Favre's On The Field Performance For 2010 (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

I realize lots of people hate everything about Favre. And some think he can do no wrong. It's annoying to see threads spiral down to little catfights between two posters slapping at each other over stuff that makes no difference to what most of us are interested in here - how he'll do on the field this year.

I don't know if this will work, but can we have a thread focused on what you think he'll do this year?

Footballguys projections have him as the #15 QB with 23 TDs and 3460 yards. Too high? Too low? And most importantly, why?

Let's see how this goes.

J

Edited to add poll.

 

[[icon]]

I think you're a little low Joe unless you're trying to account for injury in some manner. I can see the Vikings perhaps attempting to lean a bit more on ADP to help keep Farve from getting rocked as many times as he did last year.... however we all know how things work once he gets the ball in his hands.

He's not thrown for that few yards since 2003 (and I think the 2008 season with the Jets was sorta an apples/oranges comparison as he simply didn't have the weapons there that he has in MIN. Last year he posted 4200/33 with Minny and while i see some degree or regression, not enough has changed to warrant forecasting him losing 25%-35% of his production. Maybe split the difference at 3700/27 with perhaps a little upside depending on how that ankle responds to game action?

Just my thoughts of course. I see him more of a Low end QB1 with decent upside and significant downside (if the ankle is shot and affects his deep ball).

 

[Phase of the Game]

My guess is that Childress will use Favre like he did last season. Favre has averaged 3,947 yards passing the last 6 seasons and threw for 4,202 last year with 33 TDs. I don't see his numbers going down as much as your projections. He played under control last year and had a outstanding season.

3975 yards, 29 TDs, 12 Ints

 

[daveR]

My guess is that Childress will use Favre like he did last season. Favre has averaged 3,947 yards passing the last 6 seasons and threw for 4,202 last year with 33 TDs. I don't see his numbers going down as much as your projections. He played under control last year and had a outstanding season.3975 yards, 29 TDs, 12 Ints

If he stays healthy, this seems about right. I just have a bad feeling about this year, though. (Just a feeling -- no real basis for it.)

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think you're a little low Joe unless you're trying to account for injury in some manner. I can see the Vikings perhaps attempting to lean a bit more on ADP to help keep Farve from getting rocked as many times as he did last year.... however we all know how things work once he gets the ball in his hands. He's not thrown for that few yards since 2003 (and I think the 2008 season with the Jets was sorta an apples/oranges comparison as he simply didn't have the weapons there that he has in MIN. Last year he posted 4200/33 with Minny and while i see some degree or regression, not enough has changed to warrant forecasting him losing 25%-35% of his production. Maybe split the difference at 3700/27 with perhaps a little upside depending on how that ankle responds to game action?Just my thoughts of course. I see him more of a Low end QB1 with decent upside and significant downside (if the ankle is shot and affects his deep ball).

Thanks icon. We have him projected for 14 games. It's kind of interesting, projecting a QB that old to miss a couple of games doesn't sound like a reach. But it does when it's Favre. At some point, I think an injury catches him. But that's just a guess.J

 

[Couch Potato]

3,800 yards, 26 TD 17 INT. Nowhere near the season he had last year with 7 INTs, much less consistent. A lot closer to previous norms.

That's a 16 game projection. If you think he'll miss games, adjust accordingly.

And yes, this will be his last year.

 

[Kuz]

I voted 6-10 range. I really doubt he plays as well as he did last year but still thinks he plays at a high level. He should still be able to post some good stats with the supporting cast around him.

 

[Couch Potato]

3975 yards, 29 TDs, 12 Ints

Prior to last year, in 17 seasons his career low for INTs was 13.The 7 he had last year was such a fluke. I can almost guarantee it'll be more than 12. I'm projecting 17.

 

[Donsmith753]

I voted 6-10 based on him playing a season.

Really all we can base things on. I don't think he'll finish the season and I think he'll be forced to retire, I have no idea in what game the hit will come though.

 

[Pipes]

I voted 6-10 range. I really doubt he plays as well as he did last year but still thinks he plays at a high level. He should still be able to post some good stats with the supporting cast around him.

Age and injuries has to catch up to him and some point...right? I'm guessing around 3600 yds, 26TDs and 17 Int. I'm thinking TJax is going to be getting more mop up duty this year in order to try to keep Favre healthy for a playoff run.

 

[steelcityman]

It might have more to do with the health of the WRs, Rice and Harvin. If they play 14+ games each, then I think Favre will chase last years numbers. If those guys are out a lot, you might trim 800 yards and 5 TDs off last years stats, or more.

 

[[icon]]

Most qb's are easy to project missed games at this age... but this is Favre. Guy is a horse. He's played through everything his whole career and I'm not sure that mentality has left him. Of course there's an increased chance of injury at his age but with Farve you also get an increased chance that he can/will play through it (and likely play pretty well).

That said I do understand those projecting fewer than 16 games.... I'm just not ready to make that leap just yet.

 

[psychobillies]

I voted 6-10 based on him playing a season.Really all we can base things on. I don't think he'll finish the season and I think he'll be forced to retire, I have no idea in what game the hit will come though.

Week 1.

 

[Phase of the Game]

3975 yards, 29 TDs, 12 Ints

Prior to last year, in 17 seasons his career low for INTs was 13.The 7 he had last year was such a fluke. I can almost guarantee it'll be more than 12. I'm projecting 17.

He worked very hard last year to play under control and not force the ball as much. I don't see that changing unless he gets so fed up with Childress and lets it fly!

 

[Donsmith753]

I voted 6-10 based on him playing a season.Really all we can base things on. I don't think he'll finish the season and I think he'll be forced to retire, I have no idea in what game the hit will come though.

Week 1.

Very possible. I'm not going to project a guy to have less games just because he's old or he's had injuries in the past e.g. Sjax. The fact is that the ankle still bothers him and could go at any time.I agree with Icon that if he gets nicked up he'll play through it but I don't think it'll be that simple. He'll either player the season taking his lumps and playing through it or he'll suffer a really bad hit on that ankle and that'll be the end.

 

[Mainevent]

I voted QB 6-10, while I agree last years numbers are probably his ceiling, I see him finishing the year (through any injuries he may have), but more like 4000-26-15.

This is his encore performance... whatever people say about him, the guy has taken a lot of shots throughout his career and never missed a game, unless he is physically unable to walk and/or throw he will be playing.

 

[redBourne]

I voted 6-10 based on him playing a season.Really all we can base things on. I don't think he'll finish the season and I think he'll be forced to retire, I have no idea in what game the hit will come though.

Week 1. <_<

lol I was taken back at first by someone predicting a week 1 injury...then I realized who you follow. Laughed a little bit with the boxer.I too am predicting some kind of injury, because how often does an aging vet leave the game on am ore realistic / sad story then one you would see in the movies? Maybe it's just human nature to be pessimistic. Then again, as noted above, favre is "horse". (eh, let us just stick with Iron Man) and hasn't missed a game, ever. I have him 6 <=> 9 myself. myself.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I gotta agree with icon. While Favre has obvious injury concerns (the ankle), given that he has played 1,848 games in a row, I think he should be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to projections and games played. I always assume he will play 16 games, somehow, someway.

 

[ScottyFargo]

His attitude leads me to believe he is going to expect more out of the run game and O-line this year. He says he's coming back because he owes the team, though. I think between these two thoughts you'll find the level of effort he's going to put in. I think these factors are what is going to lead to a small decrease in production for Favre.

I know that in the long scheme of things the low INT # is flukey, but I don't think he's going to get a huge jump in INT this year. I think he will top out at 10 INT this year. The reason being that the Vikes O is no different this year than last, so the only thing that could bring that on is if he falls into old habits. I think that the relationship he forged last year with Rice and Harvin is going to hold, so he still won't make a lot of mistakes.

Top 6-10 QB, but slightly less production than last year.

 

[ScottyFargo]

And definitely start him the weeks he plays Green Bay and the Lions. We're talking huge #s. Against the Bears might be iffy but I think they'll figure out the protection for Peppers (who will only try hard one of the two games anyway.) Should sweep the division.

 

[Doug B]

My guess is that Childress will use Favre like he did last season. Favre has averaged 3,947 yards passing the last 6 seasons and threw for 4,202 last year with 33 TDs. I don't see his numbers going down as much as your projections. He played under control last year and had a outstanding season.

3975 yards, 29 TDs, 12 Ints

If he stays healthy, this seems about right. I just have a bad feeling about this year, though. (Just a feeling -- no real basis for it.)

daveR basically spoke for me.

Another can't-prove-it feeling based on absolutely no logic -- I think his 2009 stats were flukey and pretty much unrepeatable. Something like his personal version Peyton Manning's or Tom Brady's high-TD seasons.

 

[psychobillies]

I voted 6-10 based on him playing a season.Really all we can base things on. I don't think he'll finish the season and I think he'll be forced to retire, I have no idea in what game the hit will come though.

Week 1.

lol I was taken back at first by someone predicting a week 1 injury...then I realized who you follow. Laughed a little bit with the boxer.I too am predicting some kind of injury, because how often does an aging vet leave the game on am ore realistic / sad story then one you would see in the movies? Maybe it's just human nature to be pessimistic. Then again, as noted above, favre is "horse". (eh, let us just stick with Iron Man) and hasn't missed a game, ever. I have him 6 <=> 9 myself. myself.

I was certainly joking, and I hope he does not get hurt. That being said, there is a ridiculous amount of trash talking going on between the Saints and Vikings. Jared Allen, Schiancoe, even Childress are still whining about how mean the Saints were to Farve in the NFCCG. I think Ray Edwards actually said that if they knew the Saints were going to take shots on the QB then they would have tried to do the same. Really? Ya'll don't try to hit QB? Tell that to Matt Schaub. It's going to be a very, very physical game. I don't think the Saints took any excessive shots, but of course, I'm biased. Truth is the Viking O line could not handle the Saints last year, and the Saints have made some major improvements to the D line this year. Favre's ankle is still hurt, and will probably be bothering him in week 1. I would not be suprised if his starting streak is ended sooner rather than later. It's not wishful thinking either. I want nothing more than for the Saints to beat the Farve led Vikings again, so we can stop all of this Saints were lucky nonsense.

 

[Sylira21]

As long as Peterson is drawing a lot of attention, see no reason he can't have another really good year. But last year seems to be a touch too high.

Voted 6-10 range, about 4000 yards, 26 TDs, 12 INT. And I don't see an injury, either. Cal Ripken didn't get hurt, did he?

 

[[icon]]

I want nothing more than for the Saints to beat the Farve led Vikings again, so we can stop all of this Saints were lucky nonsense.

I don't think anyone with a decent head on their shoulders thinks the Saints simply "Got lucky" last year. They were a hell of a team that played with a ton of heart at the right time. Everyone gets some breaks en route to a title.

 

[redBourne]

I voted 6-10 based on him playing a season.Really all we can base things on. I don't think he'll finish the season and I think he'll be forced to retire, I have no idea in what game the hit will come though.

Week 1.

lol I was taken back at first by someone predicting a week 1 injury...then I realized who you follow. Laughed a little bit with the boxer.I too am predicting some kind of injury, because how often does an aging vet leave the game on am ore realistic / sad story then one you would see in the movies? Maybe it's just human nature to be pessimistic. Then again, as noted above, favre is "horse". (eh, let us just stick with Iron Man) and hasn't missed a game, ever. I have him 6 <=> 9 myself. myself.

I was certainly joking, and I hope he does not get hurt. That being said, there is a ridiculous amount of trash talking going on between the Saints and Vikings. Jared Allen, Schiancoe, even Childress are still whining about how mean the Saints were to Farve in the NFCCG. I think Ray Edwards actually said that if they knew the Saints were going to take shots on the QB then they would have tried to do the same. Really? Ya'll don't try to hit QB? Tell that to Matt Schaub. It's going to be a very, very physical game. I don't think the Saints took any excessive shots, but of course, I'm biased. Truth is the Viking O line could not handle the Saints last year, and the Saints have made some major improvements to the D line this year. Favre's ankle is still hurt, and will probably be bothering him in week 1. I would not be suprised if his starting streak is ended sooner rather than later. It's not wishful thinking either. I want nothing more than for the Saints to beat the Farve led Vikings again, so we can stop all of this Saints were lucky nonsense.

I'm right there with you. I don't think the Saints were lucky, they're a pretty solid team. Luck is an excuse. Obviously there is luck in everything we do but it's not biased. And I didn't think you were hoping he would get injured, I got the sarcasm . Even if he plays through pain like he has before, his stats will suffer for it. Here's hoping that he at least makes the playoffs, finishes without getting injured, and meets my expectations (top 9 QB with above average stats and not the reason the Vikes lose in the playoffs)

 

[Doug B]

Thanks icon. We have him projected for 14 games. It's kind of interesting, projecting a QB that old to miss a couple of games doesn't sound like a reach. But it does when it's Favre. At some point, I think an injury catches him. But that's just a guess.

IMHO, you're not reaching at all. Despite the streak, Favre HAS had bad enough injuries in recent years to have sat out games (e.g. last four games of the 2008 season in NY).

 

[sho nuff]

I voted 6-10...would put him more specifically in that 8-12 range.

Solid solid numbers...the Rice injury worries me a bit...but they have some very good weapons.

That is, if his ankle holds up...if it gives him problems but he still plays...watch Peterson's carries go up while Favre's #s dip.

 

[smackdaddies]

3975 yards, 29 TDs, 12 Ints

Prior to last year, in 17 seasons his career low for INTs was 13.The 7 he had last year was such a fluke. I can almost guarantee it'll be more than 12. I'm projecting 17.

As a life long packer fan, and still BF supporter (although, yes, I am tired of his schtick), I think coach potatoe is on the ball - almost surely his INT's are going up - at least 15, and 17 is as good of a number as any.Good team, great RB, good wr, decent line - BF is still a top 10 qb. Not as good as last year though.

 

[Gopher State]

I think the Vikings are an improved team this year just with Favre in his second year of the system. I see for Favre

4000 yards, 32 TD's 8 int. The ceiling for int's at most would be 10. I see him knocking on top 5 QB this year. A great value where he is being drafted. So many weapons and a great defense, Favre should have an outstanding year.

 

[Hawk Fan]

I gotta agree with icon. While Favre has obvious injury concerns (the ankle), given that he has played 1,848 games in a row, I think he should be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to projections and games played. I always assume he will play 16 games, somehow, someway.

 

[billyjohnson]

16 games, 3874 yards, 26 tds, 15 picks. Mark it down.

 

[karmarooster]

ok, the injury concern is an obvious one, but no one has pointed out that Tarvaris Jackson might play in relief even if Favre's healthy.

I don't have the complete stats, but according to NFL.com he played in 8 games last year in some capacity. Only 14/21 passing, but that's probably because when he did play they were winning and running the clock. A quarter (or even a half against, say, the Lions) here and there adds up to a handful of games played at the end of the season.

I think 14 games for Favre should be the MAX based on 1) injury potential and 2) Tarvaris. Probably something closer to 2 games for injury, and 2 games for Tarvaris (in small increments spread out over the season).

In short, I voted 6-10, but 11-15 shouldn't be a big surprise to anyone.

ETA - also they have the caliber of defense required to sit on a lead

 

[sho nuff]

I think the Vikings are an improved team this year just with Favre in his second year of the system. I see for Favre4000 yards, 32 TD's 8 int. The ceiling for int's at most would be 10. I see him knocking on top 5 QB this year. A great value where he is being drafted. So many weapons and a great defense, Favre should have an outstanding year.

While its certainly possible, I don't see at 41 how he is going to basically duplicate his best season ever.Not as much a knock on Favre, just that their schedule this year will be tougher than last when the North had one of the easiest schedules in the league.

 

[Tau837]

Voted 6-10.

IMO it is a mistake to project him to miss games. He has proven to be very durable, to state the obvious. Yes, he is old, but he's been old for a few years now. He is prideful, and IMO the streak is important to him. I think that means he won't let injuries like sprained ankles or cracked ribs keep him out... it would take something more serious, like ACL, achilles, broken bones, etc. And what is the basis upon which someone can project such a serious injury?

The FBG projection would scale to 3954 yards and 26 TDs over 16 games, which seems like a reasonable estimate IMO. More importantly given the thread question, those numbers would very likely rank him in the top 10. (Last year, Eli had 4021 passing yards, 27 passing TDs, and 14 interceptions and ranked as QB10 using FBG scoring, and Warner ranked as QB11 with 3758 passing yards, 27 passing TDs, and 14 interceptions.)

 

[[icon]]

I think the Vikings are an improved team this year just with Favre in his second year of the system. I see for Favre4000 yards, 32 TD's 8 int. The ceiling for int's at most would be 10. I see him knocking on top 5 QB this year. A great value where he is being drafted. So many weapons and a great defense, Favre should have an outstanding year.

While its certainly possible, I don't see at 41 how he is going to basically duplicate his best season ever.Not as much a knock on Favre, just that their schedule this year will be tougher than last when the North had one of the easiest schedules in the league.

Did farve come down with a disease this summer that makes him age 5 years over the last 9 months or something?You guys are talking like this "best season ever" is some distant memory from his glory days...Will he repear? Likely not. However there is little to indicate some drastic regression beyond the last several years' mean.

 

[sho nuff]

I think the Vikings are an improved team this year just with Favre in his second year of the system. I see for Favre4000 yards, 32 TD's 8 int. The ceiling for int's at most would be 10. I see him knocking on top 5 QB this year. A great value where he is being drafted. So many weapons and a great defense, Favre should have an outstanding year.

While its certainly possible, I don't see at 41 how he is going to basically duplicate his best season ever.Not as much a knock on Favre, just that their schedule this year will be tougher than last when the North had one of the easiest schedules in the league.

Did farve come down with a disease this summer that makes him age 5 years over the last 9 months or something?You guys are talking like this "best season ever" is some distant memory from his glory days...Will he repear? Likely not. However there is little to indicate some drastic regression beyond the last several years' mean.

I don't recall knocking it like it was long in the past, but at 41, who knows when the skills could diminish.I don't predict a big downfall...and not really because of age...mostly because the schedule is much tougher this year...and repeating a year that was his best in his 19 years would be pretty difficult, especially with the tougher schedule.

 

[[icon]]

ok, the injury concern is an obvious one, but no one has pointed out that Tarvaris Jackson might play in relief even if Favre's healthy. I don't have the complete stats, but according to NFL.com he played in 8 games last year in some capacity. Only 14/21 passing, but that's probably because when he did play they were winning and running the clock. A quarter (or even a half against, say, the Lions) here and there adds up to a handful of games played at the end of the season.I think 14 games for Favre should be the MAX based on 1) injury potential and 2) Tarvaris. Probably something closer to 2 games for injury, and 2 games for Tarvaris (in small increments spread out over the season).In short, I voted 6-10, but 11-15 shouldn't be a big surprise to anyone.ETA - also they have the caliber of defense required to sit on a lead

2 games to TJ? This Vikings team begger farve back because they are a playoff team who are trying to win it all. The only minutes Jackson will see (barring major injury to Farve, for which there is little precident) is in mop up duty.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The ceiling for int's at most would be 10.

His ceiling is 10? You have got to be kidding. While he could certainly spit out another season similar to last year's, to say that his ceiling is 10, when he averaged 19 per season in every other season of his career as a starter, is just crazy. And that is not even taking into account that this year's schedule is much tougher than last year's was.

 

[Tau837]

IMO it is a mistake to project him to miss games. He has proven to be very durable, to state the obvious. Yes, he is old, but he's been old for a few years now. He is prideful, and IMO the streak is important to him. I think that means he won't let injuries like sprained ankles or cracked ribs keep him out... it would take something more serious, like ACL, achilles, broken bones, etc. And what is the basis upon which someone can project such a serious injury?

The more I think about it, the more I'd like to hear the FBG rationale for projecting him to miss 2 games. Can David or Joe or someone weigh in on that? I can only imagine a few possible answers:1. Concern over his ankle, since it required surgery and has supposedly continued bothering him. But he is now practicing, so why would anyone think it would lead to 2 (and exactly 2) missed games? Is the thinking that he'll miss the first 2 games because it will take that long for the ankle to be ready? If so, based on what? Or is the thinking that he'll miss 2 games later in the season because it will be reaggravated? If so, that is nothing more than speculation IMO.2. Concern over his age and the likelihood of a different/new injury. For example:2a. QBs on average miss approximately 2 games (if that is true). This would seem to be a poor rationale, since Favre has shown for 19 seasons that he isn't average in terms of durability. I know some FBG staff always project less than 16 games because of general averages, and I have always disagreed with that approach... Favre is a perfect example of why, along with others like Peyton and Rivers.2b. A refinement of 2a using a sample focused on old QBs. Perhaps this would show that older QBs miss more time on average than younger QBs; I'm not sure. But I'd argue that Favre has shown throughout his career that he is much more durable than most QBs, so why wouldn't he also be much more durable than most old QBs?3. The law of averages - he is due for an injury. But he's "been due" for 19 years, so why now? And this kind of vague reasoning doesn't really strike me as typical for FBG projections.Have I missed some other rationale? I'm very curious to hear the reasoning behind it.

 

[cr8f]

I think you're a little low Joe unless you're trying to account for injury in some manner. I can see the Vikings perhaps attempting to lean a bit more on ADP to help keep Farve from getting rocked as many times as he did last year.... however we all know how things work once he gets the ball in his hands. He's not thrown for that few yards since 2003 (and I think the 2008 season with the Jets was sorta an apples/oranges comparison as he simply didn't have the weapons there that he has in MIN. Last year he posted 4200/33 with Minny and while i see some degree or regression, not enough has changed to warrant forecasting him losing 25%-35% of his production. Maybe split the difference at 3700/27 with perhaps a little upside depending on how that ankle responds to game action?Just my thoughts of course. I see him more of a Low end QB1 with decent upside and significant downside (if the ankle is shot and affects his deep ball).

Well he could go back to normal high interception ways. The reason he only had a few was he sold his soul to the devil last year. Isn't it obvious?

 

[Couch Potato]

IMO it is a mistake to project him to miss games. He has proven to be very durable, to state the obvious. Yes, he is old, but he's been old for a few years now. He is prideful, and IMO the streak is important to him. I think that means he won't let injuries like sprained ankles or cracked ribs keep him out... it would take something more serious, like ACL, achilles, broken bones, etc. And what is the basis upon which someone can project such a serious injury?

The more I think about it, the more I'd like to hear the FBG rationale for projecting him to miss 2 games. Can David or Joe or someone weigh in on that? I can only imagine a few possible answers:1. Concern over his ankle, since it required surgery and has supposedly continued bothering him. But he is now practicing, so why would anyone think it would lead to 2 (and exactly 2) missed games? Is the thinking that he'll miss the first 2 games because it will take that long for the ankle to be ready? If so, based on what? Or is the thinking that he'll miss 2 games later in the season because it will be reaggravated? If so, that is nothing more than speculation IMO.

2. Concern over his age and the likelihood of a different/new injury. For example:

2a. QBs on average miss approximately 2 games (if that is true). This would seem to be a poor rationale, since Favre has shown for 19 seasons that he isn't average in terms of durability. I know some FBG staff always project less than 16 games because of general averages, and I have always disagreed with that approach... Favre is a perfect example of why, along with others like Peyton and Rivers.

2b. A refinement of 2a using a sample focused on old QBs. Perhaps this would show that older QBs miss more time on average than younger QBs; I'm not sure. But I'd argue that Favre has shown throughout his career that he is much more durable than most QBs, so why wouldn't he also be much more durable than most old QBs?

3. The law of averages - he is due for an injury. But he's "been due" for 19 years, so why now? And this kind of vague reasoning doesn't really strike me as typical for FBG projections.

Have I missed some other rationale? I'm very curious to hear the reasoning behind it.

For the record, Favre has started 285 consecutive regular season games, and 309 including playoffs. An 18-year streak.

Unless I had specific info to the contrary, I wouldn't bet against anything with a 309 in a row over 18 years track record. And I certainly wouldn't bet that he would miss 2 of the next 16. There's just no basis for it at all.

 

[cr8f]

IMO it is a mistake to project him to miss games. He has proven to be very durable, to state the obvious. Yes, he is old, but he's been old for a few years now. He is prideful, and IMO the streak is important to him. I think that means he won't let injuries like sprained ankles or cracked ribs keep him out... it would take something more serious, like ACL, achilles, broken bones, etc. And what is the basis upon which someone can project such a serious injury?

The more I think about it, the more I'd like to hear the FBG rationale for projecting him to miss 2 games. Can David or Joe or someone weigh in on that? I can only imagine a few possible answers:1. Concern over his ankle, since it required surgery and has supposedly continued bothering him. But he is now practicing, so why would anyone think it would lead to 2 (and exactly 2) missed games? Is the thinking that he'll miss the first 2 games because it will take that long for the ankle to be ready? If so, based on what? Or is the thinking that he'll miss 2 games later in the season because it will be reaggravated? If so, that is nothing more than speculation IMO.

2. Concern over his age and the likelihood of a different/new injury. For example:

2a. QBs on average miss approximately 2 games (if that is true). This would seem to be a poor rationale, since Favre has shown for 19 seasons that he isn't average in terms of durability. I know some FBG staff always project less than 16 games because of general averages, and I have always disagreed with that approach... Favre is a perfect example of why, along with others like Peyton and Rivers.

2b. A refinement of 2a using a sample focused on old QBs. Perhaps this would show that older QBs miss more time on average than younger QBs; I'm not sure. But I'd argue that Favre has shown throughout his career that he is much more durable than most QBs, so why wouldn't he also be much more durable than most old QBs?

3. The law of averages - he is due for an injury. But he's "been due" for 19 years, so why now? And this kind of vague reasoning doesn't really strike me as typical for FBG projections.

Have I missed some other rationale? I'm very curious to hear the reasoning behind it.

For the record, Favre has started 285 consecutive regular season games, and 309 including playoffs. An 18-year streak.

Unless I had specific info to the contrary, I wouldn't bet against anything with a 309 in a row over 18 years track record. And I certainly wouldn't bet that he would miss 2 of the next 16. There's just no basis for it at all.

So you're saying starting that many games in a row guarantees he won't get hurt enough to miss 2 games even with troubles with ankle surgery?

Being 41 is reason enough he could get seriously hurt.

I'm not hoping for it but nothing for or against is a sure thing.

 

[sho nuff]

IMO it is a mistake to project him to miss games. He has proven to be very durable, to state the obvious. Yes, he is old, but he's been old for a few years now. He is prideful, and IMO the streak is important to him. I think that means he won't let injuries like sprained ankles or cracked ribs keep him out... it would take something more serious, like ACL, achilles, broken bones, etc. And what is the basis upon which someone can project such a serious injury?

The more I think about it, the more I'd like to hear the FBG rationale for projecting him to miss 2 games. Can David or Joe or someone weigh in on that? I can only imagine a few possible answers:1. Concern over his ankle, since it required surgery and has supposedly continued bothering him. But he is now practicing, so why would anyone think it would lead to 2 (and exactly 2) missed games? Is the thinking that he'll miss the first 2 games because it will take that long for the ankle to be ready? If so, based on what? Or is the thinking that he'll miss 2 games later in the season because it will be reaggravated? If so, that is nothing more than speculation IMO.

2. Concern over his age and the likelihood of a different/new injury. For example:

2a. QBs on average miss approximately 2 games (if that is true). This would seem to be a poor rationale, since Favre has shown for 19 seasons that he isn't average in terms of durability. I know some FBG staff always project less than 16 games because of general averages, and I have always disagreed with that approach... Favre is a perfect example of why, along with others like Peyton and Rivers.

2b. A refinement of 2a using a sample focused on old QBs. Perhaps this would show that older QBs miss more time on average than younger QBs; I'm not sure. But I'd argue that Favre has shown throughout his career that he is much more durable than most QBs, so why wouldn't he also be much more durable than most old QBs?

3. The law of averages - he is due for an injury. But he's "been due" for 19 years, so why now? And this kind of vague reasoning doesn't really strike me as typical for FBG projections.

Have I missed some other rationale? I'm very curious to hear the reasoning behind it.

For the record, Favre has started 285 consecutive regular season games, and 309 including playoffs. An 18-year streak.

Unless I had specific info to the contrary, I wouldn't bet against anything with a 309 in a row over 18 years track record. And I certainly wouldn't bet that he would miss 2 of the next 16. There's just no basis for it at all.

So you're saying starting that many games in a row guarantees he won't get hurt enough to miss 2 games even with troubles with ankle surgery?

Being 41 is reason enough he could get seriously hurt.

I'm not hoping for it but nothing for or against is a sure thing.

Especially if you consider that many would have, and some say he should have sat out the last several games in 2008 with the Jets.I think there is a reason they use that 14 game prediction just for averages and all. And not even Favre's streak change the "general" reasons for doing so.

 

[Doug B]

Especially if you consider that many would have, and some say he should have sat out the last several games in 2008 with the Jets.

You can look at it like this: Favre only played 12 games healthy in 2008. Sure, he played the other four games ... but had about a 53.0 passer rating through that stretch (2 TDs, 8 INTs).Then, he got hurt bad enough against New Orleans in the NFC title game that he probably would not have been able to play effectively within 7 days (as he'd have to during the regular season). I'm sure he would've taken the field, but IMHO would've been very limited.Worrying about Favre either (a) getting hurt enough to be ineffective for a long stretch, or (b) missing games is not crazy talk.

 

[Tau837]

IMO it is a mistake to project him to miss games. He has proven to be very durable, to state the obvious. Yes, he is old, but he's been old for a few years now. He is prideful, and IMO the streak is important to him. I think that means he won't let injuries like sprained ankles or cracked ribs keep him out... it would take something more serious, like ACL, achilles, broken bones, etc. And what is the basis upon which someone can project such a serious injury?

The more I think about it, the more I'd like to hear the FBG rationale for projecting him to miss 2 games. Can David or Joe or someone weigh in on that? I can only imagine a few possible answers:1. Concern over his ankle, since it required surgery and has supposedly continued bothering him. But he is now practicing, so why would anyone think it would lead to 2 (and exactly 2) missed games? Is the thinking that he'll miss the first 2 games because it will take that long for the ankle to be ready? If so, based on what? Or is the thinking that he'll miss 2 games later in the season because it will be reaggravated? If so, that is nothing more than speculation IMO.

2. Concern over his age and the likelihood of a different/new injury. For example:

2a. QBs on average miss approximately 2 games (if that is true). This would seem to be a poor rationale, since Favre has shown for 19 seasons that he isn't average in terms of durability. I know some FBG staff always project less than 16 games because of general averages, and I have always disagreed with that approach... Favre is a perfect example of why, along with others like Peyton and Rivers.

2b. A refinement of 2a using a sample focused on old QBs. Perhaps this would show that older QBs miss more time on average than younger QBs; I'm not sure. But I'd argue that Favre has shown throughout his career that he is much more durable than most QBs, so why wouldn't he also be much more durable than most old QBs?

3. The law of averages - he is due for an injury. But he's "been due" for 19 years, so why now? And this kind of vague reasoning doesn't really strike me as typical for FBG projections.

Have I missed some other rationale? I'm very curious to hear the reasoning behind it.

For the record, Favre has started 285 consecutive regular season games, and 309 including playoffs. An 18-year streak.

Unless I had specific info to the contrary, I wouldn't bet against anything with a 309 in a row over 18 years track record. And I certainly wouldn't bet that he would miss 2 of the next 16. There's just no basis for it at all.

So you're saying starting that many games in a row guarantees he won't get hurt enough to miss 2 games even with troubles with ankle surgery?

Being 41 is reason enough he could get seriously hurt.

I'm not hoping for it but nothing for or against is a sure thing.

Especially if you consider that many would have, and some say he should have sat out the last several games in 2008 with the Jets.I think there is a reason they use that 14 game prediction just for averages and all. And not even Favre's streak change the "general" reasons for doing so.

I don't think they are projecting him for 14 games due to averages.David's current projections show Favre at 14 games and ranks him at QB15. David projects games for the other QBs in his top 20 as follows: 8 are projected to play 16 games, and 11 are projected to play 15 games.

Jason's current projections show Favre at 14 games and ranks him at QB15. Jason projects games for the other QBs in his top 20 as follows: 16 are projected to play 16 games, and 3 are projected to play 15 games.

Maurile's current projections show Favre at 14 games and ranks him at QB8. Maurile projects games for the other QBs in his top 20 as follows: 18 are projected to play 15 games, and 1 (Garrard) is projected to play 13 games ( ).

Bob's current projections show Favre at 15 games and ranks him at QB10. Bob projects games for the other QBs in his top 20 as follows: 6 are projected to play 16 games, 12 are projected to play 15 games, and 1 (McNabb) is projected to play 14 games.

This is why I'd like to get some specific comments on this. I'm guessing that it is either #1 or #2b above, or a combination. But IMO that reasoning is off base.

 

[ArcticEdge]

Top 5!

Why?

He's awesome! You need more than that? Ok.

He's less than a year from his best statistical year ever. He still loves the game. He started off a little slow last year as he was getting used to his weapons. That challenge is gone, and a strong start is likely. He has the same weapons, except for Chester Taylor. He's committed to the season now, and once he does that, there is no turning back for him or quit in him. He wants to win, he wants another Super Bowl.

Go Vikes!!!

 

[Gopher State]

Top 5!

Why?

He's awesome! You need more than that? Ok.

He's less than a year from his best statistical year ever. He still loves the game. He started off a little slow last year as he was getting used to his weapons. That challenge is gone, and a strong start is likely. He has the same weapons, except for Chester Taylor. He's committed to the season now, and once he does that, there is no turning back for him or quit in him. He wants to win, he wants another Super Bowl.

Go Vikes!!! :thumbup:

 

[Tau837]

Especially if you consider that many would have, and some say he should have sat out the last several games in 2008 with the Jets.

You can look at it like this: Favre only played 12 games healthy in 2008. Sure, he played the other four games ... but had about a 53.0 passer rating through that stretch (2 TDs, 8 INTs).Then, he got hurt bad enough against New Orleans in the NFC title game that he probably would not have been able to play effectively within 7 days (as he'd have to during the regular season). I'm sure he would've taken the field, but IMHO would've been very limited.Worrying about Favre either (a) getting hurt enough to be ineffective for a long stretch, or (b) missing games is not crazy talk.

Well, let's be specific. The projection Joe cited is David's, but 3 of the 4 FBG projections for Favre project him to miss 2 games. They are not projecting ineffectiveness, they are projecting missed games.

 

[Doug B]

Well, let's be specific. The projection Joe cited is David's, but 3 of the 4 FBG projections for Favre project him to miss 2 games. They are not projecting ineffectiveness, they are projecting missed games.

I get what you're saying ... maybe the "2 games missed" is just an expression of risk? They probably don't expect 14 games to be a pinipoint-accurate number of games played. I'm not going to flesh out the math, but maybe it's something like "a something-% chance of either missing a lot of time or being hampered down to Jamarcus-Russell-levels for a lot of time".

 

[[icon]]

Especially if you consider that many would have, and some say he should have sat out the last several games in 2008 with the Jets.

You can look at it like this: Favre only played 12 games healthy in 2008. Sure, he played the other four games ... but had about a 53.0 passer rating through that stretch (2 TDs, 8 INTs).Then, he got hurt bad enough against New Orleans in the NFC title game that he probably would not have been able to play effectively within 7 days (as he'd have to during the regular season). I'm sure he would've taken the field, but IMHO would've been very limited.Worrying about Favre either (a) getting hurt enough to be ineffective for a long stretch, or (b) missing games is not crazy talk.

It's interesting to me that the "Farve will get hurt" contingent is clinging to the "He was less than 100% for four games 2 years ago" as the cornerstone of their argument. Tom Brady has probably played less than 10 games at 80% healthy or better over the last TWO YEARS yet nobody seems to be dead set on him missing 2+ games this year. Look at Favre's GS/GP stats... nothing but 16s since some of you were in diapers.