Factoid
Much of the talk surrounding Brett Favre's signing with the Vikings is how much easier things will be for him with their superior running attack, and what a boost he'll be to their passing game.
But is it accurate? A look at the Vikings' team numbers versus the Jets' a year ago disputes it. The Vikings ran for more yards per game and passed for fewer than the Jets, but in terms of success at both key areas like yards per carry and rushing and passing scores, the two teams were fairly similar. The Jets, in fact, had a superior rushing game in those areas.
Year Team Ru (ypc) RuTDs PaTDs
2008 Vikings 4.5 15 22
2008 Jets 4.7 20 22
Don't assume, then, that Favre will put up better offensive numbers than he did a year ago. Things for him -- and the 2009 Vikings -- might be pretty similar to the 2008 versions.
--Andy Richardson
- Comments [6]
Readers' Comments
Add a Comment
Already a registered user? Please sign in to add comments.
To add comments, you must become a registered user of our site. To register, please click here.
Posted by DANIEL WILLIAMS | Aug. 18 at 11:37 PM
Maybe I'm tired or something. But this analysis makes no sense. You're comparing the Vikings "without" Favre .. and the Jets "with" Favre. The point is compare the 2008 Vikings and the "2007" Jets and I think you'll see a difference. Favre was a big factor in the Jets running game last year, as was their improved line.
Posted by ANDY RICHARDSON | Aug. 19 at 12:58 AM
I am a Favre fan, but I don't know that Favre was a big factor in the Jets' running game. I'd compare the Jets before Favre if they'd had Alan Faneca then, but we can't do that. Bottom line, I'd put a lot more stock in that improved line. Favre didn't throw downfield. The Jets didn't have a deep threat wideout. My belief is the Jets' running game would have been just fine last year with, say, Sage Rosenfels under center.
Posted by John Evans | Aug. 19 at 09:14 AM
Sorry Mr. Richardson, but I think that Daniel's point is a very valid one. You are comparing apples with oranges. Are you willing to bet that the Jets would have put up the stats that they did last year with Tavaris Jackson instead of Brett Favre at QB? Not a chance. I know that you do lots of research, so I am sure that you know that the Vikings had no production through the air. Peterson's TD production was pathetic last year considering his ability and had everything to do with the offense not being able to move the ball down the field. Thomas Jones was a monster last year...and I don't think that would have happened with Jackson at QB.
Posted by ANDY RICHARDSON | Aug. 19 at 09:46 AM
His point is valid, but we've got some unmeasurables here. How much was the Jets difference Favre, and how much was it the improved offensive line? I doubt they'd have been as good with Tarvaris Jackson, but what about Gus Frerotte, who started 2/3 of the season for the Vikings? Look, my point (and I'm glad to admit I might have put it badly) was to dispute the idea that one, Favre's stats will be better this year, and two, that the Vikings passing numbers will be better. I think Favre will put up similar TD and yardage numbers as a year ago, and I question whether the Vikings passing game will be much better with Favre than it was with Frerotte (or would have been with Sage Rosenfels). That said, I'll grant you that the comparison doesn't work as well as it might a year from now when we can look at both teams with and without Brett Favre...I'll try to remember to revisit it then.
Posted by CHARLES SAVONI | Aug. 20 at 12:55 AM
I love Favre's enthusiasm and what he has meant to the game. But, nobody seems to be talking about Sage Rosenfels. Just when it appears he finally had an opportunity to prove himself over the course of an entire season, the rug has been pulled out from under him. Look at some of the games he's had in the past, with both Miami and Houston. This guy can chuck it. If Favre can't cut it or gets injured, watch for Sage down the stretch.
Posted by MARTIN DONNELLY | Aug. 20 at 10:26 PM
Unmeasurables?! You know, while you're still getting this English thing down pat you might want to employ a spelling/grammar checker.