Now that's what I'm talking about!

When I lived in Wisconsin for three years, a fellow Vikings fan said to me, on a Monday morning in the office after the Vikings had beaten the Packers, "There's nothing I like to see more than sad Packer fans."

I don't know if Packer fans worldwide are more sad than they are enraged by their team's shoddy performance last night. Give credit to the Vikings pass rush, Jared Allen and his 4.5 sacks in particular, but no quarterback should be forced to spend time behind that purgatory of an offensive line. And any lingering Brett Favre fans in Packerland should have pretty much completely expunged whatever lingering love they had for #4 as he carved up the Packer secondary like...well, like he's carved up the Viking secondary for years.

Yes, I said it. I can grouse about Adrian Peterson's lousy 2.2 yards per carry (and fumble), or about the Vikings' letting the Packers back into the game late, or about Brad Childress's awe-inspiring new way to fail. (We didn't challenge because you couldn't get the red flag out of your pants?!? Are you actually an NFL head coach or just some guy the Wilfs found on the street outside the Metrodome?) But, apart from an interception that was overturned by a dubious pass interference call in the end zone, Brett Favre played a flawless game, completing 77.4 percent of his passes for 271 yards and three TDs, pump-faking the Green Bay defense to death while not taking a single sack. And he even threw passes consistently more than 6 yards downfield. Gee, this guy might actually have something left in the tank, at least in October. I'll have to reserve final judgment for January, though.

Admittedly, the Vikings got some help from the officials. In addition to that "pass interference" call, there were a few more that seemed almost suspiciously like some kind of "We have to make sure Favre wins" conspiracy by the NFL and ESPN. In total, the Packers were flagged for seven infractions while the Vikings, officially, only were hit with two yellow hankies, for a total of 10 yards. That said, when Jared Allen wasn't getting to Aaron Rodgers, especially on those final two Packer scoring drives, he was often egregiously held by the Packers' third-string left tackle, which was about the only way he could stop the man.

And how about that Sidney Rice? When we play pickup basketball, I want him on my team!

There were a few more flaws -- and some good plays -- in the Vikings' performance Monday night, but for now I'm happy to gloss over them and bask in the glow of a 4-0 team that's enjoying a two-game lead in its division and has a bye next week...

Wait, we play St. Louis? Same thing.

You can't un-learn things

Now that I've done a fair job of establishing that there's no link (or maybe a slight negative link) between a team's passing proficiency and their running game's yards per carry, I can't help but notice claims to the exact opposite all over the place. And by "all over the place," I mean two places where I generally go for better-than-average football analysis and commentary. I still like these sources and I don't really blame them for holding to a thought process that I would also have believed just a few months ago, but it's difficult for me to pass them by without dying a little on the inside.

Yesterday, Daily Norseman posited that:

I think it's fair to say Peterson would see a bump in his yards per carry average with Favre as the team's starter

While the free pdf download of FootballGuys' fantasy football magazine (a great deal, and only 21 MB!), when discussing Matt Forte and the effect Jay Cutler will have on his numbers, asks, on page 111:

1. Will the running game improve with Jay Cutler under center?

And responds with only the following information:

Yards per carry average for all seven Denver RBs last year = 5.17
Yards per carry for Matt Forte last year = 3.9

This, to me, is an egregious oversight by a group of people who should know better. Putting aside the question of whether it's an erroneous assumption, it's a classic case of small sample size. If the Vikings traded for Drew Brees, I could just as easily ask:

Will the Vikings' running game decline with Drew Brees under center?

And respond:

Yards per carry average for all New Orleans RBs last year = 4.15
Yards per carry for Adrian Peterson last year = 4.85

So, clearly, adding Drew Brees will make Adrian Peterson's YPC worse, just as Cutler will make Forte's better. It has nothing to do with any of the involved teams' offensive line, quality of their backs, play calling, run-blocking scheme -- which, it should be noted, Denver has been superb at for years, long before Jay Cutler took over at quarterback -- nope, it's entirely because Drew Brees/Jay Cutler was at quarterback. End of discussion.

(Note that both of these analyses use straight yards per carry as the measuring stick, not the consistency of the back from carry to carry, which is still possibly related to quarterbacking.)

And while I haven't looked over every player's description, the entry for Ryan Grant (page 113) leaves me scratching my head in a number of ways:

There is always a chance that the Grant we saw in 2007 was the anomaly. Without a Hall of Fame quarterback in the backfield, defenses were able to concentrate more on Grant and lessened his impact.

No, not only do we have the "quarterback affects running back's performance" myth to deal with, but there's also the "Brett Favre makes everything better" myth. Aaron Rodgers threw for 4,000 yards and 28 TDs last year. Maybe for the first part of the year, teams concentrated on shutting down Grant, because they didn't know what they'd be getting from Rodgers. By about midseason, though, if you weren't paying attention to Rodgers, he was going to kill you. Grant's disappointing season might also have had something to do with the Packers' defense being so bad as to necessitate the abandonment of the running game earlier than they would have liked.

There's probably more like this in the FG analysis of running backs, and maybe for other positions. It's still a great resource that I heartily recommend, but don't buy into the notion that Matt Forte, or any other back, will have a great season because of improved quarterbacking.

Coping with morning sickness

After a day or two to fully digest and excrete Monday's game (and it certainly did resemble a pile of...well, you know), I'm nudging back from the ledge a few steps and taking a broader, and hopefully saner, view of the game. I'll start with the positives.

When he can display some accuracy, Tarvaris Jackson does have a heck of an arm. I'm still trying to figure if him rarely finding open receivers is the receivers not getting open or him not finding them. Neither are great, but I'm willing to cut him some slack if it's the receivers' fault they're hardly ever open (though the routes selected and overall playcalling by the coaches probably also bears a large share of the blame).

Yes, Jackson was forced to scramble nine times, but he was only sacked once. Overall, the O-line held up reasonably well, considering the absence of Bryant McKinnie, and the running backs averaged better than five yards a carry against what looks to be a pretty good Packer defense.

I'm not a huge fan of ball-control stats unless you can do it consistently, but there's something to be said for limiting the Packers to just 49 offensive snaps while having 69 of your own. Granted, two of the Packers' snaps netted them 113 yards. Viewed differently, that means that, apart from those two semi-flukish plays, they netted just 4.3 yards per snap.

Aaron Rodgers is actually good, and he's in his fourth year in the NFL. Let's get this whole "How did we lose to a guy making his first career start?" business out of the way. Or maybe you'd rather be the Bengals or Lions, who lost to two rookie QBs making their first start (Joe Flacco and Matt Ryan).

Yeah, it was the Packers, and that hurts. But if we'd lost to Indy by five points in the opener instead, would it have been so bad?

So, when it comes down to it, maybe I'm grasping at straws a bit. Then again, what if Bernard Berrian had stayed on his feet on that one pass in the third quarter? Then the team gets a TD instead of a FG on that drive, goes for one instead of failing on the two-point try, and...

Sure, both teams probably would have played different the rest of the way. But anytime you wind up so close to the other team, you were only one play away from winning. Yeah, there are still some things to fix, particularly in the play calling (I absolutely guarantee you that there will be some trickery -- a fake field goal, reverse pass, surprise onside kick, whatever -- in next week's game), but I'll at least go into next week's game thinking the team can still pull it out.

And hey -- Monday's game was still better than the team's last trip to Green Bay.

Quote of the day

I'm a country boy myself, and I've grown a little wary of Brett. I don't see him as a good ol' boy anymore. When I saw him getting off that private jet (Sunday), I thought that maybe he's sipped too much champagne and liked the taste of it. His self love is overwhelming, and that could turn off a lot of guys now.

-- John Riggins

I know that I'm turned off by seeing another guy do self-loving.

Now here's the wacky potential endgame to the Favre saga. Aaron Rodgers has been classy, but there can be no doubt that he's feeling confused and a little betrayed -- and I wouldn't be surprised if he and Favre were about as friendly right now as Latrell Sprewell and PJ Carlesimo (hooray, old NBA reference!).

So what if the Vikings did obtain via trade a disgruntled Packer quarterback who would love nothing more that to get a shot at his old team -- but not the one they may or may not have been asking about before?

Rodgers' rookie contract expires after this year. After all that's transpired, it seems unthinkable that he would want to remain in Green Bay. And the Packers drafted two quarterbacks (including Brian Brohm) in April, so it's not like they'll be left without options when Brett Favre waffles about returning next year (which he will). And even if you have complete faith in Tarvaris Jackson, wouldn't you prefer Rodgers as a backup to Gus Frerotte?

(And then, when the Vikings fire Brad Childress after the '08 season and lure Bill Cowher from his TV job....hey, it could happen!)

Not so Favre away?

I've tried to maintain a relatively even keel regarding a certain former Packer quarterback. I've acknowledged his greatness, even if he was a touch overrated in the latter part of his career. Because of that -- the fact that his team probably won't be that much worse without him than they were with him -- I didn't celebrate too hard when he called it quits last month. Even last week, when the media, desperately starved for any kind of Brett Favre story, simply invented one to sell some papers/get some hits on their web sites, I stayed mostly quiet.

But this is just absurd, degrading, and insulting. "Hey, I know I was adored and admired and unconditionally loved for 16 years. But if you came begging on your hands and knees for me to come back, I guess I might. Maybe. If I felt like it."

It isn't enough that Favre exploited his fame and popularity for years so as to lead the Packers on the last few offseasons as to whether or not he would retire. Now, if Aaron Rodgers struggles or is injured, he's perfect poised to ride in like the cavalry to "save" his struggling team -- provided management gets down on its knees and asks really, really nicely.

Even better, this keeps the media darling in the public eye all season long, and for at least a few more years to come. Every time Rodgers throws an interception (or probably even an incompletion), the questions can begin anew: Will Brett come back? Does he feel wanted? Does he feel loved?

I know the usual trolls will respond to this post saying how terrified I, and all Vikings fans, are of Favre's potential return. On the contrary. I have no issue with facing a quarterback who's got a career record of 17-15 against my team. Of course, the same Packer faithful who ignore Favre's last 10 years of mediocrity probably also think Favre dominated the Vikings every time they played. His recent record -- 9-6 since 2001 -- is also only slightly above average. Over that same time span, the Chicago Bears, with their multitude of ineffective quarterbacks, are 8-6 against the Vikings. I say let the nearly 39-year-old with one good year out of the last three suit up. Every time we played Brett Favre, I knew he had the capacity to tear our hearts out with a great performance -- and I also knew he had nearly the same chance of making a boneheaded play or two that cost his team the game.

Stay or go, Brett, it makes little difference to me. Just make a decision, already.