Because we are a franchise depressingly defined by it's history of what ifs . . . (and one magical moment in the sun)
2009 Brett Favre with Rex Ryan, we wouldn't need Curtis Painter to make the playoffs. Maybe sneak in and grab that AFC East. Wouldn't have had to trade up for Sanchez. Maybe felt more comfortable waiting on a QB or try grabbing one in 2010. (2009 QB draft class looks really weak in retrospect) More picks in 2009 to help Favre. Yeah 2009 might have ended up in a division title or home playoff game. Maybe even a SB trip/win. Too hard to predict playoffs, but I think we would have done better than 9-7. Interesting to think about, that 2009 team could have been stacked depending on who they drafted
Ive seen you have this same argument with others. Whether you agree with this or not but Favre's injury played a part in us missing the playoffs. Plus with another year under his belt who's to say the Jets don't make the playoffs in 09 with Favre?
The man made his career playing through pain, he wanted everyone to know how tough he was(and he was), NO EXCUSES. Mark was hurt at the end of 2010 and 2011, no one makes injury excuses for him. He sabotaged a great chance to get to a SB in a weak field of 2008 b/c he made bad decisions and b/c he didn't want to be here NOT b/c he was playing hurt.
Wait. You're basically arguing that in the years of 2009 and 2010 Mark Sanchez had this undefinable ability to play at higher level than his regular season play would indicate. Would you like me to cherry pick 6 Brett Fave playoff games to crush this argument, that makes absolutely zero sense to begin with? The fact wee even comparing the two players just shows how little you know about the sport. All you do is cherry pick individual playoff games an use them to define careers, in a team sport no less. It's just beyond bizarre. These random arguments with no semblance of coherence and arbitrary comparisons. They make no sense.
In 6 playoff games mark has had 2 bad halves, the equivalent of 1 bad game so 83% of his games have been good. where am I cherry picking? Favre has been a choker most of his career, the proof is in the play but we want to pretend this career choker would have made us a SB team despite him playing his best and not being able to get a more talented team to the SB.
The whole Favre thing, he hated Schottenheimer's offensive philosophy correct? Favre didn't want to be here because of that. Him and Mangini. It would of been alright to have Favre again for another season and have another QB be groomed under him.
6 career playoff games provides no indication of anything. As far as Favre being a choker, whatever. You have to be a good player first to be considered a choker. The guy has how many playoff wins? How many playoff appearances? You could make a case for any QB not named Montana being a choker. In the grand scheme of his career, it means little.
Favre never had a defense half as good as that 2009 unit. The Vikings had a much more talented offense than us but we had the much more talented defense. (They were good at stopping the run and had a jekyll and hyde pass rush, but we were far more complete). The respective overall talent levels of the two teams was very close, IMO. To be honest, you may not like it, but the biggest difference in talent between those two teams was at the quarterback position. :wink:
While somewhat interesting (and I agree that Favre has a lot of bad big game performances on his resume), the choker argument is mostly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The reason for this is that no one is guaranteeing that we would have won the Superbowl with Favre. The point is, that by any objective standard, we would have been a much better overall team with Favre at the helm . . . as opposed to being forced to play games with a rookie turnover machine who couldn't complete 55% of his passes.
The injury was an excuse. It affected his play. There is a difference between playing hurt and playing with an injury. Damn near every player is playing hurt by the end of the season.
Also, it's not like Mark was playing really well for a while and then got hurt, causing the quality of his play to sharply decline in the process. Mark's play has always consistently been mediocre or worse.
i think it would have been a disaster. Rex was still in this ground and pound all the way mentality, and I think we would have seen an explosion.
Nah, I really think Rex would have let Brett run the offense. Rex was partly obsessed with 'ground and pound' because it played perfectly into the idea that the team would be loaded with a top defense ("his baby") and a nondescript offense with a rookie quarterback that just had to stay out of the way. With Favre, much more production would have been expected out of the offense. Perceptions would have been different coming into the season and Rex would have acted accordingly.
certainly possible....although i suppose we'll never know. let's say that did happen...then rex might have drafted sanchez the next year and continued a pass attack and we never make it to those two AFCCG's which depending on who you ask might have been a good thing.
Btw, it's worth mentioning that Rex has admitted several times that he was gearing up to make a big pitch to Favre before he quit on the Jets. I really think he would have promised Favre a big say in the direction of the offense during that conversation.
All fair . . . edit: I also don't think Schotty would have been back if Favre agreed to come back. I don't think Bret ever cared for his overly-complicated, hokey approach.
Of course the post-season matters. But anyone can recognize, Favre's individual season was the biggest reason the Vikings went 12-4, won the division and had a first round bye. Blaming the entire season on Favre and breaking the entire season down to one play is absurdly short sighted and is clearly agenda driven. Take Favre off of that team and replace him with a 2009 Mark Sanchez they're not even in the playoffs. The Pats won 10 games in 2009. If were substituting Favre's individual season on the Vikings that year, we win more than 10 games. Your argument that "well the Pats would have just found a way" doesnt really hold much merit other than it being your opinion. Your opinion on which games Sanchez cost us doesn't mean Favre wouldn't have helped us blow out teams like Jacksonville or Atlanta(aka games you think Sanchez didnt cost us that we lost).
