Has a QB with Favre's recent production ever been benched? (1 Viewer)

[Weiner Dog]

Stemming from Ted Thompson's comments that Favre will return to the Packers as Rodger's backup, I wondered which QB's have been benched following a monster season (exclusive of injury). For reference, Favre's credentials from last year are:

13-3 regular season record

#2 offense at 370 yards/game

#3 scoring offense at 27.2 pts/game

4115 yards passing

28-15 TD/INT's

95.7 QB rating

66.5% completion percentage

7.8 yards/attempt

Page Chase Stuart...

 

[Chase Stuart]

Favre's 2007 season ranked as the 103rd best statistical season by a QB, and the 73rd best since the merger. I'll get back to this in a bit on how things look the next year.

 

[Weiner Dog]

Favre's 2007 season ranked as the 103rd best statistical season by a QB, and the 73rd best since the merger. I'll get back to this in a bit on how things look the next year.

Thanks.

 

[sho nuff]

Has a QB with those numbers ever retired...said he wanted to unretire...had a plane coming to get him...then retire again...only to unretire again?

Oh...and Thompson clarified to John Clayton that his role is not yet determined once back with the team.

 

[Weiner Dog]

Has a QB with those numbers ever retired...said he wanted to unretire...had a plane coming to get him...then retire again...only to unretire again?

Oh...and Thompson clarified to John Clayton that his role is not yet determined once back with the team.

Obviously, the Pack will play their best players. However, I think it's clear Favre will begin Day 1 as Rodgers' backup. Granted, this could change with performance, injury, etc.link:

http://blogs.jsonline.com/packers/archive/...-as-backup.aspx

"We've communicated that to Brett, that we have since moved forward," Thompson said. "At the same time, we've never said that there couldn't be some role that he might play here. But I would understand his point that he would want to play."

When asked whether that role might be as a backup or coach, Thompson said: "Not a coach."

 

[sho nuff]

Has a QB with those numbers ever retired...said he wanted to unretire...had a plane coming to get him...then retire again...only to unretire again?

Oh...and Thompson clarified to John Clayton that his role is not yet determined once back with the team.

Obviously, the Pack will play their best players. However, I think it's clear Favre will begin Day 1 as Rodgers' backup. Granted, this could change with performance, injury, etc.link:

http://blogs.jsonline.com/packers/archive/...-as-backup.aspx

"We've communicated that to Brett, that we have since moved forward," Thompson said. "At the same time, we've never said that there couldn't be some role that he might play here. But I would understand his point that he would want to play."

When asked whether that role might be as a backup or coach, Thompson said: "Not a coach."

Again...and another poster posted this as well in another thread...John Clayton was on ESPN radio today saying that Thompson had clarified his statement and said he did not intend to claim that Favre was going to be a backup...just that his role was not determined.Take it up with Thompson and Clayton.

 

[ScottyFargo]

THOMPSON: AARON RODGERS IS OUR STARTERPosted by Michael David Smith on July 12, 2008, 3:47 p.m. EDTIn an interview today with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Packers General Manager Ted Thompson indicated that if Brett Favre is on the Packers this season, his job will be holding a clipboard on the sideline while Aaron Rodgers leads the team.“Aaron Rodgers is our starting quarterback,” Thompson said.When asked if Favre could play for the Packers this year, Thompson said, “Sure.” But when he was asked if Favre could be the starter, Thompson said, “I don’t know how to answer that. We have moved forward. So we’ll see where it goes.”Reading between the lines, it’s clear from Thompson’s comments that he doesn’t want Favre to come back, but that he also doesn’t want to alienate Favre — or the tens of thousands of Favre fans who fill Lambeau Field eight times a year.“People think I’m stoic and don’t care what anybody thinks,” Thompson said. “Sure I do. If it’s something like [fans criticizing] a draft pick, I’m fine with that. I want people to know that I know fans care so much and we care too. We care about the legacy of the Packers and the legacy of Brett Favre.”

Somebody is out sending a lot of mixed signals.

 

[Weiner Dog]

Has a QB with those numbers ever retired...said he wanted to unretire...had a plane coming to get him...then retire again...only to unretire again?

Oh...and Thompson clarified to John Clayton that his role is not yet determined once back with the team.

Obviously, the Pack will play their best players. However, I think it's clear Favre will begin Day 1 as Rodgers' backup. Granted, this could change with performance, injury, etc.link:

http://blogs.jsonline.com/packers/archive/...-as-backup.aspx

"We've communicated that to Brett, that we have since moved forward," Thompson said. "At the same time, we've never said that there couldn't be some role that he might play here. But I would understand his point that he would want to play."

When asked whether that role might be as a backup or coach, Thompson said: "Not a coach."

Again...and another poster posted this as well in another thread...John Clayton was on ESPN radio today saying that Thompson had clarified his statement and said he did not intend to claim that Favre was going to be a backup...just that his role was not determined.Take it up with Thompson and Clayton.

Simple semantics and PR move by Thompson. After originally speaking his thoughts, I'm sure Thompson's PR rep contacted him and asked him to "clarify" his thoughts.

 

[sho nuff]

Has a QB with those numbers ever retired...said he wanted to unretire...had a plane coming to get him...then retire again...only to unretire again?

Oh...and Thompson clarified to John Clayton that his role is not yet determined once back with the team.

Obviously, the Pack will play their best players. However, I think it's clear Favre will begin Day 1 as Rodgers' backup. Granted, this could change with performance, injury, etc.link:

http://blogs.jsonline.com/packers/archive/...-as-backup.aspx

"We've communicated that to Brett, that we have since moved forward," Thompson said. "At the same time, we've never said that there couldn't be some role that he might play here. But I would understand his point that he would want to play."

When asked whether that role might be as a backup or coach, Thompson said: "Not a coach."

Again...and another poster posted this as well in another thread...John Clayton was on ESPN radio today saying that Thompson had clarified his statement and said he did not intend to claim that Favre was going to be a backup...just that his role was not determined.Take it up with Thompson and Clayton.

Simple semantics and PR move by Thompson. After originally speaking his thoughts, I'm sure Thompson's PR rep contacted him and asked him to "clarify" his thoughts.

Possibly...though he never explicitly says Favre would be a backup. He says his role is undetermined (and even the part about Favre needing to understand they have moved on does not counter that).

 

[ScottyFargo]

Has a QB with those numbers ever retired...said he wanted to unretire...had a plane coming to get him...then retire again...only to unretire again?

Oh...and Thompson clarified to John Clayton that his role is not yet determined once back with the team.

Obviously, the Pack will play their best players. However, I think it's clear Favre will begin Day 1 as Rodgers' backup. Granted, this could change with performance, injury, etc.link:

http://blogs.jsonline.com/packers/archive/...-as-backup.aspx

"We've communicated that to Brett, that we have since moved forward," Thompson said. "At the same time, we've never said that there couldn't be some role that he might play here. But I would understand his point that he would want to play."

When asked whether that role might be as a backup or coach, Thompson said: "Not a coach."

Again...and another poster posted this as well in another thread...John Clayton was on ESPN radio today saying that Thompson had clarified his statement and said he did not intend to claim that Favre was going to be a backup...just that his role was not determined.

Take it up with Thompson and Clayton.

Simple semantics and PR move by Thompson. After originally speaking his thoughts, I'm sure Thompson's PR rep contacted him and asked him to "clarify" his thoughts.

Possibly...though he never explicitly says Favre would be a backup. He says his role is undetermined (and even the part about Favre needing to understand they have moved on does not counter that).

Well, he may have not explicitly said Favre'd be a backup, but he did explicitly say that Rodgers was the starter.Starting with two QB's on the field would certainly be confusing to opposing defenses, and I for one wholeheartedly support that angle should they wish to pursue it.

 

[sho nuff]

Has a QB with those numbers ever retired...said he wanted to unretire...had a plane coming to get him...then retire again...only to unretire again?

Oh...and Thompson clarified to John Clayton that his role is not yet determined once back with the team.

Obviously, the Pack will play their best players. However, I think it's clear Favre will begin Day 1 as Rodgers' backup. Granted, this could change with performance, injury, etc.link:

http://blogs.jsonline.com/packers/archive/...-as-backup.aspx

"We've communicated that to Brett, that we have since moved forward," Thompson said. "At the same time, we've never said that there couldn't be some role that he might play here. But I would understand his point that he would want to play."

When asked whether that role might be as a backup or coach, Thompson said: "Not a coach."

Again...and another poster posted this as well in another thread...John Clayton was on ESPN radio today saying that Thompson had clarified his statement and said he did not intend to claim that Favre was going to be a backup...just that his role was not determined.

Take it up with Thompson and Clayton.

Simple semantics and PR move by Thompson. After originally speaking his thoughts, I'm sure Thompson's PR rep contacted him and asked him to "clarify" his thoughts.

Possibly...though he never explicitly says Favre would be a backup. He says his role is undetermined (and even the part about Favre needing to understand they have moved on does not counter that).

Well, he may have not explicitly said Favre'd be a backup, but he did explicitly say that Rodgers was the starter.Starting with two QB's on the field would certainly be confusing to opposing defenses, and I for one wholeheartedly support that angle should they wish to pursue it.

Care to link to him calling Rodgers a starter since it has been determined that Favre is wanting to return?And since when is the GM responsible for naming the starting QB?

 

[ScottyFargo]

Care to link to him calling Rodgers a starter since it has been determined that Favre is wanting to return?

And since when is the GM responsible for naming the starting QB?

Sure thing man. Here

 

[billymays]

Has a QB with those numbers ever retired...said he wanted to unretire...had a plane coming to get him...then retire again...only to unretire again?

Oh...and Thompson clarified to John Clayton that his role is not yet determined once back with the team.

Obviously, the Pack will play their best players. However, I think it's clear Favre will begin Day 1 as Rodgers' backup. Granted, this could change with performance, injury, etc.link:

http://blogs.jsonline.com/packers/archive/...-as-backup.aspx

"We've communicated that to Brett, that we have since moved forward," Thompson said. "At the same time, we've never said that there couldn't be some role that he might play here. But I would understand his point that he would want to play."

When asked whether that role might be as a backup or coach, Thompson said: "Not a coach."

Again...and another poster posted this as well in another thread...John Clayton was on ESPN radio today saying that Thompson had clarified his statement and said he did not intend to claim that Favre was going to be a backup...just that his role was not determined.

Take it up with Thompson and Clayton.

Simple semantics and PR move by Thompson. After originally speaking his thoughts, I'm sure Thompson's PR rep contacted him and asked him to "clarify" his thoughts.

Possibly...though he never explicitly says Favre would be a backup. He says his role is undetermined (and even the part about Favre needing to understand they have moved on does not counter that).

Well, he may have not explicitly said Favre'd be a backup, but he did explicitly say that Rodgers was the starter.Starting with two QB's on the field would certainly be confusing to opposing defenses, and I for one wholeheartedly support that angle should they wish to pursue it.

Care to link to him calling Rodgers a starter since it has been determined that Favre is wanting to return?And since when is the GM responsible for naming the starting QB?

F*#K!!!!!

 

[ScottyFargo]

Well, he may have not explicitly said Favre'd be a backup, but he did explicitly say that Rodgers was the starter.

Starting with two QB's on the field would certainly be confusing to opposing defenses, and I for one wholeheartedly support that angle should they wish to pursue it.

Care to link to him calling Rodgers a starter since it has been determined that Favre is wanting to return?And since when is the GM responsible for naming the starting QB?

F*#K!!!!!

Also here: Favre's return makes things messy for Thompson

 

[bcr8f]

Has a QB with those numbers ever retired...said he wanted to unretire...had a plane coming to get him...then retire again...only to unretire again?Oh...and Thompson clarified to John Clayton that his role is not yet determined once back with the team.

A classic

 

[billymays]

Well, he may have not explicitly said Favre'd be a backup, but he did explicitly say that Rodgers was the starter.

Starting with two QB's on the field would certainly be confusing to opposing defenses, and I for one wholeheartedly support that angle should they wish to pursue it.

Care to link to him calling Rodgers a starter since it has been determined that Favre is wanting to return?And since when is the GM responsible for naming the starting QB?

F*#K!!!!!

Also here: Favre's return makes things messy for Thompson

it doesnt matter....its all rumor until TT tells sho in person...face to face.

 

[pollardsvision]

not that i can recall. the entire notion is completely insane, but packer fans seem to be embracing the idea.

elway's final season, production-wise, was nowhere near favre's '07.

i wonder what bronco fans would'vd said if elway had decided, a month before the '99 training camp, that he'd like to unretire?

imagine them saying, "hell no, we need to see what we've got in brian griese!! elway can go screw himself"

at this point, packer fans don't deserve favre. they deserve exactly what they want. the rodgers era.

i am dying to see the packer fans reaction when rodgers has his 1st 3 int game, which very well could be week 1 (could he stay healthy long enough to get 3 int's in a game?).

"wait, we shunned brett favre for a jeff tedford product with absolutely no nfl experience? we are morons"

 

[The Man with the Plan]

Joe Montana was really good in 1990 (26 TD 89 QB Rating). He never started another game for the 49ers.

 

[travdogg]

elway's final season, production-wise, was nowhere near favre's '07. i wonder what bronco fans would'vd said if elway had decided, a month before the '99 training camp, that he'd like to unretire? imagine them saying, "hell no, we need to see what we've got in brian griese!! elway can go screw himself"

Apples to oranges comparison.Favre isn't coming off of back-to-back Super Bowl wins. Dare I say Elway meant more to the Broncos organization than Favre does to GB. Also, Rodgers has 10 times the pedigree that Griese had. Rodgers was a 1st rounder who sat for 3 years. Griese was a 2nd year 3rd rounder who didn't beat out Bubby Brister until late in the preseason and was then benched at one point for an over the hill Chris Miller(who was probably their best QB that year.)I think Green Bay would be ok to accept Favre back as their starter, I also think if that happens I would have no problem with Rodgers demanding a trade.

 

[Weiner Dog]

I'm a little foggy, but weren't the Titans planning to cut McNair after his '05 season? The Titans only mustered 4 wins in '05, but McNair managed 3000+ yards, 16-11 TD/INT, 82.4 QB rating and 61.3% completion percentage.

Obviously, Drew Bledsoe lost his job after the '00 season, but he was also injured when Brady was handed the reigns.

Neil Lomax was a monster in his '97 and '98 seasons, but his hip would not allow him to continue?

Despite having a monster '98 season (3700+, 34 TD's and 106 QB rating) and combining with Jeff George to post 4200+ passing yards and 31 TD's, the Vikes went forward with Culpepper in '00.

Boomer was pretty sweet in his final (shortened) season ('97), but he called it quits.

 

[Jerry Lawler]

I can't think of anyone who has done quite as well as Favre did last year, but Jon Kitna comes to mind.

When Carson Palmer was a rookie, Jon Kitna passed for 3591yds, 26 TD's. He was then replaced by Palmer in the offseason.

Also, if Leinart starts this year, he will be starting ahead of a QB who passed for 3409yds and 27 TD's in only 14 games last year.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Dare I say Elway meant more to the Broncos organization than Favre does to GB.

You can say it, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[bcr8f]

Joe Montana was really good in 1990 (26 TD 89 QB Rating). He never started another game for the 49ers.

He was hurt for 2 years and when he was healthy Young had won the MVP. Rodgers hasn't even started a whole game.The Titans locked McNair out of the facility. Green Bay hasn't done that.

 

[Crippler]

Did any remain the backup for the team out of those named. Maybe Kitna but he is no Brett either

I think it does not matter if Brett is named the backup. If he stays in Green Bay, he is starting by week 2. Rodgers will start vs Minny and get shelled. Think of the pressure the young man is under and the 1st time he makes a mistake. The Packer fans will be calling Brett, Brett, Brett and Rodgers will need alot of fortitude to be able to handle this and not many young QB's do.

 

[SSOG]

Dare I say Elway meant more to the Broncos organization than Favre does to GB.

You can say it, but that doesn't make it true.

It's true. It's not even close.Think about Green Bay. Picture the franchise, picture the history. You've got Lambeau, who the field is named after. You've got Lombardi, who the trophy is named after. You've got Hutson, the guy who pretty much invented the WR position. You've got Starr. You've got the record for championships. Oh yeah, and you've got Favre.Now think about Denver. Outside of Elway, and maybe the Orange Crush, and recently the vaunted running game, what else has Denver historically had going for it? Elway gave the franchise an identity. Elway *STILL* gives the franchise an identity. Denver is a franchise that is judged in three parts- B.E., D.E., and A.E. (before, during, and after Elway).I would argue that no single player in NFL history has ever meant more to his franchise than Elway has to Denver. Not saying that Elway's the best player ever, or anything of that nature, I'm just saying that no player remains the face and identity of his franchise quite like Elway does. No player figures quite so prominently in his franchise's history as Elway does. No one remains quite as beloved, almost worshiped, by his franchise's fans as Elway does. Maybe if Brady and Belichick didn't have to split credit with each other so much, then one or the other of them could possibly mean as much to New England as Elway does to Denver (although even then, they'd have a long way to go to catch up)... but as it currently stands, no one comes close.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Favre's 2007 season ranked as the 103rd best statistical season by a QB, and the 73rd best since the merger. I'll get back to this in a bit on how things look the next year.

Because of Favre's 103rd slot in the rankings, I checked out the top 206 QB seasons of all time. Five of them occurred in 2007 (Brady, Favre, Manning, Romo, Garrard), and five other times the QB did not play the next season. Montana in 1990/1991 (injury), Staubach in 1979/1980 (retirement), Meredeith in '68/'69 (retirement), Van Brocklin in '60/'61 (retirement) and Graham in '55/'56 (retirement). Of the remaining 196 QBs, only three switched teams in the off-season. Of the other 193 QBs (this is the relevant part of the post), 39 of them played in at least one more game than they started. That's not a perfect proxy for being benched, though. A lot of them (Mike Vick, Chad Pennington, Kurt Warner) had injuries, and came back and played a game before starting, and some old timer's starts numbers aren't perfect. Remove them, and there isn't much left.

Jake Plummer (169th best season in 2005, benched in 2006) is one. I believe Brad Johnson was benched at one point for Jeff George in 2000, so that would be another (Johnson's big time 1999 year ranks just a hair behind Favre's 2007). That's pretty much it, for modern QBs. Even the '80s doesn't give much. Tommy Kramer had a big year in '86, but then stunk and was benched in '87. That's it there. Earl Morrall lost his job in 1969 to Unitas, after winning NFL MVP in 1968. Craig Morton had a very good year in 1970, but lost the job to Staubach in '71.

In conclusion, it would be close to unprecedented if Favre stays on the team and is benched. The best example is probably Earl Morrall, whose 1968 season was, after adjusting for era, just as good as Favre's 2007 year. That's about it, though.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

Since when does the GM determine who is starting?

 

[pollardsvision]

elway's final season, production-wise, was nowhere near favre's '07. i wonder what bronco fans would'vd said if elway had decided, a month before the '99 training camp, that he'd like to unretire? imagine them saying, "hell no, we need to see what we've got in brian griese!! elway can go screw himself"

Apples to oranges comparison.Favre isn't coming off of back-to-back Super Bowl wins. Dare I say Elway meant more to the Broncos organization than Favre does to GB. Also, Rodgers has 10 times the pedigree that Griese had. Rodgers was a 1st rounder who sat for 3 years. Griese was a 2nd year 3rd rounder who didn't beat out Bubby Brister until late in the preseason and was then benched at one point for an over the hill Chris Miller(who was probably their best QB that year.)I think Green Bay would be ok to accept Favre back as their starter, I also think if that happens I would have no problem with Rodgers demanding a trade.

it's not an exact comparison, but it's close enough to illustrate the lunacy of wanting to send favre packing.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Dare I say Elway meant more to the Broncos organization than Favre does to GB.

You can say it, but that doesn't make it true.

It's true. It's not even close.Think about Green Bay. Picture the franchise, picture the history. You've got Lambeau, who the field is named after. You've got Lombardi, who the trophy is named after. You've got Hutson, the guy who pretty much invented the WR position. You've got Starr. You've got the record for championships. Oh yeah, and you've got Favre.Now think about Denver. Outside of Elway, and maybe the Orange Crush, and recently the vaunted running game, what else has Denver historically had going for it? Elway gave the franchise an identity. Elway *STILL* gives the franchise an identity. Denver is a franchise that is judged in three parts- B.E., D.E., and A.E. (before, during, and after Elway).I would argue that no single player in NFL history has ever meant more to his franchise than Elway has to Denver. Not saying that Elway's the best player ever, or anything of that nature, I'm just saying that no player remains the face and identity of his franchise quite like Elway does. No player figures quite so prominently in his franchise's history as Elway does. No one remains quite as beloved, almost worshiped, by his franchise's fans as Elway does. Maybe if Brady and Belichick didn't have to split credit with each other so much, then one or the other of them could possibly mean as much to New England as Elway does to Denver (although even then, they'd have a long way to go to catch up)... but as it currently stands, no one comes close.

I think at this point, Brady identifies with the Pats even moreso than Elway with the Broncos. And while there are other great 49ers, Montana's name still resonates. Quite sadly, the Jets franchise is still identified mostly with a QB from four decades ago. While young, I think Ray Lewis and the Ravens is right up there as well. Sanders and the Lions, Manning and the Indianapolis Colts, and Marino with the Dolphins are in the mix, as well.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Think about Green Bay. Picture the franchise, picture the history. You've got Lambeau, who the field is named after. You've got Lombardi, who the trophy is named after. You've got Hutson, the guy who pretty much invented the WR position. You've got Starr. You've got the record for championships. Oh yeah, and you've got Favre.

I don't need to "think about it" or "picture it". I grew up there.There is a huge generational difference in Green Bay fans.....I was born 6 years after Lombardi left, so while he helped define the franchise history, my perception of the team was shaped by Favre.

Now think about Denver. Outside of Elway, and maybe the Orange Crush, and recently the vaunted running game, what else has Denver historically had going for it? Elway gave the franchise an identity. Elway *STILL* gives the franchise an identity. Denver is a franchise that is judged in three parts- B.E., D.E., and A.E. (before, during, and after Elway).

The team didn't win a Super Bowl until Terrell Davis carried Elway to a win. The guy is a legend in Denver - and he's viewed by people under 55 exactly the same way Favre is viewed by people under 55.

I would argue that no single player in NFL history has ever meant more to his franchise than Elway has to Denver. Not saying that Elway's the best player ever, or anything of that nature, I'm just saying that no player remains the face and identity of his franchise quite like Elway does. No player figures quite so prominently in his franchise's history as Elway does. No one remains quite as beloved, almost worshiped, by his franchise's fans as Elway does. Maybe if Brady and Belichick didn't have to split credit with each other so much, then one or the other of them could possibly mean as much to New England as Elway does to Denver (although even then, they'd have a long way to go to catch up)... but as it currently stands, no one comes close.

Namath and the Jets? Unitas and the Baltimore Colts?

Montana & SF?

Cedric Benson and the Bears?

It's a bit extreme to say that Elway matters more to his franchise than any other player in history.

Anyway, strong argument on your part. You've almost got me convinced. Almost, but not quite.

 

[T Bell]

The name that occurred to me was Elvis Grbac, who's obviously not the same caliber of QB, but his stats in his last season were worse than I remembered them. His next-to-last season's stats are comparable, as are Steve Young's.

 

[Chase Stuart]

elway's final season, production-wise, was nowhere near favre's '07. i wonder what bronco fans would'vd said if elway had decided, a month before the '99 training camp, that he'd like to unretire? imagine them saying, "hell no, we need to see what we've got in brian griese!! elway can go screw himself"

Apples to oranges comparison.Favre isn't coming off of back-to-back Super Bowl wins. Dare I say Elway meant more to the Broncos organization than Favre does to GB. Also, Rodgers has 10 times the pedigree that Griese had. Rodgers was a 1st rounder who sat for 3 years. Griese was a 2nd year 3rd rounder who didn't beat out Bubby Brister until late in the preseason and was then benched at one point for an over the hill Chris Miller(who was probably their best QB that year.)I think Green Bay would be ok to accept Favre back as their starter, I also think if that happens I would have no problem with Rodgers demanding a trade.

Pedigree is a pretty poor word when trying to make Brian Griese sound like a worse prospect than Aaron Rodgers.That said, Favre in 2007 was a bit better than Elway in 1997 or 1998. And I don't think Griese was much worse than Rodgers. So yeah, I think both Packers fans and Broncos fans would be, and would have been, stupid for not wanting their HOF QB to play.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Favre's 2007 season ranked as the 103rd best statistical season by a QB, and the 73rd best since the merger. I'll get back to this in a bit on how things look the next year.

Because of Favre's 103rd slot in the rankings, I checked out the top 206 QB seasons of all time. Five of them occurred in 2007 (Brady, Favre, Manning, Romo, Garrard), and five other times the QB did not play the next season. Montana in 1990/1991 (injury), Staubach in 1979/1980 (retirement), Meredeith in '68/'69 (retirement), Van Brocklin in '60/'61 (retirement) and Graham in '55/'56 (retirement). Of the remaining 196 QBs, only three switched teams in the off-season. Of the other 193 QBs (this is the relevant part of the post), 39 of them played in at least one more game than they started. That's not a perfect proxy for being benched, though. A lot of them (Mike Vick, Chad Pennington, Kurt Warner) had injuries, and came back and played a game before starting, and some old timer's starts numbers aren't perfect. Remove them, and there isn't much left.

Jake Plummer (169th best season in 2005, benched in 2006) is one. I believe Brad Johnson was benched at one point for Jeff George in 2000, so that would be another (Johnson's big time 1999 year ranks just a hair behind Favre's 2007). That's pretty much it, for modern QBs. Even the '80s doesn't give much. Tommy Kramer had a big year in '86, but then stunk and was benched in '87. That's it there. Earl Morrall lost his job in 1969 to Unitas, after winning NFL MVP in 1968. Craig Morton had a very good year in 1970, but lost the job to Staubach in '71.

In conclusion, it would be close to unprecedented if Favre stays on the team and is benched. The best example is probably Earl Morrall, whose 1968 season was, after adjusting for era, just as good as Favre's 2007 year. That's about it, though.

 

[pollardsvision]

Dare I say Elway meant more to the Broncos organization than Favre does to GB.

You can say it, but that doesn't make it true.

It's true. It's not even close.Think about Green Bay. Picture the franchise, picture the history. You've got Lambeau, who the field is named after. You've got Lombardi, who the trophy is named after. You've got Hutson, the guy who pretty much invented the WR position. You've got Starr. You've got the record for championships. Oh yeah, and you've got Favre.Now think about Denver. Outside of Elway, and maybe the Orange Crush, and recently the vaunted running game, what else has Denver historically had going for it? Elway gave the franchise an identity. Elway *STILL* gives the franchise an identity. Denver is a franchise that is judged in three parts- B.E., D.E., and A.E. (before, during, and after Elway).I would argue that no single player in NFL history has ever meant more to his franchise than Elway has to Denver. Not saying that Elway's the best player ever, or anything of that nature, I'm just saying that no player remains the face and identity of his franchise quite like Elway does. No player figures quite so prominently in his franchise's history as Elway does. No one remains quite as beloved, almost worshiped, by his franchise's fans as Elway does. Maybe if Brady and Belichick didn't have to split credit with each other so much, then one or the other of them could possibly mean as much to New England as Elway does to Denver (although even then, they'd have a long way to go to catch up)... but as it currently stands, no one comes close.

i won't argue with how much elway meant to denver, but you are discounting how much favre means in packer history.yeah, there's lombardi, starr and all that, but what percentage of packer fans actually watched super bowl 1 and 2? i would argue that the most important fans a team has are those b/w age 25-50. these are the people that spend money, have kids, and teach those kids to be good little packer fans.without favre, don majkowski would be the big packer memory of the past 30 years. i'd give the nod to elway, but both reached a certain legend status that few do.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

someone else mentioned it above, but Jon Kitna put up these numbers in 2003 with the Bengals before being benched for Carson Palmer during the offseason:

62.3 completion %

3591 yards

6.9 Y/A

26 TD/15 INT

87.4 QB Rating

8-8 record

#13 scoring offense

 

[pollardsvision]

i also remember quite a few bronco fans that were fired up about the brian griese era (and that huge wonderlic score).

it's amazing the things a fanbase will do to convince themselves that it'll all be okay when a legend retires. it's insane how great aaron rodgers has become over the last few months.

it won't take long for packerfan to be reminded that this is a jeff tedford product with 45 min. of experience and 2 injuries that was so amazingly gifted that he almost slipped out of the 1st round.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Here's a list of some of the top QBs in NFL history, and the QBs that replaced them.

sfo 1990 Joe Montana Steve Youngsfo 1998 Steve Young Jeff Garciamia 1999 Dan Marino Jay Fiedlermin 1978 Fran Tarkenton Tommy Kramersdg 1987 Dan Fouts Mark Malonedal 1979 Roger Staubach Danny Whitecin 1984 Ken Anderson Boomer Esiasonclt 1972 Johnny Unitas Marty Domreskan 1975 Len Dawson Mike Livingstonden 1998 John Elway Brian Grieseram 2002 Kurt Warner Marc Bulgerram 1957 Norm Van Brocklin Billy Wadegnb 1970 Bart Starr Scott Hunterwas 1974 Sonny Jurgensen Billy Kilmerpit 1982 Terry Bradshaw Cliff Stoudtdal 2000 Troy Aikman Quincy Cartercle 1955 Otto Graham Tommy O'Connellrai 1972 Daryle Lamonica Ken Stableroti 1993 Warren Moon Billy Joe Tollivercin 1997 Boomer Esiason Neil O'Donnellram 1972 Roman Gabriel John Hadlkan 2006 Trent Green Damon Huardchi 1948 Sid Luckman Johnny Lujacksfo 1960 Y.A. Tittle John Brodiesdg 1972 John Hadl Dan Foutscrd 1981 Jim Hart Neil Lomaxoti 2005 Steve McNair Vince YoungEveryone knows about Montana and Young, but Garcia did a very nice job following Young, and Brodie did a very nice job following Tittle. SF has a nice history there.So does San Diego. I hadn't realized that Hadl (a very good QB in his own right) was followed by Fouts. And Hadl himself followed up Roman Gabriel. Neil Lomax, another very good QB, followed Jim Hart's steller years for the Cardinals. Ken Stabler ws terrific after Lamonica. Obviously Boomer's on this list, and he followed up Ken Anderson. There are quite a few more "stud" QBs that followed up some great QBs than I would have guessed. I think there's a bit of myth w/r/t following a legend. Aaron Rodgers doesn't have it easy, but Boomer Esiason, Steve Young, Jeff Garcia, Marc Bulger, Ken Stabler, John Hadl, John Brodie, Dan Fouts and Neil Lomax didn't have it easy, either.

 

[oddball]

Brad Johnson won the superbowl, only to be cut before the next season started.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Brad Johnson won the superbowl, only to be cut before the next season started.

I think you mean Trent Dilfer.

 

[smcindoe]

What about Randall Cunningham? He had 3,700 yards and 34 TDs in 1998, then spent most of 1999 as a backup. I think he originally lost the job due to injury but I thought he came back and rode the bench?

 

[bcr8f]

Did any remain the backup for the team out of those named. Maybe Kitna but he is no Brett eitherI think it does not matter if Brett is named the backup. If he stays in Green Bay, he is starting by week 2. Rodgers will start vs Minny and get shelled. Think of the pressure the young man is under and the 1st time he makes a mistake. The Packer fans will be calling Brett, Brett, Brett and Rodgers will need alot of fortitude to be able to handle this and not many young QB's do.

They are tailoring the offense for quick throws. There won't be time to get to him. more updatesThe Jets have "virtually ruled out" pursuing Brett Favre, according to the New York Daily News.The Daily News and New York Post both believe that Favre is not on the Jets' radar. "It's a long shot right now that the Jets have any interest. I wouldn't spend any time on that," said a league source. The source also said he expects Green Bay to ask for "at least" a second-round pick for Favre.Source: New York Daily News

 

[sho nuff]

THOMPSON: AARON RODGERS IS OUR STARTERPosted by Michael David Smith on July 12, 2008, 3:47 p.m. EDTIn an interview today with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Packers General Manager Ted Thompson indicated that if Brett Favre is on the Packers this season, his job will be holding a clipboard on the sideline while Aaron Rodgers leads the team.“Aaron Rodgers is our starting quarterback,” Thompson said.When asked if Favre could play for the Packers this year, Thompson said, “Sure.” But when he was asked if Favre could be the starter, Thompson said, “I don’t know how to answer that. We have moved forward. So we’ll see where it goes.”Reading between the lines, it’s clear from Thompson’s comments that he doesn’t want Favre to come back, but that he also doesn’t want to alienate Favre — or the tens of thousands of Favre fans who fill Lambeau Field eight times a year.“People think I’m stoic and don’t care what anybody thinks,” Thompson said. “Sure I do. If it’s something like [fans criticizing] a draft pick, I’m fine with that. I want people to know that I know fans care so much and we care too. We care about the legacy of the Packers and the legacy of Brett Favre.”

Somebody is out sending a lot of mixed signals.

Yup...sounds wishy washy...though again...Favre is not currently on the team, so how can he be called the starter right now?Oh...and when I asked for a link...I had not seen this...though laughable that people also treat me asking for a link as if I denied the story...I simply wanted to read what was written (just as people think me saying things were rumors meant I thought they were untrue).

 

[sho nuff]

Well, he may have not explicitly said Favre'd be a backup, but he did explicitly say that Rodgers was the starter.

Starting with two QB's on the field would certainly be confusing to opposing defenses, and I for one wholeheartedly support that angle should they wish to pursue it.

Care to link to him calling Rodgers a starter since it has been determined that Favre is wanting to return?And since when is the GM responsible for naming the starting QB?

F*#K!!!!!

Also here: Favre's return makes things messy for Thompson

it doesnt matter....its all rumor until TT tells sho in person...face to face.

Why would you say that...TT has confirmed it so it is no longer rumor.Last week...we had unconfirmed reports...which as I have shown...are rumor by definition.

But keep on with the childish remarks...they are only making you look like a...well, I won't say it.

 

[sho nuff]

From ESPN

"It's not accurate," Thompson said of the AP report that Favre would come back as a backup. "We don't know what role that would be. He can come back as an active member of the Green Bay Packers."

I don't want to deal in hypotheticals," Thompson said. "Brett is still retired. I know that there has been a lot of publicity about him being released, but if he applies for reinstatement, he will go back on the Green Bay Packers active roster and we will deal with it then."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3484473

 

[Sweet Love]

IMHO, this has nothing to do with stats. Actually, the only stat worth noting is that he will make $12 million next year...I don't care who you are or what you have done, if you make 12 mill, you will not be benched (and Favre has done nothing to even warrant a benching). When this is all over, Favre will have been traded or released.

TT and co. are worried about a PR nightmare (which they are facing now). They are also concerned with their team moving forward. Benching Favre is by far the worst of the four options (starting him and losing Rodgers for good, benching Favre, trading him or releasing him).

 

[SSOG]

Dare I say Elway meant more to the Broncos organization than Favre does to GB.

You can say it, but that doesn't make it true.

It's true. It's not even close.Think about Green Bay. Picture the franchise, picture the history. You've got Lambeau, who the field is named after. You've got Lombardi, who the trophy is named after. You've got Hutson, the guy who pretty much invented the WR position. You've got Starr. You've got the record for championships. Oh yeah, and you've got Favre.

Now think about Denver. Outside of Elway, and maybe the Orange Crush, and recently the vaunted running game, what else has Denver historically had going for it? Elway gave the franchise an identity. Elway *STILL* gives the franchise an identity. Denver is a franchise that is judged in three parts- B.E., D.E., and A.E. (before, during, and after Elway).

I would argue that no single player in NFL history has ever meant more to his franchise than Elway has to Denver. Not saying that Elway's the best player ever, or anything of that nature, I'm just saying that no player remains the face and identity of his franchise quite like Elway does. No player figures quite so prominently in his franchise's history as Elway does. No one remains quite as beloved, almost worshiped, by his franchise's fans as Elway does. Maybe if Brady and Belichick didn't have to split credit with each other so much, then one or the other of them could possibly mean as much to New England as Elway does to Denver (although even then, they'd have a long way to go to catch up)... but as it currently stands, no one comes close.

I think at this point, Brady identifies with the Pats even moreso than Elway with the Broncos. And while there are other great 49ers, Montana's name still resonates. Quite sadly, the Jets franchise is still identified mostly with a QB from four decades ago. While young, I think Ray Lewis and the Ravens is right up there as well. Sanders and the Lions, Manning and the Indianapolis Colts, and Marino with the Dolphins are in the mix, as well.

As I said, I think Brady would be up there if he wasn't sharing so much of the spotlight with Belichick. I also didn't count the Ravens because either you count their Cleveland years (in which case Otto Graham and Paul Brown reign supreme), or else you don't (in which case they're an expansion franchise, and they don't count just like Carr doesn't count for the Texans). Marino will always share the spotlight with Shula and the '72 Dolphins, Manning has Unitas, and Montana has Young and (more importantly) Walsh. Sanders and the Lions is a good one that I think is close, but Sanders was never a public figure, sort of an unwitting face to the franchise, so I don't think it's the same thing.I think a lot of players have been unbelievably important to their franchises- Favre included- I just don't think any have been as important as Elway has to the Broncos.

I would argue that no single player in NFL history has ever meant more to his franchise than Elway has to Denver. Not saying that Elway's the best player ever, or anything of that nature, I'm just saying that no player remains the face and identity of his franchise quite like Elway does. No player figures quite so prominently in his franchise's history as Elway does. No one remains quite as beloved, almost worshiped, by his franchise's fans as Elway does. Maybe if Brady and Belichick didn't have to split credit with each other so much, then one or the other of them could possibly mean as much to New England as Elway does to Denver (although even then, they'd have a long way to go to catch up)... but as it currently stands, no one comes close.

Namath and the Jets? Unitas and the Baltimore Colts?

Montana & SF?

Cedric Benson and the Bears?

It's a bit extreme to say that Elway matters more to his franchise than any other player in history.

Anyway, strong argument on your part. You've almost got me convinced. Almost, but not quite.

Namath and the Jets comes close. I think he ranks up there with Sanders and the Lions and Brady and the Pats in the "clooooooooose but not quite" tier. Unitas would count if you only counted the Colts by city instead of team name, but in that case he has to share the spotlight with Ray Lewis and the Baltimore Ravens. Montana, as has been discussed, is just one of many San Fran legends (Jerry Rice, Steve Young, and Bill Walsh most notable among them).

i won't argue with how much elway meant to denver, but you are discounting how much favre means in packer history.

yeah, there's lombardi, starr and all that, but what percentage of packer fans actually watched super bowl 1 and 2? i would argue that the most important fans a team has are those b/w age 25-50. these are the people that spend money, have kids, and teach those kids to be good little packer fans.

without favre, don majkowski would be the big packer memory of the past 30 years.

i'd give the nod to elway, but both reached a certain legend status that few do.

Hey, those under-50 fans have no compunction against pulling up ancient history when it suits their purpose. They always talk about how their franchise is the most storied in history and go into detail about all of their awards and accolades. You can't have it both ways- either what happened a long time ago matters a lot to you guys, or else it doesn't. If it doesn't, then I'll concede that Favre has been as important to Green Bay... but all the Green Bay fans have to promise to never mention any of those old championships when talk turns to how great our respective franchises are. Deal?Yeah, I didn't think so.

 

[hickbones]

Brad Johnson won the superbowl, only to be cut before the next season started.

I think you mean Trent Dilfer.

Brad Johnson is correct, and a good one at that.Trent Dilfer was cut by the Bucs and went on to win a SB with the Ravens...going in the opposite direction.

 

[sho nuff]

IMHO, this has nothing to do with stats. Actually, the only stat worth noting is that he will make $12 million next year...I don't care who you are or what you have done, if you make 12 mill, you will not be benched (and Favre has done nothing to even warrant a benching). When this is all over, Favre will have been traded or released.TT and co. are worried about a PR nightmare (which they are facing now). They are also concerned with their team moving forward. Benching Favre is by far the worst of the four options (starting him and losing Rodgers for good, benching Favre, trading him or releasing him).

Retiring, saying you are going to unretire, then staying retired...knowing the team is going to move on to draft another QB...then telling the GM while he is visiting your house that you are staying retired in May, then telling your friend and GB assistant coach that you are still retired as late as a few weeks ago?..pretty close really.Love the guy...but he has handled things poorly this year.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Brad Johnson won the superbowl, only to be cut before the next season started.

I think you mean Trent Dilfer.

Brad Johnson is correct, and a good one at that.Trent Dilfer was cut by the Bucs and went on to win a SB with the Ravens...going in the opposite direction.

 

[oddball]

Brad Johnson won the superbowl, only to be cut before the next season started.

I think you mean Trent Dilfer.