Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Childress tried to bench Favre (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter trader jake
- Start date
Jason Wood
Zoo York
The only logical way this went down (IMHO) is the aforementioned risk of injury being a factor. I can't fathom that Childress tried to pull Favre, up 7-6, based on a belief another QB would ignite the offense, and even if he did believe that, I REALLY can't fathom a QB - even Favre - refusing to come out and not having the coach send him to the showers. But the idea that Favre was taking a beating, and Childress knows their only hope of a playoff run is a healthy Favre, led to the conversation/dispute makes TONS of sense. And in that case, I could understand how the suggestion of Favre sitting down was met with a "keep me in coach, I'm here to play."
Avery
Footballguy
I'd love to pile on Chili and Favre for this one and for the sake of drama it would be fascinating if it was more dramatic and controversial, but the above really makes the most sense.
Michael Fox Fan
Footballguy
boring.
Avery
Footballguy
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
Agree that this makes the most sense, however, watching the game last night did remind me of the first Packers game, in which Favre audibled out of a running play to take a shot at a homerun late in the game when the Packers were out of timeouts. One way to look at it is to say what a great competitor he is; the other being his proclivity to make stupid mistakes. If Childress was "fed up" with Favre for changing plays (as has been suggested), that's a problem. We know that Favre is perfectly comfortable putting himself above the team and being a disruptive force to get his way.The game last night was very important for the Vikings playoff run, so it doesn't make much sense to me that Childress would essentially concede it due to the sacks Favre was taking. Next week they are at Chicago, which is the only cold-weather game on their schedule. The Bears may have thrown in the towel, but I was down there two weeks ago and I saw a team that was still fighting for their coach (at least against the Packers). It appears week 17 will be a very meaningful game against the Giants, with the Giants possibly playing in a "win and we're in" situation. If the Vikings lose one of those games, there is a good chance they lose their bye and end up travelling to Philladelphia for the second playoff game, which is a huge difference.
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
Green and Gold
Footballguy
Which part of "up 7-6" wasn't clear? Sure, you take him out in the 4th quarter when they're getting pounded, but while winning? Come on. Only if Favre is hurt but toughing it out would that make any sense.
Jeremy
Footballguy
That was an important game for the Vikings. They have the division, but that 1st round bye was far from a certainty. Now they're a loss and a Philly win away from being the 3 seed instead of the 2 seed. Hindsight shows us that keeping him in there didn't matter, but how do you take your star QB out of the game when it has that much importance?
massraider
Footballguy
You can almost pick out the ADP owners by their responses.
switz
Footballguy
Anyone trying to blame that loss on Favre is an idiot. Pulling Favre would have been conceding the game, which is why Favre wasn't going to sit. Favre threw one INT, and that was a desperation pass toward the end of the game. He did NOT have a bad game by any stretch of the imagination.How was that great MIN defense doing? They managed to allow their first 100 yard rushing game, a crappy QB to throw for 3 TDS, and surrender 26 points. Should Favre suit up as a LB next week to fill Henderson's role?LINK In the post game press conference Favre said that he told Childress that he wasn't going to come out.The Panthers continued to pressure the aging QB and went on to win the game with relative ease. Trouble in Minnesota?
Phurfur
Footballguy
He looked 40 yesterday.
switz
Footballguy
Really? Looked pretty nimble in the pocket, he had a 63 completion percentage. The Favre haters are digging pretty deep here.He looked 40 yesterday.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Where is anyone trying to blame the loss on Favre?Anyone trying to blame that loss on Favre is an idiot. Pulling Favre would have been conceding the game, which is why Favre wasn't going to sit. Favre threw one INT, and that was a desperation pass toward the end of the game. He did NOT have a bad game by any stretch of the imagination.How was that great MIN defense doing? They managed to allow their first 100 yard rushing game, a crappy QB to throw for 3 TDS, and surrender 26 points. Should Favre suit up as a LB next week to fill Henderson's role?LINK In the post game press conference Favre said that he told Childress that he wasn't going to come out.The Panthers continued to pressure the aging QB and went on to win the game with relative ease. Trouble in Minnesota?
FavreCo
Footballguy
Looked like Brady did against the Panthers pass D (Patriots at home). Brady 19-32 197 1-5 yard TD, 1 int.Favre 17-27 225 1 int.Really? Looked pretty nimble in the pocket, he had a 63 completion percentage. The Favre haters are digging pretty deep here.He looked 40 yesterday.
Michael Fox Fan
Footballguy
switz said:Anyone trying to blame that loss on Favre is an idiot. Pulling Favre would have been conceding the game, which is why Favre wasn't going to sit. Favre threw one INT, and that was a desperation pass toward the end of the game. He did NOT have a bad game by any stretch of the imagination.How was that great MIN defense doing? They managed to allow their first 100 yard rushing game, a crappy QB to throw for 3 TDS, and surrender 26 points. Should Favre suit up as a LB next week to fill Henderson's role?trader jake said:LINK In the post game press conference Favre said that he told Childress that he wasn't going to come out.The Panthers continued to pressure the aging QB and went on to win the game with relative ease. Trouble in Minnesota?
Yep, Favre was a master last night, as evidenced by the 7 points his offense scored. Take away the long AP screen pass in garbage time and Favre was 16-26, for 161 yards. 0 TDs, 1 INT. He did not have a very good game.Now, if you want to place blame, the O-line is one place to start. Followed by basically the entire defense. So maybe that is what you're trying to get at.....but let's not pretend that Favre played a superb game.
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
I just saw Farve at the PC, Farve basically said that Chilly wanted to make a switch to spark the offense but Farve said he was not coming out of the game. Farve was getting killed by the rush and Chilly wanted to see if Jacksons mobilty would help.
I guess we know who is running the team now.
I guess we know who is running the team now.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
I'm looking forward to seeing Favre's gameplan for the Bears next weekend. I think he should give the guys the day off today while he reviews film with his assistants. Practice tomorrow should be in shells indoors, but he should probably have at least one or two outdoor sessions this week to aclimate his players to the weather they'll see at Soldier Field on Sunday. He definitely needs to spend some time watching film with his OL assistants to fix the problems we saw last night. If the Vikes can build a decent lead early at Soldier, I'm sure Favre can make some half-time adjustments and get ADP and Chester more in the game in the second half so some of the guys can rest up for the key finale against the Giants in week 17.
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
Maybe Childress (or Favre) should have benched a few of the OL instead.
Rumor is that after the previous drive Farve came off the field and told Chilly he didn't want to go back out. Jackson started to warm up. Then they started talking about the strategy on the next drive and Farve said he was thinking about going back out. Chilly asked him if he was going to run the next series and Farve said no he was done for the game. Right as the Vikings Offense started to run out on the field Farve ran up to Chilly and said he was going to play.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Oh, so the INT he threw in garbage time counts against him, but the yards accumulated in garbage time do not count for him. That makes sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
dhockster
Footballguy
It doesn't make sense to me that Childress would pull Favre leading 7-6 just because he was getting pounded by the defense, when it was an important game to them. I would think that instead, Childress would try to run the ball more to save his QB. But if he tried to run it, and the QB kept switching out of the running plays to go with pass plays which were getting him killed, I could see Childress saying, my QB is to dumb or egotistical to go with the play's I am calling and he is getting killed as a result, therefore, I will pull him.
It is amazing to me that Farve admitted to the press that he told the coach that he wasn't coming out of the game. Childress needs to come out and say why he was pulling Brett out of the game, and suspend him for not following Childress's wishes, or he needs to be fired for conceding his head coaching position to his QB.
It is amazing to me that Farve admitted to the press that he told the coach that he wasn't coming out of the game. Childress needs to come out and say why he was pulling Brett out of the game, and suspend him for not following Childress's wishes, or he needs to be fired for conceding his head coaching position to his QB.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Ok...take the INT out.16-26 for 161 and 0 TDs is not much to talk about.Oh, so the INT he threw in garbage time counts against him, but the yards accumulated in garbage time do not count for him. That makes sense.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
I agree. I just hate it when people try to skew stats like he did, to make a point.Ok...take the INT out.16-26 for 161 and 0 TDs is not much to talk about.Oh, so the INT he threw in garbage time counts against him, but the yards accumulated in garbage time do not count for him. That makes sense.
Jeremy
Footballguy
I'm almost impressed the Chilly was close to making that decision. To take out a healthy Favre with a 7-6 lead in an important game would have taken some serious cajonies. Imagine if he had benched Favre and they would have lost anyway (which is likely). The heat he's taking now would be mild in comparison.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Doesn't this put the McCarthy/Thompson/Packer decision to go with Rodgers in A WHOLE NEW LIGHT?Ditkaless Wonders said:
It maybe wasn't a question of "is he too old" or 'he's keeps retiring/unretiring while we keep making/scrapping offseason gameplans", etc., it's a question of "DO WE REALLY WANT THIS GUY BACK WHEN HE WON'T DO WHAT WE ASK HIM TO DO DURING GAMES, OR DO WE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS SITUATION AND FINALLY GET RID OF HIM?"
Like many another NFL fan I love to watch him play (and he's practically a local boy) but if the above's the case then maybe the Packers had their reasons.
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
It could...if it happens more...or his play is poor in the playoffs...its justifies their decision from the standpoint that they did not think he could lead them late in seasons or to a title anymore.
John Fogerty Fan
Footballguy
Your resume is broken, Mr. Giddy.JGalligan said:
fatness
Footballguy
He should explain to his players the reason he's resting Childress.
Michael Fox Fan
Footballguy
I agree. I just hate it when people try to skew stats like he did, to make a point.Ok...take the INT out.16-26 for 161 and 0 TDs is not much to talk about.Oh, so the INT he threw in garbage time counts against him, but the yards accumulated in garbage time do not count for him. That makes sense.
I'm not "skewing stats just to make a point." In fact, I almost didn't include the INT in the original post, because I knew some nitpicky ######## would bring it up.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
It's not nit-picky. If you are going to not count Favre's yardage he accumulated in what you called garbage time, then you can't count the INT he threw in garbage time against him either. To do it the way you did is deliberately misleading in an attempt to make a small point.I agree. I just hate it when people try to skew stats like he did, to make a point.Ok...take the INT out.16-26 for 161 and 0 TDs is not much to talk about.Oh, so the INT he threw in garbage time counts against him, but the yards accumulated in garbage time do not count for him. That makes sense.
I'm not "skewing stats just to make a point." In fact, I almost didn't include the INT in the original post, because I knew some nitpicky ######## would bring it up.
Last edited by a moderator:
gianmarco
Footballguy
No. To take out Favre with a 7-6 lead in an important game doesn't represents cajones. It represents lack of brains.
bonesman
Footballguy
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4761127
Sources tell ESPN that on Oct. 5, during a Monday night game against the Green Bay Packers that drew national attention for Favre's first game against his former team, Childress tried to pull Favre when he was unhappy about a decision the quarterback had made.
The Vikings had a 30-20 lead and were running their four-minute offense. The Packers were out of timeouts, and the Vikings called a run play on 3rd and 10 with 3:27 left. Favre changed the play at the line of scrimmage and took a shot downfield that fell incomplete, stopping the clock.
Childress was furious and told offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell that he was taking Favre out of the game, sources told ESPN. Bevell talked Childress out of it, but news got back to Favre that Childress was going to pull him.
That week, sources said, Favre went into Childress' office and confronted him and Childress backtracked, saying that it was the emotion of the game and the coach didn't want to get too far away from what they were doing offensively.
--------
Heh, I remember there being some talk here about that play call at the time.
Sources tell ESPN that on Oct. 5, during a Monday night game against the Green Bay Packers that drew national attention for Favre's first game against his former team, Childress tried to pull Favre when he was unhappy about a decision the quarterback had made.
The Vikings had a 30-20 lead and were running their four-minute offense. The Packers were out of timeouts, and the Vikings called a run play on 3rd and 10 with 3:27 left. Favre changed the play at the line of scrimmage and took a shot downfield that fell incomplete, stopping the clock.
Childress was furious and told offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell that he was taking Favre out of the game, sources told ESPN. Bevell talked Childress out of it, but news got back to Favre that Childress was going to pull him.
That week, sources said, Favre went into Childress' office and confronted him and Childress backtracked, saying that it was the emotion of the game and the coach didn't want to get too far away from what they were doing offensively.
--------
Heh, I remember there being some talk here about that play call at the time.
Jeremy
Footballguy
That too. If you're going to make an unconventional move, you'd better be right. Just ask Bill Belichick. And Mike Tomlin dodged that bullet when Big Ben bailed him out on that failed onside kick. Who knows, maybe Tavaris could have used his athleticism to make something happen. It's possible!!!
Green and Gold
Footballguy
I can't recall a coach, ever, so ready to pull their starting QB that quickly over one or two decisions. Especially on a team that's in the hunt for a first round bye. Does this make sense to anyone? This is something you coach after the game, privately.I honestly had no idea the coach of the Vikings was dumb enough to let emotions rule him on the sidelines during a game. I guess you guys aren't kidding when you said he's a horrible coach.
fatness
Footballguy
John 14:6
Jesus is Lord!
Yeah, quite a few Viking fans, myself included, didn't want the team to sign him to an extension yet like they did.
Michael Fox Fan
Footballguy
Whatever dude, I already explained above. If you can't accept it, tough. Take away the INT, it doesn't matter. That's the whole point. He had a bad day too.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I agree. I just hate it when people try to skew stats like he did, to make a point.
I\'m not \"skewing stats just to make a point.\" In fact, I almost didn\'t include the INT in the original post, because I knew some nitpicky ######## would bring it up.
It\'s not nit-picky. If you are going to not count Favre\'s yardage he accumulated in what you called garbage time, then you can\'t count the INT he threw in garbage time against him either. To do it the way you did is deliberately misleading in an attempt to make a small point.
********************************************************************************
*
********************************************************************************
*
Well, one key here is that the one big play of the 2nd half came in the hands of Peterson.
Maybe that's their problem right there.
It's not that it's Peterson (though you can't discount that), and it\'s not that they were barely not quite getting 3.0 per carry, it's that you just don't give up on the run, especially in a tight ball game (and yes doubly especially with that runner and with that defense).
Was Favre audibling out of ADP running plays?
After a while that can be a bit of a problem, don't you think?
I\'m not \"skewing stats just to make a point.\" In fact, I almost didn\'t include the INT in the original post, because I knew some nitpicky ######## would bring it up.It\'s not nit-picky. If you are going to not count Favre\'s yardage he accumulated in what you called garbage time, then you can\'t count the INT he threw in garbage time against him either. To do it the way you did is deliberately misleading in an attempt to make a small point.
********************************************************************************
*
********************************************************************************
*
Well, one key here is that the one big play of the 2nd half came in the hands of Peterson.
Maybe that's their problem right there.
It's not that it's Peterson (though you can't discount that), and it\'s not that they were barely not quite getting 3.0 per carry, it's that you just don't give up on the run, especially in a tight ball game (and yes doubly especially with that runner and with that defense).
Was Favre audibling out of ADP running plays?
After a while that can be a bit of a problem, don't you think?
Last edited by a moderator:
Gopher State
Footballguy
Bench Favre? Vikings coach Childress considered it vs. Panthers
Associated Press
EDEN PRAIRIE, Minn. -- Minnesota Vikings coach Brad Childress said Monday that he considered taking Brett Favre out of the previous night's game against the Carolina Panthers because the quarterback "was taking a beating."
Favre and Childress had what the quarterback called "a heated exchange" during the third quarter of Minnesota's 26-7 loss at Carolina on Sunday night.
Childress said Monday that he considered putting Tarvaris Jackson in the game after watching Favre be sacked four times and hit on numerous other occasions.
Favre strongly objected and lobbied to stay in the game. The Vikings were leading 7-6 at the time, and Childress decided to keep Favre on the field.
Favre finished 17-of-27 passing for 224 yards with one interception.
Copyright 2009 by The Associated Press
Little different spin based on the AP release vs what everyone is saying in this post
Sounds like Childress MADE the decision to keep Favre in the game
Associated Press
EDEN PRAIRIE, Minn. -- Minnesota Vikings coach Brad Childress said Monday that he considered taking Brett Favre out of the previous night's game against the Carolina Panthers because the quarterback "was taking a beating."
Favre and Childress had what the quarterback called "a heated exchange" during the third quarter of Minnesota's 26-7 loss at Carolina on Sunday night.
Childress said Monday that he considered putting Tarvaris Jackson in the game after watching Favre be sacked four times and hit on numerous other occasions.
Favre strongly objected and lobbied to stay in the game. The Vikings were leading 7-6 at the time, and Childress decided to keep Favre on the field.
Favre finished 17-of-27 passing for 224 yards with one interception.
Copyright 2009 by The Associated Press
Little different spin based on the AP release vs what everyone is saying in this post
Sounds like Childress MADE the decision to keep Favre in the game
scott72
Footballguy
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/...ch-favre-twice/
It's sure going to be an interesting Monday night..
Childress previously tried twice to bench Favre twice
Posted by Mike Florio on December 21, 2009 6:51 PM ET
As it turns out, last night's failed effort by coach Brad Childress to bench quarterback Brett Favre wasn't the first attempt to yank Favre off the field.
Per separate reports from ESPN and the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Childress previously tried to pull Favre on two other occasions.
Per ESPN, the first one came on October 5 against the Packers, after Favre audibled to a long pass late in a game that the Vikings led by 10 points with 3:27 to play. We criticized the decision at the time, though it wasn't clear whether Childress called the deep pass at a time when the Vikes could have milked the clock, or whether Favre had changed the play at the line in order to further "stick it" to Green Bay G.M. Ted Thompson.
Chilldress reportedly was furious, but offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell persuaded Chilly to chill out.
When Favre learned of the near-benching, he confronted Childress, who blamed it on the emotion of the game.
Then, on November 15, Childress tried to do it again early in a 27-10 win over the Lions.
On the prior two occasions, Favre didn't say anything about it to he media. This time, however, he popped off -- and that apparently caused Chilly to blow a gasket, according to Tom Powers of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Powers believes that he was in the vicinity of the visiting coach's office last night when Childress learned about Favre's comments -- and that Childress emerged from the office "like a wild man" and "went ballistic."
Bottom line? It's a mess right now in Minnesota, and that's good news for ESPN, since the Monday Night Football slate ends next week with a suddenly spiced-up game between the Vikings and the Bears.
It's sure going to be an interesting Monday night..
Childress previously tried twice to bench Favre twice
Posted by Mike Florio on December 21, 2009 6:51 PM ET
As it turns out, last night's failed effort by coach Brad Childress to bench quarterback Brett Favre wasn't the first attempt to yank Favre off the field.
Per separate reports from ESPN and the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Childress previously tried to pull Favre on two other occasions.
Per ESPN, the first one came on October 5 against the Packers, after Favre audibled to a long pass late in a game that the Vikings led by 10 points with 3:27 to play. We criticized the decision at the time, though it wasn't clear whether Childress called the deep pass at a time when the Vikes could have milked the clock, or whether Favre had changed the play at the line in order to further "stick it" to Green Bay G.M. Ted Thompson.
Chilldress reportedly was furious, but offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell persuaded Chilly to chill out.
When Favre learned of the near-benching, he confronted Childress, who blamed it on the emotion of the game.
Then, on November 15, Childress tried to do it again early in a 27-10 win over the Lions.
On the prior two occasions, Favre didn't say anything about it to he media. This time, however, he popped off -- and that apparently caused Chilly to blow a gasket, according to Tom Powers of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Powers believes that he was in the vicinity of the visiting coach's office last night when Childress learned about Favre's comments -- and that Childress emerged from the office "like a wild man" and "went ballistic."
Bottom line? It's a mess right now in Minnesota, and that's good news for ESPN, since the Monday Night Football slate ends next week with a suddenly spiced-up game between the Vikings and the Bears.
scott72
Footballguy
That's not was Favre said in his presser. Favre said Chilly wanted to take him out and Favre said "I'm playing."
Jimmy James
Footballguy
Childress is in a tough spot here. He's pretty much the hostage of a prima donna. He's a prima donna I find really entertaining, but it should have been obvious to everyone including Childress that this is just what Favre is.
I don't think Childress was bullied into keeping Favre in the game or that he has lost control of his team, but it sounds like it's not far from the sort of situation where Childress might have to pull rank. I'm confident this was more about Childress trying what he could to get Favre to tow the line, not actually wanting to pull his best QB ahead 7-6. We all know you don't do that (unless he flips out).
I think the biggest question in my mind here is where the Vikings go for a QB in 2010. I wonder now if it's not time for an Eagles-Vikings trade of McNabb.
I don't think Childress was bullied into keeping Favre in the game or that he has lost control of his team, but it sounds like it's not far from the sort of situation where Childress might have to pull rank. I'm confident this was more about Childress trying what he could to get Favre to tow the line, not actually wanting to pull his best QB ahead 7-6. We all know you don't do that (unless he flips out).
I think the biggest question in my mind here is where the Vikings go for a QB in 2010. I wonder now if it's not time for an Eagles-Vikings trade of McNabb.
