOTS OF TOUCHDOWNS, AND LOTS OF PICKS! U ARGUE FAVRE DID NOT HAVE THE SAME OFFENECIVE MASTER MIND, BUT DID YOU KNOW INFACT FAVRES FOMER COACH FOR MANY YEARS MIKE HOLMGREN WAS A DIRECT DISCIPLE OF BILL WALSH? AND UTILIZED BILL WALSH'S WEST COAST SYSTEM WITH FAVRE. AND YET FAVRE HAS THE MOST INTERCEPTIONS IN NFL HISTORY AND MONTANA HAS 4 SUPERBOWL TROPHIES. SO NO, ITS CLEAR THE ARGUMENT CAN NOT GO BOTH WAYS! MONTANA BY FAR IS THE BETTER QUARTER BACK! AND NO FAVRE WOULDNT OF BEEN JUST AS GREAT IN THAT OFFENCE BECAUSE HES ALREADY PLAYED IN A SIMILAR STYLE OF THAT OFFENCE AND WASNT! BECAUSE HE JUST CAN STOP THROWING PICKS! AND AS FAR AS MONTANAS- RICE, FAVRE HAD STERLING SHARPE WHO ONE OF THE MOST DOMINANT WR FOR MANY YEARS UNTILL INJURIES MADE HIM RETIRE. ALLTHOUGH ONLY PLAYING ABOUT 3 YEARS WITH FAVRE.

KiNgSmOkEy
07-12-2008, 11:32 PM
FAVRE JUST CANT STOP THROWING PICKS! I MEAN!

chief31
07-12-2008, 11:42 PM
Yes, thats true there coach was a genius! But part of being a genius is not trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Meaning going after talent that best suits your offencienive style. ONE KEY BEING MONTANA. Walsh made the original WESTCOAST OFFENCE which went away from the vertical passing game of other teams and favored a more predominantly horinzontal passing approach. MEANING TAKING CHUNKS OF 5 YARDS AT A TIME. This allowed for QB arm strength not to be a key attribute needed.Thus making patience the key attribute needed by his QB, highlighted by the skill of awareness, accuracy, and touch. His QB had to have the willingness to make the smart play and take short methodical chunks at a time. Meaning style of play: a more snazzy form of ball control. All this playing into montana ,not so much to favre.U ARGUE FAVRE DID NOT HAVE THE SAME OFFENECIVE MASTER MIND, BUT DID YOU KNOW INFACT FAVRES FOMER COACH FOR MANY YEARS MIKE HOLMGREN WAS A DIRECT DISCIPLE OF BILL WALSH? AND UTILIZED BILL WALSH'S WEST COAST SYSTEM WITH FAVRE. AND YET FAVRE HAS THE MOST INTERCEPTIONS IN NFL HISTORY AND MONTANA HAS 4 SUPERBOWL TROPHIES. SO NO, ITS CLEAR THE ARGUMENT CAN NOT GO BOTH WAYS! MONTANA BY FAR IS THE BETTER QUARTER BACK! AND NO FAVRE WOULDNT OF BEEN JUST AS GREAT IN THAT OFFENCE BECAUSE HES ALREADY PLAYED IN A SIMILAR STYLE OF THAT OFFENCE AND WASNT! BECAUSE HE JUST CAN STOP THROWING PICKS! AND AS FAR AS MONTANAS- RICE, FAVRE HAD STERLING SHARPE WHO ONE OF THE MOST DOMINANT WR FOR MANY YEARS UNTILL INJURIES MADE HIM RETIRE. ALLTHOUGH ONLY PLAYING ABOUT 3 YEARS WITH FAVRE.

Seriously. Favre never played with those advantages. Holmgren was a student, and Walsh was the master. Rice was the best of all time, and Sharpe had a couple of seasons. Not to mention that when Montana led the WCO, it was considered 'revolutionary'. When Favre had it, it was already a known commodity. And any time that Favre had a strong defense, they went deep into the playoffs.

You can't just dismiss a career with little help, against a career with the best in the business. It just isn't an even comparison.

As I said earlier, "I really can't compare them like that, for such different situations."

P.S. Could I get you to use a darker shade of green? That green you are using is pretty rough to look at.

KiNgSmOkEy
07-13-2008, 12:55 AM
Seriously. Favre never played with those advantages. Holmgren was a student, and Walsh was the master. Rice was the best of all time, and Sharpe had a couple of seasons. Not to mention that when Montana led the WCO, it was considered 'revolutionary'. When Favre had it, it was already a known commodity. And any time that Favre had a strong defense, they went deep into the playoffs.

You can't just dismiss a career with little help, against a career with the best in the business. It just isn't an even comparison.

As I said earlier, "I really can't compare them like that, for such different situations."

P.S. Could I get you to use a darker shade of green? That green you are using is pretty rough to look at.
Your still missing the point. Favre would not excell the same as montana in that offence. He does not fit the same way(hence the square peg in round whole). Otherwise walsh would of drated a quarterback similar to favre(gun slinger, strong arm, improviser). But he didnt!
Becuse for his offence he needed a smart QB. One who doesnt try to make plays when there not there- more like one who doesnt try to force plays when there not there. A thinker not a feeler. A student of the game- one who has to relie on his ability to break down the plays as it happens because of his lack of arm strength( he doesnt have a rocket arm to crutch him trough his career). ONe who doesnt improvise but instead acts like the bolt in a well oiled machine keeping everything together. One who no matter what is not allowed AND WILL NOT loose the game by throwing interception. and that is not favre. THE REASON WALSH IS A MASTERMIND BECAUSE OF PIECES HE PUTS INTO PLAY! NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! YOU CANT JUST BECOME ONE WITHOUT DOING IT FIRST! YOU CANT JUST PUT IN ANY qb STYLE AND GET THE SAME RESULTS! IT DOESNT WORK THAT WAY. THIS ISNT FANTASY FOOTBALL.OH AND JUST SO U KNOW WALSHs FIRST YEAR BEFORE MONTANA WAS DRAFTED HE WENT 2-14.

milkman
07-13-2008, 09:14 AM
Seriously. Favre never played with those advantages. Holmgren was a student, and Walsh was the master. Rice was the best of all time, and Sharpe had a couple of seasons. Not to mention that when Montana led the WCO, it was considered 'revolutionary'. When Favre had it, it was already a known commodity. And any time that Favre had a strong defense, they went deep into the playoffs.

You can't just dismiss a career with little help, against a career with the best in the business. It just isn't an even comparison.

As I said earlier, "I really can't compare them like that, for such different situations."

P.S. Could I get you to use a darker shade of green? That green you are using is pretty rough to look at.

The 9ers won 4 SBs and Walsh got all of this praise.

He's a genius.
He's an innovator.
He created a new offense.

That's bull.

All he did was take the short passing game aspects of Sid Gillman's offense and use it as his primary passing offense.

Gillman was the innovator, the genius, the creator, and everyone since has just used aspects of his offense to fit their philosophies and players.

Hell, Hank Stram used the same kind of passing attack as Walsh as his primary passing offense, except he added the moving pocket, something that even Gillman hadn't used before.

chief31
07-13-2008, 09:33 AM
Your still missing the point. Favre would not excell the same as montana in that offence. He does not fit the same way(hence the square peg in round whole). Otherwise walsh would of drated a quarterback similar to favre(gun slinger, strong arm, improviser). But he didnt!
Becuse for his offence he needed a smart QB. One who doesnt try to make plays when there not there- more like one who doesnt try to force plays when there not there. A thinker not a feeler. A student of the game- one who has to relie on his ability to break down the plays as it happens because of his lack of arm strength( he doesnt have a rocket arm to crutch him trough his career). ONe who doesnt improvise but instead acts like the bolt in a well oiled machine keeping everything together. One who no matter what is not allowed AND WILL NOT loose the game by throwing interception. and that is not favre. THE REASON WALSH IS A MASTERMIND BECAUSE OF PIECES HE PUTS INTO PLAY! NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! YOU CANT JUST BECOME ONE WITHOUT DOING IT FIRST! YOU CANT JUST PUT IN ANY qb STYLE AND GET THE SAME RESULTS! IT DOESNT WORK THAT WAY. THIS ISNT FANTASY FOOTBALL.OH AND JUST SO U KNOW WALSHs FIRST YEAR BEFORE MONTANA WAS DRAFTED HE WENT 2-14.

It is pure speculation, no matter what you think "would have happened if..."

Almost every player has to change the way they do things, when they reach the pro level, so what makes you think that, in a diffwerent set of circumstances, that Favre couldn't have been taught to blend with the circumstances, had he been in Montanas circumstances?

It's all pure speculation. Guess-work.

But the facts are that Montana had a situation that favored QBs like no other, and Favre had an ever-changing situation, and generally "Made chicken salad, from chicken ****."

Make all of the self-righteous claims that you like about "what it would have been like, if..." but everthing from that point is pure opinion. And anyone is free to have the opposite opinion.

Chiefster
07-13-2008, 05:41 PM
I think it's impossible to compare great QB's to each other with regards to who possessed more "greatness" in general because there are simply too many variables involved.

tornadospotter
07-14-2008, 04:49 AM
I think it's impossible to compare great QB's to each other with regards to who possessed more "greatness" in general because there are simply too many variables involved.
You think?
I agree!
What I think would solve this Question is, strap a Chiefs uniform on Farve and see what could happen! Granted thats not going to happen, IMO, but what if????????
Let stop with the who is the greatest, or best QB of all time,(i still think that Fran T. is the best QB) back on subject, if we could sign Farve, would he be able to win games for us, and would he be able to mentor to our signed under contract QB's ?

rbedgood
07-14-2008, 09:15 AM
Montana was special, even beyond Walsh & Rice. He proved it when he came to KC in the twilight of his career. However Favre is also special. He clearly outranks Marino...and not just because he has the 2 Super Bowl rings, but also because he was able to make more of clubs that had shallow supporting casts than Marino did. Favre is an incredible talent, and even now towards the end of his career (apparently he may play another year or two) he is a huge asset to an offense.

Favre has some tools that even Montana didn't have, but Montana had a special mystique that no other quarterback has had since. Only Elway came close in my opinion to Montana's aura in big games. Sure Elway had more late comebacks, but Montana pulled them off on the biggest stages in the game, and really there wasn't even much mystery as to whether or not he would. I remember still my dad waking me up (I was a little kid) and having me watch the end of the Bengals super bowl when the 49ers got the ball. He told me, "son, you are about to see history". He didn't wonder or question whether the 49ers would win the game...and sure enough Montana and Rice moved the ball down the field and John Taylor caught the TD. My dad was right...but people across the country knew Montana would do that. Other QBs (even Favre) leave you wondering, will they come through?

That to me is the separation. Now, if I had to make a 70 yd TD with 10 seconds left. I'll take Favre...but otherwise there is no question that Favre wouldn't be the top choice.

KiNgSmOkEy
07-14-2008, 09:58 PM
It is pure speculation, no matter what you think "would have happened if..."

Almost every player has to change the way they do things, when they reach the pro level, so what makes you think that, in a diffwerent set of circumstances, that Favre couldn't have been taught to blend with the circumstances, had he been in Montanas circumstances?

It's all pure speculation. Guess-work.

But the facts are that Montana had a situation that favored QBs like no other, and Favre had an ever-changing situation, and generally "Made chicken salad, from chicken ****."

Make all of the self-righteous claims that you like about "what it would have been like, if..." but everthing from that point is pure opinion. And anyone is free to have the opposite opinion.
Tell me how was it chicken salad, out of chicken sh**. U act as if he didnt have any great pieces on his side. Has Mike Holgen not taken two different teams two the superbowl? YES, I believe he has!

So, u cant say he didnt have a great coach. Not to mention as i said before holmgren is discyple of WALSH! SAy what u like but the teacher teaches the student(hence the word teacher). Did favre not have good running backs? YEs I believe he did!

Ahman green was one of the most dominant backs of the NFL for a while. he went to the probowl every year from 2001 to 2005. He broke several of greenbays franchise records. From the time he joined the Packers in 2000 up through the end of the 2004 season, Ahman Green gained more yards from scrimmage (9,036) and rushing yards (6,848) than any other NFL player. through that period.

In 2003, he had his best year as a professional and set the Green Bay franchise record by running for 1,883 yards in the regular season.Green is also one of two players in NFL history to have two touchdown runs of 90 or more yards *Bo jackson is the other* Green has a rushing average 4.5 yard per carry through out his career. thats almost half a first down on each carry! For that matter even Dorsey Levens there back before Green was pretty good. He did put up 1,435 yards in 1997. And are u kidding me the pack has had some dominant physical, versatile, good hands, and elusive fullbacks like william henderson< who was a former R Back>


Henderson has blocked for six of the top nine individual rushing efforts in team annals — Dorsey Levens' 1,435 yards in 1997 (third), Ahman Green's 1,883 in 2003 (first), 1,387 in 2001 (fourth), 1,240 in 2002 (sixth), 1,175 in 2000 (seventh) and 1,163 in 2004 (ninth).Henderson had proven valuable as pass catcher out of the backfield. He stands eighth all-time on the Packers' career receptions list with 308 (for 2,347 yards), and first among running backs. And favre always had for the most part a pretty consistant line.

As i said before favre also played with sterling sharpe for a short while, which i dont even have to get in on how great he was. Favre also had and still has donald driver who has 5 seasons over a thousand yards. Driver almost had 6 straight years over a thousand but one fell short.

And hes a 3 time pro bowler! Also he was the teams 2002 mvp not brett. Even javon walker was great for green bay putting up 1,382 yards and 12 touchdowns in 2004, and he made it to the probowl. Hes even had good TEs look at bubba franks. hes a 3 time pro bowl te,2001,2002,2003. U said this your self(qoute: favre only goes deep in the playoffs when he has a great defence.)! Why is that? because u have to have a great defence to make up for all those picks u throw, to even out the plus/minus ratio so the other team doesnt score off all the mistakes u make.// Example:// REx Gross man made it the superbowl.( now im not saying favre is as bad as rex) but it does prove my point, u have to have a great defence if u throw alot of interceptions,to= Superbowl! And we know favre throws alot of interceptions(288 career interceptions! Most in NFL history!)

The fact is farve has always had talent around him, It just doesnt show when u have constantly sit on the sideline and watch the D, because your quarter back keeps throwning picks.//Example//= before last year everyone said favre should retire because team had no talent. Then all of sudden favre decidides play smart and not play gunslinger, let other players try to make the plays and the team does great and win.

Now everyone at the end of the year and this offseason says the packers are one of the most talented teams. REALLY? HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? ITS THE SAME TEAM AT THE START OF THE YEAR THAT EVERYONE SAID HAD NO TALENT.INFACT, ITS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME TEAM THAT HAD PLAYED FOR THE LAST 2-3YEARS!

Well, ill tell u why they were great now. They were always great! when the quarter back throws picks u loose! and no one looks great loosing! NOW, WHEN THE QUARTERBACK PLAYS SMART,that = LESS PICKS, which then= CONSISTANT DRIVES, which then = MORE OPPORTUNITES, which then = MORE TOUCHDOWNS, which then = MORE WINS, which then = MORE OF THE LIME LIGHT ON THE OTHER PLAYERS, which then = MORE STARS, and that = GREAT TEAM!

But to prove my point that a zebra cant changes stripes(favre playing smart) all u have to do is go back to his last game. He had plenty of time to drive his team down methodically to win and take them to superbowl just like montana. But instead he regressed to his old gun slinger self, he got impatient and said im IM WINING ALL and IM WINING NOW, ON THIS PLAY! and went deep right out of the gate and threw a bonehead pick, which then of course cost his team the game. HE COST THEM THE SUPERBOWL APPEARANCE!

KiNgSmOkEy
07-14-2008, 10:11 PM
Sorry, didnt mean to post that twice.

Chiefster
07-14-2008, 11:48 PM
Sorry, didnt mean to post that twice.

No problem; nice stat work.

greg3564
07-15-2008, 02:59 AM
You think?
I agree!
What I think would solve this Question is, strap a Chiefs uniform on Farve and see what could happen! Granted thats not going to happen, IMO, but what if????????
Let stop with the who is the greatest, or best QB of all time,(i still think that Fran T. is the best QB) back on subject, if we could sign Farve, would he be able to win games for us, and would he be able to mentor to our signed under contract QB's ?

Highly doubtful Favre would be able to accomplish much with this team. The QB is important, but this offense doesn't offer much yet. He would be doing more scrambling than he would care for.

Not to mention Favre is going to go to a team that has an immeadiate shot at a Superbowl run. A team that is missing that last piece of the puzzle. I still don't understand why he retired in the first place, as GB still has enough talent to get a shot at the playoffs again. Personally, I think he has hurt his reputation by doing this. Just bow out gracefully and call it a career. I lose respect for guys that "un-retire." Either they do it because it wasn't well thought out or they do it for the money. I don't think Favre did the latter of the two, but who knows.

prough91
07-15-2008, 04:00 AM
Favre is, and always will be, one of the greatest. It sickens me to see him compared to Marino. How many rings does Marino have?

Three7s
07-15-2008, 04:32 AM
Highly doubtful Favre would be able to accomplish much with this team. The QB is important, but this offense doesn't offer much yet. He would be doing more scrambling than he would care for.

Not to mention Favre is going to go to a team that has an immeadiate shot at a Superbowl run. A team that is missing that last piece of the puzzle. I still don't understand why he retired in the first place, as GB still has enough talent to get a shot at the playoffs again. Personally, I think he has hurt his reputation by doing this. Just bow out gracefully and call it a career. I lose respect for guys that "un-retire." Either they do it because it wasn't well thought out or they do it for the money. I don't think Favre did the latter of the two, but who knows.
If anyone loves football, it's definitely Favre. I'd say he came back because he got the urge to play.

chief31
07-15-2008, 11:58 AM
Montana was special, even beyond Walsh & Rice. He proved it when he came to KC in the twilight of his career. However Favre is also special. He clearly outranks Marino...and not just because he has the 2 Super Bowl rings, but also because he was able to make more of clubs that had shallow supporting casts than Marino did. Favre is an incredible talent, and even now towards the end of his career (apparently he may play another year or two) he is a huge asset to an offense.

Favre has some tools that even Montana didn't have, but Montana had a special mystique that no other quarterback has had since. Only Elway came close in my opinion to Montana's aura in big games. Sure Elway had more late comebacks, but Montana pulled them off on the biggest stages in the game, and really there wasn't even much mystery as to whether or not he would. I remember still my dad waking me up (I was a little kid) and having me watch the end of the Bengals super bowl when the 49ers got the ball. He told me, "son, you are about to see history". He didn't wonder or question whether the 49ers would win the game...and sure enough Montana and Rice moved the ball down the field and John Taylor caught the TD. My dad was right...but people across the country knew Montana would do that. Other QBs (even Favre) leave you wondering, will they come through?

That to me is the separation. Now, if I had to make a 70 yd TD with 10 seconds left. I'll take Favre...but otherwise there is no question that Favre wouldn't be the top choice.

Elway was CRAP!!! Now that is over-rated.


Tell me how was it chicken salad, out of chicken sh**. U act as if he didnt have any great pieces on his side. Has Mike Holgen not taken two different teams two the superbowl? YES, I believe he has!

Walsh > Holmgren (x4)

So, u cant say he didnt have a great coach.

Can. Did.

Not to mention as i said before holmgren is discyple of WALSH! SAy what u like but the teacher teaches the student(hence the word teacher). Did favre not have good running backs? YEs I believe he did!

I am glad that you have beliefs. Do they all come out so angry?

Ahman green was one of the most dominant backs of the NFL for a while. he went to the probowl every year from 2001 to 2005. He broke several of greenbays franchise records. From the time he joined the Packers in 2000 up through the end of the 2004 season, Ahman Green gained more yards from scrimmage (9,036) and rushing yards (6,848) than any other NFL player. through that period.

I have beliefs too. Green was a very good HB, who looked even better with a high-powered passing attack to open the door for him.

In 2003, he had his best year as a professional and set the Green Bay franchise record by running for 1,883 yards in the regular season.Green is also one of two players in NFL history to have two touchdown runs of 90 or more yards *Bo jackson is the other* Green has a rushing average 4.5 yard per carry through out his career. thats almost half a first down on each carry! For that matter even Dorsey Levens there back before Green was pretty good. He did put up 1,435 yards in 1997. And are u kidding me the pack has had some dominant physical, versatile, good hands, and elusive fullbacks like william henderson< who was a former R Back>


Henderson has blocked for six of the top nine individual rushing efforts in team annals — Dorsey Levens' 1,435 yards in 1997 (third), Ahman Green's 1,883 in 2003 (first), 1,387 in 2001 (fourth), 1,240 in 2002 (sixth), 1,175 in 2000 (seventh) and 1,163 in 2004 (ninth).Henderson had proven valuable as pass catcher out of the backfield. He stands eighth all-time on the Packers' career receptions list with 308 (for 2,347 yards), and first among running backs. And favre always had for the most part a pretty consistant line.

You slipped that one in there rather quietly. Tell me more about this consistent o-line that you speak of.

As i said before favre also played with sterling sharpe for a short while, which i dont even have to get in on how great he was.

No. Really. You should. Because it kinda seems like no matter who Favre throws to, they tend to wind-up with big numbers.

Favre also had and still has donald driver who has 5 seasons over a thousand yards.

Thank you Brett.

Driver almost had 6 straight years over a thousand but one fell short.

And hes a 3 time pro bowler! Also he was the teams 2002 mvp not brett. Even javon walker was great for green bay putting up 1,382 yards and 12 touchdowns in 2004, and he made it to the probowl. Hes even had good TEs look at bubba franks. hes a 3 time pro bowl te,2001,2002,2003. U said this your self(qoute: favre only goes deep in the playoffs when he has a great defence.)!


any time that Favre had a strong defense, they went deep into the playoffs.

Feel free to play it off as if it is basically the same statement, but the two are entirely different. You could at least copy/paste, so you get the quotes right.

Why is that? because u have to have a great defence to make up for all those picks u throw, to even out the plus/minus ratio so the other team doesnt score off all the mistakes u make.// Example:// REx Gross man made it the superbowl.( now im not saying favre is as bad as rex) but it does prove my point, u have to have a great defence if u throw alot of interceptions,to= Superbowl! And we know favre throws alot of interceptions(288 career interceptions! Most in NFL history!)

The fact is farve has always had talent around him, It just doesnt show when u have constantly sit on the sideline and watch the D, because your quarter back keeps throwning picks.//Example//= before last year everyone said favre should retire because team had no talent. Then all of sudden favre decidides play smart and not play gunslinger, let other players try to make the plays and the team does great and win.

Now everyone at the end of the year and this offseason says the packers are one of the most talented teams. REALLY? HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? ITS THE SAME TEAM AT THE START OF THE YEAR THAT EVERYONE SAID HAD NO TALENT.INFACT, ITS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME TEAM THAT HAD PLAYED FOR THE LAST 2-3YEARS!

Well, ill tell u why they were great now.

Oh, thank Heaven. I was praying you would.

They were always great!

What? I thought you were gonna be serious.

when the quarter back throws picks u loose! and no one looks great loosing! NOW, WHEN THE QUARTERBACK PLAYS SMART,that = LESS PICKS, which then= CONSISTANT DRIVES, which then = MORE OPPORTUNITES, which then = MORE TOUCHDOWNS, which then = MORE WINS, which then = MORE OF THE LIME LIGHT ON THE OTHER PLAYERS, which then = MORE STARS, and that = GREAT TEAM!

Stop teasin'.

But to prove my point that a zebra cant changes stripes(favre playing smart) all u have to do is go back to his last game. He had plenty of time to drive his team down methodically to win and take them to superbowl just like montana. But instead he regressed to his old gun slinger self, he got impatient and said im IM WINING ALL and IM WINING NOW, ON THIS PLAY! and went deep right out of the gate and threw a bonehead pick, which then of course cost his team the game. HE COST THEM THE SUPERBOWL APPEARANCE!

You seem to be the foremost expert in everything that has ever occured on a football field, since you used so many caps.

But maybe you can just take a look at a couple of things...

INTs are usually thrown under pressure. I have seen a career of highlight of Favres TDs and INTS. And both tend to occur under intense pressure.

Favre creates the running game, because defenses are worried about Brett Favre, not Samkon Gado, or whoever the hell they may be running with this week.

It is ludacris to compare the talent that Favre has had, to the talent that Montana had. You can pckage-up all of the WR that have played in the Packers' division over Favres career, and I will take Jerry Rice over the lot.

And you can take all of the head coaches from that same division/era as well, and I want Bill Walsh.

You keep on about how many INTs Favre threw, and how he has the most of all-time. But did he throw any TDs? Did he throw more passes than everyone else too?

You might be able to figure out that when you throw more passes, more of them will be INTs.

Favre threw 442 TDs. Montana threw 273. And Favre had that amazing running game that was absorbing all of those stats too!

The fact is, that I have been saying that I can't make head-to-head comparison between the two, because of all of the different circumstances, and you go on a shouting-spree about how obviously the circumstances seem to favor Favre.

I don't care. You will never convince me that Favre had as many advantages as Montana.

YELLING YOUR OPINION OUT LOUD, DOESN"T CHANGE THAT IT IS AN OPINION!!!

jerhart
07-15-2008, 12:28 PM
...and the winner...Chief31! :sign0098: :sign0098: :sign0098: :sign0098: :bananen_smilies046:

m0ef0e
07-15-2008, 12:39 PM
If Brett comes to KC, I will buy his jersey the first day it goes on sale. I'm not saying he's any better or worse than the other great QB's to play the position over the years/decades but he is my personal favorite because I got to watch him more than Montana and far more than the guys before him. I love his gunslinger mentality-- it may not always be what you want in certain situations but it's exciting to be sure.

Chiefster
07-15-2008, 10:30 PM
...YELLING YOUR OPINION OUT LOUD, DOESN"T CHANGE THAT IT IS AN OPINION!!!


Yep!

Seek
07-16-2008, 10:04 AM
Boy I tell you what this thing with Brett is getting ugly. He is starting to ruin his legacy already in Wisconsin. The media in Wisonsin is against him and the fans are now 50/50. He used to be a god in Wisconsin.

tornadospotter
07-16-2008, 12:44 PM
Boy I tell you what this thing with Brett is getting ugly. He is starting to ruin his legacy already in Wisconsin. The media in Wisonsin is against him and the fans are now 50/50. He used to be a god in Wisconsin.
Just making it easier to trade him to us.

Canada
07-16-2008, 01:13 PM
He wasn't a gunslinger last season? Did you see the OT play against the Donkeys? How about the end of the game against us? How about the underhanded toss in the snow in the playoffs? Did you ever actually watch him play or do you just quote stats? Sure he threw the most picks ever, as well as the most TDs ever, most yards, most wins, most everything pretty much. That comes with 16 years of starting every game. Why do people always think they are smart cause they can find fault with the greats?

milkman
07-16-2008, 01:22 PM
Favre is, and always will be, one of the greatest. It sickens me to see him compared to Marino. How many rings does Marino have?

It's funny that you guys say on the one hand that we can't draw comparisons between Montana and Favre because Favre didn't have the receivers that Montana had, then turn around and say that it sickens you to see Favre compared to Marino.

Guys like Antonio Freeman, Robert Brooks and Andre Rison, while not Rice and Taylor, were actually pretty outstanding receivers.

Not to mention that the child molestor, Mark Chamura was a pretty damn good Tight End.

These were guys that could run crisp routes and get open, and they had good speed.

The Marks, Duper and Clayton were smurfs.

They could be knocked off their routes, and redirected.
All they had was some speed, but they couldn't outjump or outwrestle DBs.

And Favre had RBs and a defense, so the Pack was a far more complete team than any that Marino ever played with.

And when it was late in the game and you needed your QB to step up, Marino was far more reliable than Favre ever was.

There were QBs that you knew were going to make game winning drives, and Marino was one of them.

With Favre, you had to hold your breath and pray, because you knew that he was just as likely to do something really stupid as he was to make plays to win.

tornadospotter
07-16-2008, 01:50 PM
Well Marino was a great QB, but he no longer plays. Farve wants to play and he is a great Qb, I for one would love to see him in a Chiefs Uniform, this is not an older QB who has been a backup all his career, Farve is a winner! He is a playmaker!

milkman
07-16-2008, 02:06 PM
Well Marino was a great QB, but he no longer plays. Farve wants to play and he is a great Qb, I for one would love to see him in a Chiefs Uniform, this is not an older QB who has been a backup all his career, Farve is a winner! He is a playmaker!

This team is not going to compete for a SB with Brett Favre.
All his presense would do is delay the potential development of Croyle, or delay finding a QB that will be this team's leader when we have a team that can compete if Croyle isn't that guy.

There's no real benefit in adding Favre to this team at this time.

Favre is one of the greats, but of the greats, he's the dumbest, by far, so he's not a guy I would want to be Croyle's mentor, either.

Seek
07-16-2008, 03:46 PM
He wasn't a gunslinger last season? Did you see the OT play against the Donkeys? How about the end of the game against us? How about the underhanded toss in the snow in the playoffs? Did you ever actually watch him play or do you just quote stats? Sure he threw the most picks ever, as well as the most TDs ever, most yards, most wins, most everything pretty much. That comes with 16 years of starting every game. Why do people always think they are smart cause they can find fault with the greats?

NOT to change the subject, but so many QB's lack exact quality which makes them fail. If Elvis Grbac has any of that heart, determination and will to win, he could have been a pretty good QB.

You can't possibly hate on a player for giving everything he has to win, and in a lot of cases it was his body. He took on some pretty big hits in every effort to turn a game around.

Seek
07-16-2008, 03:48 PM
I also heard this morning from some reporters in Wisconsin, that the Chiefs are a team that Brett has targeted to play for. Mostly because training camp is in River Falls and he could be close to home. How much truth there is to that. I don't know.

I just don't see room for him on a team that is rebuilding.

DrunkHillbilly
07-16-2008, 06:19 PM
This team is not going to compete for a SB with Brett Favre.
All his presense would do is delay the potential development of Croyle, or delay finding a QB that will be this team's leader when we have a team that can compete if Croyle isn't that guy.

There's no real benefit in adding Favre to this team at this time.

Favre is one of the greats, but of the greats, he's the dumbest, by far, so he's not a guy I would want to be Croyle's mentor, either.
I guess you know him personally and know that his football IQ is waaaaaayyyyyy down on the chart eh? Wake up dude!!!! Croyle's potential development is nill!!!! I agree that the only benefit is for this year but it would be a 100% improvement over what we have now!!! He may even teach some guys at other positions a thing or two.

tornadospotter
07-16-2008, 08:52 PM
I guess you know him personally and know that his football IQ is waaaaaayyyyyy down on the chart eh? Wake up dude!!!! Croyle's potential development is nill!!!! I agree that the only benefit is for this year but it would be a 100% improvement over what we have now!!! He may even teach some guys at other positions a thing or two.
:sign0098: :drunkhb: I totally agree!
Croyle' development can only but be enhanced, with Brett Farve as a mentor, that being said, I also wonder if it will hamper his development. We all know that right now, Brodie is the QB! Maybe he is the one, maybe he is not, if he is the QB this team needs, he better damm well earn it this year! He could not clearly win the job last year, so he had better show something this year!
jmo

Chiefster
07-16-2008, 08:59 PM
:sign0098: :drunkhb: I totally agree!
Croyle' development can only but be enhanced, with Brett Farve as a mentor, that being said, I also wonder if it will hamper his development. We all know that right now, Brodie is the QB! Maybe he is the one, maybe he is not, if he is the QB this team needs, he better damm well earn it this year! He could not clearly win the job last year, so he had better show something this year!
jmo

Agreed, however, the O-line has to do their job as well.

tornadospotter
07-16-2008, 09:04 PM
Agreed, however, the O-line has to do their job as well.
Very true, but in training camp last year, he did not win the job!

Chiefster
07-16-2008, 09:43 PM
Very true, but in training camp last year, he did not win the job!


Point well taken. :sign0098:

greg3564
07-16-2008, 09:53 PM
All this Favre fantasizing is too funny. I think hell would freeze over before Brett Favre would come play for the Chiefs. Seriously people, why would a talented QB like Favre come play for a 4-12 team when he has at best 1 or 2 seasons left in his career? He is going to look for a team that has a legitimate shot at not only playoff contention, but also a real Super Bowl chance. The Chiefs won't be seeing that anytime soon and management and the coaches have said the same thing. We're rebuilding and signing a QB in his twilight and paying big money isn't going to happen.

If they honestly signed an aging vet QB like Favre, what little faith I had in this team would be gone. It solves none of the real pressing needs the team has. It would be a band-aid at the QB spot that maybe would win us a game or two. Stick with Croyle and give him a season to evaluate the guy.

Chiefster
07-16-2008, 09:56 PM
All this Favre fantasizing is too funny. I think hell would freeze over before Brett Favre would come play for the Chiefs. Seriously people, why would a talented QB like Favre come play for a 4-12 team when he has at best 1 or 2 seasons left in his career? He is going to look for a team that has a legitimate shot at not only playoff contention, but also a real Super Bowl chance...

...Or at least one that can protect him.

tornadospotter
07-16-2008, 11:47 PM
All this Favre fantasizing is too funny. I think hell would freeze over before Brett Favre would come play for the Chiefs. Seriously people, why would a talented QB like Favre come play for a 4-12 team when he has at best 1 or 2 seasons left in his career? He is going to look for a team that has a legitimate shot at not only playoff contention, but also a real Super Bowl chance. The Chiefs won't be seeing that anytime soon and management and the coaches have said the same thing. We're rebuilding and signing a QB in his twilight and paying big money isn't going to happen.

If they honestly signed an aging vet QB like Favre, what little faith I had in this team would be gone. It solves none of the real pressing needs the team has. It would be a band-aid at the QB spot that maybe would win us a game or two. Stick with Croyle and give him a season to evaluate the guy.
True, but the homer in me would like to see him in a Chiefs uniform!

Coach
07-17-2008, 12:37 AM
Does anyone know who the NFL all-time leader in interceptions thrown is?

Three7s
07-17-2008, 12:57 AM
Does anyone know who the NFL all-time leader in interceptions thrown is?
Is that a sarcastic question? =(

tornadospotter
07-17-2008, 01:32 AM
http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d809575da

tornadospotter
07-17-2008, 01:47 AM
Favre now owns a unique no-trade clause

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2008/07/6.jpg By Adam Schefter | NFL Network


http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2008/07/7.jpg Jamie Squire/Getty ImagesWill Brett Favre make a dramatic return back to Green Bay? That decision is up to the legendary quarterback.

A rare talent, Packers quarterback Brett Favre now holds a rare distinction.
Without having an official no-trade clause in his contract, Favre has an unofficial no-trade clause in the leverage he has.
If the Packers agree to trade Favre to any team, the quarterback can veto the deal simply by declining to report. Then Favre's rights would revert back to Green Bay, which would be forced to take him back along with his $12 million base salary -- or release him.
To carry's Favre salary, and all the distractions that came along with it, would be an enormous financial and emotional burden for the Packers. Thus Green Bay would have to commit to keeping Favre or to trade him.
But unless it is a team that appeals to Favre then the Packers quarterback can continue vetoing deals until he has a satisfactory new home.
Basically, if Favre unretires he gets to play where he wants.
Favre's fantasy value (http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d8094b487)

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2008/07/8.jpg Find out what Michael Fabiano thinks will happen to Brett Favre's value in fantasy football if the legendary QB returns to the NFL but is traded to a different team. Watch video ... (http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d8094b487)



» Favre breaks silence about situation (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8094b0c7&template=with-video&confirm=true)
» Fantasy football blog: Not high on Favre (http://www.nfl.com/fantasy/story?id=09000d5d80904dc0&template=with-video&confirm=true)

Neither Favre nor his agent, Bus Cook, has revealed which teams, or team, that would be, though speculation has swirled around Minnesota and Carolina. Yet it is as inconceivable to think Green Bay would trade Favre in its division as it is that it would release him, giving him the same option.
Thus, according to NFL executives, Favre's trade value is well below market value. It is as if he has the same rights accorded a 10-5 player in Major League Baseball, where any player who has spent 10 seasons in the league, including five straight for one team, can veto a deal.
The NFL has no such rule, but Favre now has such powers. There will be no trade of Favre unless he approves it, eliminating the prospect of him playing for any number of teams. Market value in Favre's case is irrelevant because even though he could be on the open market, he never will be, not officially.
Now, if and when Favre sends a letter to the NFL and the Packers asking to be reinstated and he officially unretires, Green Bay will have approximately 24 hours to reinstate him. If and when Favre unretires, the Packers -- who already have said they refuse to release their quarterback -- will have only two viable options.
»They can take back Favre in whatever role they have for him.
Jim Kelly can relate (http://buffalobills.com/news/news.jsp?news_id=6222)


http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2008/07/9.jpgFormer Bills QB Jim Kelly says he went through a similar situation as Brett Favre when he retired 11 years ago. "It's tough for him, there's no doubt. He's passionate about the game just like I was." Full story ... (http://buffalobills.com/news/news.jsp?news_id=6222)

» More from the Bills' official site (http://buffalobills.com/)
Or…
»They can search for a city in which Favre is willing to play and take a substandard deal from that team for their legendary quarterback.
Neither option would appear to be particularly appealing to the Packers, but they are better than the only other alternative, which is to release Favre, giving him the freedom to sign with any of the Packers' three divisional rivals in the NFC North.
These are the only ways this volatile and unpredictable story can play out; any other way is purely fantasy football.
It also helps explain why, in Peter King's Monday Morning Quarterback column on SI.com, one NFL general manager said of Packers general manager Ted Thompson: "Ted's got no choice. If he doesn't take Favre back, he's an idiot."
It is not unlike the case involving Pro Bowl wide receiver Terrell Owens (http://www.nfl.com/players/terrellowens/profile?id=OWE755129) in 2004. Back then, the 49ers agreed to trade Owens to the Baltimore Ravens (http://www.nfl.com/teams/baltimoreravens/profile?team=BAL) for a second-round draft pick. But Owens refused to play in Baltimore and negotiated with other teams as if the trade never would go through.
Eventually, he was right. San Francisco was forced to send Owens to Philadelphia for a conditional fifth-round pick and defensive end Brandon Whiting.
Just as San Francisco's return was pennies on the dollar, so too would be Green Bay's in the event it opted to trade Favre.
In fact, the consensus is that Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers (http://www.nfl.com/players/aaronrodgers/profile?id=ROD339293), even as unproven as he is, would bring back far more in trade value than Favre. But the Packers have no plans to trade Rodgers, and they will have an exceedingly difficult time trading Favre for anything of value.
So now it is Favre -- not the Packers -- who fully controls where the iconic quarterback spends the upcoming season.

chief31
07-17-2008, 11:54 AM
I hadn't thought of it before, but there is something that he Chiefs could gain froma Favre trade.

They could trade L.J. for Favre and get out of a nasty contract.

Seek
07-17-2008, 01:38 PM
I hadn't thought of it before, but there is something that he Chiefs could gain froma Favre trade.

They could trade L.J. for Favre and get out of a nasty contract.

Too much signing bonus money will come due to trade him. We won't be able to sign Dorsey or Albert.

milkman
07-17-2008, 10:40 PM
I guess you know him personally and know that his football IQ is waaaaaayyyyyy down on the chart eh? Wake up dude!!!! Croyle's potential development is nill!!!! I agree that the only benefit is for this year but it would be a 100% improvement over what we have now!!! He may even teach some guys at other positions a thing or two.

Brett Favre could have a mensa IQ, but I don't give a rat's ***.
He has made some of the biggest dumbass decisions with the football in his hands that I've ever seen.

And you don't know that Croyle has any potential.

All you know is that he played on a suckass team that didn't win any games.

Until he gets a chance to play behind a real O-Line, and with an actual ground game, none of us has a clue what Croyle is capable of.

milkman
07-17-2008, 10:43 PM
I hadn't thought of it before, but there is something that he Chiefs could gain froma Favre trade.

They could trade L.J. for Favre and get out of a nasty contract.

Can't trade LJ for a couple of years.

The acceleration of his bonus to the cap would be crippling.

Chiefster
07-17-2008, 10:44 PM
I hadn't thought of it before, but there is something that he Chiefs could gain froma Favre trade.

They could trade L.J. for Favre and get out of a nasty contract.


...Don't see it happening.

greg3564
07-18-2008, 12:33 AM
Brett Favre has just pissed away his legacy. The press and the fans in GB are ripping him a new one and have thrown him under the bus faster than Obama. Some people just don't know when to walk away. He's going to be 39 and it's not like he hasn't had his fair share of injuries. One good lick and he's out for quite a few games if not the season. The guy could have retired and been a living legend in GB, now the fans are completely irritated and over him.

Seek
07-18-2008, 09:58 AM
Plagerism....

DrunkHillbilly
07-18-2008, 11:23 AM
Brett Favre could have a mensa IQ, but I don't give a rat's ***.
He has made some of the biggest dumbass decisions with the football in his hands that I've ever seen.

And you don't know that Croyle has any potential.

All you know is that he played on a suckass team that didn't win any games.

Until he gets a chance to play behind a real O-Line, and with an actual ground game, none of us has a clue what Croyle is capable of.
Yea your right!!! Not only is he not the best of all time, he's probably in the bottom 5 of all time with all those "dumbass" decisions he's made!!! The good decisions were just "dumb" luck!

Did you see Croyle play in college? Im guessing not. Fantastic decision maker as far as that goes!!!!! Saw his potential in college and it was nill!!!! One of our worst draft picks ever! The only chance he has to succeed is if we run the bootleg more than we don't run the bootleg when passing the ball!

Canada
07-18-2008, 01:17 PM
Brett Favre has just pissed away his legacy. The press and the fans in GB are ripping him a new one and have thrown him under the bus faster than Obama. Some people just don't know when to walk away. He's going to be 39 and it's not like he hasn't had his fair share of injuries. One good lick and he's out for quite a few games if not the season. The guy could have retired and been a living legend in GB, now the fans are completely irritated and over him.

So Favre is injury prone? One hit and he is knocked out? Seriously?

Seek
07-18-2008, 03:46 PM
So Favre is injury prone? One hit and he is knocked out? Seriously?
:sign0103:

He was getting hurt more, but as usual he started the next week.

DrunkHillbilly
07-18-2008, 06:21 PM
Brett Favre has just pissed away his legacy. The press and the fans in GB are ripping him a new one and have thrown him under the bus faster than Obama. Some people just don't know when to walk away. He's going to be 39 and it's not like he hasn't had his fair share of injuries. One good lick and he's out for quite a few games if not the season. The guy could have retired and been a living legend in GB, now the fans are completely irritated and over him.
Par for the course Greg!!! Another great post!!!! Can you tell anyone how many games he has sat out with an injury in the last 15 years?

greg3564
07-18-2008, 08:09 PM
Par for the course Greg!!! Another great post!!!! Can you tell anyone how many games he has sat out with an injury in the last 15 years?

Did I say he missed games? My point is he's almost 39. 39 year old football players, especially one who's had a lot of injuries, don't heal as quickly as a 23 year old player. He's got maybe 1 year left. I think he's being selfish, he's put a team that has been loyal to him even through the hard years in an akward position and he's put Aaron Rodgers in a bad spot.

Dec 07, 2007 Right elbow, left shoulder
Nov 29, 2007 Left game - forearm
Sep 28, 2007 Finger (right)
Nov 29, 2006 Right elbow
Nov 22, 2006 Right elbow
Nov 20, 2006 Right arm
Nov 15, 2006 Ankle
Oct 04, 2006 Head
Dec 07, 2005 Right Hand/Right Forearm
Sep 07, 2005 Ankle
Oct 27, 2004 Right hand
Oct 06, 2004 Concussion
Sep 29, 2004 Hamstring
Jan 07, 2004 Thumb
Dec 31, 2003 Thumb
Dec 24, 2003 Thumb
Dec 17, 2003 Thumb
Dec 10, 2003 Thumb
Dec 03, 2003 Thumb
Nov 26, 2003 Thumb
Nov 12, 2003 Thumb
Nov 05, 2003 Thumb
Oct 29, 2003 Thumb
Jan 02, 2003 Ankle/knee
Dec 26, 2002 Knee/ankle
Dec 18, 2002 Knee/ankle
Oct 30, 2002 Knee
Oct 20, 2002 Sprained left knee
Oct 09, 2002 Elbow
Jan 16, 2002 Back/side
Jan 09, 2002 Side/back
Jan 02, 2002 Side/back
Nov 29, 2001 Back

greg3564
07-18-2008, 08:11 PM
Scrambling Favre shows selfish side
By Christine Brennan (http://www.usatoday.com/community/tags/reporter.aspx?id=950), USA TODAY

Talk to any retired professional athlete and he or she is more than willing to tell you about the void. Or, written more accurately: The Void.

It materializes at different times in different sports. For football players, it surfaces on Sunday afternoons and the occasional Sunday or Monday night. Ex-players talk about missing the NFL so much that they've driven their cars toward the stadium every Sunday in their first year of retirement. They simply had to, as if the cars knew they must go there, even though they had nothing to do once they arrived.

Think there are a lot of pro athletes in the broadcast booth? With good reason. Retired athletes from almost every sport have said one of the big reasons they turn to live TV or radio is that it's the job that most captures the high-wire, perform-or-else nature of the sports career they left behind.

So it really should come as no surprise that, four months after tearfully retiring, Brett Favre wants to come back to the Green Bay Packers, be welcomed with open arms and given his starting job back, no questions asked. Even though he has not yet missed a game, he missed football. Of course he did. Everyone does.

But not everyone reacts to The Void like Favre, who is less than three months from his 39th birthday and seemingly no longer young, impressionable or prone to juvenile mood swings. Some professional athletes actually stick to their word, realize it's time for someone else to take over the team they commanded for years and come to grips with their new reality.

It was natural to expect that Favre would be one of those guys. He was the player who seemed to be most like us. He was Everyman. You would figure Favre would be the one fellow to understand that when you said you were leaving, you actually thought it through, and then you really left. You did it with class and dignity, just as you did everything else, and of course you cried some more once you got home and realized you weren't going back, but you gave your word to management and your teammates, and your word meant everything to them.

That's the Brett Favre we thought we knew, but that's not the Brett Favre who exists today. We thought he was Cal Ripken Jr. in shoulder pads. We were wrong. He's now complaining and explaining and blaming and acting nothing like the larger-than-life figure he once was.

Even worse, he appears to be hoping the wonderful fans of Wisconsin will ignore whatever it is that he has become and welcome his return, banking on their adoration to sweep him back into the starting lineup at Lambeau Field — even though this week's sparsely attended "Bring Back Brett" rallies tell us Packers fans just might be onto his act.

Favre's behavior has been downright mystifying. On Fox News the other night, he said: "(The Packers) moving on does not bother me. It doesn't. I totally understand that. By me retiring March 3, I knew that could possibly happen."

Huh? What did Favre think would happen when he retired? Did he expect the Packers not to move on? Did he think they might, say, vacate the quarterback position for the season? Play with 10?

It's hard to know what will happen next in Favre's self-induced soap opera, although history tells us it won't end well. (See Unitas, Namath, Montana, et al.) Perhaps he has another terrific year in him. But can the Packers afford to find that out? If they gamble and bring him back and unseat new No. 1 Aaron Rodgers, what happens when Favre changes his mind again and decides in, say, October that he really did want to retire in March?

In his Fox interview, Favre said he felt "a little bit" bad for Rodgers. "I know this has been tough on him. … And this has nothing to do with him, this whole deal."

Perhaps Favre thinks he is telling us something we don't already know, but of course it has nothing to do with Rodgers, the poor guy. It has everything to do with Favre, and his surprising, newfound ego.

milkman
07-19-2008, 10:23 AM
Yea your right!!! Not only is he not the best of all time, he's probably in the bottom 5 of all time with all those "dumbass" decisions he's made!!! The good decisions were just "dumb" luck!

Did you see Croyle play in college? Im guessing not. Fantastic decision maker as far as that goes!!!!! Saw his potential in college and it was nill!!!! One of our worst draft picks ever! The only chance he has to succeed is if we run the bootleg more than we don't run the bootleg when passing the ball!

I never said that the good decisions he made were just dumb luck, but hell, that might be all it was.
But I digress.

What I did say is that his decision making is the worst among the all time greats.
There are QBs who aren't considered among the all time greats who made better decisions in critical situations that Favre did.

As for Croyle, I did see a couple of games.
What I saw was a kid under duress behind a terrible O-Line play some pretty good football and make some plays.

However, success on the NFL level is far more difficult to achieve.

I don't know that Croyle will ever be an NFL QB.
But you don't know that he won't.

To suggest that he has no potential is bull****.

RaidersOwnYou
07-19-2008, 10:41 AM
If you only had a head coach

If you only had a respectable defense

If you only had not traded Jared Allen

If only, if only

milkman
07-19-2008, 10:46 AM
If only Al Davis were still alive.

Seek
07-19-2008, 11:22 AM
If only we could play the Raiders 12 times a year.

DrunkHillbilly
07-19-2008, 03:44 PM
Did I say he missed games? My point is he's almost 39. 39 year old football players, especially one who's had a lot of injuries, don't heal as quickly as a 23 year old player. He's got maybe 1 year left. I think he's being selfish, he's put a team that has been loyal to him even through the hard years in an akward position and he's put Aaron Rodgers in a bad spot.

Dec 07, 2007 Right elbow, left shoulder
Nov 29, 2007 Left game - forearm
Sep 28, 2007 Finger (right)
Nov 29, 2006 Right elbow
Nov 22, 2006 Right elbow
Nov 20, 2006 Right arm
Nov 15, 2006 Ankle
Oct 04, 2006 Head
Dec 07, 2005 Right Hand/Right Forearm
Sep 07, 2005 Ankle
Oct 27, 2004 Right hand
Oct 06, 2004 Concussion
Sep 29, 2004 Hamstring
Jan 07, 2004 Thumb
Dec 31, 2003 Thumb
Dec 24, 2003 Thumb
Dec 17, 2003 Thumb
Dec 10, 2003 Thumb
Dec 03, 2003 Thumb
Nov 26, 2003 Thumb
Nov 12, 2003 Thumb
Nov 05, 2003 Thumb
Oct 29, 2003 Thumb
Jan 02, 2003 Ankle/knee
Dec 26, 2002 Knee/ankle
Dec 18, 2002 Knee/ankle
Oct 30, 2002 Knee
Oct 20, 2002 Sprained left knee
Oct 09, 2002 Elbow
Jan 16, 2002 Back/side
Jan 09, 2002 Side/back
Jan 02, 2002 Side/back
Nov 29, 2001 Back
All very serious injuries I might add! Serious enough that he played the following week! You could post those injuries on almost every player in the league for god sakes! I know 39 is 39 but the guy has proven everyone wrong to this point so give him a break!

DrunkHillbilly
07-19-2008, 03:48 PM
I never said that the good decisions he made were just dumb luck, but hell, that might be all it was.
But I digress.

What I did say is that his decision making is the worst among the all time greats.
There are QBs who aren't considered among the all time greats who made better decisions in critical situations that Favre did.

As for Croyle, I did see a couple of games.
What I saw was a kid under duress behind a terrible O-Line play some pretty good football and make some plays.

However, success on the NFL level is far more difficult to achieve.

I don't know that Croyle will ever be an NFL QB.
But you don't know that he won't.

To suggest that he has no potential is bull****.
For you to say that all of his good decisions "might" have been luck is just assinine! You don't play as long as he has by just getting lucky! Your opinion is yours but you would be in the minority if a country wide poll was taken about your thoughts on Favre!

milkman
07-19-2008, 06:48 PM
For you to say that all of his good decisions "might" have been luck is just assinine! You don't play as long as he has by just getting lucky! Your opinion is yours but you would be in the minority if a country wide poll was taken about your thoughts on Favre!

I was being facetious.

The fact that I'd be in the minority (a very small minority) doesn't mean I'm wrong.

The QBs I named earlier all played smarter in the last few minutes of games when they needed to make plays to score.

DrunkHillbilly
07-19-2008, 07:30 PM
I was being facetious.

The fact that I'd be in the minority (a very small minority) doesn't mean I'm wrong.

The QBs I named earlier all played smarter in the last few minutes of games when they needed to make plays to score.
I believe his numbers in last minute situations would be in favor of better decisions than bad ones over the course of the last 16 years.

milkman
07-19-2008, 07:44 PM
I believe his numbers in last minute situations would be in favor of better decisions than bad ones over the course of the last 16 years.

It's probably closer to 50/50.

But that's irrelevant.

He's not at the top of the list of QBs that I have confidence in when games are are the line.

DrunkHillbilly
07-19-2008, 07:57 PM
It's probably closer to 50/50.

But that's irrelevant.

He's not at the top of the list of QBs that I have confidence in when games are are the line.
Well then, now that we have boiled it all down to the real question.........Favre or Brodie Croyle? Who ya takin today to drive your team down the field in the 2 minute offense????

milkman
07-19-2008, 09:49 PM
Well then, now that we have boiled it all down to the real question.........Favre or Brodie Croyle? Who ya takin today to drive your team down the field in the 2 minute offense????

You're trying to compare an adult to a toddler.

We know what Favre is.
We don't know what Croyle will be.

The real question is, would I rather have Favre or Croyle this year?

The answer is that I'd rather have Croyle.

Not because he gives us a better chance to win this year, but because we aren't winning this year and we need to find out now if we have to address the QB position in next year's draft.

We bring in Favre, we will be in exactly this same spot in a year or two, and that's no way to go about rebuilding the team.

DrunkHillbilly
07-19-2008, 09:57 PM
You're trying to compare an adult to a toddler.

We know what Favre is.
We don't know what Croyle will be.

The real question is, would I rather have Favre or Croyle this year?

The answer is that I'd rather have Croyle.

Not because he gives us a better chance to win this year, but because we aren't winning this year and we need to find out now if we have to address the QB position in next year's draft.

We bring in Favre, we will be in exactly this same spot in a year or two, and that's no way to go about rebuilding the team.
I don't disagree that Favre would not do anything for the future and I wouldn't even (really) be interested in him but if they were to take a look at him ( which I know won't happen ) I would welcome it with open arms for this year because he is head and shoulders above Croyle! He would also be able to teach other guys at other positions things that Croyle will never be able to! What happens in two years if our O line is the same as it is today? Do we continue to put Croyle out there because we "still haven't seen his true potential"??

milkman
07-19-2008, 10:22 PM
I don't disagree that Favre would not do anything for the future and I wouldn't even (really) be interested in him but if they were to take a look at him ( which I know won't happen ) I would welcome it with open arms for this year because he is head and shoulders above Croyle! He would also be able to teach other guys at other positions things that Croyle will never be able to! What happens in two years if our O line is the same as it is today? Do we continue to put Croyle out there because we "still haven't seen his true potential"??

Assuming hypothetically that the O-Line isn't improved, I think we can find out still if Croyle is the future through his decision making under pressure.

If he doesn't show improvement in that aspect, then I think we can then move on.

Expecting a kid in his first 6 starts to make good decisions in that kind of duress isn't very practical.

He should, however, show some growth by his 20th start.

Seek
07-19-2008, 10:28 PM
Well then, now that we have boiled it all down to the real question.........Favre or Brodie Croyle? Who ya takin today to drive your team down the field in the 2 minute offense????

I miss Trent Green!!!:character0051:

spiman
07-19-2008, 11:41 PM
Assuming hypothetically that the O-Line isn't improved, I think we can find out still if Croyle is the future through his decision making under pressure.

If he doesn't show improvement in that aspect, then I think we can then move on.

Expecting a kid in his first 6 starts to make good decisions in that kind of duress isn't very practical.

He should, however, show some growth by his 20th start.

& Croyle will not last long! :11:

chief31
07-23-2008, 07:28 AM
Brett Favre has just pissed away his legacy. The press and the fans in GB are ripping him a new one and have thrown him under the bus faster than Obama. Some people just don't know when to walk away. He's going to be 39 and it's not like he hasn't had his fair share of injuries. One good lick and he's out for quite a few games if not the season. The guy could have retired and been a living legend in GB, now the fans are completely irritated and over him.

Yeah. He will go down as one of the all-time ***-heads of football. :lol:

Just like Michael Jordan ruined his legacy, by playing Small Forward for The Wizards.

Does anyone even remember that guy now?


You're trying to compare an adult to a toddler.

We know what Favre is.
We don't know what Croyle will be.

The real question is, would I rather have Favre or Croyle this year?

The answer is that I'd rather have Croyle.

Not because he gives us a better chance to win this year, but because we aren't winning this year and we need to find out now if we have to address the QB position in next year's draft.

We bring in Favre, we will be in exactly this same spot in a year or two, and that's no way to go about rebuilding the team.

If we have to address the QB position again next season, then we can go ahead and plan on addressing it for alot of years.


Assuming hypothetically that the O-Line isn't improved, I think we can find out still if Croyle is the future through his decision making under pressure.

If he doesn't show improvement in that aspect, then I think we can then move on.

Expecting a kid in his first 6 starts to make good decisions in that kind of duress isn't very practical.

He should, however, show some growth by his 20th start.

Yeah, because a Tom Brady couldn't play poorly under that kind of pressure. That would be impossible.

The situation that we are giving Croyle is not a chance.

The fact that we have failed to address the offensive line means that Croyles career is likely over, right now. We just get to watch the burial this season.

I don't think that Croyle is great. But I don't blame him for the time he spent in college, with some of the worst protection I have ever seen, nor for continuing to get no protection from Herm Edwards.

Unless Croyle recovers from what Herm has done to his career, and gets a job with another head coach, he will never have the opportunity to play NFL football.

milkman
07-23-2008, 11:27 AM
If we have to address the QB position again next season, then we can go ahead and plan on addressing it for alot of years.



Yeah, because a Tom Brady couldn't play poorly under that kind of pressure. That would be impossible.

The situation that we are giving Croyle is not a chance.

If you are suggesting that Croyle needs more than this year to dEvelop, I would agree with you.

However, everything we've read suggests that this year is all he's going to get.

With that in mind, I don't expect Croyle to put up numbers that we can write home about.

What he can do is show improvement in his decision making.

He has to show that he can checkdown or simply throw the ball away.

He has to show that he can stay away from trying to force things.

That's what I'll be looking for to see if he can grow into the position.


The fact that we have failed to address the offensive line means that Croyles career is likely over, right now. We just get to watch the burial this season.

Since you have no confidence in Albert to play LT, there really isn't any point in debating this, but what the hell, I like to argue.

If Albert were the only O-Lineman we drafted, his presense at LT improves two positons, his and RT.

I don't like McIntosh at RT, but even if I'm wrong about Barry Richardson eventually taking that spot from him, we still are better there than we were at any time last year.

I also don't care for Adrain Jones and think that either Herb Taylor (who I like alot) or Chris McDuffie will eventually displace, but again, even if I'm wrong, Jones is an improvement over anyone we played there last year except Rudy Niswanger.

Which brings us to center.

Niswanger showed us at RG that he is a solid player last year, and he is a better fit at center for what this team does now than Weigman.

So the fact is, regardless of how things play out on the right side, we are (substantially) better all across the line this year.


I don't think that Croyle is great. But I don't blame him for the time he spent in college, with some of the worst protection I have ever seen, nor for continuing to get no protection from Herm Edwards.

The fact that he played as well as he did behind that pathetic excuse of an O-Line at Alabama is the very reason that I think we can learn alot about him this year.

We know he has talent.
His experience at Alabama shows us he has the courage to stand in and make plays under pressure.

What we need to find out is if he can play smart.



Unless Croyle recovers from what Herm has done to his career, and gets a job with another head coach, he will never have the opportunity to play NFL football.

Please.

6 starts.

That isn't nearly enough time for anyone to get to screwed up to recover.

Seek
07-23-2008, 12:32 PM
I also don't care for Adrain Jones and think that either Herb Taylor (who I like alot) or Chris McDuffie will eventually displace, but again, even if I'm wrong, Jones is an improvement over anyone we played there last year except Rudy Niswanger.

Which brings us to center.

Niswanger showed us at RG that he is a solid player last year, and he is a better fit at center for what this team does now than Weigman.

So the fact is, regardless of how things play out on the right side, we are (substantially) better all across the line this year.


Your logic is highly flawed in thinking anything is better, which last year proved to be a mistaken assumption.

This was the same logic that everyone spouted last year after the aging Will Shields retired and moving Welbourne to his natural postion was an upgrade and anything was better than Jordan Black...

Facts remain. Our LT is a rookie who played two games at Tackle. Not only is the position new the speed and competition of the game is also new. His future at LT may be great but this year will be bumpy.

Brian Waters arguably had his worste year last year. Is he aging??? Was it Wiegmann briging Waters down, or was it the lack of Willie Roaf helping him out? There is questions about how Brian will perform.

Center, If Niswanger was ready to start at center last year was hit chance to take the position away from Casey. Based on Casey's comments, the Chiefs were looking to dump him and hoping Rudy was ready. He failed to do it at camp so he still has tons to prove before you can consider this an upgrade.

I don't even now who our RG is. Currently it is projected to be some other teams reject. You are stating Herb as a possile year end starter, when he failed to take that spot last year when it was mostly needed. Also, I have heard he is currently the main back up at both tackle positions. You are assuming this poistion can't get any worse when that same logice last year proved to be wrong.

I think Big Mac will be fine at RT.

There is a bunch of questions this offensive line needs to prove and right now, until you see it on the field. It isn't very promising, but that is why the game is played.

milkman
07-23-2008, 01:28 PM
Your logic is highly flawed in thinking anything is better, which last year proved to be a mistaken assumption.

This was the same logic that everyone spouted last year after the aging Will Shields retired and moving Welbourne to his natural postion was an upgrade and anything was better than Jordan Black...

Facts remain. Our LT is a rookie who played two games at Tackle. Not only is the position new the speed and competition of the game is also new. His future at LT may be great but this year will be bumpy.

Brian Waters arguably had his worste year last year. Is he aging??? Was it Wiegmann briging Waters down, or was it the lack of Willie Roaf helping him out? There is questions about how Brian will perform.

Center, If Niswanger was ready to start at center last year was hit chance to take the position away from Casey. Based on Casey's comments, the Chiefs were looking to dump him and hoping Rudy was ready. He failed to do it at camp so he still has tons to prove before you can consider this an upgrade.

I don't even now who our RG is. Currently it is projected to be some other teams reject. You are stating Herb as a possile year end starter, when he failed to take that spot last year when it was mostly needed. Also, I have heard he is currently the main back up at both tackle positions. You are assuming this poistion can't get any worse when that same logice last year proved to be wrong.

I think Big Mac will be fine at RT.

There is a bunch of questions this offensive line needs to prove and right now, until you see it on the field. It isn't very promising, but that is why the game is played.

I'm making assumptions based on my observations.

I watched a couple of Albert's games last year, and I saw his combine performance, and based on what I saw, I think he will be better this year, while he is just learning, than Damion McIntosh has ever been at LT.

I've never like McIntosh, and think he will be even less at RT than he was at LT, but that is still better than any of the crap than we threw out there last year.

As for Niswanger, I don't think he was ready last season, but he showed growth as a blocker in his time at RG last year, so he now looks ready.

I never bought into the "We are better simply because Black is gone" nonsense.

I think Waters showed signs of aging, but he also didn't have the support that he had been accustomed to before.

I also never bought into Wellbourne.

I thought our O-Line was going to be bad last year.

I just didn't know it was going ot be historically bad.

I think Taylor's versatility is the reason he's not being given an opportunity to compete for a position right out of the gate.

He was 5th round rookie who displayed a lot of potential in his limited playing time last season.

But he can play any position along the line, except center.

Overall, these guys are more talented than the group of useless *******s we had last year.

Seek
07-23-2008, 01:43 PM
I'm making assumptions based on my observations.

I watched a couple of Albert's games last year, and I saw his combine performance, and based on what I saw, I think he will be better this year, while he is just learning, than Damion McIntosh has ever been at LT.

I won't argue against any of the rest. I have very high hopes for Albert, but you are basing your opinion from observations that don't mean squat, until it is proven on the field. I really hope what you say will happen, but this is the Chiefs we are talking about.

Watching a player play and watching their combine would have made Ryan Sim a pro-bowler. Yet that didn't even come close to happening.

Until we can watch him against real NFL Defensive ends. Any observation you may have seen is skewed.

Even if he lives up to your observations, you have to consider that realistically he is still a rookie playing a postion he does not know and he won't be as consistent as Big Mac as. At times he may be tons better, but he will still make his mistakes.

milkman
07-23-2008, 02:09 PM
I won't argue against any of the rest. I have very high hopes for Albert, but you are basing your opinion from observations that don't mean squat, until it is proven on the field. I really hope what you say will happen, but this is the Chiefs we are talking about.

Watching a player play and watching their combine would have made Ryan Sim a pro-bowler. Yet that didn't even come close to happening.

Until we can watch him against real NFL Defensive ends. Any observation you may have seen is skewed.

Even if he lives up to your observations, you have to consider that realistically he is still a rookie playing a postion he does not know and he won't be as consistent as Big Mac as. At times he may be tons better, but he will still make his mistakes.

McIntosh gave up 7.5 sacks last year, and he missed a game due to injury, and large portions of another two.
That's ok, at best, and he is, at best, a marginal run blocker.

Even as a rookie making mistakes, Albert can match that sacks allowed number, and right now, without question, is a hell of a lot better run blocker.

Seek
07-23-2008, 02:27 PM
right now, without question, is a hell of a lot better run blocker.

Again, until I see that against a NFL caliber DE, I can not agree to your optomism. What you have seen was him dominating lesser opponents at a different position. The players he will face are the best of the best, who are seasoned at their position.

To expect more from him than what Big Mac provide last year, isn't fair.

milkman
07-23-2008, 02:58 PM
Again, until I see that against a NFL caliber DE, I can not agree to your optomism. What you have seen was him dominating lesser opponents at a different position. The players he will face are the best of the best, who are seasoned at their position.

To expect more from him than what Big Mac provide last year, isn't fair.

I expect more from him because he's a far superior athlete, has better leg strength, is quicker and more graceful on his feet, and has longer arms.

I think it's more than fair.

Seek
07-23-2008, 03:12 PM
I expect more from him because he's a far superior athlete, has better leg strength, is quicker and more graceful on his feet, and has longer arms.

I think it's more than fair.

I think you are looking towards the future fair.. Not his rookie year fair... You are basically expecting him to be top 10 material as a rookie. Since Big Mac was about average.

milkman
07-23-2008, 03:22 PM
I think you are looking towards the future fair.. Not his rookie year fair... You are basically expecting him to be top 10 material as a rookie. Since Big Mac was about average.

No.
I'm expecting him to be at least as good as McIntosh as a pass blocker, which is about average.

I'm expecting him to be a better run blocker than McIntosh, and even if that's only average, that's a damn sight better than McIntosh.

McIntosh is a suckass run blocker.

CHIEFCANNON
07-23-2008, 07:42 PM
What might be getting lost and it did in the NFL Draft is... but fore, Albert getting placed at G... in college based on team need not talent, Branden Albert would have been the #1 O-lineman in the draft:yahoo: Yes.. even stated on the NFL Channel that he very well could have beaten Long for the #1 spot. Because he played Guard he was down graded in draft rank.

That being said, I would expect Albert to perform suprisingly well.. he was meant to play tackle. By the way, IF I'm not incorrect he only allowed one sack his last year in college.

chief31
07-24-2008, 03:57 AM
If you are suggesting that Croyle needs more than this year to dEvelop, I would agree with you.

However, everything we've read suggests that this year is all he's going to get.

With that in mind, I don't expect Croyle to put up numbers that we can write home about.

What he can do is show improvement in his decision making.

He has to show that he can checkdown or simply throw the ball away.

He has to show that he can stay away from trying to force things.

That's what I'll be looking for to see if he can grow into the position.



Since you have no confidence in Albert to play LT, there really isn't any point in debating this, but what the hell, I like to argue.

If Albert were the only O-Lineman we drafted, his presense at LT improves two positons, his and RT.

I don't like McIntosh at RT, but even if I'm wrong about Barry Richardson eventually taking that spot from him, we still are better there than we were at any time last year.

I also don't care for Adrain Jones and think that either Herb Taylor (who I like alot) or Chris McDuffie will eventually displace, but again, even if I'm wrong, Jones is an improvement over anyone we played there last year except Rudy Niswanger.

Which brings us to center.

Niswanger showed us at RG that he is a solid player last year, and he is a better fit at center for what this team does now than Weigman.

So the fact is, regardless of how things play out on the right side, we are (substantially) better all across the line this year.



The fact that he played as well as he did behind that pathetic excuse of an O-Line at Alabama is the very reason that I think we can learn alot about him this year.

We know he has talent.
His experience at Alabama shows us he has the courage to stand in and make plays under pressure.

What we need to find out is if he can play smart.




Please.

6 starts.

That isn't nearly enough time for anyone to get to screwed up to recover.

Well, I was going to make a bunch of points here, but Seek seems to have beaten me to it.

The fact is that your speculation has led you to believe that this o-line is so much better than last years, but your speculation doesn't mean anything more than that.

As for the "Albert would have been..." subject, more speculation. Just a bunch of opinions that are based on guess-work.

Yeah, I know, the best NFL analysts said it... But aren't they made to look pretty stupid, for one remark or another, every year?

Isn't there always some surprises as to who is better than whom?

Anything that they guess at, is little better than what anyone else guesses at.

CHIEFCANNON
07-24-2008, 04:21 AM
Well, I was going to make a bunch of points here, but Seek seems to have beaten me to it.

The fact is that your speculation has led you to believe that this o-line is so much better than last years, but your speculation doesn't mean anything more than that.

As for the "Albert would have been..." subject, more speculation. Just a bunch of opinions that are based on guess-work.

Yeah, I know, the best NFL analysts said it... But aren't they made to look pretty stupid, for one remark or another, every year?

Isn't there always some surprises as to who is better than whom?

Anything that they guess at, is little better than what anyone else guesses at.


Then let them look stupid I guess... meaningless? just cuz they said it. Albert's record is the record. That's what the opinion was based on... you don't have to like it or agree.

jtandcrew
07-24-2008, 06:20 AM
im sorry but im not going to concern myself with farve. croyle is our qb atm. do i wish we still had atleast, trent green? yes. do i wish we had a coach mroe like cowher? yes. do i wish we had a more experienced owner than clark? yes. although, i do know that clark has told herm and king carl, either we improve or get out. although, i think its more pointed at carl. cya.

jtandcrew

Seek
07-24-2008, 10:37 AM
Then let them look stupid I guess... meaningless? just cuz they said it. Albert's record is the record. That's what the opinion was based on... you don't have to like it or agree.

Don't get us wrong Cannon.. We want to be wrong, however even if it was the being the best rated tackle in the NFL does not mean they will come in and dominate their rookie year.

Take John Tait for example. He was the best LT taken the year we drafted. He didn't even get the start until half way through the season and did an okay job. Not great not horrible.

Then you can look at Joe Thomas who many over looked and said didn't have the tools to be a LT and he dominated.

At this time, their is plenty of potential there for Albert but it isn't a fair statement to expect him to greatly improve the postion during his rookie year. He could, but that is speculation based on hope.

doomsday
07-24-2008, 11:51 AM
Those analysts are right about things every year too. Remember when they said "WTF?" about Boomer Grigsby??? I do....

Just saying the hype isn't all there is too it, but with the team we had evaluating talent, I think the hype is correct!!!

Seek
07-24-2008, 01:46 PM
Those analysts are right about things every year too. Remember when they said "WTF?" about Boomer Grigsby??? I do....

Just saying the hype isn't all there is too it, but with the team we had evaluating talent, I think the hype is correct!!!

Two words.. Ryan Sims... Another two words. Trazelle Jenkins.... here is another two.. Derrick Johnson. They (analysts) bashed the guy for not taking on blockers.

If they were always right, they would be working for some team and not publishing their BS biased opinions to people who don't know. If they are also right, Albert would have gone earlier than 15th...

Again, I am not saying they are WRONG. I am just saying there is some very high unfair spectations being presented to him.

doomsday
07-24-2008, 02:07 PM
I didn't say they were always right, the only reason I believe them this year is because of the current evaluators we have. They didn't evaluate Sims, Jenkins or Craphonso Thorpe!

Seek
07-24-2008, 02:15 PM
I didn't say they were always right, the only reason I believe them this year is because of the current evaluators we have. They didn't evaluate Sims, Jenkins or Craphonso Thorpe!

But they did evaluate Justin Medlock, and a bunch of other no longer Chief player. I think Marcus Maxey was another.

Frankly, other than Bowe, Tamba, Page and excluding this year picks because I haven't seen them play yet. I am not sure I like the current evaluators any better than what we had...

doomsday
07-24-2008, 02:18 PM
Ok, Medlock is a good point, but it wasn't his physical skills that blew, it was his character and mental set, both of which are VERY difficult to evaluate. Your gonna whiff on those a lot of the time. Even if your the best at it. Example...Indianapolis signed Thorpe last year! Cut him this year.

chief31
07-26-2008, 09:14 AM
Those analysts are right about things every year too. Remember when they said "WTF?" about Boomer Grigsby??? I do....

Just saying the hype isn't all there is too it, but with the team we had evaluating talent, I think the hype is correct!!!

I have alot of trust in our staffs ability to evaluate talent, just not o-line talent.

The fact that they drafted a college OG to play NFL OT in the middle of the first round is a big part of that.

Your team has one of five o-line positions that is set. And you are gonna take that kind of chance with your only o-line pick in the first five rounds?

It's a big enough risk taking the college OT and expecting him to play NFL OT.

They had better be right, because this will make them look very good, or very bad.

milkman
07-26-2008, 10:33 AM
I have alot of trust in our staffs ability to evaluate talent, just not o-line talent.

The fact that they drafted a college OG to play NFL OT in the middle of the first round is a big part of that.

Your team has one of five o-line positions that is set. And you are gonna take that kind of chance with your only o-line pick in the first five rounds?

It's a big enough risk taking the college OT and expecting him to play NFL OT.

They had better be right, because this will make them look very good, or very bad.

The Chiefs moved up to get Albert because the Eagles wanted to move up to take him, and were looking to move him to OT also.

There were also other teams that wanted to do the same.

So the Chiefs weren't the only group of talent evaluators that saw him as a tackle.

KiNgSmOkEy
07-26-2008, 04:07 PM
Elway was CRAP!!! Now that is over-rated.



You seem to be the foremost expert in everything that has ever occured on a football field, since you used so many caps.

But maybe you can just take a look at a couple of things...

INTs are usually thrown under pressure. I have seen a career of highlight of Favres TDs and INTS. And both tend to occur under intense pressure.

Favre creates the running game, because defenses are worried about Brett Favre, not Samkon Gado, or whoever the hell they may be running with this week.

It is ludacris to compare the talent that Favre has had, to the talent that Montana had. You can pckage-up all of the WR that have played in the Packers' division over Favres career, and I will take Jerry Rice over the lot.

And you can take all of the head coaches from that same division/era as well, and I want Bill Walsh.

You keep on about how many INTs Favre threw, and how he has the most of all-time. But did he throw any TDs? Did he throw more passes than everyone else too?

You might be able to figure out that when you throw more passes, more of them will be INTs.

Favre threw 442 TDs. Montana threw 273. And Favre had that amazing running game that was absorbing all of those stats too!

The fact is, that I have been saying that I can't make head-to-head comparison between the two, because of all of the different circumstances, and you go on a shouting-spree about how obviously the circumstances seem to favor Favre.

I don't care. You will never convince me that Favre had as many advantages as Montana.

YELLING YOUR OPINION OUT LOUD, DOESN"T CHANGE THAT IT IS AN OPINION!!!
I just now to got read this so im sorry if im late. But i do have to say i love how u just list off any acomplishment that any player has ever made for green bay during favres career, was only because of brett favre. So, i guess it was favre running it between the tackles and not green. and i guess favre was catching all those rocket passes he threw too. And as far as all those interceptions he threw, that u just put off as it was because he was always under pressure, that tends to happen when your waiting for a WR to run 40 yards before you throwit, because you want to go deep on every play. Dont blame it on the o-line. Now im not saying he played under the best o line of all time but i am saying they sure the heck look alot better when your takin the smart play instead of waiting 8 sec or more so u can go deep on every play. OH, and by the way they did look alot better last year, didnt they? I wonder if that had any thing do with favre playing smart last year? finnaly just going for what was there instead of trying to score on every play. But heres the differece between someone like favre and montana, When the game matters the most montana calmly just takes the ball down the field like its just practice and wins you that game. Now, favre he gets excited and goes bank on one play and throws a game ending interception to a wr whos not even that open on horrible boneheaded throw. Now, as far as rice, im not debating that he wasnt the greatest WR of all time because i know he was the greatest. But good things come in pairs! Greatest QB of all time and Greatest WR of all time. One just doesnt produce the other, they produce each other! The fact is u keep saying that favre did it all with the least and i proved he had talent around him. And if u want to talk about being great without the most talented WR, I guess your saying J.J. Birden and Willie Davis were greater than any of favres WRs because i seem to rember montana making both of them look like rockstars and winning with them and still throwing few picks just like he always did. Its funning how favre threw alot of picks because he didnt have the most talented wrs but yet montana still played smart and threw few picks with equal WRs if not less than equal to green bays WRs , during Montanas stint with the chiefs. And no favre doesnt have all the records. Try the most important record, superbowls! Hes not even close. Try lookin at bradshaw for somethin like that! Infact, the more i hear you talk, the more i think you no nothing about the Xs and Os of the game. Never giving facts or even stats about your opions, Just simply acting as a puppet of the media, only repeating what you hear on espn, having no true concept of the inner works of the game. Let me take it a step farther, I think your another fantasy football player dumbing down the pure knowledge of the game, going bye what looks good on paper instead factoring in all the different varibles of the game. U think any style of play will fit any style of offence and still produce the same result, do u not realize that walsh's style of play was buit on not throwing interceptions and taking what was there, even if that meant long time consuming drives. You didnt even know it was called the westcoast offence untill i told you. And as i said before Walsh s west coast offence, although using passes was a more snazzy form of ball control. Se he figured u throw a little 5YARD dump off to the back or a wr and thats like pretty good run. Now does that really sound like gunslinger favre. Now, i admitted he(favre) tryed to change his way this year and worked to extent but when game matter the most he resorted back to his old ways and it lost him the game. Lack of Patience lost him the game, something montana had plenty of. See you didnt have to force this style of play on montana because it already was his style of play. Awarness, patience, touch, accurracy. And if u forgot where my facts and stats proving this can scroll through to about page 8,9,10,11, maybe even farther back.

KiNgSmOkEy
07-26-2008, 04:16 PM
this also goes to chiefs31s comment further back when he said favre would been just as great if he played for the 49ers offence with those players

tornadospotter
07-28-2008, 01:44 PM
I must interject here that, this thread has been very interesting, and being born of a, what if, has proved to be extremely interesting to say the lest.
Thread of the year??, or at least the off season or something like that?
:bananen_smilies046:
Tammie?:D

tornadospotter
07-28-2008, 01:52 PM
I must interject here that, this thread has been very interesting, and being born of a, what if, has proved to be extremely interesting. Perhaps thread of the of the Off season award? Tammie? You know you want to give me an award at the home opener!:D :bananen_smilies046: :beer:

Seek
07-28-2008, 01:58 PM
The Chiefs moved up to get Albert because the Eagles wanted to move up to take him, and were looking to move him to OT also.

There were also other teams that wanted to do the same.

So the Chiefs weren't the only group of talent evaluators that saw him as a tackle.

I know it has only been three days, but everything I have read is confirming what I said earlier. He is a rookie playing a new postion at a level that he must adjust to. He is clearly showing that his technique is not there, but is extremely talented.

That being said, until the catches up to the game and the position. He will be inconsistent this year. To consider him an improvement at LT isn't a fair prediction. Now he may be a better LT by week 16.

tornadospotter
07-28-2008, 02:00 PM
Back on topic of thread!
Albert will be a Red and Gold storm!
Ok now back on topic of thread!

But lets get down to it, yes or no, if Farve was in Chiefs gear at the beginning of the season, would you want him? and would you want him as the starting QB? I say yes I would want him, and no to the starting QB!
I want Brodie to be the QB and be successful!

Seek
07-28-2008, 02:22 PM
Back on topic of thread!
Albert will be a Red and Gold storm!
Ok now back on topic of thread!

But lets get down to it, yes or no, if Farve was in Chiefs gear at the beginning of the season, would you want him? and would you want him as the starting QB? I say yes I would want him, and no to the starting QB!
I want Brodie to be the QB and be successful!

No I don't want him. There is no reason to have him. ZERO.... We already got rid of our aging QB in Trent Green and we are starting to phase out our other Aging QB with Huard.

The future of this team is Croyle, Thigpen or some other QB that will be a franchise QB. Having a decorated and successful back up is nothing more than a highly paid coach, taking up a roster spot for some other youngster.

I think Huard can sit on the bench just as well as Brett.

Canada
07-28-2008, 03:07 PM
waiting 8 sec or more so u can go deep on every play. OH, and by the way they did look alot better last year, didnt they? I wonder if that had any thing do with favre playing smart last year?

First...which WR runs the 8 second 40??

Second...I believe Favre single handedly won the Donkeys game with a bomb down the field and did the same thing against us. It was our QB who took the "smart plays" and got picked off in the end. It is easy to sit back in your chair now and question all of the bad plays Favre has made, but he has made some absolutely miraculous plays that make football exciting to watch. If you want to see "safe" plays all the time, go simulate a game of Madden. Favre made the game exciting and won a lot doing it. Pointing out his mistakes does not make him a bad QB. If you are going to point out all his INTs, why not point out all his TDs and wins too? Remember the MNF game against the gayders after his dad dies? One of the greatest games ever. I am not saying that he should come play for the Chiefs this year, but i think it is funny that you question someones knowledge of football and then argue that Favre is not one of the best ever.

tornadospotter
07-28-2008, 08:18 PM
No I don't want him. There is no reason to have him. ZERO.... We already got rid of our aging QB in Trent Green and we are starting to phase out our other Aging QB with Huard.

The future of this team is Croyle, Thigpen or some other QB that will be a franchise QB. Having a decorated and successful back up is nothing more than a highly paid coach, taking up a roster spot for some other youngster.

I think Huard can sit on the bench just as well as Brett.
:11: You are very right, but if I was to chose a QB benchwarmer/coach, I would take Farve over Huard! But its not going to happen anyway, its just what if!:sign0098: :bananen_smilies046:

Chiefster
07-28-2008, 08:51 PM
I must interject here that, this thread has been very interesting, and being born of a, what if, has proved to be extremely interesting to say the lest.
Thread of the year??, or at least the off season or something like that?
:bananen_smilies046:
Tammie?:D


I must interject here that, this thread has been very interesting, and being born of a, what if, has proved to be extremely interesting. Perhaps thread of the of the Off season award? Tammie? You know you want to give me an award at the home opener!:D :bananen_smilies046: :beer:

Is there an ecco in here? :D

tornadospotter
07-28-2008, 10:23 PM
What:sign0153: echo?
What :sign0153: echo?
What :sign0153: echo?
What :sign0153:
What :sign0153:
what?

echo?




:D

milkman
07-28-2008, 11:50 PM
I know it has only been three days, but everything I have read is confirming what I said earlier. He is a rookie playing a new postion at a level that he must adjust to. He is clearly showing that his technique is not there, but is extremely talented.

That being said, until the catches up to the game and the position. He will be inconsistent this year. To consider him an improvement at LT isn't a fair prediction. Now he may be a better LT by week 16.

The reports indicate that he is holding his own against Tamba Hali, even without any technical knowledge.

He won't have it down pat, but by season's start he will be much more advanced than he is now.

That working technical knowledge, combined with his natural (and far superior to Mac) physical attributes will allow him to play at a level that is equal to Mac.

Mac is a scrub.

Always has been,
Always will be.

chief31
07-29-2008, 08:57 AM
this also goes to chiefs31s comment further back when he said favre would been just as great if he played for the 49ers offence with those players

Do me a favor, and quote where I said that. And, one other favor... Hit ENTER once in awhile when writing a long reply. Please.


I just now to got read this so im sorry if im late. But i do have to say i love how u just list off any acomplishment that any player has ever made for green bay during favres career, was only because of brett favre.

So, i guess it was favre running it between the tackles and not green. and i guess favre was catching all those rocket passes he threw too.

Do you not get it? Why did all of those great players come in as zeros, and leave to return to being zeros? Why is it that none of them was worth s*** without Favre?

Kinda like Michael Jordan made his teammates look better than they were, Favre does the same.

And as far as all those interceptions he threw, that u just put off as it was because he was always under pressure, that tends to happen when your waiting for a WR to run 40 yards before you throwit, because you want to go deep on every play.

Why do you even bother to discuss this? I get real tired of having to slap-down all of these exaggerations. I have never seen someone as successful with last second dump-offs as Favre, yet appearently, I am on a different planet, because all he seems to have done was throw ill-advised bombs for his career?

Dont blame it on the o-line.

Thanks, but yes. I tend to blame poor blocking on patch-work o-lines. You should try a little logic once in awhile. It can be fun.

Now im not saying he played under the best o line of all time but i am saying they sure the heck look alot better when your takin the smart play instead of waiting 8 sec or more so u can go deep on every play.

Damn it, I forgot that my eyes had decieved me throughout Favres career. I was so sure that I had seen him throwing a s888load of underneath passes, but, alas, some child has had to inform me that he never did.

OH, and by the way they did look alot better last year, didnt they? I wonder if that had any thing do with favre playing smart last year? finnaly just going for what was there instead of trying to score on every play.

Looke like the same old gun-slinging Favre to me. Yeah. Come to think of it, he didn't throw any game-winning bombs last year.

Look, the offensive line was finally the same unit from a previous season, instead of a whole new blend of guys.

But heres the differece between someone like favre and montana, When the game matters the most montana calmly just takes the ball down the field like its just practice and wins you that game.

As with any of the greats, "...Sometimes."

Now, favre he gets excited and goes bank on one play and throws a game ending interception to a wr whos not even that open on horrible boneheaded throw.

Yeah. Montana never did make a mistake like that. Did he? Of course he did. Everyone does. I remember seeing him do it. Just because you have a selective memory, doesn't mean that it never happened. It did.

Now, as far as rice, im not debating that he wasnt the greatest WR of all time because i know he was the greatest. But good things come in pairs!

Greatest QB of all time and Greatest WR of all time. One just doesnt produce the other, they produce each other! The fact is u keep saying that favre did it all with the least and i proved he had talent around him.

You couldn't prove that these letters are red. All you have proved is that you have a loud, opinion, that you have confused with fact.

And if u want to talk about being great without the most talented WR, I guess your saying J.J. Birden and Willie Davis were greater than any of favres WRs because i seem to rember montana making both of them look like rockstars and winning with them and still throwing few picks just like he always did.

A.) Birden and Davis may have looked above average. But rock stars? I could test that theory. But I will get tired of other teams fans asking me what the hell I am talking about, when I mention those names.

B.) How did Steve Young do again? I mean, if you take the greatest QB ever away from a team, one might assume that they wouldn't do so well. But in this case, it seems that Young went off and won a Super Bowl, while Montana left and did 'pretty well'.

Its funning how favre threw alot of picks because he didnt have the most talented wrs but yet montana still played smart and threw few picks with equal WRs if not less than equal to green bays WRs , during Montanas stint with the chiefs.

Favre went to a couple of Super Bowls under those circumstances. Montana went to a championship game. Super Bowl champion with weak WRs, or runner-up to conference champion with weak WRs? Your argument favors Favre.

And no favre doesnt have all the records. Try the most important record, superbowls! Hes not even close. Try lookin at bradshaw for somethin like that!

...Or Montana? Why wouldn't you just say Montana? Were you asleep when you wrote this? But Super bowls is more of a team stat than TDs, yards, consecutive games, and things like that. (Including INTs.)

Infact, the more i hear you talk, the more i think you no nothing about the Xs and Os of the game.

You took the words right out of my mouth. Please though, tell me some more about this innovative new 'West-Coast (?) offense' that were going to educate me about.

Never giving facts or even stats about your opions, Just simply acting as a puppet of the media, only repeating what you hear on espn, having no true concept of the inner works of the game.

That's all pretty easy to say, when you don't read, isn't it?

Let me take it a step farther, I think your another fantasy football player dumbing down the pure knowledge of the game,

Yeah. But it looks like someone already got to you. I am just too late.

going bye what looks good on paper instead factoring in all the different varibles of the game.

Wow. Complain because you don't see the stats I show, then complain about the stats as "what looks goos on paper", without even a break in your paragraph? Just wow.

U think any style of play will fit any style of offence and still produce the same result, do u not realize that walsh's style of play was buit on not throwing interceptions and taking what was there, even if that meant long time consuming drives.

Would have been nice to have seen Favre get that chance. But, as you pointed out, he didn't. And different circumstances can produce different results. And don't you think that we don't appreciate that you can point to the sky and say 'blue!' because we do. I always like to hear he big boy point out the obvious, especially when I have told him about it

Look smokey, BLUE.

You didnt even know it was called the westcoast offence untill i told you. And as i said before Walsh s west coast offence, although using passes was a more snazzy form of ball control.

Se he figured u throw a little 5YARD dump off to the back or a wr and thats like pretty good run. Now does that really sound like gunslinger favre.

GOOD BOY. And thank you.

Now, i admitted he(favre) tryed to change his way this year Except that he didn't.and worked to extent but when game matter the most he resorted back to his old ways and it lost him the game. Lack of Patience lost him the game, something montana had plenty of.

And undefeated in his career. So, Montana really never lost a game? Now I think that you need to get me those statistics. Because my memory is telling me a different story.

See you didnt have to force this style of play on montana because it already was his style of play. Not really. I thought I had pointed this out, but he threw alot of INTs in college.Awarness, patience, touch, accurracy. And if u forgot where my facts and stats proving this can scroll through to about page 8,9,10,11, maybe even farther back.


I don't want to re-hash anymore than this final post of nonsense. But how kind of you to offer.


I said it from the beginning. I don't like to try and compare two players from two different set of circumstances like this. And all I am doing is showing you why. You decide to talk about stats, but Favre has the stats. But then you complain about stats as being "on paper".

You just wind-up trying to use the stats and circumstances that favor your argument and trying to deny the stats and circumstances that don't.

Then, some folks like to try and use the "if I had to choose a QB" system. But I have to ask "...for what?" For one game? for one season? For a whole career? For a Walsh coached team? For this season? For a season twenty-four years ago? Then I want to know what else I have to go with this QB. Do I have a great o-line? Do I have great WRs? TE? FB?Running game?

It isn't really worth the whole argument. But since I do really love to argue. And you are so set on "OBEY MY OPINION!", I can take the opposing side of that argument for ya. But just for s***s and giggles. I would actually want Warren Moon aver any other QB, based on stipulations.(Great O-line.)

Seek
07-29-2008, 09:55 AM
The reports indicate that he is holding his own against Tamba Hali, even without any technical knowledge.

He won't have it down pat, but by season's start he will be much more advanced than he is now.

That working technical knowledge, combined with his natural (and far superior to Mac) physical attributes will allow him to play at a level that is equal to Mac.

Mac is a scrub.

Always has been,
Always will be.

Yes I have heard the report from WP that he is holding his own against Tamba as well, and then hearing from many radio sources stating that he is gettig beat often.

I am getting the impression he is holding his own against Tamba but struggling against other ends. I have heard that Tamba is really struggling bull rushing due to his size.

milkman
07-30-2008, 09:29 AM
Yes I have heard the report from WP that he is holding his own against Tamba as well, and then hearing from many radio sources stating that he is gettig beat often.

I am getting the impression he is holding his own against Tamba but struggling against other ends. I have heard that Tamba is really struggling bull rushing due to his size.

I don't live in KC, so I don't hear the radio reports.

But not one person who's posted what they've seen have even remotely hinted that Albert is getting beat often.

Seek
07-30-2008, 04:12 PM
I don't live in KC, so I don't hear the radio reports.

But not one person who's posted what they've seen have even remotely hinted that Albert is getting beat often.

The radio is saying it. They are saying it is very clear why the Chiefs have him there, because he is extremely talented, but he is getting beat every once in a while and looks like a rookie and that is expected.

milkman
07-30-2008, 07:42 PM
The radio is saying it. They are saying it is very clear why the Chiefs have him there, because he is extremely talented, but he is getting beat every once in a while and looks like a rookie and that is expected.

Well.....duh.

No one expects him to get it the first week of camp.

What I've said is that he should be getting schooled by Tamba, and that is not happening.

Seek
07-30-2008, 08:09 PM
Well.....duh.

No one expects him to get it the first week of camp.

What I've said is that he should be getting schooled by Tamba, and that is not happening.

I have heard Tamba isn't looking good, but Turk McBride is. So is Tank Tyler. it very well could end up being Dorsey and Tyler.

milkman
07-30-2008, 08:45 PM
Here's a camp report from a Wid Bill's poster.

Posted by raycapps:
http://forums.wildbillschiefs.com/index.ph...mp;#entry132701

Seek
07-31-2008, 10:59 AM
Here's a camp report from a Wid Bill's poster.

Posted by raycapps:
http://forums.wildbillschiefs.com/index.ph...mp;#entry132701

Can't open it. Company has blocked it. Who is Wild Bills???? never heard of them so I don't think his or her opinion is any different than yours or mine.

I do listen to the radio people everyday, and trust their opinion. Just stating what I argued long ago in this thread. Albert is a rookie. He will play like a rookie and not a pro-bowler. I am not saying he is going to suck. I am just saying he will make rookie mistakes and that will equal out to about the same performance that you saw from Big Mac last year.

milkman
07-31-2008, 10:57 PM
Can't open it. Company has blocked it. Who is Wild Bills???? never heard of them so I don't think his or her opinion is any different than yours or mine.

I do listen to the radio people everyday, and trust their opinion. Just stating what I argued long ago in this thread. Albert is a rookie. He will play like a rookie and not a pro-bowler. I am not saying he is going to suck. I am just saying he will make rookie mistakes and that will equal out to about the same performance that you saw from Big Mac last year.

That may have been a bad link.
Let's try again.

http://forums.wildbillschiefs.com/index.php?showtopic=13277&st=20&p=132701&#entry132701

That should work.

You could be right about Albert's performance being equal to McIntosh.

I, however, believe becaus of his far superior athleticism and physical attributes, he will be better than Mac.

But I am also willing to admit that I'm a bit biased because I've always believed that Mac is a scub, and because I saw Albert as a tackle prospect before anyone.

Chiefster
07-31-2008, 11:35 PM
That may have been a bad link.
Let's try again.

http://forums.wildbillschiefs.com/index.php?showtopic=13277&st=20&p=132701&#entry132701

That should work.

You could be right about Albert's performance being equal to McIntosh.

I, however, believe becaus of his far superior athleticism and physical attributes, he will be better than Mac.

But I am also willing to admit that I'm a bit biased because I've always believed that Mac is a scub, and because I saw Albert as a tackle prospect before anyone.

Depends on how well he handles the learning curve.

milkman
08-02-2008, 09:11 AM
Depends on how well he handles the learning curve.

A highly underrated attribute for NFL O-Linemen is intelligence.

The primary reason I liked Albert better than Clady in this draft is that Albert's wonderlic score was pretty decent.
I don't remember the exact score, but it was one of the highest among O-Lineman.

Clady, on the other hand, based on his wonderlic is lucky he can dress himself.

chief31
10-08-2008, 09:34 AM
If you only had a head coach

If you only had a respectable defense

If you only had not traded Jared Allen

If only, if only

Ha,ha. How did that 'head coach' thing work out for these guys?


If you are suggesting that Croyle needs more than this year to dEvelop, I would agree with you.

However, everything we've read suggests that this year is all he's going to get.

With that in mind, I don't expect Croyle to put up numbers that we can write home about.

What he can do is show improvement in his decision making.

He has to show that he can checkdown or simply throw the ball away.

He has to show that he can stay away from trying to force things.

That's what I'll be looking for to see if he can grow into the position.

He's going to grow into...... a body-cast.

Since you have no confidence in Albert to play LT, there really isn't any point in debating this, but what the hell, I like to argue.

If Albert were the only O-Lineman we drafted, his presense at LT improves two positons, his and RT.

If he can play the position well.

I don't like McIntosh at RT, but even if I'm wrong about Barry Richardson eventually taking that spot from him, we still are better there than we were at any time last year.

And the offensive numbers prove it!

I also don't care for Adrain Jones and think that either Herb Taylor (who I like alot) or Chris McDuffie will eventually displace, but again, even if I'm wrong, Jones is an improvement over anyone we played there last year except Rudy Niswanger.

Jones is no better than a paper bag.

Which brings us to center.

Niswanger showed us at RG that he is a solid player last year, and he is a better fit at center for what this team does now than Weigman.

He showed you. Because I still don't see anything that I would call an improvement on our o-line.

So the fact is, The opinion is... regardless of how things play out on the right side, we are (substantially) better all across the line this year.

I must not be seeing something here. Because I don't see it that way.

The fact that he played as well as he did behind that pathetic excuse of an O-Line at Alabama is the very reason that I think we can learn alot about him this year.

We know he has talent.
His experience at Alabama shows us he has the courage to stand in and make plays under pressure.

What we need to find out is if he can play smart.

Nobody plays smart with the degree of pressure that he is under here.

Please.

6 starts.

That isn't nearly enough time for anyone to get to screwed up to recover.

It was actually six starts, and this season. What are the odds that he winds up getting injured again? Maybe something that requires surgery? Pennington may be doing well right now. I think he is a pretty decent QB. But I will never know what he could have become, had it not been for the multiple injuries and surgeries he had to go through, from Herms o-line philosophy.


What might be getting lost and it did in the NFL Draft is... but fore, Albert getting placed at G... in college based on team need not talent, Branden Albert would have been the #1 O-lineman in the draft:yahoo: Yes.. even stated on the NFL Channel that he very well could have beaten Long for the #1 spot. Because he played Guard he was down graded in draft rank.

That being said, I would expect Albert to perform suprisingly well.. he was meant to play tackle. By the way, IF I'm not incorrect he only allowed one sack his last year in college.


Then let them look stupid I guess... meaningless? just cuz they said it. Albert's record is the record. That's what the opinion was based on... you don't have to like it or agree.

See the big blue part of the first Cannon-quote? That is someones opinion. It is not Alberts record. It is an opinion that is based on, in part, Alberts record.

I actually do like it. I just don't trust it.


Those analysts are right about things every year too. Remember when they said "WTF?" about Boomer Grigsby??? I do....

Just saying the hype isn't all there is too it, but with the team we had evaluating talent, I think the hype is correct!!!

Yes. The analysts are right sometimes. But so is my eight-year-old daughter. Should I ask her opinion about NFL prospects?

College OTs give you something to actually evalute. Hands-on experience. Albert gave us experience at a different position, and a combine. We got to see part of the product that we were investing very highly in.

Maybe that will clear-up why I think it was such a major risk.


I must interject here that, this thread has been very interesting, and being born of a, what if, has proved to be extremely interesting to say the lest.
Thread of the year??, or at least the off season or something like that?
:bananen_smilies046:
Tammie?:D


I must interject here that, this thread has been very interesting, and being born of a, what if, has proved to be extremely interesting. Perhaps thread of the of the Off season award? Tammie? You know you want to give me an award at the home opener!:D :bananen_smilies046: :beer:

Yeah. Right up until some schlub decided to double-post. :lol:


I don't live in KC, so I don't hear the radio reports.

But not one person who's posted what they've seen have even remotely hinted that Albert is getting beat often.

A.) If they don't want to see him do poorly, for their high hopes, then they might not see it.

B.) If you don't want to hear that he screwed-up a couple of times, then you might not hear it.


A highly underrated attribute for NFL O-Linemen is intelligence.

The primary reason I liked Albert better than Clady in this draft is that Albert's wonderlic score was pretty decent.
I don't remember the exact score, but it was one of the highest among O-Lineman.

Clady, on the other hand, based on his wonderlic is lucky he can dress himself.

Clady has started every game for The Donkos, and they have one of the most effective offenses in The NFL all of a sudden. The Donks have allowed two sacks.

Early numbers would suggest that he was a very good pick.

chief31
10-08-2008, 10:24 AM
I just now to got read this so im sorry if im late. But i do have to say i love how u just list off any acomplishment that any player has ever made for green bay during favres career, was only because of brett favre.

So, i guess it was favre running it between the tackles and not green. and i guess favre was catching all those rocket passes he threw too.

Do you not get it? Why did all of those great players come in as zeros, and leave to return to being zeros? Why is it that none of them was worth s*** without Favre?

Kinda like Michael Jordan made his teammates look better than they were, Favre does the same.

And as far as all those interceptions he threw, that u just put off as it was because he was always under pressure, that tends to happen when your waiting for a WR to run 40 yards before you throwit, because you want to go deep on every play.

Why do you even bother to discuss this? I get real tired of having to slap-down all of these exaggerations. I have never seen someone as successful with last second dump-offs as Favre, yet appearently, I am on a different planet, because all he seems to have done was throw ill-advised bombs for his career?

Dont blame it on the o-line.

Thanks, but yes. I tend to blame poor blocking on patch-work o-lines. You should try a little logic once in awhile. It can be fun.

Now im not saying he played under the best o line of all time but i am saying they sure the heck look alot better when your takin the smart play instead of waiting 8 sec or more so u can go deep on every play.

Damn it, I forgot that my eyes had decieved me throughout Favres career. I was so sure that I had seen him throwing a s888load of underneath passes, but, alas, some child has had to inform me that he never did.

OH, and by the way they did look alot better last year, didnt they? I wonder if that had any thing do with favre playing smart last year? finnaly just going for what was there instead of trying to score on every play.

Looke like the same old gun-slinging Favre to me. Yeah. Come to think of it, he didn't throw any game-winning bombs last year.

Look, the offensive line was finally the same unit from a previous season, instead of a whole new blend of guys.

But heres the differece between someone like favre and montana, When the game matters the most montana calmly just takes the ball down the field like its just practice and wins you that game.

As with any of the greats, "...Sometimes."

Now, favre he gets excited and goes bank on one play and throws a game ending interception to a wr whos not even that open on horrible boneheaded throw.

Yeah. Montana never did make a mistake like that. Did he? Of course he did. Everyone does. I remember seeing him do it. Just because you have a selective memory, doesn't mean that it never happened. It did.

Now, as far as rice, im not debating that he wasnt the greatest WR of all time because i know he was the greatest. But good things come in pairs!

Greatest QB of all time and Greatest WR of all time. One just doesnt produce the other, they produce each other! The fact is u keep saying that favre did it all with the least and i proved he had talent around him.

You couldn't prove that these letters are red. All you have proved is that you have a loud, opinion, that you have confused with fact.

And if u want to talk about being great without the most talented WR, I guess your saying J.J. Birden and Willie Davis were greater than any of favres WRs because i seem to rember montana making both of them look like rockstars and winning with them and still throwing few picks just like he always did.

A.) Birden and Davis may have looked above average. But rock stars? I could test that theory. But I will get tired of other teams fans asking me what the hell I am talking about, when I mention those names.

B.) How did Steve Young do again? I mean, if you take the greatest QB ever away from a team, one might assume that they wouldn't do so well. But in this case, it seems that Young went off and won a Super Bowl, while Montana left and did 'pretty well'.

Its funning how favre threw alot of picks because he didnt have the most talented wrs but yet montana still played smart and threw few picks with equal WRs if not less than equal to green bays WRs , during Montanas stint with the chiefs.

Favre went to a couple of Super Bowls under those circumstances. Montana went to a championship game. Super Bowl champion with weak WRs, or runner-up to conference champion with weak WRs? Your argument favors Favre.

And no favre doesnt have all the records. Try the most important record, superbowls! Hes not even close. Try lookin at bradshaw for somethin like that!

...Or Montana? Why wouldn't you just say Montana? Were you asleep when you wrote this? But Super bowls is more of a team stat than TDs, yards, consecutive games, and things like that. (Including INTs.)

Infact, the more i hear you talk, the more i think you no nothing about the Xs and Os of the game.

You took the words right out of my mouth. Please though, tell me some more about this innovative new 'West-Coast (?) offense' that were going to educate me about.

Never giving facts or even stats about your opions, Just simply acting as a puppet of the media, only repeating what you hear on espn, having no true concept of the inner works of the game.

That's all pretty easy to say, when you don't read, isn't it?

Let me take it a step farther, I think your another fantasy football player dumbing down the pure knowledge of the game,

Yeah. But it looks like someone already got to you. I am just too late.

going bye what looks good on paper instead factoring in all the different varibles of the game.

Wow. Complain because you don't see the stats I show, then complain about the stats as "what looks goos on paper", without even a break in your paragraph? Just wow.

U think any style of play will fit any style of offence and still produce the same result, do u not realize that walsh's style of play was buit on not throwing interceptions and taking what was there, even if that meant long time consuming drives.

Would have been nice to have seen Favre get that chance. But, as you pointed out, he didn't. And different circumstances can produce different results. And don't you think that we don't appreciate that you can point to the sky and say 'blue!' because we do. I always like to hear he big boy point out the obvious, especially when I have told him about it

Look smokey, BLUE.

You didnt even know it was called the westcoast offence untill i told you. And as i said before Walsh s west coast offence, although using passes was a more snazzy form of ball control.

Se he figured u throw a little 5YARD dump off to the back or a wr and thats like pretty good run. Now does that really sound like gunslinger favre.

Yes. That's a GOOD BOY. And thank you.

Now, i admitted he(favre) tryed to change his way this year Except that he didn't.and worked to extent but when game matter the most he resorted back to his old ways and it lost him the game. Lack of Patience lost him the game, something montana had plenty of.

And undefeated in his career. So, Montana really never lost a game? Now I think that you need to get me those statistics. Because my memory is telling me a different story.

See you didnt have to force this style of play on montana because it already was his style of play. Not really. I thought I had pointed this out, but he threw alot of INTs in college.Awarness, patience, touch, accurracy. And if u forgot where my facts and stats proving this can scroll through to about page 8,9,10,11, maybe even farther back.

I don't want to re-hash anymore than this final post of nonsense. But how kind of you to offer.


I said it from the beginning. I don't like to try and compare two players from two different set of circumstances like this. And all I am doing is showing you why. You decide to talk about stats, but Favre has the stats. But then you complain about stats as being "on paper".

You just wind-up trying to use the stats and circumstances that favor your argument and trying to deny the stats and circumstances that don't.

Then, some folks like to try and use the "if I had to choose a QB" system. But I have to ask "...for what?" For one game? for one season? For a whole career? For a Walsh coached team? For this season? For a season twenty-four years ago? Then I want to know what else I have to go with this QB. Do I have a great o-line? Do I have great WRs? TE? FB?Running game?

It isn't really worth the whole argument. But since I do really love to argue. And you are so set on "OBEY MY OPINION!", I can take the opposing side of that argument for ya. But just for s***s and giggles. I would actually want Warren Moon aver any other QB, based on stipulations.(Great O-line.)