Favre has fractures in his ankle... (1 Viewer)

[deep vacuum]

Tjax era begins anew. Chilly gone at end of year. It's all happening exactly as I predicted during TCs.

So THERE'S the silver lining! Thanks, Clifford!

As a Packer fan, I hope his contract gets extended again.

 

[Brady Gaga]

I'd like to see how good Moss could make TJax look.

 

[DR LAX]

In athletes these fractures are fairly stable. Avulsions in the ankle are usually treated like an ankle sprain.

I'm a PGY-2 in Orthopedics and I've never seen an avulsion fracture bad enough that it needed surgery. Although it can definitely happen.

I'd be surprised if he was out for the season over something like this. Especially if he played through it.

 

[Tigerbot Hesh]

I'd like to see how good Moss could make TJax look.

Having the good Moss show up would be a big help. I think he has looked less enthusiastic each week. Having a QB that can deliver him the ball early and often might help, but since he hasn't gotten a new deal yet I wonder if he's not ready to just put this season on cruise control, Raiders style.

 

[gradin123]

I'd like to see how good Moss could make TJax look.

Having the good Moss show up would be a big help. I think he has looked less enthusiastic each week. Having a QB that can deliver him the ball early and often might help, but since he hasn't gotten a new deal yet I wonder if he's not ready to just put this season on cruise control, Raiders style.

At this point in his career what we are seeing is Moss for better or worse . He almost had a big catch last week if not for a marginal PI Call on a pushoff he didn't even need but he just doesn't get that much seperation from corners anymore without pushoffs. To me he just doesn't look that fast anymore, in fact he looks slow.That being said, I think Jackson could hit Moss as much as Favre right now. I also think teams would focus more on AP if Jackson was the QB which might actually open up some big plays.The Vikes really should bench Favre this week because Jackson would give them a better chance of winning. Not saying they should bench him for good but give him a week off and don't put him back in until the lose.

 

[sho nuff]

I've never been impressed with Jackson but I think at this point it's difficult to believe he'll perform much worse than Favre. Favre has only thrown more than one TD in a game once this season and has been held under 225 yards passing in every game but two. It's not like he's set the bar all that high for Jackson to try and top.

and from an FF perspective, his scrambling could be nice to have.If he can go about 220 passing 2 TDs, and add a few yards rushing, could be an ok bye week filler for guys who have been rolling with one QB on their roster (me).

What would make you think Jackson can throw 2 TDs per game? Or even 220 yards per game? Sure, he might have some value, depending on league parameters, etc., but I think you are overstating reasonable expectations for him.

Randy Moss, Percy Harvin, Shiancoe, Peterson is why I think he can do so.

Do you think that is the best receiving corps in the league? How many QBs averaged 2 TDs per game last season?

I think its solid receiving corp right now. Not the best in the league.And I don't think I was clear. I don't think he will average 2 TDs per game.I think 200 (I know I said 220...but 200 is fine) 2TDs with some rushing yards is very well possible for him to come close to. He may not hit 2 TDs every week...but I think he has value as a bye week filler for people who have only been carrying one QB and don't get Fitspatrick (or still don't trust him either).

 

[bleedgreen]

TJax is not a bad QB despite the bad reputation on this board. I think the Vikings may be better of with him than the 2010 version of Favre.

I agree. Remember TJ and gus frerotte lead this team to a division title the year before Favre got there.

I thought it was Peterson and a terrific defense that led them to that division title.

 

[Phurfur]

TJax is not a bad QB despite the bad reputation on this board. I think the Vikings may be better of with him than the 2010 version of Favre.

I agree. Remember TJ and gus frerotte lead this team to a division title the year before Favre got there.

I thought it was Peterson and a terrific defense that led them to that division title.

Wild Cat?OK, so Favre got them one more play off win in 2009 than the same team with no QB in 2008.

 

[Irish Chaos]

TJax is not a bad QB despite the bad reputation on this board. I think the Vikings may be better of with him than the 2010 version of Favre.

I agree. Remember TJ and gus frerotte lead this team to a division title the year before Favre got there.

I thought it was Peterson and a terrific defense that led them to that division title.

Wild Cat?OK, so Favre got them one more play off win in 2009 than the same team with no QB in 2008.

I mean cmon, one play from beating the saints and they got screwed on a ton of phantom calls.

 

[Phurfur]

Anyone wonder if they'd try a QB rotation? Farve could start (keeping him happy) and play the first series, then give way to Jackson for 2-3 series (keeping Chilly happy), then have Favre come back for another series here and there. It sounds like a disaster, but at least that way both Favre and Chilly could act like they're the ones calling the shots.

Favre would not stand for this.

 

[Bull Dozier]

TJax is not a bad QB despite the bad reputation on this board. I think the Vikings may be better of with him than the 2010 version of Favre.

I agree. Remember TJ and gus frerotte lead this team to a division title the year before Favre got there.

I thought it was Peterson and a terrific defense that led them to that division title.

Wild Cat?OK, so Favre got them one more play off win in 2009 than the same team with no QB in 2008.

One more win AND a first round bye.

 

[Stryker]

TJax is not a bad QB despite the bad reputation on this board. I think the Vikings may be better of with him than the 2010 version of Favre.

I agree. Remember TJ and gus frerotte lead this team to a division title the year before Favre got there.

I thought it was Peterson and a terrific defense that led them to that division title.

Wild Cat?OK, so Favre got them one more play off win in 2009 than the same team with no QB in 2008.

I mean cmon, one play from beating the saints and they got screwed on a ton of phantom calls.

 

[Phurfur]

TJax is not a bad QB despite the bad reputation on this board. I think the Vikings may be better of with him than the 2010 version of Favre.

I agree. Remember TJ and gus frerotte lead this team to a division title the year before Favre got there.

I thought it was Peterson and a terrific defense that led them to that division title.

Wild Cat?OK, so Favre got them one more play off win in 2009 than the same team with no QB in 2008.

I mean cmon, one play from beating the saints and they got screwed on a ton of phantom calls.

It is what it is.The Vikings have already lost as many games as they did last season. The dream is over.

 

[packersfan]

The dream is probably over but whether it would have even existed with Jackson is the question.

It seems rather silly to say the Vikings of 2009 with Favre were only marginally better than the Vikings of 2008 with Jackson/Frerotte. They were a much improved team and a legit Super Bowl contender that arguably should have gotten to the Super Bowl. The 2008 Vikings were not a Super Bowl contender. Last season's team clearly was and there may have only been 1-2 teams in the entire league better. A large helping of that was due to the upgrade at QB Favre provided.

I don't think a QB rotation makes sense and it has nothing to do with Favre's ego. It has to do with QB being a position that typically responds better to one player being the guy consistently. I think the Vikings would only add to their offensive woes by rotating QBs. I think they should start Jackson and see what he can do. It seems pretty clear the magic is gone from Favre right now.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Peter King talked to a NFL orthopedist and this is what he had to say. Sounds like Farve will be good to go:

There's a misconception out there right now that Brett Favre is so significantly hurt that it'd be a huge longshot for him to play Sunday in the Vikings' vital game at New England.

In the wake of the news that Favre has two significant injuries to his left foot and ankle, I spoke with a top NFL team orthopedist, who said not only is it realistic to think Favre will play Sunday, but also that if this were a playoff game, most quarterbacks in the league would very likely play with what Favre has.

It's always dangerous to ask a doctor about a patient he has not seen, so take what this ortho says with a grain of salt. (I talked with him with the agreement that I wouldn't identify him.)

"I think it's extremely misleading to say he has two ankle fractures and leave that impression,'' the orthopedist said. "Technically, with what I have read, he does. But you are not playing an NFL game with two fractures in the sense that we think of fractures.''

Favre has two situations, according to coach Brad Childress. One is a stress fracture of his ankle, and the other "avulsion fracture'' of his calcaneus, or heel area, where a portion of the heel bone has chipped away.

The "stress fracture'' near the ankle is particularly tricky because it can vary from a bone showing signs of being near-fractured, to a bone with a high amount of stress in one area that could become a fracture with more wear and tear. But the stress fracture, the orthopedist said, is something a player can play with and can have shielded before play and also be medicated before a game. "It's a glorified ankle sprain,'' he said.

The heel injury, the doctor said, could also be helped by an injection to mask the pain. "I don't believe [the calcaneus] is a critical structure at all,'' he said.

In short, Favre can probably play Sunday if he's willing to play medicated and/or with the pain. At 41 and cognizant he's likely playing his final 10 weeks of football, Favre, I presume, sees it exactly that way. My guess is he'll play unless his coach wants to wrest control of the offensive team and prove to Favre who's boss -- highly unlikely just two months after Childress dispatched three players in a private plane to go get Favre off his property, and after the Vikings paid Favre $3 million extra as motivation to come back.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...p#ixzz13Ulnoxpl

 

[Phurfur]

The dream is probably over but whether it would have even existed with Jackson is the question.

It seems rather silly to say the Vikings of 2009 with Favre were only marginally better than the Vikings of 2008 with Jackson/Frerotte. They were a much improved team and a legit Super Bowl contender that arguably should have gotten to the Super Bowl. The 2008 Vikings were not a Super Bowl contender. Last season's team clearly was and there may have only been 1-2 teams in the entire league better. A large helping of that was due to the upgrade at QB Favre provided.

I know but in the end that was the outcome. As a Packer fan I know to well that with Favre you live and die by the big play. The big play got you there but it will also get you eliminated. The man that holds all the QB records only has 1 SB win.

 

[packersfan]

The dream is probably over but whether it would have even existed with Jackson is the question.

It seems rather silly to say the Vikings of 2009 with Favre were only marginally better than the Vikings of 2008 with Jackson/Frerotte. They were a much improved team and a legit Super Bowl contender that arguably should have gotten to the Super Bowl. The 2008 Vikings were not a Super Bowl contender. Last season's team clearly was and there may have only been 1-2 teams in the entire league better. A large helping of that was due to the upgrade at QB Favre provided.

I know but in the end that was the outcome. As a Packer fan I know to well that with Favre you live and die by the big play. The big play got you there but it will also get you eliminated. The man that holds all the QB records only has 1 SB win.

One more than Dan Marino. Same as Peyton Manning. QBs get too much credit when teams win and too much when they lose. Ron Wolf is on record as blaming himself for not doing more for Favre during those years. Although there's no excuse for Favre's final INT against the Saints, would the outcome of that game been different if Adrian Peterson hadn't had his fumbling issues which were so pronounced the Vikings were scared to put him on the field on the final drive? There wer plenty of reasons why the Vikings lost to the Saints. Favre is responsible for some but not all. That being said, I do not believe the Vikings would have even been in that game were it not for Favre's arrival. Say what you want about him but he played at an MVP level last season. That was a huge part of the team's success and a key reason why they got further than they had in a long time in the playoffs. But now, it really does look like he's hit the end of the line. He looked emotionally spent as well as physically after the Packers game.

 

[sho nuff]

The dream is probably over but whether it would have even existed with Jackson is the question.

It seems rather silly to say the Vikings of 2009 with Favre were only marginally better than the Vikings of 2008 with Jackson/Frerotte. They were a much improved team and a legit Super Bowl contender that arguably should have gotten to the Super Bowl. The 2008 Vikings were not a Super Bowl contender. Last season's team clearly was and there may have only been 1-2 teams in the entire league better. A large helping of that was due to the upgrade at QB Favre provided.

I know but in the end that was the outcome. As a Packer fan I know to well that with Favre you live and die by the big play. The big play got you there but it will also get you eliminated. The man that holds all the QB records only has 1 SB win.

One more than Dan Marino. Same as Peyton Manning. QBs get too much credit when teams win and too much when they lose. Ron Wolf is on record as blaming himself for not doing more for Favre during those years. Although there's no excuse for Favre's final INT against the Saints, would the outcome of that game been different if Adrian Peterson hadn't had his fumbling issues which were so pronounced the Vikings were scared to put him on the field on the final drive? There wer plenty of reasons why the Vikings lost to the Saints. Favre is responsible for some but not all. That being said, I do not believe the Vikings would have even been in that game were it not for Favre's arrival. Say what you want about him but he played at an MVP level last season. That was a huge part of the team's success and a key reason why they got further than they had in a long time in the playoffs. But now, it really does look like he's hit the end of the line. He looked emotionally spent as well as physically after the Packers game.

No doubt he was a huge part in them getting there.

And there were many reasons...his INT was just the last one so it gets so much more play...that and it was Favre, and just QBs will get the lion's share of the blame every time...they also get the credit...for example, the talk earlier was how Rodgers got the monkey off his back winning a close game...similar with Favre getting some credit the week before against Dallas. Meanwhile, if you look at what each did in the 4th quarters of those games, they did very little...it was more about the defense holding up or making a big play for those 2 to win those close games.

Also, the shot of him limping down the steps after his post game comments was not a good one. If its the end of the streak...congrats for a great run. Some will argue what was better between he and Jim Marshall...hard to argue against either of them really.

 

[Phurfur]

The dream is probably over but whether it would have even existed with Jackson is the question.

It seems rather silly to say the Vikings of 2009 with Favre were only marginally better than the Vikings of 2008 with Jackson/Frerotte. They were a much improved team and a legit Super Bowl contender that arguably should have gotten to the Super Bowl. The 2008 Vikings were not a Super Bowl contender. Last season's team clearly was and there may have only been 1-2 teams in the entire league better. A large helping of that was due to the upgrade at QB Favre provided.

I know but in the end that was the outcome. As a Packer fan I know to well that with Favre you live and die by the big play. The big play got you there but it will also get you eliminated. The man that holds all the QB records only has 1 SB win.

One more than Dan Marino. Same as Peyton Manning. QBs get too much credit when teams win and too much when they lose. Ron Wolf is on record as blaming himself for not doing more for Favre during those years. Although there's no excuse for Favre's final INT against the Saints, would the outcome of that game been different if Adrian Peterson hadn't had his fumbling issues which were so pronounced the Vikings were scared to put him on the field on the final drive? There wer plenty of reasons why the Vikings lost to the Saints. Favre is responsible for some but not all. That being said, I do not believe the Vikings would have even been in that game were it not for Favre's arrival. Say what you want about him but he played at an MVP level last season. That was a huge part of the team's success and a key reason why they got further than they had in a long time in the playoffs. But now, it really does look like he's hit the end of the line. He looked emotionally spent as well as physically after the Packers game.

But the reason the Vikings signed him was for a SB. That is the only reason.Let's not forget his interceptions in OT against the Giants and Philly, his 6 interception performance in the play off against StL, etc.

My point was that with Favre what you see is what you get and you have to take the good with the bad but you will probably never be the best.

 

[deep vacuum]

The dream is probably over but whether it would have even existed with Jackson is the question.

It seems rather silly to say the Vikings of 2009 with Favre were only marginally better than the Vikings of 2008 with Jackson/Frerotte. They were a much improved team and a legit Super Bowl contender that arguably should have gotten to the Super Bowl. The 2008 Vikings were not a Super Bowl contender. Last season's team clearly was and there may have only been 1-2 teams in the entire league better. A large helping of that was due to the upgrade at QB Favre provided.

I know but in the end that was the outcome. As a Packer fan I know to well that with Favre you live and die by the big play. The big play got you there but it will also get you eliminated. The man that holds all the QB records only has 1 SB win.

One more than Dan Marino. Same as Peyton Manning. QBs get too much credit when teams win and too much when they lose. Ron Wolf is on record as blaming himself for not doing more for Favre during those years. Although there's no excuse for Favre's final INT against the Saints, would the outcome of that game been different if Adrian Peterson hadn't had his fumbling issues which were so pronounced the Vikings were scared to put him on the field on the final drive? There wer plenty of reasons why the Vikings lost to the Saints. Favre is responsible for some but not all. That being said, I do not believe the Vikings would have even been in that game were it not for Favre's arrival. Say what you want about him but he played at an MVP level last season. That was a huge part of the team's success and a key reason why they got further than they had in a long time in the playoffs. But now, it really does look like he's hit the end of the line. He looked emotionally spent as well as physically after the Packers game.

But the reason the Vikings signed him was for a SB. That is the only reason.Let's not forget his interceptions in OT against the Giants and Philly, his 6 interception performance in the play off against StL, etc.

My point was that with Favre what you see is what you get and you have to take the good with the bad but you will probably never be the best.

I wonder about the bolded part. If your team can never be the best because of such an integral part of your team, why would that player be considered among the best ever at his position?

 

[thehornet]

here is some shocking information. I totally believe this guy:

Doctor: Misleading to say Favre has fractures

After speaking with a top NFL team orthopedist, SI.com's Peter King doesn't believe Brett Favre's ankle injury will keep him out of this week's game.

We have to take the doctor's opinion with a grain of salt as he hasn't examined Favre, but he called the diagnosis of two ankle fractures "extremely misleading." It's essentially a "glorified ankle sprain," and most NFL quarterbacks would play with the injury in a must-win playoff scenario. King believes Favre can play Sunday if he's willing to play "medicated and/or with pain." Favre is sure to push to play. We'll have to wait to find out if coach Brad Childress wants to wage a power struggle.

 

[Phurfur]

The dream is probably over but whether it would have even existed with Jackson is the question.

It seems rather silly to say the Vikings of 2009 with Favre were only marginally better than the Vikings of 2008 with Jackson/Frerotte. They were a much improved team and a legit Super Bowl contender that arguably should have gotten to the Super Bowl. The 2008 Vikings were not a Super Bowl contender. Last season's team clearly was and there may have only been 1-2 teams in the entire league better. A large helping of that was due to the upgrade at QB Favre provided.

I know but in the end that was the outcome. As a Packer fan I know to well that with Favre you live and die by the big play. The big play got you there but it will also get you eliminated. The man that holds all the QB records only has 1 SB win.

One more than Dan Marino. Same as Peyton Manning. QBs get too much credit when teams win and too much when they lose. Ron Wolf is on record as blaming himself for not doing more for Favre during those years. Although there's no excuse for Favre's final INT against the Saints, would the outcome of that game been different if Adrian Peterson hadn't had his fumbling issues which were so pronounced the Vikings were scared to put him on the field on the final drive? There wer plenty of reasons why the Vikings lost to the Saints. Favre is responsible for some but not all. That being said, I do not believe the Vikings would have even been in that game were it not for Favre's arrival. Say what you want about him but he played at an MVP level last season. That was a huge part of the team's success and a key reason why they got further than they had in a long time in the playoffs. But now, it really does look like he's hit the end of the line. He looked emotionally spent as well as physically after the Packers game.

But the reason the Vikings signed him was for a SB. That is the only reason.Let's not forget his interceptions in OT against the Giants and Philly, his 6 interception performance in the play off against StL, etc.

My point was that with Favre what you see is what you get and you have to take the good with the bad but you will probably never be the best.

I wonder about the bolded part. If your team can never be the best because of such an integral part of your team, why would that player be considered among the best ever at his position?

In 19 years he was on top only once and that was with the #1 defense. It is what it is, I don't know what you are arguing about?He took good teams farther than they should have gone but he lead some very good teams to elimination. He took one great team to a SB win.