DaBearSox Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 So through the grapevine I herd Favre just bought a house in Edina, MN.... could be totally BS but if it's true then probably to the Vikes... good we got our Vikes games late in the season when Brett is at his worst... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 Also, Sports Illustrated is reporting that Favre had biceps surgery. The details: - The surgery was an arthroscopic procedure to complete the partial tear in his biceps tendon. - Average recovery time is four to six weeks. - The procedure was completed 10-12 days ago. Basically, this would put him out for training camp if he were to sign with the Vikings, but in theory he'd be full-go by the time the season starts. Honestly, I'm all for him signing with the Vikings: if Lovie's demonstrated one thing in his tenure as Chicago's head coach, it's that his Bears teams reliably stomp Brett Favre. Considering that Favre's been wearing down badly at season's end for the last several years and that the Bears play the Vikings in weeks 12 and 16, I'd put money on the Bears sweeping the Vikes if they sign Favre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 I already have... Regarless which pick thrower is behind their center... I'd put money on the Bears sweeping the Vikes if they sign Favre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 I already have... Regarless which pick thrower is behind their center... It's scary to think how good the Vikings could be if they had even a halfway-decent quarterback. I know people were talking about them going after Jay Cutler - honestly, if they even had a guy like a Jason Campbell or a circa-2007 Derek Anderson, just a middle-of-the-pack guy, I think they'd be a very tough team to beat. Really, Campbell would be the ideal quarterback for them: he takes care of the football, doesn't commit turnovers, and gets decent production despite throwing to one big-play receiver and not much else. Fortunately, Favre, Rosenfels, and Tarvaris Jackson are not going to do any of those things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 It's scary to think how good the Vikings could be if they had even a halfway-decent quarterback. I know people were talking about them going after Jay Cutler - honestly, if they even had a guy like a Jason Campbell or a circa-2007 Derek Anderson, just a middle-of-the-pack guy, I think they'd be a very tough team to beat. Really, Campbell would be the ideal quarterback for them: he takes care of the football, doesn't commit turnovers, gets decent production despite throwing to one big-play receiver and not much else. Fortunately, Favre, Rosenfels, and Tarvaris Jackson are not going to do any of those things. Great point. I think we have all seen enough games to agree that Favre really sucks at protecting the ball. There is a reason that he has thrown the most INT's in a career besides the fact that he has lasted for an amazing 18 years so far. Most QB's struggle just to play for 15 years because of all the beating they take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 Campbell and Anderson actually would worry me far more than Dr. Rosenrosen and Pick Favre... They will be tough. But I think the difficult part will be their D and running game. I like our chances... It's scary to think how good the Vikings could be if they had even a halfway-decent quarterback. I know people were talking about them going after Jay Cutler - honestly, if they even had a guy like a Jason Campbell or a circa-2007 Derek Anderson, just a middle-of-the-pack guy, I think they'd be a very tough team to beat. Really, Campbell would be the ideal quarterback for them: he takes care of the football, doesn't commit turnovers, and gets decent production despite throwing to one big-play receiver and not much else. Fortunately, Favre, Rosenfels, and Tarvaris Jackson are not going to do any of those things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 Great point. I think we have all seen enough games to agree that Favre really sucks at protecting the ball. There is a reason that he has thrown the most INT's in a career besides the fact that he has lasted for an amazing 18 years so far. Most QB's struggle just to play for 15 years because of all the beating they take. Yeah, he's not the player they need at all. How many times toward the end of his time in Green Bay did we watch him single-handedly lose a game? And it's not like they're going to hire a 39-year-old famously uncoachable gunslinger and retrain him to be a reliable caretaker-type QB. He'd step right in and start throwing picks, just like he's done for the past several seasons. Minnesota's got a stifling run defense, Jared Allen rushing the passer, and the best running back in the league, but their best receiver has never broken 1000 yards in his career. They're not a big-play team: they're built to protect a lead, run out the clock, and methodically kill the opposing teams' drives. The WORST thing you could do on a team like that is hire a guy who's averaged 21 picks a season over the last four years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.