Contrary to popular opinion, opinions can be wrong. Jim Souhan does us the courtesy of proving me right this week:
It is time for the Packers to plan for their future -- and if their future is to become a product of planning and not hero worship, that planning must include Favre's departure.
...Somebody will have to play the role of bad guy, and whoever does so should receive Christmas cards for life from Favre.
Ship him to Miami, where Nick Saban looks capable of building a winner.
Ship him to New Orleans if the Saints return there, leaving Favre a short drive to his hometown of Kiln, Miss.
Ship him somewhere he can finish his career in style -- style being the opposite of fans wearing fake blocks of cheese on their heads.
Point the first: what "now" is Souhan talking about? The trading deadline has passed, so "now" can't actually mean "now". It means next year. What could happen next year? Well, the Packers could add two Pro Bowl players -- like Ahman Green and Javon Walker, both of whom are on injured reserve. They could also benefit from a top 10 draft pick. In today's NFL, you can go from 4-12 to Super Bowl champions with a good draft and a few breaks.
Point the second, and the most important: Favre will not play for another team. He has said so. Repeatedly. What team would trade for a player with a huge salary, is on the verge of retirement, and has a history of saying he would rather quit the game then play someplace else? Would Miami like to add Favre to the roster? Sure. But do they want to send player or a draft pick to Green Bay just hoping that Favre will decide to play out another year or two?
Think about this, too. The Vikings traded away their best play, Randy Moss. Despite adding several new defensive starters, the team is no better than last year. In fact, the Vikings are probably worse. Games in the NFL are won by players who can make plays. Favre is not the quarterback he was 7 years ago, but he's still an elite player capable of changing games. The Packers have nobody but nobodies behind him, so they are best served hanging on to Favre like grim death and working like hell to put a team around him for one more run before he retires.
Nothing of value to add; just wanted to point that out...
I hate MNF. Pat Williams dominated the game. I don't think much of Mike Tice as a coach, but the Vikings had success running right at Gbaja-Biamila in the 2nd half and they stuck with it. The Packers tried to adjust once -- they flopped Kampman and KGB on the Vikings 3rd and 2 play at the start of their game-winning drive. Either the Vikings had the right play called or Brad Johnson audibled, because the Vikings found KGB, ran at him again, and got the first down.
I've gotta give credit where it's due. The Vikes made an excellent adjustment at half time. They stopped trying to run up the middle, and as Hammer pointed out either exploited KGB on the run, or short passes right over his pass rushing head.
Not sure if Tice was the impetus for that or the Vike's Offensive Coordinator. Either way, good call.
Well played Vikes.
By 8:02 AM, at
Congrats on the sweep--what is that like the second time in 15 years? I guess when your team has been a perpetual loser for decades, it's the little things that count.
By 8:51 AM, at
Petty rivalries, like Packer-Viking, are more important to teams with losing traditions, particularly in big games.
There are, of course, real rivalries, based on tradition and history. Like Packer-Bear.
the sweep--what is that like the second time in 15 years?
Since, like, you asked -- no. The fourth time in 15 years: 1992, 1993, 1998, and 2005. The Packers swept the season series in 1997, 2000, and 2004. All time Packers vs. Vikes: 44-44-1.
Hammer -- 89 games is a real rivalry, with real history and real tradition. It doesn't go back to Curly Lambeau, but 1961 wasn't yesterday.
I'm not saying the rivalry is devoid of pettiness, but what sports rivalry is?
How's this for petty? What's the Superbowl count again? Joseph, write back when you guys win your fourth: then maybe you guys will have something to brag about.
By 11:36 AM, at
Packers have played the Bears about 170 times. (PDF). They've played every year since 1921. They've played the Lions every year since 1930. Even the Rams have beaten the Packers more times than the Vikings have. It's the Viking's biggest rivalry, but in terms of traditions and meaningful games, Packer-Viking is only 3rd biggest rivalry to the Packers.
I don't have a dog in this fight (I'm 2-0, remember?) but I just have to say, and I'm sure D will agree, that anything, even a rivalry, that is older than I am is officially old.
Aaron Kampman dominated last night. Go Hawks!
I am a Steelers fan, so this rivalry is a bit lost on me. After living in the metro area and MN for a few years, I learned that Vikings fans are extremely fair-weather, and will turn on their team very quickly at the first sign of trouble. Of course, all is forgotten (what sex boat?) when the team strings together a few wins.
I am with Juan, win a few championship trophies and then open your yap. Until then, act like you have been there before, even though we all know you have not.
I also agree that Jambo is old. It is a good thing Jambo quit paying attention, because that Skins loss to the Raiders was not pretty.
By 1:36 PM, at
Four? A team's gotta win four to be anything? I guess that leaves out the Packers (and everybody else but Dallas, Pittsburgh, and San Francisco). Raiders, Patriots, Redskins -- they're all nothing. Miami's perfect season? Worthless!
Ranking the Vikings as the Packer's third-biggest rivalry makes my point, not yours. Now, third biggest for, say, Jacksonville wouldn't be much.
Ha! I was going to compare your age to the rivalry in my previous post, but thought that was a cheap shot. Not to mention that I'm as old as you...
The Packers won three
The Vikings have won zero
Four is one more than three
That is the point I am trying to make: in other words, the Vikes have some catching up to do--Superbowl-wise--before their fans' trash talk picks up any credibility.
By 3:12 PM, at
Let's beat this dead horse just a little more -- "catching up" [your words] would be... three. One less than four.
Taking another view -- just what do Superbowls in 1967, 1968, 1970, 1974, 1975, 1977, 1997, and 1998 have do do with the feverish rantings of the fans of two crappy teams that aren't going anywhere near the Superbowl in 2006?
Before anybody says it -- "A Vikings fan would say that."
My crappy team's better than your crappy team! Nyaah!
But four would be more than three, and give you valid bragging rights; it would allow you to say, with credibility, that your franchise is more successful, etc. Three to Three wouldn't be any fun. Happy Thanksgiving--I am going home!
By 4:05 PM, at << Home