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

[JFT Ben]

Everyone 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.

This is unsurprising as part of the west coast offense design, the stretched field horizontally makes short passes into space a key component with short, accurate passes the most important. Bill Walsh did not value QBs that greatly in this scheme, going so far back as his coaching days in Cincinnati under Paul Brown. In SF, remember Steve Deberg was ahead of Montana and if I remember right, the book "The Blind Side" by Michael Lewis details this pretty well. Anyways, my point being that the system makes the QB, not the other way around in Walsh's opinion (which is at least partially supported by the small data set). I'm a big Favre supporter, but think AR will purform fine in the system given his familiarity with the concepts. If Walsh's past experience is any indication, it could be an easier transition than most think. BTW, Blind Side is a great read.

 

[datonn]

They are tailoring the offense for quick throws. There won't be time to get to him.

Not to get this thread off-topic, but doesn't every defensive coordinator in the league ALSO expect the Packers to protect Rodgers by going step-step-step-RELEASE?! Rodgers is going to have to beat defenses over the top before teams give him any of the underneath stuff to work with. With Favre, you know he's the "gunslinger"....and isn't going to hesitate to beat you over the top. Rodgers? He might be able to do it too...but he's going to have to earn that respect. At least that's my opinion...if I were a DC, LB or DB in the National Football League.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

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.

ESPN is already taking care of this, with their "search for Titletown". Since ESPN doesn't count the old championship teams, I won't either.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Since when does the GM determine who is starting?

He is ALOT more than just the GM in GB.

Upon what do you base this assessment? I've seen literally nothing to indicate that TT is anything but the GM.

 

[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.

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.

Very impressive.

 

[DropKick]

I'll admit that I'm bored with Favre's Jordanesque retirement status and have remained largely disinterested.

Does he want to play elsewhere? The Packers would certainly take that as a slap in the face.

Does he want to return to GB? If so, is he the right QB for Green Bay or is it time to move on to a long term replacement?

Finding a good QB can be problematic; consider the Dolphins' revolving door since Marino. Can Favre win the SB now? I'm not so sure. He throws the ball up for grabs all too often and - I know this will be debated - he seemed to lose his composure in last year's NFC Championship game.

Yes, he has been a great QB and is still capable of being very productive. But from an organizational perspective, maybe it is time to move on.

 

[sho nuff]

I'll admit that I'm bored with Favre's Jordanesque retirement status and have remained largely disinterested.Does he want to play elsewhere? The Packers would certainly take that as a slap in the face.Does he want to return to GB? If so, is he the right QB for Green Bay or is it time to move on to a long term replacement? Finding a good QB can be problematic; consider the Dolphins' revolving door since Marino. Can Favre win the SB now? I'm not so sure. He throws the ball up for grabs all too often and - I know this will be debated - he seemed to lose his composure in last year's NFC Championship game.Yes, he has been a great QB and is still capable of being very productive. But from an organizational perspective, maybe it is time to move on.

The last int was not a loss of composure throw it up for grabs though. It was a poor throw to the inside, the one place he could not afford to make that mistake.

 

[datonn]

If the Packers had "Steve Young" waiting in the wings, I guess it might be easier. However, Aaron Rodgers has been SO limited in his playing time to this point that it'd be hard to kick one of the top 3-4 players to ever play his position to the curb...when he was obviously still productive on the field.

Favre has pretty-much always shown a propensity to throw the jump-ball, I think that's just part of his game (taking chances). It's hard to dispute though that the guy gets it done. If he were wheeling out to the huddle in his Rascal Scooter and lost 20 yards off his passing distance, it'd be one thing. However, it sounds as though his performance hasn't dropped off much, if at all. I guess then the question most of us outside of Wisconsin who DON'T have a QB like that on our favorite team's roster is this: How do you bench him...even if he has been related to playing versus retiring?

 

[sho nuff]

If the Packers had "Steve Young" waiting in the wings, I guess it might be easier. However, Aaron Rodgers has been SO limited in his playing time to this point that it'd be hard to kick one of the top 3-4 players to ever play his position to the curb...when he was obviously still productive on the field.Favre has pretty-much always shown a propensity to throw the jump-ball, I think that's just part of his game (taking chances). It's hard to dispute though that the guy gets it done. If he were wheeling out to the huddle in his Rascal Scooter and lost 20 yards off his passing distance, it'd be one thing. However, it sounds as though his performance hasn't dropped off much, if at all. I guess then the question most of us outside of Wisconsin who DON'T have a QB like that on our favorite team's roster is this: How do you bench him...even if he has been related to playing versus retiring?

How...if the team feels it is best to move on with Rodgers. Im talking even the players. I know they get paid to play...but there was some sentiment that not all wanted Favre back. If it messes with the overall makeup and chemistry of the team...it could be disatrous. That is one of the factors Thompson has to take into consideration.Its not just about who the better QB is. This is not fantasy football.

 

[datonn]

Correct, sho nuff. WHY ON EARTH, then, are they willing to bring Favre back on to the active roster, have him there for Camp and the pre-season, etc....if they think he will/could be a distraction or even a "cancer" in the locker room? The team isn't moving on with Rodgers because they think Rodgers is "better." My guess is that they are moving forward with Rodgers because Favre assured them he was done, and that Rodgers is the future. Favre changed his mind, but the team has their new hoss to rally behind now. Now the team won't let Favre go and REALLY, TRULY commit to Rodgers? That's effectively treating BOTH players like crap, IMHO, and setting Rodgers up to be under even MORE pressure then the Mt. Everest of pressure he was already facing this Fall.

Will the Packers not let Favre go because he completely pissed them off...or will the Packers not let Favre go because they are afraid he'll come back to beat them someway...somehow? My guess is that the answer is YES on both fronts...with a "bonus" of the team also worrying what happens with the fan base when their living-legend is still succeeding on the other side of the field while "the future" is struggling.

This issue is bigger than football, since the Packers (to/in Wisconsin) are bigger than football....probably the equivalent to Best Buy, Target and/or Northwest Airlines holding a joint news conference to say that they were relocating to Sioux Falls.

 

[sho nuff]

Correct, sho nuff. WHY ON EARTH, then, are they willing to bring Favre back on to the active roster, have him there for Camp and the pre-season, etc....if they think he will/could be a distraction or even a "cancer" in the locker room? The team isn't moving on with Rodgers because they think Rodgers is "better." My guess is that they are moving forward with Rodgers because Favre assured them he was done, and that Rodgers is the future. Favre changed his mind, but the team has their new hoss to rally behind now. Now the team won't let Favre go and REALLY, TRULY commit to Rodgers? That's effectively treating BOTH players like crap, IMHO, and setting Rodgers up to be under even MORE pressure then the Mt. Everest of pressure he was already facing this Fall.Will the Packers not let Favre go because he completely pissed them off...or will the Packers not let Favre go because they are afraid he'll come back to beat them someway...somehow? My guess is that the answer is YES on both fronts...with a "bonus" of the team also worrying what happens with the fan base when their living-legend is still succeeding on the other side of the field while "the future" is struggling.This issue is bigger than football, since the Packers (to/in Wisconsin) are bigger than football....probably the equivalent to Best Buy, Target and/or Northwest Airlines holding a joint news conference to say that they were relocating to Sioux Falls.

At this point Thompson has specifically stated they will not make those decisions and what ifs until Favre files for reinstatement.I would be willing to bet he is trying to contact at least some key members of the team to weigh in...as well as get the advice of the entire coaching staff and even the board of directors.I think some of it right now is Thompson's ego a bit (and I am saying this for a specific reason)...his ego as far as wanting to show Favre he is the boss (not his ego as some people say to want to do things with his guy).

 

[Assani Fisher]

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.

I think people forget how good their defense was in 1996.

 

[bcr8f]

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.

I think people forget how good their defense was in 1996.

They were very good but Favre was also a 2 time MVP that year. Majkowski? Someone's been drinking heavily. Lynn Dickey was far better than Majik. Majik was very athletic but not a good QB.

 

[Tau837]

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.

Even the Morrall example isn't a good fit. Unitas was the starter in 1967 and was All Pro. He was injured in the final exhibition game in 1968, which is the reason Morrall was the starter in 1968. Reverting to Unitas in 1969 was simply restoring a healthy Unitas to his normal role, which he had held and dominated since 1956.(I'm not knocking your post. Good stuff.)

 

[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).

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.

I am not disagreeing with you...I think he has been handling this poorly for the last couple of years...I just think that benching a player that is taking up 10% of your cap, who is capable of playing well, is not an option. It does nobody any good and nothing good can come from it.

 

[Akkum]

What about Drew Brees?..didn't he have a pretty good year his last year in San Diego? Only to be sent to New Orleans so the Chargers could start Phillip Rivers. Rivers at that time had never started a game....

 

[Tau837]

What about Drew Brees?..didn't he have a pretty good year his last year in San Diego? Only to be sent to New Orleans so the Chargers could start Phillip Rivers. Rivers at that time had never started a game....

Apples and oranges. Brees was a free agent; Favre isn't. Brees was coming off an injury, and it wasn't certain if he could regain his prior top form; Favre is healthy.