After yesterday, we need to feel better about something....

MartyConlonOnTheRun · Post #1 » by **MartyConlonOnTheRun** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 2:24 pm

http://football.realgm.com/src_wiretap_ ... _exchange/

Vikings quarterback Brett Favre and coach Brad Childress got into a "heated discussion" in the third quarter of Sunday night's game against the Panthers.

Childress tried to pull Favre, which led to the exchange.

"Brad wanted to go in a different (direction), and I wanted to stay in the game.

"We were up," Favre said, referring to his team's 7-6 lead in the third quarter. " 'I'm staying in the game.' "

LUKE23 · Post #2 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 2:30 pm

Let the annual December/playoff meltdown begin!!!!

Favre in December = 3 TD, 4 INT, 1-2 record.

LarryHarris · Post #3 » by **LarryHarris** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 2:43 pm

And, of course, Chilly left him in. Hearing about this on the way into work this morning made me very happy indeed.

Newz · Post #4 » by **Newz** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 2:49 pm

Favre's typical choking + Vikings history of choking = :lol:

Thunder Muscle · Post #5 » by **Thunder Muscle** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:04 pm

I can't recall the specific but I thought I read that since 2004 that Favre in the last 5 games of the season has like 30 TD's vs 50 INT's - give or take. I wish I could find the specific number. And yes, it does make me feel better.

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #6 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:06 pm

N8Frog wrote:I can't recall the specific but I thought I read that since 2004 that Favre in the last 5 games of the season has like 30 TD's vs 50 INT's - give or take. I wish I could find the specific number. And yes, it does make me feel better.

Here are his stats since 2005...

MartyConlonOnTheRun · Post #7 » by **MartyConlonOnTheRun** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:25 pm

13-34 by my count. This should be fun. Too bad there won't be any cold games (minus one versus Chicago) since the either have home field or play NO.

Ryan5UW · Post #8 » by **Ryan5UW** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:30 pm

MartyConlonOnTheRun wrote:13-34 by my count. This should be fun. Too bad there won't be any cold games (minus one versus Chicago) since the either have home field or play NO.

Well, Philly is only one game behind them, I wonder who would have the tiebreaker between them. Taking the Packers out of the equation, I'd love to see Philly get the 2nd seed. That could lead to some interesting scenarios.

ETA: guy from Minny radio on the DP show just brought Philly up and said if he understands correctly Philly would have the tiebreaker.

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #9 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:31 pm

MartyConlonOnTheRun wrote:13-34 by my count. This should be fun. Too bad there won't be any cold games (minus one versus Chicago) since the either have home field or play NO.

The Eagles could still catch them for the #2 seed. Then they'd have to play on Wild Card weekend and have to go to Philly in the next round.

Kerb Hohl · Post #10 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:53 pm

Ryan5UW wrote:Well, Philly is only one game behind them, I wonder who would have the tiebreaker between them.

I was thinking this last night. I'm 99% sure it would be Philly. For a tie to happen, the Queens are going to have to lose 1 (or 2 if Philly loses 1). Both are against the NFC.

Right now, by virtue of 2 of their 4 losses coming to Oakland and San Diego, the Eagles will have 2 conference losses if they win out.

If the Queens lose and both tie at 12-4, they have lost only to Pittsburgh in the AFC and would have 3 conference losses. If they lose 2 and the Eagles lose 1 they would have 4 conference losses and the Eagles would have either 2 or 3 depending on who that loss is to.

So Eagles have it.

LUKE23 · Post #11 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:57 pm

Eagles have the tiebreaker, they were talking about it during the game last night.

If Eagles beat Broncos at home next week, the 16th game will have relevance for both teams regardless of what happens with Vikings/Bears.

LarryHarris · Post #12 » by **LarryHarris** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:30 pm

The Vikes have looked really pedestrian the last two weeks. They just couldn't get anything going against a very bad team. Perhaps this will create some dissension on the team, of course, none of these players respect Chilly as is, so I can't see too much of a change there. If I were either of the other two QBs, I think I'd be kind of pissed. So there is that... Would love to see the Vikes lose out... Bears will be playing for Lovie's job, so there's that...

MartyConlonOnTheRun · Post #13 » by **MartyConlonOnTheRun** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:38 pm

What I don't get is why would Childress try switching QBs if he didn't have the balls to stick to it. It doesn't seem worth it to take your starter out this late in the season while still in the game. What's the best that could happen, the back-up play great and all of a sudden you have a QB controversy on a 12-2 team?

Post #14 » by **Wade-A-Holic** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 5:22 pm

MartyConlonOnTheRun wrote:What I don't get is why would Childress try switching QBs if he didn't have the balls to stick to it. It doesn't seem worth it to take your starter out this late in the season while still in the game. What's the best that could happen, the back-up play great and all of a sudden you have a QB controversy on a 12-2 team?

Don't question 'Chilly'. He's a genius.

I wasn't even all that angry about this loss to begin with. Sure this Pittsburgh team clearly isn't anything close to what it was a season ago, but they're pissed off and playing at home, and we were a missed chip shot field goal away from icing this thing. Yeah it's frustrating, but if there was a game to lose this was it. Come home next week and take care of business against Seattle and, then given the Arizona loss last week (they don't really have a shot at the #2 seed), they'll probably be sitting their starters the following week.

Shoot it FatBoy · Post #15 » by **Shoot it FatBoy** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:27 pm

This is a clip from a Yahoo article.

“We were up 7-6,” Favre said postgame Sunday about the “conversation.” “Yeah, it’s not 70-6, but we’re up 7-6. So I said, ‘I’m staying in the game, I’m playing.’ I don’t know if it was exactly to protect me, or we had seven points, I’m not sure. That’s his call. But we talked it out.

Really Favre? That's his call? Then what was the argument about?

Post #16 » by **MickeyDavis** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:14 pm

From King:

"Yeah,'' Favre said, "we were up 7-6 at the time. No secret, I was getting hit a little bit. I felt the pressure on a lot of plays. We had seven points. So I think everyone in the building was like, 'They're not moving the ball. They're not getting points.' Brad wanted to go in a different direction and I wanted to stay in the game. We were up 7-6. Yeah, it's not 70-6, but we're up 7-6.

"So I said, 'I'm staying in the game, I'm playing.' I don't know if [Childress' effort] was exactly to protect me, or we had seven points, I'm not sure. That's his call. But we talked it out. We didn't have time, I didn't have time to sit there and say why or what. My response was, we've got to win this ballgame and I want to stay in and do whatever I can.''

You recall last year when Favre had the Jets 8-3 after 11 games, then fell apart in December. Could it happen again? Sure it could. But last year happened because of an injury. Favre's sore this season but not hurt, by all accounts. I'm sure there's plenty of blame to go around, and I'm not saying a quarterback should be so sacred that he should never get yanked from a game. But should a quarterback get yanked if he's got pressure in his face on play after play? Only to protect him from injury?

If that's what Childress was doing, I might understand it -- but I emphasize "might.'' A night earlier, the Saints had shown serious vulnerability, and now, with the gap between the two teams for NFC homefield edge only one game if the Vikings won here, this was no time to yank Favre. This was the time to battle through a bad game, survive, and try to fix what ails the team schematically this week.

This will be to Week 16 what Randy Moss-is-dogging-it was to Week 15. Get ready for all Favre, all the time.

an_also · Post #17 » by **an_also** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:24 pm

Here is to hoping next monday, chicago will be cold as **** and windy as hell

LarryHarris · Post #18 » by **LarryHarris** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:49 pm

an_also wrote:Here is to hoping next monday, chicago will be cold as **** and windy as hell

I would love to see it.

Post #19 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:36 pm

Dan Patrick was all over this today. Nobody could understand if he was going to bench him for his performance or if it was to protect him. He made the point that he didn't pull him against Zona when he obviously needed protecting.

Enrique · Post #20 » by **Enrique** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:17 pm

Childress is a horrible coach. I understand that Favre was playing like crap, but why would you think about pulling him when you are winning the game and a win would put you 1 game back of homefield throughout. Just when I was nervous that the Queens were actually going to get a ring, Childress goes and screws it all up.