So would the Cardinals been better to stick with Leinart over Warner?

 

-----signature-----

"ou
guys like to throw around Brett Farves numbers and then turn around and
ignore what Tavaris did to end the season last year."

And you're stuck on Jackson's numbers from 4 games in the regular season. Then in the playoffs, he had 42% completion, 164 yards, 0 TDs, 1 INT and 1 Fumble. I thought Favre was the wrong choice because he's gonna crumble in the playoffs.


"I argue simply for the entertainment."
Agreed, it gives me something to do since I'm not tired enough to head to bed.

 

-----signature-----

This is ridiculously wrong. You're judging Brett Favre's year by a different standard simply because he was a free agent. In fact, to use your logic, if anything Favre signing at 39 and leaving the Vikings without a championship could be called an unsuccessful experiment, whereas a 15 year investment in Dan Marino without a ring would have to be viewed as a franchise killing disaster. You can't have it both ways. If Favre got Jackson off track, then Marino's meaningless numbers kept the Dolphins from drafting a real winner for a generation. It's stupidly reductive. No one player makes a franchise. Favre gave them a better opportunity to win this year according to everybody. He has shown that, win or lose this week, he has given them a chance to win a championship. Saying he won't get it done does not make you Kreskin, because there are probably 6 teams that could still win it. Nothing is set in stone... all you can ask is that, if you have a shot to make a run, your organization does everything it can to give you the best opportunity possible. If they didn't have Adrian Peterson, et al, if this was a different team, then yeah, maybe you don't risk delaying your young QB's development for a long shot at a title. But by all accounts this year the one thing the Vikings were missing was a franchise QB. They made a bet that Favre was more likely to be that guy for them this year than Jackson would have been. Obviously we'll never know for sure how Tarvaris would have played this year, but assuming Minnesota flames out, as I said earlier, if Jackson comes back next year with a team and proves himself to be a pro bowler, then you can say I told you so. But to say it was a failure just because they don't win is to imply it was a foregone conclusion that they wouldn't win, and that's just not accurate.

Your right on one thing: only time will tell. Right now nothing can be proven. I could careless how a QB does up until December. I care about December on. Farve had a rough December, not a horrible one but it was a rough one. In my eyes the Farve move is a bust if they do not make the Super Bowl. You don't sign an old vet like that to do anything less, and especially a guy who is 39 going on 49. I have no doubt Tavaris could have led them to the divisional round. If Farve wants me to shut up, its time for him to put up. A loss this weekend will end his season in failure.

 

-----signature-----

Amendial, the Vikes picked up Farve for one thing the BEST chance at getting to the Super Bowl. they knew the best chance that they had was Farve not Jackson. if they thought differently then you would have seen Jackson behind center and not Farve.

regardless of how the regular season started and ended for the Vikes its all new beginning this weekend. this is what the picked him up for and i can bet they have more confidence in Farve then Jackson leading into this weekend.

 

-----signature-----

I understand your point, they feel he gives them the best chance to win. What I am trying to say is that regardless of that if he doesn't win it is a failure. There can be no moral victory in this case, unless of course he returns next season and plays at a high level. Most teams have the season they Vikings have, return all their key players and can build off that; if Farve retires than the Vikings will not have that luxury, they will be back to where they began the season. That is why it will be a failure if he doesnt get them somewhere in this post-season. Like I said we will see in the next couple of weeks what will happened; sugar coat it if you want but the fact is this: a loss this weekend is a failure for the Vikings.

 

-----signature-----

Everyone's goal is to win. Just because a quarterback is signed via free agency doesn't mean the decision is more about winning, or more contingent upon wins to be considered a success.

The Colts pay Peyton Manning as much as Brett Favre, so if they don't win this year was that a failed investment too? The Cards did the exact same thing with Warner- signed an old guy to a short term deal... the only difference is he had been there before. So if they don't the Super Bowl should they say "aw crap, that was a mistake, we should have played Leinart or drafted a younger guy."

You don't seem to be answering this point. Your argument is inconsistent. When you sign a talented player you are signing them because they give you the opportunity to win... not because they give you any sort of a guarantee. The failure in management would be passing up the opportunity to win, i.e. staying with the status quo.

In the case of the Packers, Rodgers has shown without a doubt, even though they didn't win a playoff game yet, that they made the right decision. Even if Favre wins the Super Bowl, Rodgers is obviously as good or close to as good as Favre is right now, and he is much younger. If Jackson is driven off, does what Rodgers is doing in subsequent years with a different team, and Favre DOESN'T win the Super Bowl this year, that is the ONLY scenario in which you can say the Vikings were wrong. To say they made a mistake if they don;t win it all this year is like saying 31 teams shouldn't have even bothered to field a team this year because they didn't win. It's a fallacious, reductive argument to try and prove a point you can;t possible prove.

I understand that, but you have to understand also that you can not prove the other side of the coin unless Brett Farve does in fact win the Superbowl. If the Vikings do win the Superbowl then you can say I am wrong and be right. If they don't though we are at a stand still. You can not say that Tavaris would not have led them to the Super Bowl and been the better quarterback down the road until several years have passed. I know all this, I have known for a long time that this is simply and arguement that neither side can win because we are specualating on events that are going to take years to unfold. Will be fun to look back on this in a couple of years though and see what is going on.


As far as the Farve signing goes I consider it a failure if he loses this weekend. Plain and simple you don't sign a quarterback to as big of a contract for ONE season just to have a good regular season and be one and done in the playoffs. Your Peyton Manning arguments do not apply, not only has he won a ring for his team, but he is their guy for probally 4-5 years to come. That is the big difference with Farve in Minnesota and Manning in Indiancrapolis. Manning won Indy a ring and will be there for awhile. Farve was brought in to get Minny a ring. But that is just how I view it and will continue to view it for years to come. You are mistaken if you think I am trying to prove myself right, because I know I can not right now. I can not be proven wrong right now either though, unless Farve manages to win it all this year.

 

-----signature-----

The only speculation is on your part. You're speculating that Jackson will become a good quarterback. We're not speculating. Favre is playing at an all pro level right now. He gives them a shot at the title right now. If you're so literal that you think he has to win to make it worth it, then you have to be consistent with your logic. You have to say drafting Dan Marino was a bad move. You (likely) have to say that the Cardinals should have played Matt Leinart and saved their money on Warner. Do you think those things?

^ Exactly. And I really doubt he does feel that way. You guys have basically been posting the exact same thing back and forth at each other-- yet no matter how many times Amendial says "I see your point..." he still goes on to list off his poorly speculated ideas that Tarvaris will someday be a great quarterback.


I'm not tryin to offend anyone here (although the above paragraph makes me sound like I'm just tryin to be a dick to Amendial) Just tryin' to get things clear.


I think Amendial wants to see Brett Favre fail sooo badly because he was against The Favre-Vikings move from the beginning (or after the three weeks of Brett Favre speculation that was running on every single sports channel ever) but I'm sorry dude, the Vikings made the right call on getting Favre this season. They're playing waaaay better than they were last year- and Ynisfre is right, Favre is giving the Vikings a much better chance to win than Tarvaris would have.. Even if they do lose tomorrow I still think it was the right call.


Because their chance of winning the superbowl this year w/ #4 is significantly higher than their chance to win it with #.. 7?

 

-----signature-----