What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Does Favre still get credit (1 Viewer)

Chase Stuart

Footballguy
When analyzing Brett Favre the QB in 2004, I got into a debate with my friend over whether or not his SB ring merits attention.

When we look back on Favre's career, the MVPs and the SB ring will be just bullet points on an amazing resume. Favre will go down as one of the greatest five QBs of this era.

However, when we're talking about who the best QBs are in the NFL right now, do you think it's fair to mention Favre's rings? Do they mean anything? If we're comparing who is better...Daunte Culpepper or Brett Favre, what the heck does 1996 have to do with anything? In 1996, Culpepper was still three years away from the NFL. Are we really comparing apples to apples if you say "Favre is a better QB than Culpepper because he won a ring?"

Likewise, how relevant are his 3 MVPs? The last one was over five years ago. No one says Emmitt Smith is one of the best rushers in the league, he led the league in rushing four times! Favre clearly is not the same player he once was. He's a great player still, but I think you need to separate Favre from the mid-to-late 90s and the current Favre.

I was going to make this a poll, but I'm much more curious to see some comments either way. I know we can argue all day how much credit a QB gets for winning a Super Bowl (Favre did after all, have the best defense in the league that year), but that's not what I'm curious about. What I want to know, is when ranking Favre among the current QBs, do you give him a bonus for winning a Super Bowl 8 years ago?

 
He's one of the game's elder statesmen so it's only natural that he is one of the standards by which all other QBs are judged. And since he can still play at a very high level (how many people realize he led the league in TD passes last year? It hardly ever is mentioned) then it's fair to compare everything about him when evaluating other QBs. The three MVPs are something no other player has ever done so that alone puts Favre on a level few others will even approach. As far as the Super Bowls, given how difficult it is to just get to a Super Bowl, the fact Favre got to two and won one also separates him from many other QBs and remains, in my opinion, a relevent aspect of his game that merits discussion. It may not mean anything in terms of what he is doing now but if the discussion becomes "Who's the best" and all that, then yes you have to take all of his accomplishments into consideration regardless of when they occurred during his career.

 
You might give him an upgrade in the area of playing the big game when comparing him to those who have not been there. In terms of week-to-week play I think a "ring" means little. Dilfer has a ring too. In terms of career, things like a ring or MVP mean a lot but not in terms of comparing current skills.

 
I think his Super Bowl win and more importantly, his 3 MVPs, play a much larger role in defining his career relative to the all-time greats. When discussing the best QBs of TODAY, people are typically referring to this very instant (or at least this season) and in that case, Favre's prior accomplishments are less relevant.

 
What I want to know, is when ranking Favre among the current QBs, do you give him a bonus for winning a Super Bowl 8 years ago?
Of course you do as well as the 3 straight MVPs to a certain extent. For the last several years, people try to write him off each year and he continues to play well.I would bet that if you asked current coaches and GMs what QB they want leading their team right now, Favre would be in the top 3-4.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They mean nothing once they are obtained for the next season. To define his greatness once he retires yes.I still believe he is one of the best leaders in the NFL right now. And one of the top QB's. But is he the best there is. No. Consider this when the packers were 1-4 this year I had not written them off and I am sure most of America figured Brett would get them to the play-offs and above .500 again. I mean that is what he does right. Find ways to win games. Now they are 8-5. I may be incorrect but the packers are also sporting a top 5-6 offense. It's not easy to carry a bad defense to the play-offs on the back of a great offense. I am sure T. Green would concur. But it appears Brett is on his way to doing it again this year.I read alot about him when my wife bought me the book Farve. I did not realize how good the packers have been with him there or the injuries he has suffered prior to the NFL. I watched the Packers to see him play but did not realize just how good they have been. Since he's been there they have not had a below .500 season and are the best team in the NFL record wise. Very impressive.Wild rambling off now.

 
You might give him an upgrade in the area of playing the big game when comparing him to those who have not been there. In terms of week-to-week play I think a "ring" means little. Dilfer has a ring too. In terms of career, things like a ring or MVP mean a lot but not in terms of comparing current skills.
I just don't get it. Everyone gets on Manning's back and even Marino for never winning a ring. Then, when someone brings up a guy who has a ring, Brett Favre, people argue with, "well, it doesn't matter because guys like Trent Dilfer have rings." Either it matters or it doesn't, you can't pick and choose for different players.
 
I guess I don't see where the question is.

If you're discussing the best QBs in the league NOW, the only thing that matters is how you think they'll do in a game tomorrow, so no, they don't matter unless they directly reflect on the current level he's playing at (which they don't).

If you're discussing the best QBs in the league in terms of at the peak of their careers, or discussing which QB will go down as having the best career, then of course they count.

 
Gregr is correct. It does not matter tommorow if he has one or one hundred rings. Just how he plays.With that being said Farve is still one of the best in the business. Top 10 offense pulling a bottom 20+ defense into the play-off is not bad.

 
Oh, Packer fans who slobber all over Favre's knob like Madden on a Monday Night sure as hell give him credit for the stuff that happened in the past. Realistic observers, however, see Bratt for what he is right now: a solid QB who wins as many games as he loses for his team with his gunslinger style. Not many intelligent fans would put him above Culpepper this year, especially given the fact that Pep has been without his #1 WR, has a crap D (yes, GB's D sucks, too) and is saddled with a meathead HC. Packer fans worship the guy, though, and some I know give him "extra" credit for his will to win, and never say die attitude. Hell, some poor stars-in-his-eyes jock sniffer even went so far as to give Precious a B- for the 6 interception pooch screw against the Rams in the playoffs a few years ago. Pathetic..... :no:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No one says Emmitt Smith is one of the best rushers in the league,
:confused: What?!Maybe it's the distinction between "is" and "was." I'll agree with the former and vehemently disagree with the latter.Favre is one of the best QBs of my generation. Top-10 all-time. Maybe not top-5 (Marino, Montana, Manning, Young come to mind). But, certainly in the discussion with Brady, Unitas, Starr, Aikman.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You have to give him credit for the SB, even if it is 8 years ago. I don't want a QB who will choke in a big game. Most QBs will not choke, but you know that Favre will be OK, since he has been there before and won. You have know way of knowing whay Culpepper or Manning will do in a SB or conf championship game, although chances are good they will play well. I wouldn't give him a lot of credit, though, since I can't remember too many chokes in the playoffs by QBs. I don't think Favre has lost that much in the last 8 years. He still has a strong arm, and can move decently.

 
Favre has gotten GB closer to the SB the past couple of years than Culpepper has gotten the Purple Pansies, and looks to do the same this year.The question you should be asking is whether Culpepper, despite his wealth of stats, is worthy of comparison to Favre.

 
Team successs is what makes a qb with good numbers a great qb. It's silly to think that winning wouldn't be taken into account, unless you're talking about who's a better fantasy qb. In winning, Culpepper has a long ways to go.

 
Favre has gotten GB closer to the SB the past couple of years than Culpepper has gotten the Purple Pansies, and looks to do the same this year.The question you should be asking is whether Culpepper, despite his wealth of stats, is worthy of comparison to Favre.
No he is not.
 
Oh, Packer fans who slobber all over Favre's knob like Madden on a Monday Night sure as hell give him credit for the stuff that happened in the past. Realistic observers, however, see Bratt for what he is right now: a solid QB who wins as many games as he loses for his team with his gunslinger style. Not many intelligent fans would put him above Culpepper this year, especially given the fact that Pep has been without his #1 WR, has a crap D (yes, GB's D sucks, too) and is saddled with a meathead HC. Packer fans worship the guy, though, and some I know give him "extra" credit for his will to win, and never say die attitude. Hell, some poor stars-in-his-eyes jick sniffer even went so far as to give Precious a B- for the 6 interception pooch screw against the Rams in the playoffs a few years ago. Pathetic..... :no:
Yea, I can't recall how many times (ok ~100) I have heard after Favre throwing up balls that end up being intercepted and play a part in getting beat the commentator (Michaels, Madden, all) say with a chuckle "ha ha well THAT'S Favre for ya!" Ahhh what's so funny about your QB tossing the ball up in the air in hopes his wr catches it? What's so funny on that costing you a win? When another QB does that he gets lambasted for it but when Favre does it that's good old Favre having fun out there!!! I chalked this behavior when Favre was young but if you can't learn from your mistakes that to me has to put a black mark on you. Yes Favre was one of the better QB in the last 10 years but when thinking of Favre I rarely think about his SB win but more on how while he was exciting he also cost them many games.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, Packer fans who slobber all over Favre's knob like Madden on a Monday Night sure as hell give him credit for the stuff that happened in the past. Realistic observers, however, see Bratt for what he is right now: a solid QB who wins as many games as he loses for his team with his gunslinger style.
Interesting comment. Oh, just one question: Care to tell me how many times has Favre finished with a losing record since becoming the Packers' starter?TIA.
 
More relevant Q: How many times has he cost them a win...By the way, in their best, I would take Brady in a heartbeat over Favre. Brady is the prototype QB who won't cost you games while winning them, Favre is hit or miss and is definitely not the prototype QB

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What I want to know, is when ranking Favre among the current QBs, do you give him a bonus for winning a Super Bowl 8 years ago?
Yes.When evaluating QBs, one of the more important factors is how they play under pressure in big games. Even though its happened a long time ago, it still speaks of his cool under pressure(thats not to say that he hasn't stunk it up in some big games- those games should be mentioned too- but it should be mentioned). Similarly, the fact that Culpepper's teams have faded down the stretch in key games the past few years is a mark against him.

 
Can't consider a QB to be tops of this class when you can count at least the same amount of times he lost a game than won a game.

 
you are correct chase. 1996 means nothing.with that being said, favre is still better than culpepper.can you imagne favre with moss? and that oline?or better yet, put dante in GB, the packers might be 1-12.

 
The only game in recent memory that Favre "lost" for us was last year in Philly in the playoffs. Yeah, it was a bad pass in overtime but Walker ran the wrong route. Futhermore the Packers had no reason to be in overtime that game had Sherman not put the team in that predicament. Favre in his younger days may have cost the team a win a season. I say this with nothing to back it up. Favre after the Superbowl years, so the last 8 or 9 years, has not cost the Packers, in my mind, any games at all. Favre alone has won some games for us and we relish in that and than others try to dismiss that one game at Philly as his fault. Please, go back to your homer team if you are trying to dismiss Favre's "losing" that game for us because that is far from the truth.A young QB will cost the team games. That is natural in the maturing QB. Favre did when he was younger. An older QB does not cost his team games but rather will win games for them. Look at the St. Louis 6 INT game if you want. How many passes did Favre throw that game and at what junture in the game were they thrown?? Were the Packers losing at the time and by how much when they were thrown?? Looking at stats is pointless because stats are skewed. I would take Favre before Brady any day of the week because Favre controls the game and the offense. Brady may control the game but he knows that he has a defense that will back him up so he has the right to take more risks. Favre any day of the week in that comparison.Finally, if someone could bring it up. How many of Favre's INT's have come on 1st down?? 2nd down?? 3rd down?? I would be willing to bet most of them in the past 5 or 6 years have come on 3rd down. Also, where were those INT's made?? Were they on the 10 yard line giving the other team only 10 yards to go to socre... :no: or were they on the other 20 yard line giving the opponents 80 yards to score... :yes: ... give me those stats and than we can debate the facts. Opinions mean nothing... give me the facts.

 
Can't consider a QB to be tops of this class when you can count at least the same amount of times he lost a game than won a game.
What means this?? Please do the additions for me because I cannot count the number of games Favre has won for the team on my hands and feet combined. So I would be hard pressed to count the losses that Favre has in his favor as well but I would bet I could use my hands and only my hands to count the losses.
 
Oh, Packer fans who slobber all over Favre's knob like Madden on a Monday Night sure as hell give him credit for the stuff that happened in the past.  Realistic observers, however, see Bratt for what he is right now: a solid QB who wins as many games as he loses for his team with his gunslinger style.  Not many intelligent fans would put him above Culpepper this year, especially given the fact that Pep has been without his #1 WR, has a crap D (yes, GB's D sucks, too) and is saddled with a meathead HC.  Packer fans worship the guy, though, and some I know give him "extra" credit for his will to win, and never say die attitude.  Hell, some poor stars-in-his-eyes jick sniffer even went so far as to give Precious a B- for the 6 interception pooch screw against the Rams in the playoffs a few years ago.  Pathetic..... :no:
Yea, I can't recall how many times (ok ~100) I have heard after Favre throwing up balls that end up being intercepted and play a part in getting beat the commentator (Michaels, Madden, all) say with a chuckle "ha ha well THAT'S Favre for ya!" Ahhh what's so funny about your QB tossing the ball up in the air in hopes his wr catches it? What's so funny on that costing you a win? When another QB does that he gets lambasted for it but when Favre does it that's good old Favre having fun out there!!! I chalked this behavior when Favre was young but if you can't learn from your mistakes that to me has to put a black mark on you. Yes Favre was one of the better QB in the last 10 years but when thinking of Favre I rarely think about his SB win but more on how while he was exciting he also cost them many games.
Just FYI.Elway had a lower TD to INT, lifetime, then Favre. But you just don't hear about Elway's picks, do you?Elway INT percentage was around 3.1%.Favre's is 3.2%.Yet Favre's INT's are a black mark on his legacy. And Elway's aren't.Interesting, isn't it?
 
I haven't read the whole thread, sorry if I'm repeating something.NFL Passing TD Leaders:2004: Favre 23 (4th)2003: Favre 32 (1st)2002: Favre 27 (2nd)2001: Favre 32 (2nd)Even if you totally disregard his ring and MVPs, he's still a top QB.I actually think that fantasy players underrate Favre. I think our ranking of him as QB12 (justifiably so based on fantasy scoring systems) affects our overall opinion of him as a player.

 
When analyzing Brett Favre the QB in 2004, I got into a debate with my friend over whether or not his SB ring merits attention.

When we look back on Favre's career, the MVPs and the SB ring will be just bullet points on an amazing resume. Favre will go down as one of the greatest five QBs of this era.

However, when we're talking about who the best QBs are in the NFL right now, do you think it's fair to mention Favre's rings? Do they mean anything? If we're comparing who is better...Daunte Culpepper or Brett Favre, what the heck does 1996 have to do with anything? In 1996, Culpepper was still three years away from the NFL. Are we really comparing apples to apples if you say "Favre is a better QB than Culpepper because he won a ring?"

Likewise, how relevant are his 3 MVPs? The last one was over five years ago. No one says Emmitt Smith is one of the best rushers in the league, he led the league in rushing four times! Favre clearly is not the same player he once was. He's a great player still, but I think you need to separate Favre from the mid-to-late 90s and the current Favre.

I was going to make this a poll, but I'm much more curious to see some comments either way. I know we can argue all day how much credit a QB gets for winning a Super Bowl (Favre did after all, have the best defense in the league that year), but that's not what I'm curious about. What I want to know, is when ranking Favre among the current QBs, do you give him a bonus for winning a Super Bowl 8 years ago?
His passer rating declined for three years in a row following his MVP years before he managed to bounce back the past two years (though in terms of present performance he isn't quite in the elite ranks of Manning, McNabb and Culpepper).If you look at his resume and look at what he has done lately (like the comeback win the week his dad died or playing through the adversity of his wife's cancer), he gets big points from me for heart and leadership.

None of the big three have a resume (yet) that matches Favre in terms of comebacks, superbowls or MVPs.

In terms of career achievement in the "modern" era, he ranks up there with Montana, Young, Elway and Marino. In terms of present skill levels, he's middle of the pack.

 
Good discussion so far. We've heard"Of course it matters"and"why in the world would 1996 matter?"Personally, I'm of the mindset that it's really not important. I don't think "playing under pressure", "winning a Superbowl" or "great leadership" is a yes/no thing. It's a sliding scale, and you move up and down it during your career. So Favre may have been the greatest clutch player ever in 1996, but that doesn't tell you much about him now.If you're debating which QB you would rather have for a game, Culpepper or Favre, I just don't think Favre's rings come into play. If you're debating Brady vs. Culpepper, it's a different story. But just like Emmitt Smith wouldn't get credit for what he did in 1996, Favre shouldn't. (And it's not just because Emmitt isn't as good. When you compare Curtis Martin to Jamal Lewis, do you mention Curtis pro bowl/super bowl year of 1996? Of course not, it's meaningless and irrelevant).

 
What I want to know, is when ranking Favre among the current QBs, do you give him a bonus for winning a Super Bowl 8 years ago?
:yes: Favre may not be the best anymore but he is easily in the top 10, maybe even the top 5 today.

 
So Favre may have been the greatest clutch player ever in 1996, but that doesn't tell you much about him now.
You must not have watched the 2nd half of the Detroit game, or the clutch play by Favre down the stretch in the Houston game.Again, go ask the NFL GMs and coaches and see where they rank Favre as far as what QB they want in the clutch.
 
So Favre may have been the greatest clutch player ever in 1996, but that doesn't tell you much about him now.
You must not have watched the 2nd half of the Detroit game, or the clutch play by Favre down the stretch in the Houston game.Again, go ask the NFL GMs and coaches and see where they rank Favre as far as what QB they want in the clutch.
Carl, I know you're a Packers fan but you're arguing different things.Favre might STILL be the most clutch performer in the league (I don't think he is). But if he is, it's NOT because he won a SB in 1996. My main point still deals with whether or not we factor in Favre's ring, not whether or not Favre is still great.
 
My main point still deals with whether or not we factor in Favre's ring, not whether or not Favre is still great.
Favre was great and still is great. His past accomplishments will always be associated with him because that is part of sports and what all athletes strive for.Here is a good project for you Chase.....Go ask all the so called experts associated with the NFL and ask them your question. My guess is they will tell you that it isn't a good question to start with and they will then tell you that Favre is still one of the top QBs in the game.
 
I dont think there is another QB that can switch spots with Brett and carry the Packers. FOr alot of reasons including weather and his willingness to give all. I take him over any QB for that reason. I think he could go elsewhere and succeed. I dont think even Brady would be an accomplished QB playing in Green Bay right now and for success he is the man right now. The stats over the last 4 years for TD passes speaks for itself to go along with no losing record or fading down the stretch. So yes Manning is going to set all kinds of records this year in running up his totals but what would Brett have if Green Bay did the same each and every week. And will Peyton ever win a SB and can he do it for all those years in a row. Peyton is a choker until he proves different which Brett has done over and over again. May not select him to be a franchise QB because of time left but there is no QB anyone wants to play less than Brett Favre in any given week. And I thnk without doubt the best QB of all-time and he still has numbers to add and the best QB for fans to watch.

 
Brett Favre is the only player in the NFL who can win a game singlehandedly by sheer willpower. The fact that GB won that game 8 years ago isn't relevant. He is the best because of his career as a whole. In deciding who is the best QB right now, I don't think there is a player in the NFL that wouldn't be inspired to play their heart out if they know #4 is lining up behind the center. He not only makes the offense better, he also makes the defense better and the officiating. When Longwell kicked the game winner against DET, what did the announcer scream? "Favre did it again!" Yep, he is simply the greatest. :bow:

 
The playoffs are one loss and you're out. Brett Favre can win by himself, or so it seems. He's not unlike many before him in that ya simply don't want to face him. Could ya win? Sure but what if he has a hall of fame caliber afternoon?I remember listenning to pro players say they didn't want to be the one in the poster getting dunked on by Jordan. Even if they played their best D, if he got a step it was highlight time. Similar attitude in all sports. Favre instills fear. How many CBs have been blanketting a WR and yet he throws it so hard it zips right past the CBs hand and tatoos the WRs chest. It creates a feeling of being at his mercy, in a way.Somewhere along the way, respect actually becomes fear in sports.Teams respect Peyton and Daunte, sure, but if they bring their a-game they can win. No fear.Then there's the way a guy has "been there done that." Countless super bowl tales of players being overwhelmed with the attention. Some guys like Brady, Favre, and Montana seem to have ice water in their veins and nothin' makes em' nervous. There's also another thing:Favre has nothing to prove which certainly lowers the stress level a ton. Peyton can't win the big one. Daunte plays on Moss' team, fumbles too much, holds it too long.....You can work up a list for these two. I'm sure one Supe win shuts alot of critics up and they'd love to do that. Foremost though, they've wanted to win a Supe since they were little kids dreaming of it in the schoolyard. They built up plenty of pressure on themself, regardless of the press.Favre, he's still that kid in the schoolyard

 
If you're discussing the best QBs in the league NOW, the only thing that matters is how you think they'll do in a game tomorrow, so no, they don't matter unless they directly reflect on the current level he's playing at (which they don't).
I disagree. It does matter what he has done in the past. If I was looking for a QB to lead my team right now, I am going to look for one that is performing well right now, and has skins on the wall. Favre has all of this.

 
I stand by my statements, he clearly blows more games on his own than he wins. People forget the reason they won the SB was not because of Favre but because of one of the all time great kick returns. Funny, nobody ever mentions that but thinks it was because of Farve. How about Farve not beating the Broncos when they were heavy favorites and people were already talking about GB as a dynasty team? You could say Farve lost a SB in a top 5 choke jobs of all time SB games (in terms of pt spread).If someone can disprove that he doesn't blow big games (last year playoffs and SB vs Broncos are just two of many) by jacking up throws because "That's that loveable kooky Farve again!" crap then we must have watched a different player.

 
I stand by my statements, he clearly blows more games on his own than he wins. People forget the reason they won the SB was not because of Favre but because of one of the all time great kick returns. Funny, nobody ever mentions that but thinks it was because of Farve. How about Farve not beating the Broncos when they were heavy favorites and people were already talking about GB as a dynasty team? You could say Farve lost a SB in a top 5 choke jobs of all time SB games (in terms of pt spread).

If someone can disprove that he doesn't blow big games (last year playoffs and SB vs Broncos are just two of many) by jacking up throws because "That's that loveable kooky Farve again!" crap then we must have watched a different player.
1st - learn how to spell his name.2nd - you are the one making claims that he has lost more than he has won... so genius... you tell us what games he has lost. to confound your argument you also have to include the games he has won. please do so.

3rd - you are either a spitefuly Viking homer or a spiteful Bear homer. either way or neither way you wish FAVREwas on your team.

 
I stand by my statements, he clearly blows more games on his own than he wins. People forget the reason they won the SB was not because of Favre but because of one of the all time great kick returns. Funny, nobody ever mentions that but thinks it was because of Farve. How about Farve not beating the Broncos when they were heavy favorites and people were already talking about GB as a dynasty team? You could say Farve lost a SB in a top 5 choke jobs of all time SB games (in terms of pt spread).If someone can disprove that he doesn't blow big games (last year playoffs and SB vs Broncos are just two of many) by jacking up throws because "That's that loveable kooky Farve again!" crap then we must have watched a different player.
Many of Favre's INTs are "Favre punts". 3rd and long, he doesn't throw the ball away. If there is no good target, he just heaves it and hopes for the best. If it is picked off, it is pretty much like a punt. That hurts his QB rating, but does not hurt his team. Also, when his team is way behind he gambles incessantly and has those 5 or 6 INT games. Again, hurting his stats but not hurting his team, as they were in a desparate situation anyway. Favre is one of the masters of come from behind masterpieces. Personally, I rank him as the best QB I have ever seen (never seen Unitas) but I think few could reasonably claim that he is not among the best ever. I hope he plays two more seasons and erases Marino from at least one of the major QB career records (TD passes) and then Brett will finally get the admiration and adulation he so richly deserves.
 
The only game in recent memory that Favre "lost" for us was last year in Philly in the playoffs. Yeah, it was a bad pass in overtime but Walker ran the wrong route. Futhermore the Packers had no reason to be in overtime that game had Sherman not put the team in that predicament. Favre in his younger days may have cost the team a win a season. I say this with nothing to back it up. Favre after the Superbowl years, so the last 8 or 9 years, has not cost the Packers, in my mind, any games at all. Favre alone has won some games for us and we relish in that and than others try to dismiss that one game at Philly as his fault. Please, go back to your homer team if you are trying to dismiss Favre's "losing" that game for us because that is far from the truth.A young QB will cost the team games. That is natural in the maturing QB. Favre did when he was younger. An older QB does not cost his team games but rather will win games for them. Look at the St. Louis 6 INT game if you want. How many passes did Favre throw that game and at what junture in the game were they thrown?? Were the Packers losing at the time and by how much when they were thrown?? Looking at stats is pointless because stats are skewed. I would take Favre before Brady any day of the week because Favre controls the game and the offense. Brady may control the game but he knows that he has a defense that will back him up so he has the right to take more risks. Favre any day of the week in that comparison.Finally, if someone could bring it up. How many of Favre's INT's have come on 1st down?? 2nd down?? 3rd down?? I would be willing to bet most of them in the past 5 or 6 years have come on 3rd down. Also, where were those INT's made?? Were they on the 10 yard line giving the other team only 10 yards to go to socre... :no: or were they on the other 20 yard line giving the opponents 80 yards to score... :yes: ... give me those stats and than we can debate the facts. Opinions mean nothing... give me the facts.
Wrong. Favre came out (3 weeks after the fact -- nice bit o' sportsmanship there) and tried to insinuate that Walker ran the wrong route. Nothing could be further from the truth. Walker did exactly what he was supposed to in that situation. Favre, under pressure, made a bad throw and killed GB's last chance in that game. Ironically, earlier in that same game Ferguson was in a similar situation: heavy blitz and he indeed ran the wrong route (it went for a TD, incidentally), but Favre didn't ##### at all about that one. Weird, right?But this is exactly what I'm talking about: the classic Favre apologist stance. Even if his turnovers kill ya, an excuse is made up to cover his ### on it. The O-line broke down, WR ran the wrong route, coach called the wrong play, peanut vendor moved at the wrong time, etc., etc. It's almost as if once you become a Packer fan you're given "The Precious Excuse Manual - A Guide to Absolving our Patron Saint from Wrongdoing." It's the green and yella bible, or so it seems.....Bottom line is he's an excellent QB, but he's human and makes mistakes. It's not always someone elses fault when he screws up.
 
When analyzing Brett Favre the QB in 2004, I got into a debate with my friend over whether or not his SB ring merits attention.

When we look back on Favre's career, the MVPs and the SB ring will be just bullet points on an amazing resume. Favre will go down as one of the greatest five QBs of this era.

However, when we're talking about who the best QBs are in the NFL right now, do you think it's fair to mention Favre's rings? Do they mean anything? If we're comparing who is better...Daunte Culpepper or Brett Favre, what the heck does 1996 have to do with anything? In 1996, Culpepper was still three years away from the NFL. Are we really comparing apples to apples if you say "Favre is a better QB than Culpepper because he won a ring?"

Likewise, how relevant are his 3 MVPs? The last one was over five years ago. No one says Emmitt Smith is one of the best rushers in the league, he led the league in rushing four times! Favre clearly is not the same player he once was. He's a great player still, but I think you need to separate Favre from the mid-to-late 90s and the current Favre.

I was going to make this a poll, but I'm much more curious to see some comments either way. I know we can argue all day how much credit a QB gets for winning a Super Bowl (Favre did after all, have the best defense in the league that year), but that's not what I'm curious about. What I want to know, is when ranking Favre among the current QBs, do you give him a bonus for winning a Super Bowl 8 years ago?
Favre has a track record of success that many current QBs do not have. Couple that with the fact that he still is a very productive QB and I have no problem ranking him among the best in the game today.As for MVPs, they are worthless opinion awards and should never be considered in any serious analysis of a player. I'd rahter someone break down game film over the course of Favre's career and tell me his strength's and weaknessness. Anyone can say "oh he has 3 MVPs".

I like the way Favre will spread the ball around, for one. Of course, that might be due to the fact that he hasn't had a bona fide stud WR since Sterling Sharpe. I can't imagine what numbers Favre could have had if he got to throw to a Moss or Owens for most of his career.

 
I stand by my statements, he clearly blows more games on his own than he wins.
:bs:
Not total BS, but the ratio of games he wins to games he loses is closer to 50/50 than it ever was...
While I don't have the stats at my fingertips, I am almost sure that the Packers have been the winningest team in the NFL since Favre took over the starting job in GB so many years ago. If he wins as many games as he loses, the rest of the team must have been phenomenal for a long, long time.
 
I stand by my statements, he clearly blows more games on his own than he wins. People forget the reason they won the SB was not because of Favre but because of one of the all time great kick returns. Funny, nobody ever mentions that but thinks it was because of Farve. How about Farve not beating the Broncos when they were heavy favorites and people were already talking about GB as a dynasty team? You could say Farve lost a SB in a top 5 choke jobs of all time SB games (in terms of pt spread).

If someone can disprove that he doesn't blow big games (last year playoffs and SB vs Broncos are just two of many) by jacking up throws because "That's that loveable kooky Farve again!" crap then we must have watched a different player.
1st - learn how to spell his name.2nd - you are the one making claims that he has lost more than he has won... so genius... you tell us what games he has lost. to confound your argument you also have to include the games he has won. please do so.

3rd - you are either a spitefuly Viking homer or a spiteful Bear homer. either way or neither way you wish FAVREwas on your team.
I know how to spell his name, if you botherd to have read my previous posts you would see. Spelling his name FARVE and getting a reaction never gets old.I think it's painfully obvious the games he won and lost (already gave you the playoff game last year and his second SB which was a top 5 all time choke job) and don't have the time to write them all down, if you followed football since he played you're with me but if you have nothing better to do, please disprove what I've said but I am telling you, you won't. ;)

 
I stand by my statements, he clearly blows more games on his own than he wins.
:bs:
Not total BS, but the ratio of games he wins to games he loses is closer to 50/50 than it ever was...
Talking about games where he was the cause for their win or loss. Telling you, in games where he was the deciding factor, his losses and wins were about the same. You can't give him the win when it was either AGreen running all over the place or their defense shut down a crapy offensive team just like I wouldn't give him the loss if his WR couldn't catch the ball.Come on, this is painfully obvious here, I can't fathom how people just don't want to view FAVRE in a negaitive light as if it makes him a worse QB then the hype placed on him.Finally, for people who say I am a Chicago or Minn fan, I expect a better counter argument than that. I am neither by the way and I don't hate Favre. Just saying that he still loves to jack up thows HOPING his WR will catch them. If they do, HE gets the credit, if they don't EVERYONE has a laugh, slap on the knee and says "Man, that's Bret for ya!!!" Terrible.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top