Buy or Sell: Brett Favre

[TheOneBigWill]

On ESPN they did this segment called "Buy or Sell" in which a topic was put up and discussed on whether or not you believed or didn't believe, in it.

I figured to at least begin that type of subject here on WZ. I'm not going to guarantee I'll run with it, but I'm at least saying I'll give it a shot. So, my first topic.

Brett Favre: Minnesota's ONLY hope for a Superbowl for the next 5 years. Buy or Sell?

The fact is everyone is banking on this being the last Season for Minnesota to not only make the Playoffs, but to also have a solid shot at making the Superbowl a realistic goal. Beginning next Season they'll likely lose a few major key players, with several note-worthy individuals coming up on Contract years and with an unknown in potential cap space.

Furthermore, for whatever reason it may be - most of the analysts out there believe that Favre is the best hope (at least at QB, and controlling the offense as a whole) this team has to make such a run.

Do you believe this? Is Brett Favre the best hope they have to make a Superbowl run within the next 5 years? Buy or Sell?

Please make sure to (obviously) give solid explanation so people can debate with your reasoning. Thank You.

 

[gd]

I'd say that's probably true. The thing is, QB is by far the most important position in football, and likely all of sports. Regardless of how talented your team is, if you don't have a QB that's at least somewhat above average, you're not going to have great success, for the most part.

Favre is clearly better than anything Minnesota has at the moment. They aren't winning anything with Tavaris Jackson or Sage Rosenfels, plain and simple. Once Favre leaves after this year, they're going to be a team in a transitional period, unless they can trade for or sign a big name QB in the free agent market, which doesn't happen very often.

That means they'll have to rebuild through the draft, and considering it's basically a toss up as to whether or not a highly drafted QB will ever succeed, their future is certainly up in the air. Even if they make the right choice, it often takes at least 3 or so years for a young QB to fully develop.

SO, it appears I'm buying this.

 

[goodlay]

I'll buy that. I don't see Minnesota getting anyone better than Favre at QB anytime soon. Tavaris may not be entirely awful, but he certainly won't be leading the Vikings to a Super Bowl in the next 5 years. And Sage Rosenfels? Well I think that explains itself. So they'll probably end up drafting a QB, unless they really think Tavaris is the guy, but what I have seen from him doesn't exactly indicate to him being a future star in this league, though I may be wrong.

The Vikings are probably fucked at QB after Favre retires, but right now, they are one of the top contenders in the NFC.

 

[Davi323]

I am gonna totally buy this, unless something ridiculously messed up happens, like Peyton Manning or Tom Brady leaving their teams because they can't come to terms on their contracts, or something (unlikely)...basically, with the CBA expiring, the possibility of a lockout next year, and then the possibililty of the Vikings drafting a QB, and have that QB be good enough in such a short time almost guarantees that it is NOW for the Vikings. This their window of opportunity.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

I'd say that's probably true. The thing is, QB is by far the most important position in football, and likely all of sports. Regardless of how talented your team is, if you don't have a QB that's at least somewhat above average, you're not going to have great success, for the most part.

Favre is clearly better than anything Minnesota has at the moment. They aren't winning anything with Tavaris Jackson or Sage Rosenfels, plain and simple. Once Favre leaves after this year, they're going to be a team in a transitional period, unless they can trade for or sign a big name QB in the free agent market, which doesn't happen very often.

That means they'll have to rebuild through the draft, and considering it's basically a toss up as to whether or not a highly drafted QB will ever succeed, their future is certainly up in the air. Even if they make the right choice, it often takes at least 3 or so years for a young QB to fully develop.

SO, it appears I'm buying this.

General, while I agree with Favre being their best chance, allow me to respectfully disagree with your post...somewhat.

You did acknowledge that QB play should be somewhat above average. I don't necessarily know that this is the case. You need someone serviceable. Not necessarily somewhat above average.

Allow me the following as proof.

Roethlisberger the year the Steelers won it all with him the first time.

168-268 Comp & of 62.7 threw for 2385 with 17 TD's and 9 INT's and a passer rating of 98.6

Trent Dilfer when the Ravens won the Bowl

he was 134-226 with a Comp % of 59.3 threw for 1,502 yds with 12 TD's and 11 INT's and a passer rating of 76.6

Terry Bradshaw during the 74-75 season

67-148 with a Comp % of 45.3 threw for 785 yds with 7 TD's and 8 INT's and a passer rating of 55.2

Same guy, 4 years later

259-472 with a Comp % of 54.9 threw for 3,724 with 26 TD's and 25 INT's and a passer rating of 77.0

Joe Namath

187-380 with a Comp % of 49.2 threw for 3,147 with 15 TD's and 17 INT's with a passer rating of 72.1


Now, are some of these guys considered greats or HOF'ers, sure. Roethlisberger has a ways to go, but let's be real, he already has 2 and will probably get another. None, except for Big Ben, stand out in the year that they won the Bowl. Now, Tarvaris Jackson ranks favorably with some of these individuals.

2007:

171-294 with a Comp % of 58.2 threw for 1,911 with 9 TD's and 12 INT's and a passer rating of 70.8 in 12 games.


These aren't staggering numbers, however, what's the one thing all those teams I mentioned above had? A DAMN good D. Minnesota has that. They need serviceable play from either Rosenfels or Jackson. I think it can be done, I don't know that it will, but I wanted to give some numbers to illustrate that Favre isn't going to be the end-all-be-all as long as they have that great D in Minnesota.

EDIT: I'd also like to add that, while Big Ben had the best season out of all the QB's mentioned above, he also set an NFL record for having the SHITTIEST Super Bowl performance out of any QB in NFL history in a winning effort.

Here's a link you might find interesting. It sort of illustrates my point. You don't need to have a good QB, you need ONE good season out of him with a great defense.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/118647-the-10-worst-quarterbacks-to-win-a-super-bowl

 

[Minor League Brian]

For the record, there is NO way you can compare Bradshaw and Nameth to QB's of today. With the way DB's and defenses were allowed to play back then and the style of offenses ran, it's a COMPLETELY different world.

Ontop of that Big Ben's first win, the Raven's, and the year Tampa Bay went to the Superbowl were the only years I can think of that Defense really won the game. Out of those years, and epically the last few years no team without a Franchise QB has won the game. So I HAVE to buy here because in the last decade the Superbowl favors the one with a Franchise QB.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

Actually, you can, but I'm not going to take the time to go through and post the same numbers for QB's like Staubach and such who had ridiculous passing stats.

Defense has won a Super Bowl at LEAST once a decade, if not more. Everything is cyclical, dude. Right now we have ridiculous offenses. A ridiculously good defense will come along and ****** one of those offenses and take the Lombardi trophy home. It's not that game so much evolves as it just goes in waves.

Same thing with college football. In the 70's the Wishbone was all the rave, then people figured it out, now it's come back in the form of the spread and triple option and teams are using it again.

 

[Minor League Brian]

Errr. Sammy Baugh was quite possibly one of the best players the NFL has ever seen, he revolutionized the sport. Do you know what his stats were?

Pass attempts 2,995
Pass completions 1,693
Percentage 56.5
TD-INT 187-203
Passing yards 21,886
QB Rating 72.2

You CANNOT compare QB's of say...I'll go the last 2 Decades to anyone prior to that. With the rule changes to things like Defense Backs getting physical with receivers to protections for Quarterbacks, this is a pass happy and offense happy league. The league is slowly evolving to the point where the defense is not going to be the focal point, be that good or bad is up to discussion.

The current trend is telling you that you have to have a Franchsie QB to win the big one. An exception does not mean its a rule.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

Errr. Sammy Baugh was quite possibly one of the best players the NFL has ever seen, he revolutionized the sport. Do you know what his stats were?

Pass attempts 2,995
Pass completions 1,693
Percentage 56.5
TD-INT 187-203
Passing yards 21,886
QB Rating 72.2

You CANNOT compare QB's of say...I'll go the last 2 Decades to anyone prior to that. With the rule changes to things like Defense Backs getting physical with receivers to protections for Quarterbacks, this is a pass happy and offense happy league. The league is slowly evolving to the point where the defense is not going to be the focal point, be that good or bad is up to discussion.

The current trend is telling you that you have to have a Franchsie QB to win the big one. An exception does not mean its a rule.

You clearly have missed the part where I said things going in cycles. You're trying to take a couple of QB's Brees, Manning, Brady, and Rodgers and say that it fits the rest of the league. You're wrong.

4 QB's do not a league make. If this was TRULY a pass happy league then it wouldn't matter who you drafted in fantasy football, everyone would give you around the same points. That's not the case. Certain teams have always been built around defense and that's not going to change.

The Steelers have had more championship last decade than anyone but the Patriots. They did it with defense. Longest defensive play in Super Bowl history? James Harrison of who? The Steelers. How did the Giants win their Super Bowl? With defense. They held that offense that you're saying is going to replace good defense to 14 points. I think that Super Bowl right there completely disproves anything you've been saying.

The Patriots were an offensive juggernaut that season. The most high powered offense the NFL has ever seen. Guess what? Defense beat them.

Game, set, match ITGG.

 

[LSN80]

Im going with a huge sell on this one. Minnesota is loaded at all of the skill positions, with Peterson at RB, Rice, Harvin, and Berrian at WR, and Schiancoe at TE. All of them are in or near the prime of their careers. Their defense is very solid as well, with Jared Allen and the Wiliams', to name a few.

Even if Farve can't lead the Vikes to a Superbowl this year(and I dont think he will), Tavaris Jackson has spent enough years as an understudy that he can manage a game well enough to avoid making mistakes and let the skill players take over. I think the bigges hindrance to the Vikes Super Bowl chances is the possibility of Peterson coughing up the ball on a game winning drive. I think Peterson is the main cog that will determine the Vikes' Superbowl fate.


Even if Tavaris Jackson shows he can't get the job down, wouldnt' you think Minnesota is going to draft a QB, early, in April 11's draft with Farve retiring after the year? And all they should need is a guy who can manage a game, and not make costly mistakes. Being from Pittsburgh, I watched Ben Roethlisberger manage the Steelers in his third year from the wild card to Super Bowl Champions. He got hot in the playoffs, but the defense and running game carried the Steelers all year, and bailed Ben out in the SuperBowl when he was horrendous. They won the big one that year in spite of Ben. Whose to say a team that's loaded on both sides of the ball couldn't do that again, in say, year 4? The Vikings have as good a chance as any.