Saints vs. Vikings

[Whit Prowdy]

The Saints thrashed the Patriots and are 11-0.

The Vikings are taking care of everyone they see, and are 10-1.

If these two teams were to play next Sunday, who would win?

[l.a. no-teamers]

I think the Vikings pass rush would give the Saints problems so I'd give them the edge. It would be a great game though, I definitely think those two are the class of the league, with the Colts 3rd

[Texecutioner]

Can't really call that one right now. If I had to pick one, I'd go with the Saints. It could go either way really.

[MrSlurpee]

I'd say Saints on a neutral site. If the game were in Minnesota, I'd give the edge to the Vikings. If the game were in New Orleans, I'd give a HUGE edge to the Saints. I don't think anyone is going to beat them in that dome this year.

[Sascha]

Man this is a tough call right now.


Saints O vs. Vikings D

The Saints have been able to throw on almost anyone, but there have been exceptions, mainly Buffalo and the Jets. I think the Vikes, with a healthy secondary could be another of those exceptions, because what they have on the defensive line trumps what Buffalo and the Jets have combined. And the Saints running game would also likely struggle because, again, it is the Viking d-line, well known for stopping the run.


Vikings O vs. Saints D

The Saints defense is good, but not great in the basics. But where they excel is at how opportunistic they've been. Favre on the other hand has proven his doubters wrong by protecting the football at a career best clip. I don't know if Favre would win this battle or of the Saints can get to him. Here's the big difference to me. I like the Saints d-line, especially with the emergence of Ellis, but I don't see them containing AP for the entire game.


I think this would be an uncharacteristically low scoring affair, but I would probably favor the Vikings in a squeaker. I also like the special teams better.

[Weston M]

I am of the opinion that the Saints could beat Hitler's Third Reich as long as they don't turn the ball over. That offense makes up for so many downfalls and can get so many quick strikes in a hurry. The running game is amongst the best in the league and the defense forces turnovers every game while not breaking for many big plays. With all that taken into account, I think the only way to beat the Saints right now is to win the turnover battle and score points off their mistakes. Otherwise, you have no shot.

weston

[Sway29]

I am of the opinion that the Saints could beat Hitler's Third Reich as long as they don't turn the ball over. That offense makes up for so many downfalls and can get so many quick strikes in a hurry. The running game is amongst the best in the league and the defense forces turnovers every game while not breaking for many big plays. With all that taken into account, I think the only way to beat the Saints right now is to win the turnover battle and score points off their mistakes. Otherwise, you have no shot.

weston

i don't think that's the case. A team will figure out a scheme to beat the saints the same way the giants beat the pats 2 years ago. If a team can throw the pass game right off you will see the saints stumble if a team can get to Brees.

[Weston M]

i don't think that's the case. A team will figure out a scheme to beat the saints the same way the giants beat the pats 2 years ago. If a team can throw the pass game right off you will see the saints stumble if a team can get to Brees.

I don't agree. The difference between the Patriots of 07 and the Saints of 09 is that our rushing offense (statistically) is just as good as our passing offense. The Patriots threw all over opponents in 2007 and set many records without needing a running game. The Saints have proven all year that they can run the ball and run it effectively. If you notice from last night's game, Sean Payton made a point to run the ball early and often and shied away from allowing Brees and Co. to heave the ball all over the place.

I've said it before on this site that if you can get after Brees and make him uncomfortable then you have a great shot of winning. However, the Saints are just as likely to come out early on in a game and run the ball on you. They didn't come out against the Patriots in 4 and 5-wide sets from the beginning. They remained true to the run and kept going with it throughout the game and the Pats had no answer. Their offense is so balanced right now that you can't defend against one aspect and that's not something the 07 Patriots could say.

weston

[william00777]

this is a hard game to pick and I hope we see it on the field. It looks like we will and if it's in NO like it looks like it will be and for the NFC Championship I don't see how the Saints loose.

I'll break it down in a few places where I think each team has the edge. This assuming no home field.

Coaching Saints
I think the Vikes staff is doing a great job but Paytons playcalling with Williams Bend don't break D is special. The D isn't even that good really but like the Rams Warner and Faulk the offense gets teams off there game and out of thier plan. Also when it comes time to make a big play or stop the D has been there to do it with nice calls and execution. Saints are also surprisingly #1 in yds because of balance. fourth in pass and fifth in rushing. It would be easy to let it fly with this team but they control the games and the balance is a big reason they haven't lost.

QB Saints
Again this is not a knock on Farve he is having one of the best seasons of his carrer and that says somthing. Brees is in such control of that offense and has so many weapons he's seemingly unstoppable. Farve has the edge on protecting the ball.

RBs Vikes
Even with the stable of backs the Vikes have and assuming they are all healthy Peterson, Taylor wins. Again no run aways here. The combination of talents between bush, bell, Thomas combined with how they are being used makes this closer than in years past.

WRs Saints
Another close one. I went with the saints because of depth and bush. Henderson, Meachem, Colston, Shockey, Bush, D Thomas, Moore, even Heath Evans has a couple TDs catching. Harvin is special, Rice, Berrian, Shiancoe, Taylor, and even Peterson is catching more this year. It's nice but not as deep to me.

Oline Saints
Again they are right there. I wanted to go with the Vikings by names but If you look at it Saints rush for more and have allowed fewer sacks that's hard to ignore.

Dline Vikes
This is the first one that's not close. Saints aren't bad here Smith is quietly having a very good year, but Vikes are otherworldly. They have possibley the best rusher in the game to go with another good rusher and two probowl DTs. There isnt' a better D line in football.

LB Core Vikes
I think a lot of this is because of the Dline but the LBs get to play clean and free often. I'd take Henderson over Vilma and Greenway over Harper.

Secondary Saints
I like Cedrick Griffin a lot but this is because of Sharper. Sharpers big plays have won them games. He leads on the field and seems to be the difference along with Williams in the D this year.

Special Teams Vikes
Another one where it's not as close. Saints have a good return game but it's not Harvin. Vikes are better on kick and punt returns. Longwell is almost perfect. Carney is not. Vikes finish this route in the punting game. More than double the punts in the twenty in (11 more kicks so the avg is 25% to 21%) and a higher net avg

5 for the saints 4 for the Vikes

So that's why I say saints win this game six out of ten times.

When the Saints win it's because they score quick and get the ball out of Petersons hands and force Farve to become the farve of old. They also win because they have the ability control the ball with the run if necesary and keep brees on his feet enough

When the Vikes win it's because of the two areas they dominate the Saints in Dline and Special teams. They get to Brees, they stuff the run and they get some points from special teams.

Seriously almost every single one of these is close and if anyone disagrees I couldn't blame them an arguement could be made for either way in most of these catagories.

[BigBenCan7]

The Saints would win, and it wouldn't even be close.

[Sascha]

this is a hard game to pick and I hope we see it on the field. It looks like we will and if it's in NO like it looks like it will be and for the NFC Championship I don't see how the Saints loose.

I'll break it down in a few places where I think each team has the edge. This assuming no home field.

Coaching Saints
I think the Vikes staff is doing a great job but Paytons playcalling with Williams Bend don't break D is special. The D isn't even that good really but like the Rams Warner and Faulk the offense gets teams off there game and out of thier plan. Also when it comes time to make a big play or stop the D has been there to do it with nice calls and execution. Saints are also surprisingly #1 in yds because of balance. fourth in pass and fifth in rushing. It would be easy to let it fly with this team but they control the games and the balance is a big reason they haven't lost.

QB Saints
Again this is not a knock on Farve he is having one of the best seasons of his carrer and that says somthing. Brees is in such control of that offense and has so many weapons he's seemingly unstoppable. Farve has the edge on protecting the ball.

RBs Vikes
Even with the stable of backs the Vikes have and assuming they are all healthy Peterson, Taylor wins. Again no run aways here. The combination of talents between bush, bell, Thomas combined with how they are being used makes this closer than in years past.

WRs Saints
Another close one. I went with the saints because of depth and bush. Henderson, Meachem, Colston, Shockey, Bush, D Thomas, Moore, even Heath Evans has a couple TDs catching. Harvin is special, Rice, Berrian, Shiancoe, Taylor, and even Peterson is catching more this year. It's nice but not as deep to me.

Oline Saints
Again they are right there. I wanted to go with the Vikings by names but If you look at it Saints rush for more and have allowed fewer sacks that's hard to ignore.

Dline Vikes
This is the first one that's not close. Saints aren't bad here Smith is quietly having a very good year, but Vikes are otherworldly. They have possibley the best rusher in the game to go with another good rusher and two probowl DTs. There isnt' a better D line in football.

LB Core Vikes
I think a lot of this is because of the Dline but the LBs get to play clean and free often. I'd take Henderson over Vilma and Greenway over Harper.

Secondary Saints
I like Cedrick Griffin a lot but this is because of Sharper. Sharpers big plays have won them games. He leads on the field and seems to be the difference along with Williams in the D this year.

Special Teams Vikes
Another one where it's not as close. Saints have a good return game but it's not Harvin. Vikes are better on kick and punt returns. Longwell is almost perfect. Carney is not. Vikes finish this route in the punting game. More than double the punts in the twenty in (11 more kicks so the avg is 25% to 21%) and a higher net avg

5 for the saints 4 for the Vikes

So that's why I say saints win this game six out of ten times.

When the Saints win it's because they score quick and get the ball out of Petersons hands and force Farve to become the farve of old. They also win because they have the ability control the ball with the run if necesary and keep brees on his feet enough

When the Vikes win it's because of the two areas they dominate the Saints in Dline and Special teams. They get to Brees, they stuff the run and they get some points from special teams.

Seriously almost every single one of these is close and if anyone disagrees I couldn't blame them an arguement could be made for either way in most of these catagories.


I don't really disagree with this, except for at this point I might make QB a push. But I just don't like comparisons like this. FAvre and Brees aren't playing against each other, it's a lot more telling to compare them to the other teams' defense, and so on. The only comparisons that make some sense are coaches and special teams.

[Eric2407]

The Saints would win, and it wouldn't even be close.You're just a hater.

[BigBenCan7]

You're just a hater.

Hopefully we'll get to see in the NFCCG.

[BigBenCan7]

You're just a hater.

:lol2:

You were saying?

[|(evin|(olb|(ritik]

I don't know why everybody wants to lump the Vikings in with the Saints. I know they've played well and have at times looked like a powerhouse but I don't consider them on the same level. I think the Saints would roll over the Vikes like they have so many other good teams this season.

Furthemore, people are starting to talk about this matchup as if its almost a predestined meeting in the NFCCG. I can see the Saints rolling right through the playoffs and into the NFCCG because they look nearly unbeatable, the Vikes however I don't see that way. I see the Vikes as VERY beatable by many of the good NFC teams. If they run into Philly, Dallas, GB, or Arizona in the playoffs I could see any of those teams dropping them, I can't say the same for New Orleans.

[jjflr]

eh, i don't think the vikes match-up well with the saints. if a team can neutralize the vikings d-line, which the saints could since they have one of the best o-lines in the business, brees can pick apart any defense, even the vikes.

[BigBenCan7]

Now everyone comes out of the woodwork to say that the Vikings aren't nearly as good as the Saints.

[jjflr]

Now everyone comes out of the woodwork to say that the Vikings aren't nearly as good as the Saints.

eh, i'm not sure what anyone else has said about the vikes but i haven't been stroking them as world beaters this season. i've tried to give them credit when i see them doing good things but i'm trying to be realistic. in fact, it may not have been here, but i was pretty much downplaying them about a month ago because they really hadn't beaten anyone of substance. They have an incredibly easy schedule. They are 7-0 against losing teams but they are only 3-2 against teams with .500 or better records and 2 of those wins are against the Packers when they weren't playing as well and may have just been emotionally charged victories....... who knows.

compare that to the saints, who have played 6 games against teams that are .500 or better, and are 6-0 and have embarassed some of them..........

in my mind, if the vikings and saints played today and both teams played like they have on average this season, the saints would be the heavy favorites.

[Sascha]

Gee, the Vikes lost a game, and the Saints didn't, but should have. Now all of a sudden they're in separate leagues?


I think the Saints can be better, but I also think a healthy Viking defense can slow them some. I still remember what the Bills and Jets were able to do to Brees. Problem for Minnesota is not having that healthy defense, with Winfield and Griffin banged up in the secondary and now Henderson at LB.


If ALL the Vikes defense can bring to the table were the two to meet up is the D-line, I still give them a fighter's chance, but I would pick the Saints by 10+.

[BigBenCan7]

Gee, the Vikes lost a game, and the Saints didn't, but should have. Now all of a sudden they're in separate leagues?


I think the Saints can be better, but I also think a healthy Viking defense can slow them some. I still remember what the Bills and Jets were able to do to Brees. Problem for Minnesota is not having that healthy defense, with Winfield and Griffin banged up in the secondary and now Henderson at LB.


If ALL the Vikes defense can bring to the table were the two to meet up is the D-line, I still give them a fighter's chance, but I would pick the Saints by 10+.

Well I've been saying that for a while, and yes, this week helped prove it. Those two games aren't nearly as similar as you make them out to be. The Vikings were completely dominated by the Cardinals, who truly aren't that impressive. The Saints should have lost, but that was still a much closer game, granted against a worse opponent.

Overlooking a team is far better than being dominated by a playoff team in your conference. The Saints will kill the Skins 9 out of 10 times, but the Cardinals were just better than the Vikings, just as the 49ers were, and the Steelers were. Look at the games that the Saints have treated as a playoff game, and I believe most are blow outs over contenders, can the same be said about the Vikings when they play real competition? Are the 49ers and Steelers even "real competition"?

[|(evin|(olb|(ritik]

Now everyone comes out of the woodwork to say that the Vikings aren't nearly as good as the Saints.

Sorry, I didn't realize you were looking for backup in here or I would have come sooner.

Its a good coincidence, but it is exactly that in my case. I've always felt that the Vikes didn't belong in the same conversation with the Saints and was thinking about coming in here sooner to say exactly that but for some reason this topic doesn't appeal to me much. Probably because I look at it as ridiculous for reasons previously stated. I'm hearing it all over the place as if people are writing the Vikings into the NFCCG and I just don't buy it, I see them as very beatable by more than a couple of playoff caliber teams in the NFC and as such they shouldn't be written into anything.

[Dan]

We'd see that Drew Brees is clearly the better QB no matter how much ESPN kisses Favre's butt lol (although they've been known to kiss Brees' butt too)

[Eric2407]

Thought it'd be appropriate to bump this back up now.

[Texecutioner]

Thought it'd be appropriate to bump this back up now.

Funny how I remember a bunch of posters chastising you and the Vikings organization for even thinking of bringing Favre into the mix in the off season and talked about how stupid they would be for that and how it wouldn't even help the Vikings much. I remember some people even stating that Sage might be the better option. Lol!


People have been hating on the Vikings all season long because of Favre mainly. No one wants to admit how wrong they were for saying that he should have retired for the last 5 seasons. So many people called his last season in GB an "aberration" season and stuff like that as if it happened on accident or something which was so freaking ridiculous. Now Favre's had arguably the best season in the NFL as far as QB's go and the Vikings are in the NFC championship. Favre's also had his season of his career as far as INT's go in which everyone said he would gun sling his way into a ton of INT's and a collapse of the offense where the running game would be ignored. I wish some of these folks would have least display enough nerve to come forward and admit that they were wrong.

[Eric2407]

People just love hating on the Vikings. I still remember when they were saying we gave up too much for Jared Allen.

[Texecutioner]

People just love hating on the Vikings. I still remember when they were saying we gave up too much for Jared Allen.

I wouldn't really say that it's a VIkings thing really. But whomever said that they gave up to much for Allen was crazy. He's the best player in the league at his position.

I think right now though, a lot of people are hating on the Vikings because Favre is there and people want the guy to fail.

[Sascha]

I wouldn't really say that it's a VIkings thing really. But whomever said that they gave up to much for Allen was crazy. He's the best player in the league at his position.

I think right now though, a lot of people are hating on the Vikings because Favre is there and people want the guy to fail.

Well, remember that the people that said anything about how much the Vikes gave up for Allen, only did so because of his personal issues, certainly not his ability on the football field. The man was a known terror, self admittedly, for his tenure in KC, so it was a reasonable thing to say when the Vikes made a move for him, not Viking hate.

[Dan]

I still think the Saints are the better team and Brees is the better QB

[TexecutedInTampa]

I still think the Saints are the better team and Brees is the better QB

Yes and yes.

Still waiting for the network to show a complete montage of Brett's postseason resume. Not the cherry-picked one where he won his one SB. 13 years ago.

[Dan]

Yes and yes.

Still waiting for the network to show a complete montage of Brett's postseason resume. Not the cherry-picked one where he won his one SB. 13 years ago.

Well that wouldn't support their claim that Favre is the greatest QB ever. I people would realize Favre is the 3rd best QB left in the playoffs

[Texecutioner]

Well that wouldn't support their claim that Favre is the greatest QB ever. I people would realize Favre is the 3rd best QB left in the playoffs

It's arguable to say that he's been the best of the 3 left in the playoffs. I'm not saying that's the case for sure, but it's very arguable if you compare the seasons that all 3 QB's have had. Going into this season Favre had what was considered the worst WR core to throw to out of all them as well that he had no previous chemistry with at all.

[BigBenCan7]

It's arguable to say that he's been the best of the 3 left in the playoffs. I'm not saying that's the case for sure, but it's very arguable if you compare the seasons that all 3 QB's have had. Going into this season Favre had what was considered the worst WR core to throw to out of all them as well that he had no previous chemistry with at all.

Going into the season he also had one of the best defenses, offensive lines, and running backs in the NFL as well, so the team argument is hardly one that applies here.

There is no one that could persuade me that Favre is on the level that Peyton and Brees were this season. Favre did a great job of throwing a bunch of passes under 10 yards past the line of scrimmage and racked up some pretty numbers, but he did not do anything like what Manning and Brees did this year. It's easy to have a high completion percentage and TD:INT ratio when all you're doing is nickel and diming the defense down the field. Childress has got a great game plan for Brett, run AD, dump it off to AD/Chester, and hope that it opens up a big play or two for Sidney Rice. It's worked great for them, but it doesn't make Favre a better quarterback than the other two.

[Texecutioner]

Going into the season he also had one of the best defenses, offensive lines, and running backs in the NFL as well, so the team argument is hardly one that applies here.

It completely applies here. He went to a completely different team for heaven's sake. Don't sit here and tell me that it isn't any sort of factor at all. Take your Favre bias hatred away at some point.


There is no one that could persuade me that Favre is on the level that Peyton and Brees were this season.

Of course there isn't, especially when you hate the guy and have bashed him as long as you have. You won't even allow yourself to to think he had a remarkable season even though many analysts and commentators have said this is one of his best seasons of his career and he's going to be a HOFer.


Favre did a great job of throwing a bunch of passes under 10 yards past the line of scrimmage and racked up some pretty numbers, but he did not do anything like what Manning and Brees did this year.

Not only did he have a record just about as good as Brees did, but he took what many thought were garbage WR's and had a fantastic statistical season with them and also had some great game winning drives. One of them which was more impressive than any game winning drive either one of them have had in their entire career which was one of the best throws to win a game that any QB has ever made in the history of the NFL.

Honestly to sit here and say that he didn't do anything like what Manning and Brees did when their win and loss totals were as close as they were and their stats were as good as they were, some of which was better in Favre's favor makes you lose all credibility on this subject. They all had great seasons. To say that he didn't do anything like what they did is ridiculous. But keep the Favre bias going BBC.


It's easy to have a high completion percentage and TD:INT ratio when all you're doing is nickel and diming the defense down the field. Childress has got a great game plan for Brett, run AD, dump it off to AD/Chester, and hope that it opens up a big play or two for Sidney Rice. It's worked great for them, but it doesn't make Favre a better quarterback than the other two.

Did you watch any freaking Vikings games at all this season? He threw plenty of long balls, and two of which were on game winning drives in two separate games. And are you that ridiculous on this, that you're going to sit here and say that "Chester Taylor" of all people was a big reason for his success when he was hardly used this season? And so now all of a sudden Favre can't get any credit because he's got a really good RB and he utilizes the play action? Every freaking QB in the league utilizes play action, so stop it already. That's one of the worst arguments I've ever heard to try and take away a QB's success. He's been a great play action QB his entire career. I mean, it's not like plenty of all time greats have had that in their favor like Elway, Manning, Montana, Aikman, and plenty of others. I guess Manning shouldn't get much credit either for all those seasons he had with James in the backfield. James must have been the only reason why Manning ever got some long balls thrown to Harrison and Wayne. Oh, but wait Favre just threw 10 yard passes down the field all year. Lol!

And I never said that he had a better season. I said that it's arguable and it is. To say that it's not even up for question, well go ahead and just say you hate the guy and you won't give him any credit for anything so we can call this what it is. You sound about as silly as the people who have bashed your boy Big Ben in the past and acted like he's not that great of a QB because he never put up great stats and refused to look at many of his other intangibles and late game drives.

[Dan]

The way I look at it, the Vikings were about the same this year as last year without Favre, but the Jets were a lot better this year without Favre than last year with him

[TexecutedInTampa]

The way I look at it, the Vikings were about the same this year as last year without Favre, but the Jets were a lot better this year without Favre than last year with him

Great point. Last year the Jets started 8-3? Then finished 1-4.

Great gunslinging, no playoffs....and of course no coverage.

[Sascha]

Not only did he have a record just about as good as Brees did, but he took what many thought were garbage WR's and had a fantastic statistical season with them and also had some great game winning drives.

The only thing I kinda take exception to here. Where are all the garbage receivers you speak of? Berrien has always produced when with a good QB, Harvin was a rookie, so unproven. Shiancoe was already rising into the top half of starting TE's in the league, and Chester Taylor is one of the better receivers in any backfield. I think the only guy you can tag with the "garbage receiver" claim was Rice. And yes, his transformation was incredible to see, and I will certainly credit Favre for most of it, but we have seen previous receivers that haven't gotten it until that third season.


Great point. Last year the Jets started 8-3? Then finished 1-4.

Great gunslinging, no playoffs....and of course no coverage.

Two things about last years' Jets though. They didn't have Rex calling the shots on defense, and Brett did have a legitimate injury at the end of the year.

[BigBenCan7]

[]It completely applies here. He went to a completely different team for heaven's sake. Don't sit here and tell me that it isn't any sort of factor at all. Take your Favre bias hatred away at some point. [/B

Where did I say any of that wasn't a factor? Stop jumping to such ridiculous conclusions like you always do.

You act as if Brett was carrying these guys when in actuality this team has a ton of talent around Favre, seven Pro Bowlers, I believe. I mean Jesus, people want to talk about Sanchez relying on his team, he has a lot less talent around him than Brett does. That's not to say that he's done more than Brett, but just because Drew Brees has a talented team around him doesn't mean Brett's isn't just as good. I mean are you going to sit there and tell me that Pierre Thomas, Devery Henderson, Marques Colston, and Lance Moore are more dangerous than Adrian Peterson, Bernard Berrian, Sidney Rice, and Percy Harvin?




No one thought those guys were garbage receivers. Bernard Berrian had a decrease in his numbers this season, and guys like Percy Harvin and Sidney Rice were known to have a lot of potential. Completing a desperation heave that he admittedly didn't even know who he threw it to is hardly proof that he is consistently making plays down the field.


[BHonestly to sit here and say that he didn't do anything like what Manning and Brees did when their win and loss totals were as close as they were and their stats were as good as they were, some of which was better in Favre's favor makes you lose all credibility on this subject. They all had great seasons. To say that he didn't do anything like what they did is ridiculous. But keep the Favre bias going BBC.

Sorry, but what Favre did was not on the level of Brees or Manning. When you watch the latter two play the game, you can see that the offense is consistently relying on them to make throws downfield if they have any hope to move the football. Favre is simply asked to manage the offense (which everyone said he was going to do prior to the season, even Vikings fans), dink and dunk down the field, and put one of those pretty punts he puts on the sideline so that Rice can make a play on it. He has made some beautiful throws and certainly proved that he can still win games, but that does not mean that he has done what Peyton and Drew did this year.

I'm not saying that he had some terrible year like you make it out to be, I'm just saying that just because he had a good year doesn't mean he did the same thing as the other guys that had good years. To me, Peyton and Brees were the two best quarterbacks this year, and Brett and Rivers were still good, but were not in the same league as the other two.


[BDid you watch any freaking Vikings games at all this season? He threw plenty of long balls, and two of which were on game winning drives in two separate games. And are you that ridiculous on this, that you're going to sit here and say that "Chester Taylor" of all people was a big reason for his success when he was hardly used this season? And so now all of a sudden Favre can't get any credit because he's got a really good RB and he utilizes the play action? Every freaking QB in the league utilizes play action, so stop it already. That's one of the worst arguments I've ever heard to try and take away a QB's success. He's been a great play action QB his entire career. I mean, it's not like plenty of all time greats have had that in their favor like Elway, Manning, Montana, Aikman, and plenty of others. I guess Manning shouldn't get much credit either for all those seasons he had with James in the backfield. James must have been the only reason why Manning ever got some long balls thrown to Harrison and Wayne. Oh, but wait Favre just threw 10 yard passes down the field all year. Lol!

Man, you are just so inaccurate, where do I start? First, I watched several Vikings game this season, one of which was live. Second, again, your silly notion that completing one pass at the end of the game to win it somehow legitimizes and entire season's worth of playing time is ridiculous. He threw 531 passes this year Tex, and you act like two of them completely solidifies your argument. Third, I never once mentioned play action, I was talking about the fact that he throws short passes and relies on his HB's and speedy receivers to gain YAC yardage and force the secondary up. And fourth, yes, Chester Taylor, are you sure you've watched the Vikings this year? He contributed just as much as Adrian Peterson did to the passing game. Speaking of AD, did you know that his receptions total doubled this season? It seems like something must have changed to focus the passing attack more to the running backs...


And I never said that he had a better season. I said that it's arguable and it is. To say that it's not even up for question, well go ahead and just say you hate the guy and you won't give him any credit for anything so we can call this what it is. You sound about as silly as the people who have bashed your boy Big Ben in the past and acted like he's not that great of a QB because he never put up great stats and refused to look at many of his other intangibles and late game drives. [/B]

Uhhhm no, I sound just as rational as the guy that says Ben is a good quarterback because there is more to football than just statistics. If you look past a stat line and actually look at how it's being made, you might learn something about the player.

[Texecutioner]

The only thing I kinda take exception to here. Where are all the garbage receivers you speak of? Berrien has always produced when with a good QB, Harvin was a rookie, so unproven. Shiancoe was already rising into the top half of starting TE's in the league, and Chester Taylor is one of the better receivers in any backfield. I think the only guy you can tag with the "garbage receiver" claim was Rice. And yes, his transformation was incredible to see, and I will certainly credit Favre for most of it, but we have seen previous receivers that haven't gotten it until that third season.

This is fair. Berrian had been pretty good. That is true. However, Berrian hasn't been a big part of this offense this year. He's been hurt for a great deal of the season, so I'm not sure how significant his presence really is in this discussion. And Harvin was just a rookie that hardly even ran traditional routes in college. Many thought that he might struggle some. There is no question in my mind that he wouldn't have done as well had he been on a different team unless he was playing with guys like Manning, Brees, Rodgers, or someone like that possibly.

I doubt that Rice would have done much with another QB. He might have improved, but a QB can make such a huge difference. And Favre has made average WR's look better his entire career. He's always done that. That's one of the things that made him such a great QB all of these years is how consistent he's been able to be with so many different sets of WR's that he's gone through.

The way BBC credits other QB's for great seasons, and acts like Favre's was so far from theirs simply is not true and in reality he had his mind made up before the season ever started that he wouldn't credit Favre no matter how well he could have played. He was also one of the guys that said that Favre's last season in GB was an abberation and he couldn't do something like that again, so now he's trying to credit the Vikings team and act like it was more of just them helping Favre than the other way around. Certain fans do that all of the time when they hate a player. I just don't understand why certain people who post a lot of their opinions about stuff like this can't simply own up when they've been dead wrong and admit it. There was a ton of folks bashing Favre and saying he couldn't hold up for the whole season and that he couldn't play nearly like the old Favre and all sorts of stuff. Give the 40 year old man his due. He's been sensational this season, and most people didn't think he could.




Two things about last years' Jets though. They didn't have Rex calling the shots on defense, and Brett did have a legitimate injury at the end of the year.

Not only that, Brett's WR's were playing awful at the end of the season and dropping everything. Coles was a disgrace in the last half of the season and Cotchery's never exactly measured up to the hype that he could be a #1 WR either. He didn't really have any great weapons to throw to. Keller was his best weapon and this was also with mangini running that team.