What team do you think has the most potential, but simply isn't playing the way you thought they would?
(Don't include teams with injuries, since in all reality, that isn't anyones fault)
I'd obviously say the Raiders. Fantastic players on the offensive side of the ball. Solid run defense, okay pass defense. But the offense has been sub-par and the defense can never get off the field as a result. In short, they're more like the Silver and Bleak.
Patriots.
They have the talent, but they are not able to mesh together properly.
Hopefully the bye-week will wake a few people the **** up.
Yes we're all looking at you Duane Starks. You make Otis Smith look like ****ing Ty Law!111
I'll go with the Lions offense, just the offense. WeazelMan311
That's iffy, dude....despite what he says, Joey is not a good football player.
[QUOTE="WeazelMan311"]I'll go with the Lions offense, just the offense. VanHalun040604
That's iffy, dude....despite what he says, Joey is not a good football player.
I would say the Packers but since they have like 8 starters that are injured and are the reason why the team is lacking success, I would say the Vikings. There is no reason why they should be playing this horribly other than the fact that they are not playing as a team. I never thought I would see the day when the Bears and the Lions lead the NFC North division.Toucanbird
The NFC is really no different from the NL in the MLB. Some of the teams win a lot of games, but at the end of the day, the majority of those that finish with a winning record still suck. The Astros finish with a great record but then can't even win ONE game of the World Series. Same with the Cards a year ago. In the NFL, the Vikings are a sham and the Packers (of old) fit the perfect description of an NFC team. They had a couple key players where they were able to dominate their crappy conference and finish with stellar records at the end of the season, but really never amounted to anything. They never should have been expected to do so at any time, either. One Super Bowl and all of a sudden Favre's a legend. :roll: Right...
By the way, get used to seeing the Bears dominate the division. It'll be like that for about the next four-five years...
[QUOTE="Toucanbird"]I would say the Packers but since they have like 8 starters that are injured and are the reason why the team is lacking success, I would say the Vikings. There is no reason why they should be playing this horribly other than the fact that they are not playing as a team. I never thought I would see the day when the Bears and the Lions lead the NFC North division.VanHalun040604
The NFC is really no different from the NL in the MLB. Some of the teams win a lot of games, but at the end of the day, the majority of those that finish with a winning record still suck. The Astros finish with a great record but then can't even win ONE game of the World Series. Same with the Cards a year ago. In the NFL, the Vikings are a sham and the Packers (of old) fit the perfect description of an NFC team. They had a couple key players where they were able to dominate their crappy conference and finish with stellar records at the end of the season, but really never amounted to anything. They never should have been expected to do so at any time, either. One Super Bowl and all of a sudden Favre's a legend. :roll: Right...
By the way, get used to seeing the Bears dominate the division. It'll be like that for about the next four-five years...
vanhalun, as much as you hate to admit it, Brett Favre IS a legend. Look at John Elway. He's one of the greatest QBs of all-time and he didn't win a Super Bowl until his last two years. So are you saying that if John Elway would have retired two years sooner, he would NOT be a legend? There's something really messed up with that logic vanhalun.
Okay vanhalun, I've got a question for you. Is Rich Gannon a legendary QB? I just want to see your input on this.
I want to know because he won what one MVP award and has been to how many Super Bowls again? That's right, none.
With that being said Favre has won 3 MVP awards, been to two super bowls, won one, and the one he lost was to who again, that's right John Elway. He also holds many 2nd and 3rd place stat records and is catching up on Dan Marino.
So, what were you saying vanhalun? Brett Favre's NOT a legendary QB? I think you overlooked something, and don't go with the whole Brett Favre's overrated thing because success doesn't lie.
[QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"]I would say the Packers but since they have like 8 starters that are injured and are the reason why the team is lacking success, I would say the Vikings. There is no reason why they should be playing this horribly other than the fact that they are not playing as a team. I never thought I would see the day when the Bears and the Lions lead the NFC North division.Toucanbird
The NFC is really no different from the NL in the MLB. Some of the teams win a lot of games, but at the end of the day, the majority of those that finish with a winning record still suck. The Astros finish with a great record but then can't even win ONE game of the World Series. Same with the Cards a year ago. In the NFL, the Vikings are a sham and the Packers (of old) fit the perfect description of an NFC team. They had a couple key players where they were able to dominate their crappy conference and finish with stellar records at the end of the season, but really never amounted to anything. They never should have been expected to do so at any time, either. One Super Bowl and all of a sudden Favre's a legend. :roll: Right...
By the way, get used to seeing the Bears dominate the division. It'll be like that for about the next four-five years...
vanhalun, as much as you hate to admit it, Brett Favre IS a legend. Look at John Elway. He's one of the greatest QBs of all-time and he didn't win a Super Bowl until his last two years. So are you saying that if John Elway would have retired two years sooner, he would NOT be a legend? There's something really messed up with that logic vanhalun.
Okay vanhalun, I've got a question for you. Is Rich Gannon a legendary QB? I just want to see your input on this.
I want to know because he won what one MVP award and has been to how many Super Bowls again? That's right, none.
With that being said Favre has won 3 MVP awards, been to two super bowls, won one, and the one he lost was to who again, that's right John Elway. He also holds many 2nd and 3rd place stat records and is catching up on Dan Marino.
So, what were you saying vanhalun? Brett Favre's NOT a legendary QB? I think you overlooked something, and don't go with the whole Brett Favre's overrated thing because success doesn't lie.
Rich was a journeyman quarterback who really didn't find his niche in the game of football until he joined the Raiders in 1999. If he would have started his career there instead of as a DB on the New England Patriots (originally), everyone might be at a general concensus as to his status in the annals of NFL history. Even if he would have won the Super Bowl against the Bucs in that magical 2002 season, he would still only be "great." He had a multitude of opprtounities and though it was never his entire fault, a Super Bowl victory never happened. So, no, he is certainly not legendary. Nor is Favre. And if Elway hadn't won those two Super Bowls, he wouldn't have been John Elway. He and Gannon were a lot alike...but the difference was that Elway essentially had a prolific career from start to finish and got it done TWICE in a row. I'm not saying that's the chief element that makes Favre "un-legendary," but it plays a role. Favre really only had a couple of choice seasons in the mid-90s and though he put up some pretty good numbers in his years, he's not much different from Kurt Warner. Warner put together a couple great seasons but only got it done once. Any team in the NFL has had (and will have) the opprotunity to win at least ONE Super Bowl. I'm not saying they have to be the New England Patriots of the 00s, but you're not a legendary quarterback, if you don't win more than once in a decade. Period. Montana. Bradshaw. Elway. And, when his career is over, Brady. You MIGHT put Favre with Marino...but even Marino was a better quarterback than Favre without the one Super Bowl victory with all of the records he established. Legendary quarterbacks make their entire team better whether they're talented or not. Perhaps Favre did that the year he won, but an immeasureble number of quarterbacks in the NFL would be considered legendary--by your standards--if they won ONE Super Bowl. Brett Favre is (was, and will always be considered) a great quarterback when you look at the numbers he put up in additon to that one Super Bowl victory. Not legendary. Great.
[QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"]I would say the Packers but since they have like 8 starters that are injured and are the reason why the team is lacking success, I would say the Vikings. There is no reason why they should be playing this horribly other than the fact that they are not playing as a team. I never thought I would see the day when the Bears and the Lions lead the NFC North division.VanHalun040604
The NFC is really no different from the NL in the MLB. Some of the teams win a lot of games, but at the end of the day, the majority of those that finish with a winning record still suck. The Astros finish with a great record but then can't even win ONE game of the World Series. Same with the Cards a year ago. In the NFL, the Vikings are a sham and the Packers (of old) fit the perfect description of an NFC team. They had a couple key players where they were able to dominate their crappy conference and finish with stellar records at the end of the season, but really never amounted to anything. They never should have been expected to do so at any time, either. One Super Bowl and all of a sudden Favre's a legend. :roll: Right...
By the way, get used to seeing the Bears dominate the division. It'll be like that for about the next four-five years...
vanhalun, as much as you hate to admit it, Brett Favre IS a legend. Look at John Elway. He's one of the greatest QBs of all-time and he didn't win a Super Bowl until his last two years. So are you saying that if John Elway would have retired two years sooner, he would NOT be a legend? There's something really messed up with that logic vanhalun.
Okay vanhalun, I've got a question for you. Is Rich Gannon a legendary QB? I just want to see your input on this.
I want to know because he won what one MVP award and has been to how many Super Bowls again? That's right, none.
With that being said Favre has won 3 MVP awards, been to two super bowls, won one, and the one he lost was to who again, that's right John Elway. He also holds many 2nd and 3rd place stat records and is catching up on Dan Marino.
So, what were you saying vanhalun? Brett Favre's NOT a legendary QB? I think you overlooked something, and don't go with the whole Brett Favre's overrated thing because success doesn't lie.
Rich was a journeyman quarterback who really didn't find his niche in the game of football until he joined the Raiders in 1999. If he would have started his career there instead of as a DB on the New England Patriots (originally), everyone might be at a general concensus as to his status in the annals of NFL history. Even if he would have won the Super Bowl against the Bucs in that magical 2002 season, he would still only be "great." He had a multitude of opprtounities and though it was never his entire fault, a Super Bowl victory never happened. So, no, he is certainly not legendary. Nor is Favre. And if Elway hadn't won those two Super Bowls, he wouldn't have been John Elway. He and Gannon were a lot alike...but the difference was that Elway essentially had a prolific career from start to finish and got it done TWICE in a row. I'm not saying that's the chief element that makes Favre "un-legendary," but it plays a role. Favre really only had a couple of choice seasons in the mid-90s and though he put up some pretty good numbers in his years, he's not much different from Kurt Warner. Warner put together a couple great seasons but only got it done once. Any team in the NFL has had (and will have) the opprotunity to win at least ONE Super Bowl. I'm not saying they have to be the New England Patriots of the 00s, but you're not a legendary quarterback, if you don't win more than once in a decade. Period. Montana. Bradshaw. Elway. And, when his career is over, Brady. You MIGHT put Favre with Marino...but even Marino was a better quarterback than Favre without the one Super Bowl victory with all of the records he established. Legendary quarterbacks make their entire team better whether they're talented or not. Perhaps Favre did that the year he won, but an immeasureble number of quarterbacks in the NFL would be considered legendary--by your standards--if they won ONE Super Bowl. Brett Favre is (was, and will always be considered) a great quarterback when you look at the numbers he put up in additon to that one Super Bowl victory. Not legendary. Great.
You know, this would make a great debate because both of us have different opinions about this and both of us have a good argument.
Does anyone else want to debate this?
[QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"]I would say the Packers but since they have like 8 starters that are injured and are the reason why the team is lacking success, I would say the Vikings. There is no reason why they should be playing this horribly other than the fact that they are not playing as a team. I never thought I would see the day when the Bears and the Lions lead the NFC North division.Toucanbird
The NFC is really no different from the NL in the MLB. Some of the teams win a lot of games, but at the end of the day, the majority of those that finish with a winning record still suck. The Astros finish with a great record but then can't even win ONE game of the World Series. Same with the Cards a year ago. In the NFL, the Vikings are a sham and the Packers (of old) fit the perfect description of an NFC team. They had a couple key players where they were able to dominate their crappy conference and finish with stellar records at the end of the season, but really never amounted to anything. They never should have been expected to do so at any time, either. One Super Bowl and all of a sudden Favre's a legend. :roll: Right...
By the way, get used to seeing the Bears dominate the division. It'll be like that for about the next four-five years...
vanhalun, as much as you hate to admit it, Brett Favre IS a legend. Look at John Elway. He's one of the greatest QBs of all-time and he didn't win a Super Bowl until his last two years. So are you saying that if John Elway would have retired two years sooner, he would NOT be a legend? There's something really messed up with that logic vanhalun.
Okay vanhalun, I've got a question for you. Is Rich Gannon a legendary QB? I just want to see your input on this.
I want to know because he won what one MVP award and has been to how many Super Bowls again? That's right, none.
With that being said Favre has won 3 MVP awards, been to two super bowls, won one, and the one he lost was to who again, that's right John Elway. He also holds many 2nd and 3rd place stat records and is catching up on Dan Marino.
So, what were you saying vanhalun? Brett Favre's NOT a legendary QB? I think you overlooked something, and don't go with the whole Brett Favre's overrated thing because success doesn't lie.
Rich was a journeyman quarterback who really didn't find his niche in the game of football until he joined the Raiders in 1999. If he would have started his career there instead of as a DB on the New England Patriots (originally), everyone might be at a general concensus as to his status in the annals of NFL history. Even if he would have won the Super Bowl against the Bucs in that magical 2002 season, he would still only be "great." He had a multitude of opprtounities and though it was never his entire fault, a Super Bowl victory never happened. So, no, he is certainly not legendary. Nor is Favre. And if Elway hadn't won those two Super Bowls, he wouldn't have been John Elway. He and Gannon were a lot alike...but the difference was that Elway essentially had a prolific career from start to finish and got it done TWICE in a row. I'm not saying that's the chief element that makes Favre "un-legendary," but it plays a role. Favre really only had a couple of choice seasons in the mid-90s and though he put up some pretty good numbers in his years, he's not much different from Kurt Warner. Warner put together a couple great seasons but only got it done once. Any team in the NFL has had (and will have) the opprotunity to win at least ONE Super Bowl. I'm not saying they have to be the New England Patriots of the 00s, but you're not a legendary quarterback, if you don't win more than once in a decade. Period. Montana. Bradshaw. Elway. And, when his career is over, Brady. You MIGHT put Favre with Marino...but even Marino was a better quarterback than Favre without the one Super Bowl victory with all of the records he established. Legendary quarterbacks make their entire team better whether they're talented or not. Perhaps Favre did that the year he won, but an immeasureble number of quarterbacks in the NFL would be considered legendary--by your standards--if they won ONE Super Bowl. Brett Favre is (was, and will always be considered) a great quarterback when you look at the numbers he put up in additon to that one Super Bowl victory. Not legendary. Great.
You know, this would make a great debate because both of us have different opinions about this and both of us have a good argument.
Does anyone else want to debate this?
There really is no debate. There's people in the media and fans who have misconstrewed opinons of Brett Favre. He's overrated; it's as simple as that. By the way, thanks for responding to my argument, dude...
[QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"]I would say the Packers but since they have like 8 starters that are injured and are the reason why the team is lacking success, I would say the Vikings. There is no reason why they should be playing this horribly other than the fact that they are not playing as a team. I never thought I would see the day when the Bears and the Lions lead the NFC North division.VanHalun040604
The NFC is really no different from the NL in the MLB. Some of the teams win a lot of games, but at the end of the day, the majority of those that finish with a winning record still suck. The Astros finish with a great record but then can't even win ONE game of the World Series. Same with the Cards a year ago. In the NFL, the Vikings are a sham and the Packers (of old) fit the perfect description of an NFC team. They had a couple key players where they were able to dominate their crappy conference and finish with stellar records at the end of the season, but really never amounted to anything. They never should have been expected to do so at any time, either. One Super Bowl and all of a sudden Favre's a legend. :roll: Right...
By the way, get used to seeing the Bears dominate the division. It'll be like that for about the next four-five years...
vanhalun, as much as you hate to admit it, Brett Favre IS a legend. Look at John Elway. He's one of the greatest QBs of all-time and he didn't win a Super Bowl until his last two years. So are you saying that if John Elway would have retired two years sooner, he would NOT be a legend? There's something really messed up with that logic vanhalun.
Okay vanhalun, I've got a question for you. Is Rich Gannon a legendary QB? I just want to see your input on this.
I want to know because he won what one MVP award and has been to how many Super Bowls again? That's right, none.
With that being said Favre has won 3 MVP awards, been to two super bowls, won one, and the one he lost was to who again, that's right John Elway. He also holds many 2nd and 3rd place stat records and is catching up on Dan Marino.
So, what were you saying vanhalun? Brett Favre's NOT a legendary QB? I think you overlooked something, and don't go with the whole Brett Favre's overrated thing because success doesn't lie.
Rich was a journeyman quarterback who really didn't find his niche in the game of football until he joined the Raiders in 1999. If he would have started his career there instead of as a DB on the New England Patriots (originally), everyone might be at a general concensus as to his status in the annals of NFL history. Even if he would have won the Super Bowl against the Bucs in that magical 2002 season, he would still only be "great." He had a multitude of opprtounities and though it was never his entire fault, a Super Bowl victory never happened. So, no, he is certainly not legendary. Nor is Favre. And if Elway hadn't won those two Super Bowls, he wouldn't have been John Elway. He and Gannon were a lot alike...but the difference was that Elway essentially had a prolific career from start to finish and got it done TWICE in a row. I'm not saying that's the chief element that makes Favre "un-legendary," but it plays a role. Favre really only had a couple of choice seasons in the mid-90s and though he put up some pretty good numbers in his years, he's not much different from Kurt Warner. Warner put together a couple great seasons but only got it done once. Any team in the NFL has had (and will have) the opprotunity to win at least ONE Super Bowl. I'm not saying they have to be the New England Patriots of the 00s, but you're not a legendary quarterback, if you don't win more than once in a decade. Period. Montana. Bradshaw. Elway. And, when his career is over, Brady. You MIGHT put Favre with Marino...but even Marino was a better quarterback than Favre without the one Super Bowl victory with all of the records he established. Legendary quarterbacks make their entire team better whether they're talented or not. Perhaps Favre did that the year he won, but an immeasureble number of quarterbacks in the NFL would be considered legendary--by your standards--if they won ONE Super Bowl. Brett Favre is (was, and will always be considered) a great quarterback when you look at the numbers he put up in additon to that one Super Bowl victory. Not legendary. Great.
You know, this would make a great debate because both of us have different opinions about this and both of us have a good argument.
Does anyone else want to debate this?
There really is no debate. There's people in the media and fans who have misconstrewed opinons of Brett Favre. He's overrated; it's as simple as that. By the way, thanks for responding to my argument, dude...
vanhalun, you misunderstood me again. What I meant is "How do you classify "Legendary status" in the NFL?
Brett Favre? Overrated? Yeah, and I suppose Randy Moss is underrated. Give me a break vanhalun.
How can you call a class act great player like Brett Favre an "overrated player". He puts in great numbers year in and year out for the Packers, he leads them to winning seasons almost every season (except this one), and he best of all has fun out there.
How many QB's in the league have been known to tackle their wide receiver in the endzone after catching a TD? Not very many. It's just a shame that you don't see very many class act players in the NFL like Brett Favre. I would rather see Brett Favre in the media than that stupid Terrell Owens or Ricky Williams.
I don't see what argument you have that he's not a legendary QB? You may say he's overrated but you are one of a very small percent that would have the audacity to say something like that. I'm actually surprised to hear something like that from you since he is close friends with the Raiders own Warren Sapp.
[QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"]I would say the Packers but since they have like 8 starters that are injured and are the reason why the team is lacking success, I would say the Vikings. There is no reason why they should be playing this horribly other than the fact that they are not playing as a team. I never thought I would see the day when the Bears and the Lions lead the NFC North division.Toucanbird
The NFC is really no different from the NL in the MLB. Some of the teams win a lot of games, but at the end of the day, the majority of those that finish with a winning record still suck. The Astros finish with a great record but then can't even win ONE game of the World Series. Same with the Cards a year ago. In the NFL, the Vikings are a sham and the Packers (of old) fit the perfect description of an NFC team. They had a couple key players where they were able to dominate their crappy conference and finish with stellar records at the end of the season, but really never amounted to anything. They never should have been expected to do so at any time, either. One Super Bowl and all of a sudden Favre's a legend. :roll: Right...
By the way, get used to seeing the Bears dominate the division. It'll be like that for about the next four-five years...
vanhalun, as much as you hate to admit it, Brett Favre IS a legend. Look at John Elway. He's one of the greatest QBs of all-time and he didn't win a Super Bowl until his last two years. So are you saying that if John Elway would have retired two years sooner, he would NOT be a legend? There's something really messed up with that logic vanhalun.
Okay vanhalun, I've got a question for you. Is Rich Gannon a legendary QB? I just want to see your input on this.
I want to know because he won what one MVP award and has been to how many Super Bowls again? That's right, none.
With that being said Favre has won 3 MVP awards, been to two super bowls, won one, and the one he lost was to who again, that's right John Elway. He also holds many 2nd and 3rd place stat records and is catching up on Dan Marino.
So, what were you saying vanhalun? Brett Favre's NOT a legendary QB? I think you overlooked something, and don't go with the whole Brett Favre's overrated thing because success doesn't lie.
Rich was a journeyman quarterback who really didn't find his niche in the game of football until he joined the Raiders in 1999. If he would have started his career there instead of as a DB on the New England Patriots (originally), everyone might be at a general concensus as to his status in the annals of NFL history. Even if he would have won the Super Bowl against the Bucs in that magical 2002 season, he would still only be "great." He had a multitude of opprtounities and though it was never his entire fault, a Super Bowl victory never happened. So, no, he is certainly not legendary. Nor is Favre. And if Elway hadn't won those two Super Bowls, he wouldn't have been John Elway. He and Gannon were a lot alike...but the difference was that Elway essentially had a prolific career from start to finish and got it done TWICE in a row. I'm not saying that's the chief element that makes Favre "un-legendary," but it plays a role. Favre really only had a couple of choice seasons in the mid-90s and though he put up some pretty good numbers in his years, he's not much different from Kurt Warner. Warner put together a couple great seasons but only got it done once. Any team in the NFL has had (and will have) the opprotunity to win at least ONE Super Bowl. I'm not saying they have to be the New England Patriots of the 00s, but you're not a legendary quarterback, if you don't win more than once in a decade. Period. Montana. Bradshaw. Elway. And, when his career is over, Brady. You MIGHT put Favre with Marino...but even Marino was a better quarterback than Favre without the one Super Bowl victory with all of the records he established. Legendary quarterbacks make their entire team better whether they're talented or not. Perhaps Favre did that the year he won, but an immeasureble number of quarterbacks in the NFL would be considered legendary--by your standards--if they won ONE Super Bowl. Brett Favre is (was, and will always be considered) a great quarterback when you look at the numbers he put up in additon to that one Super Bowl victory. Not legendary. Great.
You know, this would make a great debate because both of us have different opinions about this and both of us have a good argument.
Does anyone else want to debate this?
There really is no debate. There's people in the media and fans who have misconstrewed opinons of Brett Favre. He's overrated; it's as simple as that. By the way, thanks for responding to my argument, dude...
vanhalun, you misunderstood me again. What I meant is "How do you classify "Legendary status" in the NFL?
Brett Favre? Overrated? Yeah, and I suppose Randy Moss is underrated. Give me a break vanhalun.
How can you call a class act great player like Brett Favre an "overrated player". He puts in great numbers year in and year out for the Packers, he leads them to winning seasons almost every season (except this one), and he best of all has fun out there.
How many QB's in the league have been known to tackle their wide receiver in the endzone after catching a TD? Not very many. It's just a shame that you don't see very many class act players in the NFL like Brett Favre. I would rather see Brett Favre in the media than that stupid Terrell Owens or Ricky Williams.
I don't see what argument you have that he's not a legendary QB? You may say he's overrated but you are one of a very small percent that would have the audacity to say something like that. I'm actually surprised to hear something like that from you since he is close friends with the Raiders own Warren Sapp.
He is overrated. That doesn't mean he's a bad player; I'm not saying that. Brett Favre is a great quarterback. But the media and ignorant fans (like yourself) blow him up to gargantuan proportions and say he's a "LEGEND." He's not...Terry, Joe, John, Tom, Troy, etc. all led DYNASTIES. If you didn't lead a dynasty, you should not and generally are not considered a legendary quarterback. Why don't we call every quarterback that won a Super Bowl legends? Because they aren't. Sure he broke a lot of records, but in 20 years, most young QBs today will probably have broken most of his records. He's still a HOF to me...but he's NOT A LEGEND.
Randy Moss is neither overrated nor underrated. I don't care what team he plays for...when your numbers are on track to surpass Jerry Rice's prolific totals, that's saying something. His talent is also undeniable.
He's a "class act"? So what? A lot of great players are....
Anyone that plays football has fun.
Tackling his WR has nothing to do with anything, dude...:|
T.O. makes more plays and is a far better football player than Brett is or ever was...so I could see why he would be in the media so much. But I would agree with you when you're talking about his off the field activities. Then again, I'd rather hear news about bowling rather than T.O.'s off the field crap.
I could care less about who his friends are.
[QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"]I would say the Packers but since they have like 8 starters that are injured and are the reason why the team is lacking success, I would say the Vikings. There is no reason why they should be playing this horribly other than the fact that they are not playing as a team. I never thought I would see the day when the Bears and the Lions lead the NFC North division.VanHalun040604
The NFC is really no different from the NL in the MLB. Some of the teams win a lot of games, but at the end of the day, the majority of those that finish with a winning record still suck. The Astros finish with a great record but then can't even win ONE game of the World Series. Same with the Cards a year ago. In the NFL, the Vikings are a sham and the Packers (of old) fit the perfect description of an NFC team. They had a couple key players where they were able to dominate their crappy conference and finish with stellar records at the end of the season, but really never amounted to anything. They never should have been expected to do so at any time, either. One Super Bowl and all of a sudden Favre's a legend. :roll: Right...
By the way, get used to seeing the Bears dominate the division. It'll be like that for about the next four-five years...
vanhalun, as much as you hate to admit it, Brett Favre IS a legend. Look at John Elway. He's one of the greatest QBs of all-time and he didn't win a Super Bowl until his last two years. So are you saying that if John Elway would have retired two years sooner, he would NOT be a legend? There's something really messed up with that logic vanhalun.
Okay vanhalun, I've got a question for you. Is Rich Gannon a legendary QB? I just want to see your input on this.
I want to know because he won what one MVP award and has been to how many Super Bowls again? That's right, none.
With that being said Favre has won 3 MVP awards, been to two super bowls, won one, and the one he lost was to who again, that's right John Elway. He also holds many 2nd and 3rd place stat records and is catching up on Dan Marino.
So, what were you saying vanhalun? Brett Favre's NOT a legendary QB? I think you overlooked something, and don't go with the whole Brett Favre's overrated thing because success doesn't lie.
Rich was a journeyman quarterback who really didn't find his niche in the game of football until he joined the Raiders in 1999. If he would have started his career there instead of as a DB on the New England Patriots (originally), everyone might be at a general concensus as to his status in the annals of NFL history. Even if he would have won the Super Bowl against the Bucs in that magical 2002 season, he would still only be "great." He had a multitude of opprtounities and though it was never his entire fault, a Super Bowl victory never happened. So, no, he is certainly not legendary. Nor is Favre. And if Elway hadn't won those two Super Bowls, he wouldn't have been John Elway. He and Gannon were a lot alike...but the difference was that Elway essentially had a prolific career from start to finish and got it done TWICE in a row. I'm not saying that's the chief element that makes Favre "un-legendary," but it plays a role. Favre really only had a couple of choice seasons in the mid-90s and though he put up some pretty good numbers in his years, he's not much different from Kurt Warner. Warner put together a couple great seasons but only got it done once. Any team in the NFL has had (and will have) the opprotunity to win at least ONE Super Bowl. I'm not saying they have to be the New England Patriots of the 00s, but you're not a legendary quarterback, if you don't win more than once in a decade. Period. Montana. Bradshaw. Elway. And, when his career is over, Brady. You MIGHT put Favre with Marino...but even Marino was a better quarterback than Favre without the one Super Bowl victory with all of the records he established. Legendary quarterbacks make their entire team better whether they're talented or not. Perhaps Favre did that the year he won, but an immeasureble number of quarterbacks in the NFL would be considered legendary--by your standards--if they won ONE Super Bowl. Brett Favre is (was, and will always be considered) a great quarterback when you look at the numbers he put up in additon to that one Super Bowl victory. Not legendary. Great.
You know, this would make a great debate because both of us have different opinions about this and both of us have a good argument.
Does anyone else want to debate this?
There really is no debate. There's people in the media and fans who have misconstrewed opinons of Brett Favre. He's overrated; it's as simple as that. By the way, thanks for responding to my argument, dude...
vanhalun, you misunderstood me again. What I meant is "How do you classify "Legendary status" in the NFL?
Brett Favre? Overrated? Yeah, and I suppose Randy Moss is underrated. Give me a break vanhalun.
How can you call a class act great player like Brett Favre an "overrated player". He puts in great numbers year in and year out for the Packers, he leads them to winning seasons almost every season (except this one), and he best of all has fun out there.
How many QB's in the league have been known to tackle their wide receiver in the endzone after catching a TD? Not very many. It's just a shame that you don't see very many class act players in the NFL like Brett Favre. I would rather see Brett Favre in the media than that stupid Terrell Owens or Ricky Williams.
I don't see what argument you have that he's not a legendary QB? You may say he's overrated but you are one of a very small percent that would have the audacity to say something like that. I'm actually surprised to hear something like that from you since he is close friends with the Raiders own Warren Sapp.
He is overrated. That doesn't mean he's a bad player; I'm not saying that. Brett Favre is a great quarterback. But the media and ignorant fans (like yourself) blow him up to gargantuan proportions and say he's a "LEGEND." He's not...Terry, Joe, John, Tom, Troy, etc. all led DYNASTIES. If you didn't lead a dynasty, you should not and generally are not considered a legendary quarterback. Why don't we call every quarterback that won a Super Bowl legends? Because they aren't. Sure he broke a lot of records, but in 20 years, most young QBs today will probably have broken most of his records. He's still a HOF to me...but he's NOT A LEGEND.
Randy Moss is neither overrated nor underrated. I don't care what team he plays for...when your numbers are on track to surpass Jerry Rice's prolific totals, that's saying something. His talent is also undeniable.
He's a "class act"? So what? A lot of great players are....
Anyone that plays football has fun.
Tackling his WR has nothing to do with anything, dude...:|
T.O. makes more plays and is a far better football player than Brett is or ever was...so I could see why he would be in the media so much. But I would agree with you when you're talking about his off the field activities. Then again, I'd rather hear news about bowling rather than T.O.'s off the field crap.
I could care less about who his friends are.
Ignorant fan! I think someone hear should look in the mirror after saying that because your arguments are just as ignorant as mine.
Oh, now all of a sudden you need to lead a DYNASTY to be a legendary QB? How unfair to all those great NFL QBs who have what it takes to be legends but aren't considered because the talent around them wasn't good enough. As far as I'm concerned, the Packers have been a dynasty. Sure, they haven't won three Super Bowls in four years but they've made the playoffs like 10 out of the last 12 years. I'm sure the Patriots haven't even done that.
How come the Super Bowl dictates everything in the NFL? That would be like calling out a pitcher in MLB for not winning a World Series. Do you know how hard it is to even go to the World Series or a Super Bowl? Some teams get lucky like the Patriots, and have the talent and the heart of a TEAM to win a couple three Super Bowls.
Okay, let me get this straight, you aren't calling Dan Marino a legendary QB either? And you're calling me the ignorant fan. To think you could put John Elway on that list of legendary QB and not Dan Marino or Brett Favre is proposterous.
Can you can call me an ignorant fan all you want but when you put all the numbers, winning percentage, championships (not just Super Bowls), class, and number of starts; he deserves to be on that list.
I think you just don't like Brett Favre. It's kind of like how I don't like Terell Owens or Randy Moss. Sure, they might be legendary WRs 5 or even 10 years down the road but I think it's your personal opinion that you're feeding off of.
Hey you know what sucks?
Seeing the same damn quotes in every post!
And I don't remember if I wrote my opinion yet, so I'll say it again. The Texans are a huge disappointment. Even before injuries.
[QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"]I would say the Packers but since they have like 8 starters that are injured and are the reason why the team is lacking success, I would say the Vikings. There is no reason why they should be playing this horribly other than the fact that they are not playing as a team. I never thought I would see the day when the Bears and the Lions lead the NFC North division.Toucanbird
The NFC is really no different from the NL in the MLB. Some of the teams win a lot of games, but at the end of the day, the majority of those that finish with a winning record still suck. The Astros finish with a great record but then can't even win ONE game of the World Series. Same with the Cards a year ago. In the NFL, the Vikings are a sham and the Packers (of old) fit the perfect description of an NFC team. They had a couple key players where they were able to dominate their crappy conference and finish with stellar records at the end of the season, but really never amounted to anything. They never should have been expected to do so at any time, either. One Super Bowl and all of a sudden Favre's a legend. :roll: Right...
By the way, get used to seeing the Bears dominate the division. It'll be like that for about the next four-five years...
vanhalun, as much as you hate to admit it, Brett Favre IS a legend. Look at John Elway. He's one of the greatest QBs of all-time and he didn't win a Super Bowl until his last two years. So are you saying that if John Elway would have retired two years sooner, he would NOT be a legend? There's something really messed up with that logic vanhalun.
Okay vanhalun, I've got a question for you. Is Rich Gannon a legendary QB? I just want to see your input on this.
I want to know because he won what one MVP award and has been to how many Super Bowls again? That's right, none.
With that being said Favre has won 3 MVP awards, been to two super bowls, won one, and the one he lost was to who again, that's right John Elway. He also holds many 2nd and 3rd place stat records and is catching up on Dan Marino.
So, what were you saying vanhalun? Brett Favre's NOT a legendary QB? I think you overlooked something, and don't go with the whole Brett Favre's overrated thing because success doesn't lie.
Rich was a journeyman quarterback who really didn't find his niche in the game of football until he joined the Raiders in 1999. If he would have started his career there instead of as a DB on the New England Patriots (originally), everyone might be at a general concensus as to his status in the annals of NFL history. Even if he would have won the Super Bowl against the Bucs in that magical 2002 season, he would still only be "great." He had a multitude of opprtounities and though it was never his entire fault, a Super Bowl victory never happened. So, no, he is certainly not legendary. Nor is Favre. And if Elway hadn't won those two Super Bowls, he wouldn't have been John Elway. He and Gannon were a lot alike...but the difference was that Elway essentially had a prolific career from start to finish and got it done TWICE in a row. I'm not saying that's the chief element that makes Favre "un-legendary," but it plays a role. Favre really only had a couple of choice seasons in the mid-90s and though he put up some pretty good numbers in his years, he's not much different from Kurt Warner. Warner put together a couple great seasons but only got it done once. Any team in the NFL has had (and will have) the opprotunity to win at least ONE Super Bowl. I'm not saying they have to be the New England Patriots of the 00s, but you're not a legendary quarterback, if you don't win more than once in a decade. Period. Montana. Bradshaw. Elway. And, when his career is over, Brady. You MIGHT put Favre with Marino...but even Marino was a better quarterback than Favre without the one Super Bowl victory with all of the records he established. Legendary quarterbacks make their entire team better whether they're talented or not. Perhaps Favre did that the year he won, but an immeasureble number of quarterbacks in the NFL would be considered legendary--by your standards--if they won ONE Super Bowl. Brett Favre is (was, and will always be considered) a great quarterback when you look at the numbers he put up in additon to that one Super Bowl victory. Not legendary. Great.
You know, this would make a great debate because both of us have different opinions about this and both of us have a good argument.
Does anyone else want to debate this?
There really is no debate. There's people in the media and fans who have misconstrewed opinons of Brett Favre. He's overrated; it's as simple as that. By the way, thanks for responding to my argument, dude...
vanhalun, you misunderstood me again. What I meant is "How do you classify "Legendary status" in the NFL?
Brett Favre? Overrated? Yeah, and I suppose Randy Moss is underrated. Give me a break vanhalun.
How can you call a class act great player like Brett Favre an "overrated player". He puts in great numbers year in and year out for the Packers, he leads them to winning seasons almost every season (except this one), and he best of all has fun out there.
How many QB's in the league have been known to tackle their wide receiver in the endzone after catching a TD? Not very many. It's just a shame that you don't see very many class act players in the NFL like Brett Favre. I would rather see Brett Favre in the media than that stupid Terrell Owens or Ricky Williams.
I don't see what argument you have that he's not a legendary QB? You may say he's overrated but you are one of a very small percent that would have the audacity to say something like that. I'm actually surprised to hear something like that from you since he is close friends with the Raiders own Warren Sapp.
He is overrated. That doesn't mean he's a bad player; I'm not saying that. Brett Favre is a great quarterback. But the media and ignorant fans (like yourself) blow him up to gargantuan proportions and say he's a "LEGEND." He's not...Terry, Joe, John, Tom, Troy, etc. all led DYNASTIES. If you didn't lead a dynasty, you should not and generally are not considered a legendary quarterback. Why don't we call every quarterback that won a Super Bowl legends? Because they aren't. Sure he broke a lot of records, but in 20 years, most young QBs today will probably have broken most of his records. He's still a HOF to me...but he's NOT A LEGEND.
Randy Moss is neither overrated nor underrated. I don't care what team he plays for...when your numbers are on track to surpass Jerry Rice's prolific totals, that's saying something. His talent is also undeniable.
He's a "class act"? So what? A lot of great players are....
Anyone that plays football has fun.
Tackling his WR has nothing to do with anything, dude...:|
T.O. makes more plays and is a far better football player than Brett is or ever was...so I could see why he would be in the media so much. But I would agree with you when you're talking about his off the field activities. Then again, I'd rather hear news about bowling rather than T.O.'s off the field crap.
I could care less about who his friends are.
Ignorant fan! I think someone hear should look in the mirror after saying that because your arguments are just as ignorant as mine.
Oh, now all of a sudden you need to lead a DYNASTY to be a legendary QB? How unfair to all those great NFL QBs who have what it takes to be legends but aren't considered because the talent around them wasn't good enough. As far as I'm concerned, the Packers have been a dynasty. Sure, they haven't won three Super Bowls in four years but they've made the playoffs like 10 out of the last 12 years. I'm sure the Patriots haven't even done that.
How come the Super Bowl dictates everything in the NFL? That would be like calling out a pitcher in MLB for not winning a World Series. Do you know how hard it is to even go to the World Series or a Super Bowl? Some teams get lucky like the Patriots, and have the talent and the heart of a TEAM to win a couple three Super Bowls.
Okay, let me get this straight, you aren't calling Dan Marino a legendary QB either? And you're calling me the ignorant fan. To think you could put John Elway on that list of legendary QB and not Dan Marino or Brett Favre is proposterous.
Can you can call me an ignorant fan all you want but when you put all the numbers, winning percentage, championships (not just Super Bowls), class, and number of starts; he deserves to be on that list.
I think you just don't like Brett Favre. It's kind of like how I don't like Terell Owens or Randy Moss. Sure, they might be legendary WRs 5 or even 10 years down the road but I think it's your personal opinion that you're feeding off of.
Um...Dynasties are dictated by what you do in the Playoffs and if all you do is win your conference in a crappy division, you haven't accomplished anything. You have to beat the best. Packers only did it once. Favre is a great QB, not legendary. Has been abysmal the past few years. He's not a legend, he's a popular hilbilly name in the media. He's started a bunch of games. Who cares? He's got "class." Who cares?
I have nothing against Brett Favre...but it annoys me when people blow him up to be about as big as God. It's BS and he's overrated. If you can't see that....I don't know where you've been because he's only got it done once in his career. Wins and losses mean nothing at the end of the year unless you've got a ring on your finger.
BTW, the MLB and NFL are completely different....pitchers are in a five or four man rotation while QBs start EVERY game and generally, one guy can't lead you through a seven game series....
You have no say in this debate anyways...you're a Packers fan and you're biased. I'm a Raiders fan, but I won't BS you about anything that isn't true.
Hey you know what sucks?
Seeing the same damn quotes in every post!
And I don't remember if I wrote my opinion yet, so I'll say it again. The Texans are a huge disappointment. Even before injuries.
wallymartin
Dissappointing and underachieving are two COMPLETELY different words, dude. They definitely aren't underachieving. And I guess you could consider them dissapointing in the sense that it took them seven games to get one win. But that's the way it goes sometimes....not a lot of talent.
[QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"]I would say the Packers but since they have like 8 starters that are injured and are the reason why the team is lacking success, I would say the Vikings. There is no reason why they should be playing this horribly other than the fact that they are not playing as a team. I never thought I would see the day when the Bears and the Lions lead the NFC North division.VanHalun040604
The NFC is really no different from the NL in the MLB. Some of the teams win a lot of games, but at the end of the day, the majority of those that finish with a winning record still suck. The Astros finish with a great record but then can't even win ONE game of the World Series. Same with the Cards a year ago. In the NFL, the Vikings are a sham and the Packers (of old) fit the perfect description of an NFC team. They had a couple key players where they were able to dominate their crappy conference and finish with stellar records at the end of the season, but really never amounted to anything. They never should have been expected to do so at any time, either. One Super Bowl and all of a sudden Favre's a legend. :roll: Right...
By the way, get used to seeing the Bears dominate the division. It'll be like that for about the next four-five years...
vanhalun, as much as you hate to admit it, Brett Favre IS a legend. Look at John Elway. He's one of the greatest QBs of all-time and he didn't win a Super Bowl until his last two years. So are you saying that if John Elway would have retired two years sooner, he would NOT be a legend? There's something really messed up with that logic vanhalun.
Okay vanhalun, I've got a question for you. Is Rich Gannon a legendary QB? I just want to see your input on this.
I want to know because he won what one MVP award and has been to how many Super Bowls again? That's right, none.
With that being said Favre has won 3 MVP awards, been to two super bowls, won one, and the one he lost was to who again, that's right John Elway. He also holds many 2nd and 3rd place stat records and is catching up on Dan Marino.
So, what were you saying vanhalun? Brett Favre's NOT a legendary QB? I think you overlooked something, and don't go with the whole Brett Favre's overrated thing because success doesn't lie.
Rich was a journeyman quarterback who really didn't find his niche in the game of football until he joined the Raiders in 1999. If he would have started his career there instead of as a DB on the New England Patriots (originally), everyone might be at a general concensus as to his status in the annals of NFL history. Even if he would have won the Super Bowl against the Bucs in that magical 2002 season, he would still only be "great." He had a multitude of opprtounities and though it was never his entire fault, a Super Bowl victory never happened. So, no, he is certainly not legendary. Nor is Favre. And if Elway hadn't won those two Super Bowls, he wouldn't have been John Elway. He and Gannon were a lot alike...but the difference was that Elway essentially had a prolific career from start to finish and got it done TWICE in a row. I'm not saying that's the chief element that makes Favre "un-legendary," but it plays a role. Favre really only had a couple of choice seasons in the mid-90s and though he put up some pretty good numbers in his years, he's not much different from Kurt Warner. Warner put together a couple great seasons but only got it done once. Any team in the NFL has had (and will have) the opprotunity to win at least ONE Super Bowl. I'm not saying they have to be the New England Patriots of the 00s, but you're not a legendary quarterback, if you don't win more than once in a decade. Period. Montana. Bradshaw. Elway. And, when his career is over, Brady. You MIGHT put Favre with Marino...but even Marino was a better quarterback than Favre without the one Super Bowl victory with all of the records he established. Legendary quarterbacks make their entire team better whether they're talented or not. Perhaps Favre did that the year he won, but an immeasureble number of quarterbacks in the NFL would be considered legendary--by your standards--if they won ONE Super Bowl. Brett Favre is (was, and will always be considered) a great quarterback when you look at the numbers he put up in additon to that one Super Bowl victory. Not legendary. Great.
You know, this would make a great debate because both of us have different opinions about this and both of us have a good argument.
Does anyone else want to debate this?
There really is no debate. There's people in the media and fans who have misconstrewed opinons of Brett Favre. He's overrated; it's as simple as that. By the way, thanks for responding to my argument, dude...
vanhalun, you misunderstood me again. What I meant is "How do you classify "Legendary status" in the NFL?
Brett Favre? Overrated? Yeah, and I suppose Randy Moss is underrated. Give me a break vanhalun.
How can you call a class act great player like Brett Favre an "overrated player". He puts in great numbers year in and year out for the Packers, he leads them to winning seasons almost every season (except this one), and he best of all has fun out there.
How many QB's in the league have been known to tackle their wide receiver in the endzone after catching a TD? Not very many. It's just a shame that you don't see very many class act players in the NFL like Brett Favre. I would rather see Brett Favre in the media than that stupid Terrell Owens or Ricky Williams.
I don't see what argument you have that he's not a legendary QB? You may say he's overrated but you are one of a very small percent that would have the audacity to say something like that. I'm actually surprised to hear something like that from you since he is close friends with the Raiders own Warren Sapp.
He is overrated. That doesn't mean he's a bad player; I'm not saying that. Brett Favre is a great quarterback. But the media and ignorant fans (like yourself) blow him up to gargantuan proportions and say he's a "LEGEND." He's not...Terry, Joe, John, Tom, Troy, etc. all led DYNASTIES. If you didn't lead a dynasty, you should not and generally are not considered a legendary quarterback. Why don't we call every quarterback that won a Super Bowl legends? Because they aren't. Sure he broke a lot of records, but in 20 years, most young QBs today will probably have broken most of his records. He's still a HOF to me...but he's NOT A LEGEND.
Randy Moss is neither overrated nor underrated. I don't care what team he plays for...when your numbers are on track to surpass Jerry Rice's prolific totals, that's saying something. His talent is also undeniable.
He's a "class act"? So what? A lot of great players are....
Anyone that plays football has fun.
Tackling his WR has nothing to do with anything, dude...:|
T.O. makes more plays and is a far better football player than Brett is or ever was...so I could see why he would be in the media so much. But I would agree with you when you're talking about his off the field activities. Then again, I'd rather hear news about bowling rather than T.O.'s off the field crap.
I could care less about who his friends are.
Ignorant fan! I think someone hear should look in the mirror after saying that because your arguments are just as ignorant as mine.
Oh, now all of a sudden you need to lead a DYNASTY to be a legendary QB? How unfair to all those great NFL QBs who have what it takes to be legends but aren't considered because the talent around them wasn't good enough. As far as I'm concerned, the Packers have been a dynasty. Sure, they haven't won three Super Bowls in four years but they've made the playoffs like 10 out of the last 12 years. I'm sure the Patriots haven't even done that.
How come the Super Bowl dictates everything in the NFL? That would be like calling out a pitcher in MLB for not winning a World Series. Do you know how hard it is to even go to the World Series or a Super Bowl? Some teams get lucky like the Patriots, and have the talent and the heart of a TEAM to win a couple three Super Bowls.
Okay, let me get this straight, you aren't calling Dan Marino a legendary QB either? And you're calling me the ignorant fan. To think you could put John Elway on that list of legendary QB and not Dan Marino or Brett Favre is proposterous.
Can you can call me an ignorant fan all you want but when you put all the numbers, winning percentage, championships (not just Super Bowls), class, and number of starts; he deserves to be on that list.
I think you just don't like Brett Favre. It's kind of like how I don't like Terell Owens or Randy Moss. Sure, they might be legendary WRs 5 or even 10 years down the road but I think it's your personal opinion that you're feeding off of.
Um...Dynasties are dictated by what you do in the Playoffs and if all you do is win your conference in a crappy division, you haven't accomplished anything. You have to beat the best. Packers only did it once. Favre is a great QB, not legendary. Has been abysmal the past few years. He's not a legend, he's a popular hilbilly name in the media. He's started a bunch of games. Who cares? He's got "class." Who cares?
I have nothing against Brett Favre...but it annoys me when people blow him up to be about as big as God. It's BS and he's overrated. If you can't see that....I don't know where you've been because he's only got it done once in his career. Wins and losses mean nothing at the end of the year unless you've got a ring on your finger.
BTW, the MLB and NFL are completely different....pitchers are in a five or four man rotation while QBs start EVERY game and generally, one guy can't lead you through a seven game series....
You have no say in this debate anyways...you're a Packers fan and you're biased. I'm a Raiders fan, but I won't BS you about anything that isn't true.
God? Not quite. Listen, I just think Brett Favre is a legendary QB. Period. I've already explained why so I don't need to repeat.
It's not a debate, why, because it takes at least two people to debate and since I'm "biased" for being a Packers fan, you're the only one "debating".
Someone has to come in here and state their opinion of this topic because it is obvious that we are at an impass.
Someone has to come in here and state their opinion of this topic because it is obvious that we are at an impass.
Toucanbird
Okay, I'll bite.
Now, Jim Kelly was a great QB. He led the Bills to 4 consecutive Super Bowls. Jim Kelly of course, is not a legend, except for in the Buffalo area.
Dan Marino was also a great QB, and he would be the prime example to combat Vanhalun's policy of "Legend by Success". Marino was a legend, but simply stating that is no way to argue/debate, so I will compare Favre and Marino.
Marino had seasons of 48 and 44 TDs, threw for 30+ TD 4 times, leading the league in TDs 3 times and winning the MVP twice. He went to 1 Super Bowl, but did not win. He holds the records for most career passing yards and TDs. He passed for 3,000 yards in a season 13 times and 4,000 yards 6 times.
Brett Favre's two best TD seasons were 39 and 38. He has passed for 30+ TDs 8 times, leading the league in TD passes 4 times and winning the MVP 3 times. He went to 2 Super Bowls and won 1. He is currently ranked second in both career yards and TDs(to Marino, obviously). He has passed for 3,000 yards in a season 13 times as well and 4,000 yards 4 times.
Those are straight facts, and you can't fight facts. Anyone would have a hard time saying that Marino isn't a legend, as the sports community widely views him as just that. Favre's numbers are very similar to his.
Keep in mind that Farve beat out Elway, Young, Aikman, and even though he was well-passed his prime, Marino for those MVP awards. He was also one of the most mobile QBs of the time, which means he probably got hit more than your average QB would. So, yes, his streak of 212 straight starts does have importance because he would take more hits than your average QB. Brett may even have God on his side(Have you seen the video of the first time he was sent out to hold an extra point kick? He let go of the ball, and it stood straight up, no tee).
Favre is a legend, or...I guess will be is more appropriate, IMO.
Someone has to come in here and state their opinion of this topic because it is obvious that we are at an impass.
Toucanbird
Check out "Most Overrated/Underrated QBs" topic...most felt Brett Favre was most overrated.
[QUOTE="Toucanbird"]Someone has to come in here and state their opinion of this topic because it is obvious that we are at an impass.
wallymartin
Okay, I'll bite.
Now, Jim Kelly was a great QB. He led the Bills to 4 consecutive Super Bowls. Jim Kelly of course, is not a legend, except for in the Buffalo area.
Dan Marino was also a great QB, and he would be the prime example to combat Vanhalun's policy of "Legend by Success". Marino was a legend, but simply stating that is no way to argue/debate, so I will compare Favre and Marino.
Marino had seasons of 48 and 44 TDs, threw for 30+ TD 4 times, leading the league in TDs 3 times and winning the MVP twice. He went to 1 Super Bowl, but did not win. He holds the records for most career passing yards and TDs. He passed for 3,000 yards in a season 13 times and 4,000 yards 6 times.
Brett Favre's two best TD seasons were 39 and 38. He has passed for 30+ TDs 8 times, leading the league in TD passes 4 times and winning the MVP 3 times. He went to 2 Super Bowls and won 1. He is currently ranked second in both career yards and TDs(to Marino, obviously). He has passed for 3,000 yards in a season 13 times as well and 4,000 yards 4 times.
Those are straight facts, and you can't fight facts. Anyone would have a hard time saying that Marino isn't a legend, as the sports community widely views him as just that. Favre's numbers are very similar to his.
Keep in mind that Farve beat out Elway, Young, Aikman, and even though he was well-passed his prime, Marino for those MVP awards. He was also one of the most mobile QBs of the time, which means he probably got hit more than your average QB would. So, yes, his streak of 212 straight starts does have importance because he would take more hits than your average QB. Brett may even have God on his side(Have you seen the video of the first time he was sent out to hold an extra point kick? He let go of the ball, and it stood straight up, no tee).
Favre is a legend, or...I guess will be is more appropriate, IMO.
Thanks for the reply. I was tired of getting into a one on one conversation and felt that we needed fresh blood. :twisted:
:P Just kidding. But still, thanks for the response.
[QUOTE="Toucanbird"]Someone has to come in here and state their opinion of this topic because it is obvious that we are at an impass.
wallymartin
Okay, I'll bite.
Now, Jim Kelly was a great QB. He led the Bills to 4 consecutive Super Bowls. Jim Kelly of course, is not a legend, except for in the Buffalo area.
Dan Marino was also a great QB, and he would be the prime example to combat Vanhalun's policy of "Legend by Success". Marino was a legend, but simply stating that is no way to argue/debate, so I will compare Favre and Marino.
Marino had seasons of 48 and 44 TDs, threw for 30+ TD 4 times, leading the league in TDs 3 times and winning the MVP twice. He went to 1 Super Bowl, but did not win. He holds the records for most career passing yards and TDs. He passed for 3,000 yards in a season 13 times and 4,000 yards 6 times.
Brett Favre's two best TD seasons were 39 and 38. He has passed for 30+ TDs 8 times, leading the league in TD passes 4 times and winning the MVP 3 times. He went to 2 Super Bowls and won 1. He is currently ranked second in both career yards and TDs(to Marino, obviously). He has passed for 3,000 yards in a season 13 times as well and 4,000 yards 4 times.
Those are straight facts, and you can't fight facts. Anyone would have a hard time saying that Marino isn't a legend, as the sports community widely views him as just that. Favre's numbers are very similar to his.
Keep in mind that Farve beat out Elway, Young, Aikman, and even though he was well-passed his prime, Marino for those MVP awards. He was also one of the most mobile QBs of the time, which means he probably got hit more than your average QB would. So, yes, his streak of 212 straight starts does have importance because he would take more hits than your average QB. Brett may even have God on his side(Have you seen the video of the first time he was sent out to hold an extra point kick? He let go of the ball, and it stood straight up, no tee).
Favre is a legend, or...I guess will be is more appropriate, IMO.
yeah those are facts, just facts
passing records: of course he has some , hes playing long after he should have retired and continues to rack up numbers.
starts: on any other team he would have been sat on more than a few occasions. Favre runs that team like Kobe runs the lakers. plus he was addicted to pain pills and alcohol , so im sure that helped
conference wins: big whoop, since the 85 bears the NFC north SUCKS, big time.
MVPs: meaningless
super bowl (singular) : you know how many QBs have won 1 superbowl , and how legendary they are? no , lets look,
Brad Johnson, Trent dilfer ,Kurt warner, Steve young, Mark Rypien, Doug Williams, Jim Mcmahon, Joe Thiesmann, Ken stabler
wow thats legendary company , and Ill be the 1st to admit it ; Brett Favre is better than Mark Rypien.
MVPs: meaningless
yamabushi98
The rest I can see a valid point on, but MVP awards being meaningless? Winning the MVP means that you are THE best player in the league. Sure, it offers no real rewards except for pride, but being named as the best player in the NFL 3 times(a record) certainly does mean something.
[QUOTE="yamabushi98"]MVPs: meaningless
wallymartin
The rest I can see a valid point on, but MVP awards being meaningless? Winning the MVP means that you are THE best player in the league. Sure, it offers no real rewards except for pride, but being named as the best player in the NFL 3 times(a record) certainly does mean something.
To me MVP means 'most valuable' as in ; if that player was lost , what would the team do without them.
Being important to your team and being the best in the league are 2, very, different things. Hence : meaningless, because theres just too much argument over what a MVP is in the 1st place, too subjective.
plus about 90% of MVPs are QBs so its a pretty skewed award to begin with. and 1 he shared with Barry Sanders
[QUOTE="wallymartin"][QUOTE="yamabushi98"]MVPs: meaningless
yamabushi98
The rest I can see a valid point on, but MVP awards being meaningless? Winning the MVP means that you are THE best player in the league. Sure, it offers no real rewards except for pride, but being named as the best player in the NFL 3 times(a record) certainly does mean something.
To me MVP means 'most valuable' as in ; if that player was lost , what would the team do without them.
Being important to your team and being the best in the league are 2, very, different things. Hence : meaningless, because theres just too much argument over what a MVP is in the 1st place, too subjective.
plus about 90% of MVPs are QBs so its a pretty skewed award to begin with. and 1 he shared with Barry Sanders
Okay, I can understand that.
It's really all about how you interpret things. In my mind, a legendary QB is someone that you will feel compelled and excited to tell your children about.
"Jim Kelly? Oh he was a great QB for the Bills back in the 80's and early 90's."
"Roger Staubach? He was a great Cowboy QB in the 70's."
"Oh, Brett Favre was one of the greatest quarterbacks around when I grew up! He had an arm like a cannon and in his hey-day could run like hell, too. When blah, blah blah..."
My point is that 10, 15 years down the road, people will talk about Brett Favre differently than your average great QB. Just like they speak differently now when talking about Marino, Montana, or Elway.
[QUOTE="yamabushi98"][QUOTE="wallymartin"][QUOTE="yamabushi98"]MVPs: meaningless
wallymartin
The rest I can see a valid point on, but MVP awards being meaningless? Winning the MVP means that you are THE best player in the league. Sure, it offers no real rewards except for pride, but being named as the best player in the NFL 3 times(a record) certainly does mean something.
To me MVP means 'most valuable' as in ; if that player was lost , what would the team do without them.
Being important to your team and being the best in the league are 2, very, different things. Hence : meaningless, because theres just too much argument over what a MVP is in the 1st place, too subjective.
plus about 90% of MVPs are QBs so its a pretty skewed award to begin with. and 1 he shared with Barry Sanders
Okay, I can understand that.
It's really all about how you interpret things. In my mind, a legendary QB is someone that you will feel compelled and excited to tell your children about.
"Jim Kelly? Oh he was a great QB for the Bills back in the 80's and early 90's."
"Roger Staubach? He was a great Cowboy QB in the 70's."
"Oh, Brett Favre was one of the greatest quarterbacks around when I grew up! He had an arm like a cannon and in his hey-day could run like hell, too. When blah, blah blah..."
My point is that 10, 15 years down the road, people will talk about Brett Favre differently than your average great QB. Just like they speak differently now when talking about Marino, Montana, or Elway.
I still don't think you can put Favre in the same sentence as those guys...I also think being on the Packers takes him down a peg, since that hasn't really ever been one of the "sexy" teams in the NFL.
[QUOTE="wallymartin"][QUOTE="yamabushi98"][QUOTE="wallymartin"][QUOTE="yamabushi98"]MVPs: meaningless
VanHalun040604
The rest I can see a valid point on, but MVP awards being meaningless? Winning the MVP means that you are THE best player in the league. Sure, it offers no real rewards except for pride, but being named as the best player in the NFL 3 times(a record) certainly does mean something.
To me MVP means 'most valuable' as in ; if that player was lost , what would the team do without them.
Being important to your team and being the best in the league are 2, very, different things. Hence : meaningless, because theres just too much argument over what a MVP is in the 1st place, too subjective.
plus about 90% of MVPs are QBs so its a pretty skewed award to begin with. and 1 he shared with Barry Sanders
Okay, I can understand that.
It's really all about how you interpret things. In my mind, a legendary QB is someone that you will feel compelled and excited to tell your children about.
"Jim Kelly? Oh he was a great QB for the Bills back in the 80's and early 90's."
"Roger Staubach? He was a great Cowboy QB in the 70's."
"Oh, Brett Favre was one of the greatest quarterbacks around when I grew up! He had an arm like a cannon and in his hey-day could run like hell, too. When blah, blah blah..."
My point is that 10, 15 years down the road, people will talk about Brett Favre differently than your average great QB. Just like they speak differently now when talking about Marino, Montana, or Elway.
I still don't think you can put Favre in the same sentence as those guys...I also think being on the Packers takes him down a peg, since that hasn't really ever been one of the "sexy" teams in the NFL.
Sexy?
[QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="wallymartin"][QUOTE="yamabushi98"][QUOTE="wallymartin"][QUOTE="yamabushi98"]MVPs: meaningless
Toucanbird
The rest I can see a valid point on, but MVP awards being meaningless? Winning the MVP means that you are THE best player in the league. Sure, it offers no real rewards except for pride, but being named as the best player in the NFL 3 times(a record) certainly does mean something.
To me MVP means 'most valuable' as in ; if that player was lost , what would the team do without them.
Being important to your team and being the best in the league are 2, very, different things. Hence : meaningless, because theres just too much argument over what a MVP is in the 1st place, too subjective.
plus about 90% of MVPs are QBs so its a pretty skewed award to begin with. and 1 he shared with Barry Sanders
Okay, I can understand that.
It's really all about how you interpret things. In my mind, a legendary QB is someone that you will feel compelled and excited to tell your children about.
"Jim Kelly? Oh he was a great QB for the Bills back in the 80's and early 90's."
"Roger Staubach? He was a great Cowboy QB in the 70's."
"Oh, Brett Favre was one of the greatest quarterbacks around when I grew up! He had an arm like a cannon and in his hey-day could run like hell, too. When blah, blah blah..."
My point is that 10, 15 years down the road, people will talk about Brett Favre differently than your average great QB. Just like they speak differently now when talking about Marino, Montana, or Elway.
I still don't think you can put Favre in the same sentence as those guys...I also think being on the Packers takes him down a peg, since that hasn't really ever been one of the "sexy" teams in the NFL.
Sexy?
Yeah, dude...sexy....sex appeal...popular...etc.
Since when does sex appeal in football matter?
Better yet, I would like to see a response from those old classic players like Dick Butkus, Vince Lombardi, and Jack Lambert's response to that. I bet they wouldn't say sex appeal matters.
Brett Favre is a legend.
Just because you don't like him doesn't mean the NFL doesn't see him as a legend.
He is easily going to go to the Hall of Fame.
Brett Favre is a legend.
Just because you don't like him doesn't mean the NFL doesn't see him as a legend.
He is easily going to go to the Hall of Fame.
Herrdoktor
The entire NFL sees him as a legend? No...they don't.
[QUOTE="Herrdoktor"]Brett Favre is a legend.
Just because you don't like him doesn't mean the NFL doesn't see him as a legend.
He is easily going to go to the Hall of Fame.
VanHalun040604
The entire NFL sees him as a legend? No...they don't.
Uh, didn't we already discuss this? People have different opinions about Brett Favre's legend status.
I actually agree with vanhalun for once. The "entire" NFL doesn't see Brett Favre as a legend...but I'm willing to bet that a good percentage of the NFL does
[QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Herrdoktor"]Brett Favre is a legend.
Just because you don't like him doesn't mean the NFL doesn't see him as a legend.
He is easily going to go to the Hall of Fame.
Toucanbird
The entire NFL sees him as a legend? No...they don't.
Uh, didn't we already discuss this? People have different opinions about Brett Favre's legend status.
I actually agree with vanhalun for once. The "entire" NFL doesn't see Brett Favre as a legend...but I'm willing to bet that a good percentage of the NFL does
If I may make the Bush comparison again...The entire country doesn't see him as a great President..."but a good percentage" does. In this case, however, "a good percentage" is retarded. In Brett's case, I'd say there's some legitimacy to their arguments. With Bush...none.
[QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Herrdoktor"]Brett Favre is a legend.
Just because you don't like him doesn't mean the NFL doesn't see him as a legend.
He is easily going to go to the Hall of Fame.
VanHalun040604
The entire NFL sees him as a legend? No...they don't.
Uh, didn't we already discuss this? People have different opinions about Brett Favre's legend status.
I actually agree with vanhalun for once. The "entire" NFL doesn't see Brett Favre as a legend...but I'm willing to bet that a good percentage of the NFL does
If I may make the Bush comparison again...The entire country doesn't see him as a great President..."but a good percentage" does. In this case, however, "a good percentage" is retarded. In Brett's case, I'd say there's some legitimacy to their arguments. With Bush...none.
a good percentage of the country see's Bush as a great president? Considering only 40% of the people approve of him, I can imagine how few consider him "great".
[QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Herrdoktor"]Brett Favre is a legend.
Just because you don't like him doesn't mean the NFL doesn't see him as a legend.
He is easily going to go to the Hall of Fame.
Ryan166
The entire NFL sees him as a legend? No...they don't.
Uh, didn't we already discuss this? People have different opinions about Brett Favre's legend status.
I actually agree with vanhalun for once. The "entire" NFL doesn't see Brett Favre as a legend...but I'm willing to bet that a good percentage of the NFL does
If I may make the Bush comparison again...The entire country doesn't see him as a great President..."but a good percentage" does. In this case, however, "a good percentage" is retarded. In Brett's case, I'd say there's some legitimacy to their arguments. With Bush...none.
a good percentage of the country see's Bush as a great president? Considering only 40% of the people approve of him, I can imagine how few consider him "great".
Yeah vanhalun, that was a really terrible comparison.
[QUOTE="Ryan166"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Herrdoktor"]Brett Favre is a legend.
Just because you don't like him doesn't mean the NFL doesn't see him as a legend.
He is easily going to go to the Hall of Fame.
Toucanbird
The entire NFL sees him as a legend? No...they don't.
Uh, didn't we already discuss this? People have different opinions about Brett Favre's legend status.
I actually agree with vanhalun for once. The "entire" NFL doesn't see Brett Favre as a legend...but I'm willing to bet that a good percentage of the NFL does
If I may make the Bush comparison again...The entire country doesn't see him as a great President..."but a good percentage" does. In this case, however, "a good percentage" is retarded. In Brett's case, I'd say there's some legitimacy to their arguments. With Bush...none.
a good percentage of the country see's Bush as a great president? Considering only 40% of the people approve of him, I can imagine how few consider him "great".
Yeah vanhalun, that was a really terrible comparison.
No...no it really wasn't. Before the election, his approval rating was 50% and he basically owned Kerry in the popular vote. Maybe it's because I live in Ohio...but people love the man here. And people across the nation do as well. He did win the election after all...
[QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="Ryan166"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Herrdoktor"]Brett Favre is a legend.
Just because you don't like him doesn't mean the NFL doesn't see him as a legend.
He is easily going to go to the Hall of Fame.
VanHalun040604
The entire NFL sees him as a legend? No...they don't.
Uh, didn't we already discuss this? People have different opinions about Brett Favre's legend status.
I actually agree with vanhalun for once. The "entire" NFL doesn't see Brett Favre as a legend...but I'm willing to bet that a good percentage of the NFL does
If I may make the Bush comparison again...The entire country doesn't see him as a great President..."but a good percentage" does. In this case, however, "a good percentage" is retarded. In Brett's case, I'd say there's some legitimacy to their arguments. With Bush...none.
a good percentage of the country see's Bush as a great president? Considering only 40% of the people approve of him, I can imagine how few consider him "great".
Yeah vanhalun, that was a really terrible comparison.
No...no it really wasn't. Before the election, his approval rating was 50% and he basically owned Kerry in the popular vote. Maybe it's because I live in Ohio...but people love the man here. And people across the nation do as well. He did win the election after all...
Yeah, but do you have any idea how stupid America is? Honestly, I can't believe he won. Almost everyone that I talked to here in Wisconsin was completely against Bush. I had one friend who said if Bush gets re-elected, he's moving to Canada. He never did but that's because he doesn't have the money to move. Maybe if he would have saved it instead of buying videogames.
BTW, I still hate the state of Ohio for that. In fact, everyone I know hates the state of Ohio, even this one guy that's from there! He said he likes Minnesota a whole hell of a lot more than Ohio.
[QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="Ryan166"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Herrdoktor"]Brett Favre is a legend.
Just because you don't like him doesn't mean the NFL doesn't see him as a legend.
He is easily going to go to the Hall of Fame.
Toucanbird
The entire NFL sees him as a legend? No...they don't.
Uh, didn't we already discuss this? People have different opinions about Brett Favre's legend status.
I actually agree with vanhalun for once. The "entire" NFL doesn't see Brett Favre as a legend...but I'm willing to bet that a good percentage of the NFL does
If I may make the Bush comparison again...The entire country doesn't see him as a great President..."but a good percentage" does. In this case, however, "a good percentage" is retarded. In Brett's case, I'd say there's some legitimacy to their arguments. With Bush...none.
a good percentage of the country see's Bush as a great president? Considering only 40% of the people approve of him, I can imagine how few consider him "great".
Yeah vanhalun, that was a really terrible comparison.
No...no it really wasn't. Before the election, his approval rating was 50% and he basically owned Kerry in the popular vote. Maybe it's because I live in Ohio...but people love the man here. And people across the nation do as well. He did win the election after all...
Yeah, but do you have any idea how stupid America is? Honestly, I can't believe he won. Almost everyone that I talked to here in Wisconsin was completely against Bush. I had one friend who said if Bush gets re-elected, he's moving to Canada. He never did but that's because he doesn't have the money to move. Maybe if he would have saved it instead of buying videogames.
BTW, I still hate the state of Ohio for that. In fact, everyone I know hates the state of Ohio, even this one guy that's from there! He said he likes Minnesota a whole hell of a lot more than Ohio.
Oh..I'm right with you, dude. America as a whole is retarded. Only 20% of the nation is college-educated. And :lol: at the guy who wasted his money on video games...I hate the Ohio, too. I'll probably move to either Chicago (Barack Obama rules) or California (Aw-nold sucks, but Cali rules).
And for the record, I'm sticking by my original statement and will no longer contest anyone by saying that the Raiders SUCK. God. Kerry Collins is the WORST QB in the NFL. He'll have some great games, but he has NO consistency. And on top of that, he's got probably the most explosive WR corps in the league and he's doing NOTHING!!!!! Tom Brady, Brett Favre, whoever...and the Raiders are Super Bowl Champs before the regular season's even over....though they're lacking at FS and somewhat at SS. They could also use another solid LB. But my God...LaMont, Porter, Moss, Gabriel, etc....and Kerry Collins can only muster "good" games against three teams while the defense is actually playing well this year???? Get him out. Now. At 4:46 PM, get him out.
[QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="Ryan166"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Herrdoktor"]Brett Favre is a legend.
Just because you don't like him doesn't mean the NFL doesn't see him as a legend.
He is easily going to go to the Hall of Fame.
VanHalun040604
The entire NFL sees him as a legend? No...they don't.
Uh, didn't we already discuss this? People have different opinions about Brett Favre's legend status.
I actually agree with vanhalun for once. The "entire" NFL doesn't see Brett Favre as a legend...but I'm willing to bet that a good percentage of the NFL does
If I may make the Bush comparison again...The entire country doesn't see him as a great President..."but a good percentage" does. In this case, however, "a good percentage" is retarded. In Brett's case, I'd say there's some legitimacy to their arguments. With Bush...none.
a good percentage of the country see's Bush as a great president? Considering only 40% of the people approve of him, I can imagine how few consider him "great".
Yeah vanhalun, that was a really terrible comparison.
No...no it really wasn't. Before the election, his approval rating was 50% and he basically owned Kerry in the popular vote. Maybe it's because I live in Ohio...but people love the man here. And people across the nation do as well. He did win the election after all...
Yeah, but do you have any idea how stupid America is? Honestly, I can't believe he won. Almost everyone that I talked to here in Wisconsin was completely against Bush. I had one friend who said if Bush gets re-elected, he's moving to Canada. He never did but that's because he doesn't have the money to move. Maybe if he would have saved it instead of buying videogames.
BTW, I still hate the state of Ohio for that. In fact, everyone I know hates the state of Ohio, even this one guy that's from there! He said he likes Minnesota a whole hell of a lot more than Ohio.
Oh..I'm right with you, dude. America as a whole is retarded. Only 20% of the nation is college-educated. And :lol: at the guy who wasted his money on video games...I hate the Ohio, too. I'll probably move to either Chicago (Barack Obama rules) or California (Aw-nold sucks, but Cali rules).
And for the record, I'm sticking by my original statement and will no longer contest anyone by saying that the Raiders SUCK. God. Kerry Collins is the WORST QB in the NFL. He'll have some great games, but he has NO consistency. And on top of that, he's got probably the most explosive WR corps in the league and he's doing NOTHING!!!!! Tom Brady, Brett Favre, whoever...and the Raiders are Super Bowl Champs before the regular season's even over....though they're lacking at FS and somewhat at SS. They could also use another solid LB. But my God...LaMont, Porter, Moss, Gabriel, etc....and Kerry Collins can only muster "good" games against three teams while the defense is actually playing well this year???? Get him out. Now. At 4:46 PM, get him out.
So, who will be replacing this, horrendous QB Kerry Collins? Well, if you do poorly enough, you could draft a good QB. You could get Marcus Vick, or Brody Croyle, or Matt Leinart, or maybe even Vince Young. Still, I think the Raiders will be lucky to get a top 5 draft pick.
Next year, you could go for Phillip Rivers but I don't think he will be a good replacement for Kerry Collins.
Wow, now that I look at it, the Raiders really are in deep %^&*. I supposed they thought Kerry Collins would be good but he just plain sucks.
[QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="Ryan166"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Toucanbird"][QUOTE="VanHalun040604"][QUOTE="Herrdoktor"]Brett Favre is a legend.
Just because you don't like him doesn't mean the NFL doesn't see him as a legend.
He is easily going to go to the Hall of Fame.
Toucanbird
The entire NFL sees him as a legend? No...they don't.
Uh, didn't we already discuss this? People have different opinions about Brett Favre's legend status.
I actually agree with vanhalun for once. The "entire" NFL doesn't see Brett Favre as a legend...but I'm willing to bet that a good percentage of the NFL does
If I may make the Bush comparison again...The entire country doesn't see him as a great President..."but a good percentage" does. In this case, however, "a good percentage" is retarded. In Brett's case, I'd say there's some legitimacy to their arguments. With Bush...none.
a good percentage of the country see's Bush as a great president? Considering only 40% of the people approve of him, I can imagine how few consider him "great".
Yeah vanhalun, that was a really terrible comparison.
No...no it really wasn't. Before the election, his approval rating was 50% and he basically owned Kerry in the popular vote. Maybe it's because I live in Ohio...but people love the man here. And people across the nation do as well. He did win the election after all...
Yeah, but do you have any idea how stupid America is? Honestly, I can't believe he won. Almost everyone that I talked to here in Wisconsin was completely against Bush. I had one friend who said if Bush gets re-elected, he's moving to Canada. He never did but that's because he doesn't have the money to move. Maybe if he would have saved it instead of buying videogames.
BTW, I still hate the state of Ohio for that. In fact, everyone I know hates the state of Ohio, even this one guy that's from there! He said he likes Minnesota a whole hell of a lot more than Ohio.
Oh..I'm right with you, dude. America as a whole is retarded. Only 20% of the nation is college-educated. And :lol: at the guy who wasted his money on video games...I hate the Ohio, too. I'll probably move to either Chicago (Barack Obama rules) or California (Aw-nold sucks, but Cali rules).
And for the record, I'm sticking by my original statement and will no longer contest anyone by saying that the Raiders SUCK. God. Kerry Collins is the WORST QB in the NFL. He'll have some great games, but he has NO consistency. And on top of that, he's got probably the most explosive WR corps in the league and he's doing NOTHING!!!!! Tom Brady, Brett Favre, whoever...and the Raiders are Super Bowl Champs before the regular season's even over....though they're lacking at FS and somewhat at SS. They could also use another solid LB. But my God...LaMont, Porter, Moss, Gabriel, etc....and Kerry Collins can only muster "good" games against three teams while the defense is actually playing well this year???? Get him out. Now. At 4:46 PM, get him out.
So, who will be replacing this, horrendous QB Kerry Collins? Well, if you do poorly enough, you could draft a good QB. You could get Marcus Vick, or Brody Croyle, or Matt Leinart, or maybe even Vince Young. Still, I think the Raiders will be lucky to get a top 5 draft pick.
Next year, you could go for Phillip Rivers but I don't think he will be a good replacement for Kerry Collins.
Wow, now that I look at it, the Raiders really are in deep %^&*. I supposed they thought Kerry Collins would be good but he just plain sucks.
He's got a great deep ball arm.....but that's all. And that only occasionally shines. Any other passing play, he just looks awful. He's the one thing holding this team back from the playoffs and possibly even the Super Bowl...though that's a bit of a stretch. I think they're too good, actually, to get a legitimately good draft pick, though. Every time LaMont Jordan has gotten 20 or more carries a game, they've won. I think they'll manage a .500 or one game under .500 record. You might blame some of it on the coaches that they're not winning, but then again, with their talented WR corps, Collins, like I said, should be ripping teams apart. Gannon in his prime would have beaten Marino's single season record had he had these WRs at their stages in their careers. Rivers might be their only legitimate option in all reality. Or they might make a trade or something on the eve of the Draft. They gotta do somethin' though. I'm tired of Kerry Collins.
i now say the packersDRAGON467
Their whole team is injured/they got rid of everyone....:|
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment