I'd take Culpepper now over Favre in any point of his career

[moochman]

Statistics are as good as...lies. They prove nothing in comparative studies of NFL players. The only stats that could hint at who the better QB is is that the Packers, a team that was totally out classed by the Vikings, beat the Vikes twice during the season and won the division. All while having an inferior O-line and equally inept D, as demonstrated by the great cheese curdling yesterday.

So what was the difference? The QB play. Favre being a much more accomplished QB managed his team to two victories over a superior opponant. That said, since I live the the fantasy realm, I would rather have Duante. Favre is past his prime on a run based offense while C-Pep is comming into his prime on a pass happy albeit silly Vikes offense.

And congrats Tice fan...er...I mean Vikes fans. I think you have a shot to beat the Iggles next week.

[Bennett4prez]

Yeah, this thread is finished. I and my Vikings loyalists would rather have Daunte, while Packers fan will favor Favre and unbiased parties will be split.

I didn't care about this topic until the argument about rings come in. It's idiotic to think that Daunte will be seen as a better quarterback if the next three weeks the Vikings defense plays better and the Vikings win a Superbowl.

Rings are overrated. Deal with it.

[kevinoc81]

Rings are overrated. Deal with it.

True.

As are stats. Put Joe Montana on this year's 49ers and he would have never been able to put up all his greast stats, but it would never change the ability he has and how good of a QB he was.

A similar argument was once had as to whether Manning could ever be considered better than some of the greats if he didn't win a ring.

[eaglesrule]

rings may be "over" rated, but they are still "rated" and have a place in the debate, like it or lump it. Being the champ is certianly something that can and should be used as a measuring stick. It isn't the sole stick, but it is an area that farve has had some measure of accomplishment, while Daunte has had none. Fact of life.

[CC]

Yeah, this thread is finished. I and my Vikings loyalists would rather have Daunte, while Packers fan will favor Favre and unbiased parties will be split.

I didn't care about this topic until the argument about rings come in. It's idiotic to think that Daunte will be seen as a better quarterback if the next three weeks the Vikings defense plays better and the Vikings win a Superbowl.

Rings are overrated. Deal with it.

Coming from the fan of a team that's never won any. Rings are overrated? What's the point of the freaking games then?

[34=Sweetness]

Aww, I said that I'd take him over Favre, nothing about talent. Daunte could be more talented than Favre, but I'm not even gonna go into that one. What I meant was that I'll take Culpepper and gamble that he'll have better stats next year, and did this year, than Favre in any season of his career.

I would not take Daunte over a quarter of the QBs in the league unless he got to bring his buddy Moss with him.

Seriously though. Stats only say so much. Daunte is good and he played a great game today, but stats can't speak for everything. Imagine Peyton Manning playing for the Baltimore Ravens. The Ravens are a hard-nosed team. They run more than they pass and they let their defense keep the score low. Now if the Ravens ran 35 times a game and passed 10-15 times a game, Peyton Manning would never put up the stats he is putting up now. Would that mean Peyton was any less talented or any less great of a quarterback? No. Same thing with Favre. Favre never had Moss on his team. The Packers run a much more balanced offense than the Vikings. That said, it is likely that C-Pepp will put up better numbers than Favre year in, year out.

If you are talking about Fantasy Football, I agree with you 100% and I would take C-Pepp over Favre any year.

If you are talking about real football and who I would want to lead my team, I would take Favre in his prime any day!

About the Peyton Manning thing, if the Ravens had them they wouldnt run the ball 35 times a game. Peytons talent makes that difference. As for rings, they should be counted but certainly not above stats. Football is a team game, and most of the time QBs win super bowls because of other factors on the team, not because of them directly. Stats are a far better indicator, IMO. Gatorman, sorry I got confused, I thought you had said Favre was the greatest of all time. (Marino is still better though ) I just don't see how Favres ONE ring makes him some sort of postseason god. Hes been far from it. 4-6 since winning the Super Bowl, while hurling 19 Ints. Ouch.

[Bennett4prez]

Yeah, this thread is finished. I and my Vikings loyalists would rather have Daunte, while Packers fan will favor Favre and unbiased parties will be split.

I didn't care about this topic until the argument about rings come in. It's idiotic to think that Daunte will be seen as a better quarterback if the next three weeks the Vikings defense plays better and the Vikings win a Superbowl.

Rings are overrated. Deal with it.

Coming from the fan of a team that's never won any. Rings are overrated? What's the point of the freaking games then?

For statistical purposes. Great teams win rings, not great quarterbacks.

[eaglesrule]

and the great teams almost to a t have a great qb at the helm -- barring something ridiculous tilted in another facet of the game, like baltimore.

discounting the ring argument is a cop out. Winning a super bowl is the biggest and most difficult accomplishment a team and a player can accomplish -- it is the point of this whole exercise. Each games point isn't suppossed to be its own intrinsic reward, even though it turns out that way frequently.

It all builds to the climax, the super bowl.

There is a reason why teams typically pay the qb the most, why teams reach for qb's and all want a "franchise" qb. There is a reason you rarely hear about a "cornerback controversy" and why they all want to talk to the qb.

He is the player MOST responsbiile for the teams idenitiy and performance. Other players make their impact, and if you collectively have enough elite players other than the qb, you can overcome it.

But no other player is involved in every play for their respective side of the ball. The qb is -- and the qb is singularly responsible for communicating the play AND physically implementing it, whetyher run or pass -- he handles the ball.

That is why more so than any other position, a ring is a standard of judgement for a qb, where it might not be the case for a de, wr, rb or whatever. It is fact, because the qwb is that improtant.

It is the same reason why a new qb can tunr a teams fortunes around in a hurry. everyone will admit that, but then come time for "raising the level" as it pertains to the playoffs, they write off the qb? makes no sense to me.

[M_Zimm_ffc]

Yeah, Favre's got rings. Fact is that he's sucked in the playoffs ever since the Super Bowl he was in. He has a 61.5 (mayby not exactly, but you get the jist, it's around that) since 97, their last Super Bowl appearance. Since that 97 game, he's TD:INT ratio is 11:16 in the post-season. Daunte anihilated him this week.

But sure, how dare I say anything against the divine god, Brett Favre.

I'm done, I'll bring this thread back up when Daunte's set records.

[CC]

Yeah, Favre's got rings. Fact is that he's sucked in the playoffs ever since the Super Bowl he was in. He has a 61.5 (mayby not exactly, but you get the jist, it's around that) since 97, their last Super Bowl appearance. Since that 97 game, he's TD:INT ratio is 11:16 in the post-season. Daunte anihilated him this week.

But sure, how dare I say anything against the divine god, Brett Favre.

I'm done, I'll bring this thread back up when Daunte's set records.

If Daunte does make the HOF, it'll be because he piggy-backed there on Moss.