- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 10/21/09 at 11:48 pm to 1ranter1
quote:
Take off the ESPN glasses if you think Favre is more valuable than AD.
0 to do with ESPN and everything to do with looking at the game logs as well as actually watching the games. Favre has been more consistent than Brees so far this year. You'll never concede this fact though because you're a mouth breather.
Posted on 10/21/09 at 11:49 pm to Louie T
quote:
better defense
I don't think that's true. Greg Williams has done wonders with the Saints.
Posted on 10/21/09 at 11:51 pm to JJ27
quote:the saints D has gotten vastly better but still not as good as minny
I don't think that's true. Greg Williams has done wonders with the Saints.
Posted on 10/21/09 at 11:55 pm to JJ27
quote:
looking at the game logs
So you are saying Brees wasn't valuable in the games he didn't throw any TD passes? The reason the Saints had so much success on the ground in those games was because the defenses went all out to stop his passing.
And if you want to look at season stats Brees has more TDs and yards, even though he has played one less game.
It has nothing to do with being a Saints fan. You can not possibly say Farve is more valuable than Brees or Peyton.
Posted on 10/21/09 at 11:56 pm to etow69
Peyton has been great all 5 games.
Brees was very average in 2 out 6 games. no TD passes and less than 200yds passing in those 2. Defense really won the game vs the Jets.
Brees was very average in 2 out 6 games. no TD passes and less than 200yds passing in those 2. Defense really won the game vs the Jets.
Posted on 10/22/09 at 12:01 am to 1ranter1
quote:awesome that he conveniently leaves that out
even though he has played one less game.
Posted on 10/22/09 at 12:02 am to 1ranter1
quote:
You can not possibly say Farve is more valuable than Brees or Peyton.
I know they were 3-3 at this point last year and 3-4 after week 7. Now with Favre they'll be no worse than 6-1 after week 7. If Jackson is their QB this year they have atleast 2 losses if not more. You can't say "If Brunell was starting" because he's not a starter. He was brought in to be a backup. Jackson was their starter. There's a difference. The Saints would go get someone else to be their starter if they didn't have Brees.
Posted on 10/22/09 at 12:03 am to Louie T
quote:
awesome that he conveniently leaves that out
No I knew that little fact.
Posted on 10/22/09 at 12:05 am to JJ27
quote:but don't convey it to others
No I knew that little fact.
Posted on 10/22/09 at 12:07 am to JJ27
quote:
If Jackson is their QB this year they have atleast 2 losses if not more
Do you have proof of this?
Posted on 10/22/09 at 12:10 am to JJ27
quote:you act like jackson was even halfway decent
I know they were 3-3 at this point last year and 3-4 after week 7. Now with Favre they'll be no worse than 6-1 after week 7. If Jackson is their QB this year they have atleast 2 losses if not more. You can't say "If Brunell was starting" because he's not a starter. He was brought in to be a backup. Jackson was their starter. There's a difference. The Saints would go get someone else to be their starter if they didn't have Brees.
technically, and i mean only technically, he was a starter. he was about as good as brunell is. not hard to improve over that sack of shite
Posted on 10/22/09 at 12:10 am to Louie T
quote:
but don't convey it to others
I did the research, obviously you did too. Why should I have to do all the work for both sides of the arguement?
Posted on 10/22/09 at 12:11 am to 1ranter1
quote:
Do you have proof of this?
Weakest.Arguement.Ever
Posted on 10/22/09 at 12:14 am to JJ27
quote:
Weakest.Arguement.Ever
Yes it is. But that is exactly what you said earlier, when I said the Saints wouldn't win 2 games without Brees you said
quote:
You can make a blanket statement that their teams would suck without them
But then it is ok for you to assume that Minnesota would lose 2 more games without Favre?
So it's ok for you to assume, but not others. Got it.
Just using your own dumbass logic.
This post was edited on 10/22/09 at 12:14 am
Posted on 10/22/09 at 12:16 am to 1ranter1
It's like talking to a 5 year old.
Posted on 10/22/09 at 12:21 am to JJ27
Yes it is. You try to agrue that Favre has better stats, when its clear he doesn't. You conviently leave out that the only reason his stats are even close is because Brees has played one less game. You try to prove your point by bringing up Brees' two bad games, but never do you mention Favre throwing for 110 yards in week one or how horrible he was against SF before that miracle pass.
You also completely ignore how the Sainst would look with Brunell at QB, and then bring up how the Vikings would look with Tavaris at QB.
So basically your entire agrument is bullshite, yet I am the 5 year old. Got it.
You also completely ignore how the Sainst would look with Brunell at QB, and then bring up how the Vikings would look with Tavaris at QB.
So basically your entire agrument is bullshite, yet I am the 5 year old. Got it.
This post was edited on 10/22/09 at 12:22 am
Posted on 10/22/09 at 12:42 am to 1ranter1
That face that Brees now has a solid defense and a solid running game will hurt him statistically because he won't have to carry the team anymore, but it will help him accomplish something greater than an MVP....
Posted on 10/22/09 at 12:44 am to etow69
To early IMO but I would say Favre and Brees are front runners...cant over look the Manning brothers though IMO
Posted on 10/22/09 at 12:45 am to 1ranter1
I never said Favre had better stats. I said Favre has been more consistent which is true. You claim they would be fine without him because of Adrian Peterson. Have you looked at his numbers besides the Cleveland and Baltimore game? How about that beastly 25/55 day against Green Bay? He had great days against Cleveland-actually amazing day here-and Baltimore. The same Baltimore that CEDRIC frickING BENSON ran for 120 against. This isn't the 2000 Ravens by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not trying to discredit AD because he is a great running back. Just saying if you look at his numbers, he's not putting the team on his back and carrying them to their wins like you want us to believe.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News