Originally Posted by
slacker00
1. It's very debatable how much better the Vikes were than the Jets in 2008. Both teams made their conference championships in 2009, the Jets having done it WITHOUT Favre but a rookie QB. I think there is some decent evidence that the Jets of 2008 had decent talent with or without Favre.
2. The Jets also had a solid running game in 2008. Thomas Jones never gets enough credit, Leon Washington was a great change-of-pace and 3rd down back as well. AP is top notch and had a great year, but the Jets were solid as well. Vikings were 5th in rushing yards, Jets were 9th in rushing yards.
3. Favre played hurt. That's the core of any argument against Favre. Look how Favre did in 2008 when he was healthy versus when he was hurt. It's night and day. That's why people are calling for Tavaris. If you watched the game on Monday night, it is clear that there is something very wrong with Favre. But we all know that the knuckle head plays when he wants to play and plays through injuries to keep that consecutive game streak alive.
What I'm saying is that your arguments against Tavaris aren't valid. The numbers and evidence suggest that a healthy Tavaris would be more effective than a broken-throwing-armed Favre. Unfortunately, it comes down to sentimentality and dedication, I think Favre is a leader in the locker room based on pure emotion, it's hard to account for that in the stat book.