If Favre Wins The Super Bowl, He Will Be The Best Ever (1 Viewer)

[MAC_32]

Call me crazy but I don't think it's possible for Favre to win the Super Bowl.

The Jets? yes.

Favre? no.

 

[Challenge Everything]

It is much too subjective to say or claim Favre is the "best" QB ever. However, I don't think it is much to say or claim that Favre is the most accomplished QB ever. The title of "Most Accomplished" will probably get a few from people, hence the word "best" being used. But, nobody can deny what Favre has accomplished when compared to ALL other QB's.

 

[oukurt]

Nope

Not even top 5.

 

[parasaurolophus]

NopeNot even top 5.

who is in your top 5?

 

[Chase Stuart]

I guess I can't get past all those INTs.

..............and with all due respect, I can't get past many ignoring TD to INT ratio, which places Favre in the top 5 EVER!! I think like 4th. How can that be overlooked?

Link?

 

[Chase Stuart]

2) Favre won't be the best QB ever, let alone the best player ever. He might just into the top five, but I doubt it. He's not in my top 10 right now, but that could change, I suppose.

While acknowledging that these types of lists are entirely subjective, I find it hard to believe that most knowledgeable football fans wouldn't have Favre ranked among the Top 10 QBs of all time. I'm not trying to rip on you Chase, but you really don't believe the only three-time MVP in league history who has won a Super Bowl and holds most of the major QB records (not to mention an incredible durability streak) doesn't rank in the Top 10 QBs of all time?

On my QB list, I've Marino, Montana, Manning and Young ahead of Favre. I feel pretty safe doing that. Unitas and Tarkenton rank higher as well, and I don't think that's very controversial. Then there are a big group of players that are on the same level, and I have Favre there with Staubach, Fouts, Elway, Warner, Van Brocklin, Jurgensen, Brady, Dawson, Starr, Anderson and Graham. You may not agree with all of them (Staubach, Anderson, Dawson and Starr seem to get little love these days) but I don't think it's hard to put four of those guys ahead of Favre. YMMV.

 

[JuniorNB]

2) Favre won't be the best QB ever, let alone the best player ever. He might just into the top five, but I doubt it. He's not in my top 10 right now, but that could change, I suppose.

While acknowledging that these types of lists are entirely subjective, I find it hard to believe that most knowledgeable football fans wouldn't have Favre ranked among the Top 10 QBs of all time. I'm not trying to rip on you Chase, but you really don't believe the only three-time MVP in league history who has won a Super Bowl and holds most of the major QB records (not to mention an incredible durability streak) doesn't rank in the Top 10 QBs of all time?

On my QB list, I've Marino, Montana, Manning and Young ahead of Favre. I feel pretty safe doing that. Unitas and Tarkenton rank higher as well, and I don't think that's very controversial. Then there are a big group of players that are on the same level, and I have Favre there with Staubach, Fouts, Elway, Warner, Van Brocklin, Jurgensen, Brady, Dawson, Starr, Anderson and Graham. You may not agree with all of them (Staubach, Anderson, Dawson and Starr seem to get little love these days) but I don't think it's hard to put four of those guys ahead of Favre.

YMMV.

Wow. With the exception of Elway, Favre's stats blow away any one of those guys. I'm not sure what your criteria is when judging a quarterback, but whatever it is is silly.

 

[Chase Stuart]

2) Favre won't be the best QB ever, let alone the best player ever. He might just into the top five, but I doubt it. He's not in my top 10 right now, but that could change, I suppose.

While acknowledging that these types of lists are entirely subjective, I find it hard to believe that most knowledgeable football fans wouldn't have Favre ranked among the Top 10 QBs of all time. I'm not trying to rip on you Chase, but you really don't believe the only three-time MVP in league history who has won a Super Bowl and holds most of the major QB records (not to mention an incredible durability streak) doesn't rank in the Top 10 QBs of all time?

On my QB list, I've Marino, Montana, Manning and Young ahead of Favre. I feel pretty safe doing that. Unitas and Tarkenton rank higher as well, and I don't think that's very controversial. Then there are a big group of players that are on the same level, and I have Favre there with Staubach, Fouts, Elway, Warner, Van Brocklin, Jurgensen, Brady, Dawson, Starr, Anderson and Graham. You may not agree with all of them (Staubach, Anderson, Dawson and Starr seem to get little love these days) but I don't think it's hard to put four of those guys ahead of Favre.

YMMV.

Wow. With the exception of Elway, Favre's stats blow away any one of those guys. I'm not sure what your criteria is when judging a quarterback, but whatever it is is silly.

Favre's stats blow those guys away when you look at raw numbers; but when you put them in the context of his era and the older players in the contexts of their era, things look much more even. Favre's also played forever, but most people wouldn't consider a guy who was amazing for 12 years to be a worse QB than one who was amazing for 16 years. So looking at raw totals can be a bit misleading (IMO) with a guy like Favre.

 

[JuniorNB]

2) Favre won't be the best QB ever, let alone the best player ever. He might just into the top five, but I doubt it. He's not in my top 10 right now, but that could change, I suppose.

While acknowledging that these types of lists are entirely subjective, I find it hard to believe that most knowledgeable football fans wouldn't have Favre ranked among the Top 10 QBs of all time. I'm not trying to rip on you Chase, but you really don't believe the only three-time MVP in league history who has won a Super Bowl and holds most of the major QB records (not to mention an incredible durability streak) doesn't rank in the Top 10 QBs of all time?

On my QB list, I've Marino, Montana, Manning and Young ahead of Favre. I feel pretty safe doing that. Unitas and Tarkenton rank higher as well, and I don't think that's very controversial. Then there are a big group of players that are on the same level, and I have Favre there with Staubach, Fouts, Elway, Warner, Van Brocklin, Jurgensen, Brady, Dawson, Starr, Anderson and Graham. You may not agree with all of them (Staubach, Anderson, Dawson and Starr seem to get little love these days) but I don't think it's hard to put four of those guys ahead of Favre.

YMMV.

Wow. With the exception of Elway, Favre's stats blow away any one of those guys. I'm not sure what your criteria is when judging a quarterback, but whatever it is is silly.

Favre's stats blow those guys away when you look at raw numbers; but when you put them in the context of his era and the older players in the contexts of their era, things look much more even. Favre's also played forever, but most people wouldn't consider a guy who was amazing for 12 years to be a worse QB than one who was amazing for 16 years. So looking at raw totals can be a bit misleading (IMO) with a guy like Favre.

Longevity has to be one of teh things considered. especially when you factor in that Favre is not merely hanging on to pad his stats, but still playing as a top 5-7 QB in the league after all these years.

 

[T.A.]

Nope

Not even top 5.

who is in your top 5?

Now that I will certainly believe... a SB win cements him within the top 5 all-time.

 

[KingEl]

This thread is so hypothetical anyway.. IF Favre wins the Superbowl... You can take Manning and Brady and say the same thing... IF they win another SB, etc... Lets let Favre actually do it- which I doupt- before anyone starts crowning him.

 

[griz145389]

A lot of QBs put up great stats in the regular season. The best QBs put up the best stats in postseason play.Joe Montana - 45 touchdowns to 21 interceptions in postseason. That's better than a 2:1 ratio against the top teams in the NFL when the pressure to perform is at its highest.Tom Brady - 26 touchdowns to 12 inteceptions in postseason. Again better than a 2:1 ratio.Bret Favre - 39 touchdowns to 28 interceptions. That's decent. But it simply doesn't even remotely compare to the 2:1 ratios of Montana / Brady. Favre would have to throw 17 touchdowns and 0 intercepts this postseason just to get to 2:1. Of course Montana and Brady are better than 2:1. That's how amazing the numbers of the other two are. Favre isn't even in this conversation. He could win a super bowl this year and still pale in comparison to Montana and Brady. The best QB really comes down to Montana vs Brady. Everyone else is well below them.

As in other pro-Favre arguements...it can also be said that only a couple times did Brett actually take "talented" team to the playoffs. I have been a Packer fan since the mid-1970's and I am not 100% convinced that the overall talent level on the Packers through most of Brett's tenure was much better than the lousy teams the Packers put on the field for the 2 decades preceding Brett. Quite a few seasons during the Favre era in Green Bay...the Packers would make the playoffs...but because of the lack of talent...it would have taken a miracle for them to advance any further than the first round. A great QB can lead a lead an otherwise average team to the playoffs....but it takes more than a great QB to advance deep into the playoffs.

 

[MarshallRob]

2) Favre won't be the best QB ever, let alone the best player ever. He might just into the top five, but I doubt it. He's not in my top 10 right now, but that could change, I suppose.

While acknowledging that these types of lists are entirely subjective, I find it hard to believe that most knowledgeable football fans wouldn't have Favre ranked among the Top 10 QBs of all time. I'm not trying to rip on you Chase, but you really don't believe the only three-time MVP in league history who has won a Super Bowl and holds most of the major QB records (not to mention an incredible durability streak) doesn't rank in the Top 10 QBs of all time?

On my QB list, I've Marino, Montana, Manning and Young ahead of Favre. I feel pretty safe doing that. Unitas and Tarkenton rank higher as well, and I don't think that's very controversial. Then there are a big group of players that are on the same level, and I have Favre there with Staubach, Fouts, Elway, Warner, Van Brocklin, Jurgensen, Brady, Dawson, Starr, Anderson and Graham. You may not agree with all of them (Staubach, Anderson, Dawson and Starr seem to get little love these days) but I don't think it's hard to put four of those guys ahead of Favre.

YMMV.

Wow. With the exception of Elway, Favre's stats blow away any one of those guys. I'm not sure what your criteria is when judging a quarterback, but whatever it is is silly.

Favre's stats blow those guys away when you look at raw numbers; but when you put them in the context of his era and the older players in the contexts of their era, things look much more even. Favre's also played forever, but most people wouldn't consider a guy who was amazing for 12 years to be a worse QB than one who was amazing for 16 years. So looking at raw totals can be a bit misleading (IMO) with a guy like Favre.

Exactly. It just wasn't possible pre-1980's for QB's to post huge single-season TD and yardage totals. And it looks like it's getting easier to do that all the time in today's NFL. It's unfair to compare today's players to earlier ones using just raw totals when the game has changed so much. For example, Favre's career QB rating is 86.0. Roger Staubach's is 83.4. But Staubach led the NFL in passer rating four times. Favre never has. So who was the more effective passer?

 

[casca]

I think the Favre "greatest ever" thing is funny. Great QB no doubt. But when Elway retired, many in the press were hailing him "the best ever." Now who is picking him the best ever? Favre is very comparable to Elway-one of the greatest ever-able to improvise with the best of them, exciting, a great leader, a proven winner and one of the fiercest competitors ever. But not the best ever.

Make mine Montana.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I think the Favre "greatest ever thing" is funny. Great QB no doubt. But when Elway retired, many in the press were hailing him "the best ever." Now who is picking him the best ever? Favre is very comparable to Elway-one of the greatest ever-able to improvise with the best of them, exciting, a great leader, a proven winner and one of the fiercest competitors ever. But not the best ever.

Make mine Montana.

one of the main reasons people picked Elway as the best ever was the fact that he had more wins than any QB. That was taken away. So obviously people would change their minds.

 

[Die]

The best QB really comes down to Montana vs Brady. Everyone else is well below them.

You say this as if it is a foregone conclusion and your opinion should be shared by all.Montana was awesome, but he also had teh best receiver in NFL history. Also, let's not forget that his replacement stepped in and teh team didn't miss a beat.

Steve Young had Jerry Rice for his entire playoff career, and yet only threw 20 TDs to 13 INTs, far below a 2:1 ratio. Its not that easy to do. The team actually did miss a beat.

 

[Stinger Ray]

2) Favre won't be the best QB ever, let alone the best player ever. He might just into the top five, but I doubt it. He's not in my top 10 right now, but that could change, I suppose.

While acknowledging that these types of lists are entirely subjective, I find it hard to believe that most knowledgeable football fans wouldn't have Favre ranked among the Top 10 QBs of all time. I'm not trying to rip on you Chase, but you really don't believe the only three-time MVP in league history who has won a Super Bowl and holds most of the major QB records (not to mention an incredible durability streak) doesn't rank in the Top 10 QBs of all time?

On my QB list, I've Marino, Montana, Manning and Young ahead of Favre. I feel pretty safe doing that. Unitas and Tarkenton rank higher as well, and I don't think that's very controversial. Then there are a big group of players that are on the same level, and I have Favre there with Staubach, Fouts, Elway, Warner, Van Brocklin, Jurgensen, Brady, Dawson, Starr, Anderson and Graham. You may not agree with all of them (Staubach, Anderson, Dawson and Starr seem to get little love these days) but I don't think it's hard to put four of those guys ahead of Favre.

YMMV.

Wow. With the exception of Elway, Favre's stats blow away any one of those guys. I'm not sure what your criteria is when judging a quarterback, but whatever it is is silly.

Favre's stats blow those guys away when you look at raw numbers; but when you put them in the context of his era and the older players in the contexts of their era, things look much more even. Favre's also played forever, but most people wouldn't consider a guy who was amazing for 12 years to be a worse QB than one who was amazing for 16 years. So looking at raw totals can be a bit misleading (IMO) with a guy like Favre.

So who was the more effective passer?

The one with 3 MVPs.

 

[parasaurolophus]

The best QB really comes down to Montana vs Brady. Everyone else is well below them.

You say this as if it is a foregone conclusion and your opinion should be shared by all.Montana was awesome, but he also had teh best receiver in NFL history. Also, let's not forget that his replacement stepped in and teh team didn't miss a beat.

Steve Young had Jerry Rice for his entire playoff career, and yet only threw 20 TDs to 13 INTs, far below a 2:1 ratio. Its not that easy to do. The team actually did miss a beat.

Steve Young's career also ran into a Dallas Dynasty. They may have missed a beat from Montana's prime, but they didnt miss a beat at the time it happened.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

2) Favre won't be the best QB ever, let alone the best player ever. He might just into the top five, but I doubt it. He's not in my top 10 right now, but that could change, I suppose.

While acknowledging that these types of lists are entirely subjective, I find it hard to believe that most knowledgeable football fans wouldn't have Favre ranked among the Top 10 QBs of all time. I'm not trying to rip on you Chase, but you really don't believe the only three-time MVP in league history who has won a Super Bowl and holds most of the major QB records (not to mention an incredible durability streak) doesn't rank in the Top 10 QBs of all time?

On my QB list, I've Marino, Montana, Manning and Young ahead of Favre. I feel pretty safe doing that. Unitas and Tarkenton rank higher as well, and I don't think that's very controversial. Then there are a big group of players that are on the same level, and I have Favre there with Staubach, Fouts, Elway, Warner, Van Brocklin, Jurgensen, Brady, Dawson, Starr, Anderson and Graham. You may not agree with all of them (Staubach, Anderson, Dawson and Starr seem to get little love these days) but I don't think it's hard to put four of those guys ahead of Favre. YMMV.

Van Brocklin? Do you know he threw for more INTs than TDs in his career?Jurgensen? He didn't even had a winning record as a starter for his career.You really want to put those guys ahead of Favre?

 

[JuniorNB]

2) Favre won't be the best QB ever, let alone the best player ever. He might just into the top five, but I doubt it. He's not in my top 10 right now, but that could change, I suppose.

While acknowledging that these types of lists are entirely subjective, I find it hard to believe that most knowledgeable football fans wouldn't have Favre ranked among the Top 10 QBs of all time. I'm not trying to rip on you Chase, but you really don't believe the only three-time MVP in league history who has won a Super Bowl and holds most of the major QB records (not to mention an incredible durability streak) doesn't rank in the Top 10 QBs of all time?

On my QB list, I've Marino, Montana, Manning and Young ahead of Favre. I feel pretty safe doing that. Unitas and Tarkenton rank higher as well, and I don't think that's very controversial. Then there are a big group of players that are on the same level, and I have Favre there with Staubach, Fouts, Elway, Warner, Van Brocklin, Jurgensen, Brady, Dawson, Starr, Anderson and Graham. You may not agree with all of them (Staubach, Anderson, Dawson and Starr seem to get little love these days) but I don't think it's hard to put four of those guys ahead of Favre. YMMV.

Van Brocklin? Do you know he threw for more INTs than TDs in his career?Jurgensen? He didn't even had a winning record as a starter for his career.You really want to put those guys ahead of Favre?

He also has Ken Anderson on his list. I think he was just kind of listing any QB he could think of.

 

[bcr8f]

I think the Favre "greatest ever" thing is funny. Great QB no doubt. But when Elway retired, many in the press were hailing him "the best ever." Now who is picking him the best ever? Favre is very comparable to Elway-one of the greatest ever-able to improvise with the best of them, exciting, a great leader, a proven winner and one of the fiercest competitors ever. But not the best ever.

Make mine Montana.

Favre said no way was he a better passer than Marino. He beat all those records because he's played longer. A few years ago when he had a knee injury the doctor said he had the knees of a 24 year old.The guy has a freak body and just outlasts everyone. He has said he's not the best ever. He'd pick Marino.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

2) Favre won't be the best QB ever, let alone the best player ever. He might just into the top five, but I doubt it. He's not in my top 10 right now, but that could change, I suppose.

While acknowledging that these types of lists are entirely subjective, I find it hard to believe that most knowledgeable football fans wouldn't have Favre ranked among the Top 10 QBs of all time. I'm not trying to rip on you Chase, but you really don't believe the only three-time MVP in league history who has won a Super Bowl and holds most of the major QB records (not to mention an incredible durability streak) doesn't rank in the Top 10 QBs of all time?

On my QB list, I've Marino, Montana, Manning and Young ahead of Favre. I feel pretty safe doing that. Unitas and Tarkenton rank higher as well, and I don't think that's very controversial. Then there are a big group of players that are on the same level, and I have Favre there with Staubach, Fouts, Elway, Warner, Van Brocklin, Jurgensen, Brady, Dawson, Starr, Anderson and Graham. You may not agree with all of them (Staubach, Anderson, Dawson and Starr seem to get little love these days) but I don't think it's hard to put four of those guys ahead of Favre. YMMV.

Van Brocklin? Do you know he threw for more INTs than TDs in his career?Jurgensen? He didn't even had a winning record as a starter for his career.You really want to put those guys ahead of Favre?

He also has Ken Anderson on his list. I think he was just kind of listing any QB he could think of.

Anderson was 91-81 as a starter, threw for 196 TDs with 160 Ints and the the Pro Bowl 4 times in his 16 year career and had 5 losing seasons. Yeah...he is ahead of Favre.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

I think the Favre "greatest ever" thing is funny. Great QB no doubt. But when Elway retired, many in the press were hailing him "the best ever." Now who is picking him the best ever? Favre is very comparable to Elway-one of the greatest ever-able to improvise with the best of them, exciting, a great leader, a proven winner and one of the fiercest competitors ever. But not the best ever.

Make mine Montana.

Favre said no way was he a better passer than Marino. He beat all those records because he's played longer. A few years ago when he had a knee injury the doctor said he had the knees of a 24 year old.The guy has a freak body and just outlasts everyone. He has said he's not the best ever. He'd pick Marino.

Favre is also a very modest guy when it comes to talking about his career.

 

[Challenge Everything]

Favre game logs:

Game ------- INT Thrown -------- Win/Loss ------- % of games

1 ------------ 5 -------------------- 0/1 -------------- 1/266 = .001

5 ------------ 4 -------------------- 0/5 -------------- 5/266 = .019

29 ----------- 3 -------------------- 9/20 ------------ 29/266 = .11

50 ----------- 2 -------------------- 23/27 ------------ 50/266 = .187

89 ----------- 1 -------------------- 57/32 ------------ 89/266 = .334

92 ----------- 0 -------------------- 81/11 ------------ 92/266 = .345

Football reference lists 268 games but I did not include 2 of them which were for Atlanta.

Using the criteria I stated in a previous post (0 = good, 1 = average, = >2 = bad) the above data represents Favre's current stats for the games he has played. What can we conclude from them overall? I am not sure, however I would like to see similar comparison's for other top QB's. Those will be skewed somewhat due to the times each have played in respectively, however these are Favre's.

181/266 (68%) - Favre has had an "above average" rating has he threw for 0 or 1 INT. In those games the team was a total of 138/43 (76% winning percentage). I did not do a TD comparison because people seem to be hung up on the INT thing.

The remaining games with 2 or more INT's, Favre has played 85/266 (32%) and his team went a 32/53 (38% winning percentage) in "bad" games.

Now, those are some numbers for stat hounds. What I would like to see is if those compare to other QB's. In the bad games, were those teams doomed for a loss at a greater clip than the 38% winning the Favre team's did? In good games, did the QB's team win more or equal or less than the 76% that the Favre lead teams did? This game is about scoring and more importantly, winning. Well, did these other top QB's win as much during the good games they had and during the bad games. Curious.

 

[bcr8f]

I think the Favre "greatest ever" thing is funny. Great QB no doubt. But when Elway retired, many in the press were hailing him "the best ever." Now who is picking him the best ever? Favre is very comparable to Elway-one of the greatest ever-able to improvise with the best of them, exciting, a great leader, a proven winner and one of the fiercest competitors ever. But not the best ever.

Make mine Montana.

Favre said no way was he a better passer than Marino. He beat all those records because he's played longer. A few years ago when he had a knee injury the doctor said he had the knees of a 24 year old.The guy has a freak body and just outlasts everyone. He has said he's not the best ever. He'd pick Marino.

Favre is also a very modest guy when it comes to talking about his career.

Oh yeah. He's still a country boy and practical joker at heart. He keeps teammates loose because he likes having fun.

 

[KingEl]

"Montana was awesome, but he also had teh best receiver in NFL history. Also, let's not forget that his replacement stepped in and teh team didn't miss a beat. I'm certainly not anti-Joe Montana, and I do appreciate his greatness, but you have to realize that he was at the helm of the league's best team for years."

Montana was on his way to a hall of fame carreer before Jerry Rice was even drafted!! The 49ers were horrible when Montana took over after his rookie year and he along with Walsh had them in the Super Bowl within a couple of years... This is such a big misconception about Montana's carreer- he had great success with no name talent- and he had amazing magical moments with and without Jerry Rice.. Even the KC years- out dueling Elway on Monday night, an incredible 3 game playoff run his first year including a last play of the game TD to tie and then beat the Steelers, then beating a supposedly unbeatable Houston team... beating Steve Young and the 49ers... Even an old, robbed of skills Montana packed more amazing games and plays in two years at KC than most QB's do in 10 years!! + Jerry Rice didn't enter HIS prime until the Steve Young years---

In regards to Favre who I like- Look at Montana's 4 Superbowl #'s... No int's against the 2nd best team in Fball, big yardage #'s, big td #'s.. Put Favre in those games and I bet his #'s are nowhere near as amazing...

Montana was best.

 

[dparker713]

"Montana was awesome, but he also had teh best receiver in NFL history. Also, let's not forget that his replacement stepped in and teh team didn't miss a beat. I'm certainly not anti-Joe Montana, and I do appreciate his greatness, but you have to realize that he was at the helm of the league's best team for years."

Montana was on his way to a hall of fame carreer before Jerry Rice was even drafted!! The 49ers were horrible when Montana took over after his rookie year and he along with Walsh had them in the Super Bowl within a couple of years... This is such a big misconception about Montana's carreer- he had great success with no name talent- and he had amazing magical moments with and without Jerry Rice.. Even the KC years- out dueling Elway on Monday night, an incredible 3 game playoff run his first year including a last play of the game TD to tie and then beat the Steelers, then beating a supposedly unbeatable Houston team... beating Steve Young and the 49ers... Even an old, robbed of skills Montana packed more amazing games and plays in two years at KC than most QB's do in 10 years!! + Jerry Rice didn't enter HIS prime until the Steve Young years---

In regards to Favre who I like- Look at Montana's 4 Superbowl #'s... No int's against the 2nd best team in Fball, big yardage #'s, big td #'s.. Put Favre in those games and I bet his #'s are nowhere near as amazing...

Montana was best.

Most years during Montana's career the 5 best teams were in the NFC. And all of Montana's teams were highly talented, you just didnt win in those days without being one of the most talented teams in the league.

 

[-OZ-]

"Montana was awesome, but he also had teh best receiver in NFL history. Also, let's not forget that his replacement stepped in and teh team didn't miss a beat. I'm certainly not anti-Joe Montana, and I do appreciate his greatness, but you have to realize that he was at the helm of the league's best team for years."

Montana was on his way to a hall of fame carreer before Jerry Rice was even drafted!! The 49ers were horrible when Montana took over after his rookie year and he along with Walsh had them in the Super Bowl within a couple of years... This is such a big misconception about Montana's carreer- he had great success with no name talent- and he had amazing magical moments with and without Jerry Rice.. Even the KC years- out dueling Elway on Monday night, an incredible 3 game playoff run his first year including a last play of the game TD to tie and then beat the Steelers, then beating a supposedly unbeatable Houston team... beating Steve Young and the 49ers... Even an old, robbed of skills Montana packed more amazing games and plays in two years at KC than most QB's do in 10 years!! + Jerry Rice didn't enter HIS prime until the Steve Young years---

In regards to Favre who I like- Look at Montana's 4 Superbowl #'s... No int's against the 2nd best team in Fball, big yardage #'s, big td #'s.. Put Favre in those games and I bet his #'s are nowhere near as amazing...

Montana was best.

Good posting, except that Clark and Roger Craig were pretty damn good.The true Montana Era, 81-90, he played half those years without Rice. The funny thing is, if you look at Montana's stats and try to see where Rice came into the picture, you can't see it without knowing ahead of time. You'd expect an uptick in y/a, rating, yardage, or something, you don't.

The whole argument is subjective, but you just can't look at anything objective that shows Favre ISN'T the best ever. IMO, which is all this is, is he and Montana are the two best QBs in this era, aside from that, I don't know.

 

[GreenNGold]

Favre not only has three MVPs, but at least two 2nd place finishes in the MVP voting. I don't think anybody comes close to this. Also, quite a few of Favre's INTs came on 3rd or 4th down, when they are sort of like a punt, or when his team is losing and needs to make something happen to pull out the win. I see Aaron Rodgers throwing the ball away of taking a safe five yard play short of the 1st down all the time. Favre took chances when it helped his team win even though it hurt his stats. No QB ever wanted to win as much as Favre. And one thing that Favre does better than any QB I have ever seen is inspire his teammates to play the best they are able to. Looking at small sample sizes from post season play just confuses the issue. As many have mentioned, Montana had overwhelming teams that didn't miss a beat whenever he was hurt (which was often). Another point about Favre is that he was great no matter what the offense was like. When Peyton Manning is under pressure from a pass rush he isn't all that good. We don't even know what what Montana would look like without a great team around him. Favre has had his ups and downs but when all is said and done I think he has to be considered the best QB in NFL history even without a Jets SB this year. I would still give the nod to Al Del Greco as the greatest player from any position of all time. He was poetry in motion.

 

[Chase Stuart]

2) Favre won't be the best QB ever, let alone the best player ever. He might just into the top five, but I doubt it. He's not in my top 10 right now, but that could change, I suppose.

While acknowledging that these types of lists are entirely subjective, I find it hard to believe that most knowledgeable football fans wouldn't have Favre ranked among the Top 10 QBs of all time. I'm not trying to rip on you Chase, but you really don't believe the only three-time MVP in league history who has won a Super Bowl and holds most of the major QB records (not to mention an incredible durability streak) doesn't rank in the Top 10 QBs of all time?

On my QB list, I've Marino, Montana, Manning and Young ahead of Favre. I feel pretty safe doing that. Unitas and Tarkenton rank higher as well, and I don't think that's very controversial. Then there are a big group of players that are on the same level, and I have Favre there with Staubach, Fouts, Elway, Warner, Van Brocklin, Jurgensen, Brady, Dawson, Starr, Anderson and Graham. You may not agree with all of them (Staubach, Anderson, Dawson and Starr seem to get little love these days) but I don't think it's hard to put four of those guys ahead of Favre. YMMV.

Van Brocklin? Do you know he threw for more INTs than TDs in his career?Jurgensen? He didn't even had a winning record as a starter for his career.You really want to put those guys ahead of Favre?

No.

 

[Chase Stuart]

2) Favre won't be the best QB ever, let alone the best player ever. He might just into the top five, but I doubt it. He's not in my top 10 right now, but that could change, I suppose.

While acknowledging that these types of lists are entirely subjective, I find it hard to believe that most knowledgeable football fans wouldn't have Favre ranked among the Top 10 QBs of all time. I'm not trying to rip on you Chase, but you really don't believe the only three-time MVP in league history who has won a Super Bowl and holds most of the major QB records (not to mention an incredible durability streak) doesn't rank in the Top 10 QBs of all time?

On my QB list, I've Marino, Montana, Manning and Young ahead of Favre. I feel pretty safe doing that. Unitas and Tarkenton rank higher as well, and I don't think that's very controversial. Then there are a big group of players that are on the same level, and I have Favre there with Staubach, Fouts, Elway, Warner, Van Brocklin, Jurgensen, Brady, Dawson, Starr, Anderson and Graham. You may not agree with all of them (Staubach, Anderson, Dawson and Starr seem to get little love these days) but I don't think it's hard to put four of those guys ahead of Favre. YMMV.

Van Brocklin? Do you know he threw for more INTs than TDs in his career?Jurgensen? He didn't even had a winning record as a starter for his career.You really want to put those guys ahead of Favre?

He also has Ken Anderson on his list. I think he was just kind of listing any QB he could think of.

Anderson was 91-81 as a starter, threw for 196 TDs with 160 Ints and the the Pro Bowl 4 times in his 16 year career and had 5 losing seasons. Yeah...he is ahead of Favre.

Who put Ken Anderson ahead of Favre? Why are you ignoring the other players on the list?

 

[Ookie Pringle]

2) Favre won't be the best QB ever, let alone the best player ever. He might just into the top five, but I doubt it. He's not in my top 10 right now, but that could change, I suppose.

While acknowledging that these types of lists are entirely subjective, I find it hard to believe that most knowledgeable football fans wouldn't have Favre ranked among the Top 10 QBs of all time. I'm not trying to rip on you Chase, but you really don't believe the only three-time MVP in league history who has won a Super Bowl and holds most of the major QB records (not to mention an incredible durability streak) doesn't rank in the Top 10 QBs of all time?

On my QB list, I've Marino, Montana, Manning and Young ahead of Favre. I feel pretty safe doing that. Unitas and Tarkenton rank higher as well, and I don't think that's very controversial. Then there are a big group of players that are on the same level, and I have Favre there with Staubach, Fouts, Elway, Warner, Van Brocklin, Jurgensen, Brady, Dawson, Starr, Anderson and Graham. You may not agree with all of them (Staubach, Anderson, Dawson and Starr seem to get little love these days) but I don't think it's hard to put four of those guys ahead of Favre. YMMV.

Van Brocklin? Do you know he threw for more INTs than TDs in his career?Jurgensen? He didn't even had a winning record as a starter for his career.You really want to put those guys ahead of Favre?

He also has Ken Anderson on his list. I think he was just kind of listing any QB he could think of.

Anderson was 91-81 as a starter, threw for 196 TDs with 160 Ints and the the Pro Bowl 4 times in his 16 year career and had 5 losing seasons. Yeah...he is ahead of Favre.

Who put Ken Anderson ahead of Favre? Why are you ignoring the other players on the list?

YOU ARE THE ONE THAT WROTE YOU THOUGHT ANDERSON, VAN BROCKLIN, AND JURGENSEN COULD BE RANKED AHEAD OF FAVRE!

 

[Stinger Ray]

2) Favre won't be the best QB ever, let alone the best player ever. He might just into the top five, but I doubt it. He's not in my top 10 right now, but that could change, I suppose.

While acknowledging that these types of lists are entirely subjective, I find it hard to believe that most knowledgeable football fans wouldn't have Favre ranked among the Top 10 QBs of all time. I'm not trying to rip on you Chase, but you really don't believe the only three-time MVP in league history who has won a Super Bowl and holds most of the major QB records (not to mention an incredible durability streak) doesn't rank in the Top 10 QBs of all time?

On my QB list, I've Marino, Montana, Manning and Young ahead of Favre. I feel pretty safe doing that. Unitas and Tarkenton rank higher as well, and I don't think that's very controversial. Then there are a big group of players that are on the same level, and I have Favre there with Staubach, Fouts, Elway, Warner, Van Brocklin, Jurgensen, Brady, Dawson, Starr, Anderson and Graham. You may not agree with all of them (Staubach, Anderson, Dawson and Starr seem to get little love these days) but I don't think it's hard to put four of those guys ahead of Favre. YMMV.

Van Brocklin? Do you know he threw for more INTs than TDs in his career?Jurgensen? He didn't even had a winning record as a starter for his career.You really want to put those guys ahead of Favre?

He also has Ken Anderson on his list. I think he was just kind of listing any QB he could think of.

Anderson was 91-81 as a starter, threw for 196 TDs with 160 Ints and the the Pro Bowl 4 times in his 16 year career and had 5 losing seasons. Yeah...he is ahead of Favre.

Who put Ken Anderson ahead of Favre? Why are you ignoring the other players on the list?

You threw a bunch of players out there in the hopes something would stick! Some of those players shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath with Favre.

 

[Chase Stuart]

2) Favre won't be the best QB ever, let alone the best player ever. He might just into the top five, but I doubt it. He's not in my top 10 right now, but that could change, I suppose.

While acknowledging that these types of lists are entirely subjective, I find it hard to believe that most knowledgeable football fans wouldn't have Favre ranked among the Top 10 QBs of all time. I'm not trying to rip on you Chase, but you really don't believe the only three-time MVP in league history who has won a Super Bowl and holds most of the major QB records (not to mention an incredible durability streak) doesn't rank in the Top 10 QBs of all time?

On my QB list, I've Marino, Montana, Manning and Young ahead of Favre. I feel pretty safe doing that. Unitas and Tarkenton rank higher as well, and I don't think that's very controversial. Then there are a big group of players that are on the same level, and I have Favre there with Staubach, Fouts, Elway, Warner, Van Brocklin, Jurgensen, Brady, Dawson, Starr, Anderson and Graham. You may not agree with all of them (Staubach, Anderson, Dawson and Starr seem to get little love these days) but I don't think it's hard to put four of those guys ahead of Favre. YMMV.

Van Brocklin? Do you know he threw for more INTs than TDs in his career?Jurgensen? He didn't even had a winning record as a starter for his career.You really want to put those guys ahead of Favre?

He also has Ken Anderson on his list. I think he was just kind of listing any QB he could think of.

Anderson was 91-81 as a starter, threw for 196 TDs with 160 Ints and the the Pro Bowl 4 times in his 16 year career and had 5 losing seasons. Yeah...he is ahead of Favre.

Who put Ken Anderson ahead of Favre? Why are you ignoring the other players on the list?

You threw a bunch of players out there in the hopes something would stick! Some of those players shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath with Favre.

Do you know that most of those players are in the HOF?

 

[MarshallRob]

2) Favre won't be the best QB ever, let alone the best player ever. He might just into the top five, but I doubt it. He's not in my top 10 right now, but that could change, I suppose.

While acknowledging that these types of lists are entirely subjective, I find it hard to believe that most knowledgeable football fans wouldn't have Favre ranked among the Top 10 QBs of all time. I'm not trying to rip on you Chase, but you really don't believe the only three-time MVP in league history who has won a Super Bowl and holds most of the major QB records (not to mention an incredible durability streak) doesn't rank in the Top 10 QBs of all time?

On my QB list, I've Marino, Montana, Manning and Young ahead of Favre. I feel pretty safe doing that. Unitas and Tarkenton rank higher as well, and I don't think that's very controversial. Then there are a big group of players that are on the same level, and I have Favre there with Staubach, Fouts, Elway, Warner, Van Brocklin, Jurgensen, Brady, Dawson, Starr, Anderson and Graham. You may not agree with all of them (Staubach, Anderson, Dawson and Starr seem to get little love these days) but I don't think it's hard to put four of those guys ahead of Favre.

YMMV.

Wow. With the exception of Elway, Favre's stats blow away any one of those guys. I'm not sure what your criteria is when judging a quarterback, but whatever it is is silly.

Favre's stats blow those guys away when you look at raw numbers; but when you put them in the context of his era and the older players in the contexts of their era, things look much more even. Favre's also played forever, but most people wouldn't consider a guy who was amazing for 12 years to be a worse QB than one who was amazing for 16 years. So looking at raw totals can be a bit misleading (IMO) with a guy like Favre.

So who was the more effective passer?

The one with 3 MVPs.

That's a good argument for Favre along with all of his records. On Staubach's side of the ledger you have twice as many rings and Super Bowl appearances as Favre, a 5-1 road playoff record, the four passing titles, an MVP award, a 5.5 YPC average and retiring as the NFL's career passer-rating leader. (Staubach lost four years of his career to military service and saw action in Vietnam.)Also, to correct a common misconception, Favre has not won the most MVP awards of any player. He and Jim Brown have each won three AP MVP awards. But other organizations have named MVP's through the years and, according to Total Football II, the AP award (created in 1957) was not always considered the most prestigious one. Jim Brown won MVP awards in 1957, 1958, 1963 and 1965. Johnny Unitas won MVP awards in 1957, 1959, 1964 and 1967.

 

[Stinger Ray]

2) Favre won't be the best QB ever, let alone the best player ever. He might just into the top five, but I doubt it. He's not in my top 10 right now, but that could change, I suppose.

While acknowledging that these types of lists are entirely subjective, I find it hard to believe that most knowledgeable football fans wouldn't have Favre ranked among the Top 10 QBs of all time. I'm not trying to rip on you Chase, but you really don't believe the only three-time MVP in league history who has won a Super Bowl and holds most of the major QB records (not to mention an incredible durability streak) doesn't rank in the Top 10 QBs of all time?

On my QB list, I've Marino, Montana, Manning and Young ahead of Favre. I feel pretty safe doing that. Unitas and Tarkenton rank higher as well, and I don't think that's very controversial. Then there are a big group of players that are on the same level, and I have Favre there with Staubach, Fouts, Elway, Warner, Van Brocklin, Jurgensen, Brady, Dawson, Starr, Anderson and Graham. You may not agree with all of them (Staubach, Anderson, Dawson and Starr seem to get little love these days) but I don't think it's hard to put four of those guys ahead of Favre. YMMV.

Van Brocklin? Do you know he threw for more INTs than TDs in his career?Jurgensen? He didn't even had a winning record as a starter for his career.You really want to put those guys ahead of Favre?

He also has Ken Anderson on his list. I think he was just kind of listing any QB he could think of.

Anderson was 91-81 as a starter, threw for 196 TDs with 160 Ints and the the Pro Bowl 4 times in his 16 year career and had 5 losing seasons. Yeah...he is ahead of Favre.

Who put Ken Anderson ahead of Favre? Why are you ignoring the other players on the list?

You threw a bunch of players out there in the hopes something would stick! Some of those players shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath with Favre.

Do you know that most of those players are in the HOF?

Yes I did unlike how it appears you didn't know some of the numbers for Van Brocklin, Anderson, and Jurgensen. Again, those three should even be mentioned as having any chance of being ranked ahead of Favre YET YOU DID!Give this one up, Chase.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Favre vs. Jurgensen:

Number of times leading the league in passing yards: Favre - 2; Jurgensen - 5

Number of times leading the league in passer rating: Favre - 0; Jurgensen - 1

Number of times leading the league in passing touchdowns: Favre - 4; Jurgensen - 2

Number of times leading the league in INTs: Favre - 2 (maybe 3); Jurgensen - 2

Number of times leading the league in yards per pass: Favre - 0; Jurgensen - 1

Number of times leading the league in completion percentage: Favre - 1 (maybe 2); Jurgensen - 2

Of course, it was easier to lead the league in categories back then just like it's easier to compile gaudy statistics now. But to say that a guy who is in the HOF isn't capable of being compared to Favre is laughable. The same goes for NVB and Anderson (who isn't, but should be, in the HOF), although I don't have the time or inclination right now to do a similar lengthy analysis. Suffice it to say Ken Anderson twice led the league in the most important stat for QBs, net adjusted yards per attempt; Favre did it zero times (Anderson led the league in QBR four times, but that's less interesting or impressive). And Van Brocklin had some monster years for some great Rams teams.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

2) Favre won't be the best QB ever, let alone the best player ever. He might just into the top five, but I doubt it. He's not in my top 10 right now, but that could change, I suppose.

While acknowledging that these types of lists are entirely subjective, I find it hard to believe that most knowledgeable football fans wouldn't have Favre ranked among the Top 10 QBs of all time. I'm not trying to rip on you Chase, but you really don't believe the only three-time MVP in league history who has won a Super Bowl and holds most of the major QB records (not to mention an incredible durability streak) doesn't rank in the Top 10 QBs of all time?

On my QB list, I've Marino, Montana, Manning and Young ahead of Favre. I feel pretty safe doing that. Unitas and Tarkenton rank higher as well, and I don't think that's very controversial. Then there are a big group of players that are on the same level, and I have Favre there with Staubach, Fouts, Elway, Warner, Van Brocklin, Jurgensen, Brady, Dawson, Starr, Anderson and Graham. You may not agree with all of them (Staubach, Anderson, Dawson and Starr seem to get little love these days) but I don't think it's hard to put four of those guys ahead of Favre.

YMMV.

Van Brocklin? Do you know he threw for more INTs than TDs in his career?Jurgensen? He didn't even had a winning record as a starter for his career.

You really want to put those guys ahead of Favre?

He also has Ken Anderson on his list. I think he was just kind of listing any QB he could think of.

Anderson was 91-81 as a starter, threw for 196 TDs with 160 Ints and the the Pro Bowl 4 times in his 16 year career and had 5 losing seasons. Yeah...he is ahead of Favre.

Who put Ken Anderson ahead of Favre? Why are you ignoring the other players on the list?

You threw a bunch of players out there in the hopes something would stick! Some of those players shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath with Favre.

Do you know that most of those players are in the HOF?

What does that have to do with your comment on those QBs?"but I don't think it's hard to put four of those guys ahead of Favre."

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Favre vs. Jurgensen:Number of times leading the league in passing yards: Favre - 2; Jurgensen - 5Number of times leading the league in passer rating: Favre - 0; Jurgensen - 1Number of times leading the league in passing touchdowns: Favre - 4; Jurgensen - 2Number of times leading the league in INTs: Favre - 2 (maybe 3); Jurgensen - 2Number of times leading the league in yards per pass: Favre - 0; Jurgensen - 1Number of times leading the league in completion percentage: Favre - 1 (maybe 2); Jurgensen - 2Of course, it was easier to lead the league in categories back then just like it's easier to compile gaudy statistics now. But to say that a guy who is in the HOF isn't capable of being compared to Favre is laughable. The same goes for NVB and Anderson (who isn't, but should be, in the HOF), although I don't have the time or inclination right now to do a similar lengthy analysis. Suffice it to say Ken Anderson twice led the league in the most important stat for QBs, net adjusted yards per attempt; Favre did it zero times (Anderson led the league in QBR four times, but that's less interesting or impressive). And Van Brocklin had some monster years for some great Rams teams.

You can try and crunch all the numbers you can on this. Bottom line is that it is foolish to even think that Anderson, Van Brocklin, and Jurgensen could be ranked ahead of Favre. Do you really think a key measure of a great QB is "adjusted yard per attempt"? Did you see how may losing seasons Anderson had? Did you see his ratio of TD/INTs?Van Brocklin...sure he had some good years BUT HE THREW MORE INTS THAN INTS IN HIS CAREER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Jurgensen..........didn't even had a winning record as a starter.Chase, please stop because you aren't looking good in this thread.

 

[packersfan]

2) Favre won't be the best QB ever, let alone the best player ever. He might just into the top five, but I doubt it. He's not in my top 10 right now, but that could change, I suppose.

While acknowledging that these types of lists are entirely subjective, I find it hard to believe that most knowledgeable football fans wouldn't have Favre ranked among the Top 10 QBs of all time. I'm not trying to rip on you Chase, but you really don't believe the only three-time MVP in league history who has won a Super Bowl and holds most of the major QB records (not to mention an incredible durability streak) doesn't rank in the Top 10 QBs of all time?

On my QB list, I've Marino, Montana, Manning and Young ahead of Favre. I feel pretty safe doing that. Unitas and Tarkenton rank higher as well, and I don't think that's very controversial. Then there are a big group of players that are on the same level, and I have Favre there with Staubach, Fouts, Elway, Warner, Van Brocklin, Jurgensen, Brady, Dawson, Starr, Anderson and Graham. You may not agree with all of them (Staubach, Anderson, Dawson and Starr seem to get little love these days) but I don't think it's hard to put four of those guys ahead of Favre. YMMV.

As I said, these lists are entirely subjective so nobody is right and nobody is wrong. I just think that the only three-time winner in league history, a Super Bowl winner, the all-time leader in victories and the player who holds nearly all of the major QB records is a slam dunk for the Top 10 of all-time at the very least. I'm not sure what criteria would be used that would keep Favre out of the Top 10. As mentioned in the second post of this thread, when people harp on the INTs, they ignore his INT percentage which is in line with the all-time greats. People can say Favre didn't always come through in some of his big games and that would be true. But how much does last year's Super Bowl loss impact Brady's legacy? Seems to me that if you're going to penalize Favre for his 6 INTs against the Rams, then Brady has to suffer a major knock given how he was leading arguably the greatest team in league history and couldn't get a win in the biggest game of the year. And Chase, with all due respect I think you would be in the extreme minority of football fans who would put Ken Anderson ahead of Favre on the list of all-time greats. Same with Van Brocklin and Jurgenson and quite a few others. And I do think ranking Tarkenton ahead of Favre would be very controversial. Not the case with Unitas.I do agree, though, that Bart Starr gets very little respect when it comes to these discussions. He's arguably the most underrated great QB of all time.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Although I am a huge Favre fan and a Packer homer who would love to see the old man play in the superbowl again this season, its hard for me to put him at the top of the all-time list.

Two stats I would be interested to see re: Favre compared to other great QBs are his TAINTS and fumbles. It always seemed to me he had a huge number of INT's returned for scores, but I've never seen the stats on it. I know he lead the NFL in fumbles one season, and seemed to be good for one every other game or so - typically strange fumbles like the ball just flying out of his hands seemed to happen often.

 

[Challenge Everything]

Favre game logs:Game ------- INT Thrown -------- Win/Loss ------- % of games1 ------------ 5 -------------------- 0/1 -------------- 1/266 = .0015 ------------ 4 -------------------- 0/5 -------------- 5/266 = .01929 ----------- 3 -------------------- 9/20 ------------ 29/266 = .1150 ----------- 2 -------------------- 23/27 ------------ 50/266 = .18789 ----------- 1 -------------------- 57/32 ------------ 89/266 = .33492 ----------- 0 -------------------- 81/11 ------------ 92/266 = .345Football reference lists 268 games but I did not include 2 of them which were for Atlanta.Using the criteria I stated in a previous post (0 = good, 1 = average, = >2 = bad) the above data represents Favre's current stats for the games he has played. What can we conclude from them overall? I am not sure, however I would like to see similar comparison's for other top QB's. Those will be skewed somewhat due to the times each have played in respectively, however these are Favre's.181/266 (68%) - Favre has had an "above average" rating has he threw for 0 or 1 INT. In those games the team was a total of 138/43 (76% winning percentage). I did not do a TD comparison because people seem to be hung up on the INT thing. The remaining games with 2 or more INT's, Favre has played 85/266 (32%) and his team went a 32/53 (38% winning percentage) in "bad" games. Now, those are some numbers for stat hounds. What I would like to see is if those compare to other QB's. In the bad games, were those teams doomed for a loss at a greater clip than the 38% winning the Favre team's did? In good games, did the QB's team win more or equal or less than the 76% that the Favre lead teams did? This game is about scoring and more importantly, winning. Well, did these other top QB's win as much during the good games they had and during the bad games. Curious.

Anyone? This also tells us Favre has won 64% of the games he started. Does any QB have a similar percentage of games won?

 

[parasaurolophus]

Favre game logs:Game ------- INT Thrown -------- Win/Loss ------- % of games1 ------------ 5 -------------------- 0/1 -------------- 1/266 = .0015 ------------ 4 -------------------- 0/5 -------------- 5/266 = .01929 ----------- 3 -------------------- 9/20 ------------ 29/266 = .1150 ----------- 2 -------------------- 23/27 ------------ 50/266 = .18789 ----------- 1 -------------------- 57/32 ------------ 89/266 = .33492 ----------- 0 -------------------- 81/11 ------------ 92/266 = .345Football reference lists 268 games but I did not include 2 of them which were for Atlanta.Using the criteria I stated in a previous post (0 = good, 1 = average, = >2 = bad) the above data represents Favre's current stats for the games he has played. What can we conclude from them overall? I am not sure, however I would like to see similar comparison's for other top QB's. Those will be skewed somewhat due to the times each have played in respectively, however these are Favre's.181/266 (68%) - Favre has had an "above average" rating has he threw for 0 or 1 INT. In those games the team was a total of 138/43 (76% winning percentage). I did not do a TD comparison because people seem to be hung up on the INT thing. The remaining games with 2 or more INT's, Favre has played 85/266 (32%) and his team went a 32/53 (38% winning percentage) in "bad" games. Now, those are some numbers for stat hounds. What I would like to see is if those compare to other QB's. In the bad games, were those teams doomed for a loss at a greater clip than the 38% winning the Favre team's did? In good games, did the QB's team win more or equal or less than the 76% that the Favre lead teams did? This game is about scoring and more importantly, winning. Well, did these other top QB's win as much during the good games they had and during the bad games. Curious.

Anyone? This also tells us Favre has won 64% of the games he started. Does any QB have a similar percentage of games won?

Manning-65.6%Montana-71.3Young-65.7Elway-64.34Marino-61.25Starr-62.2Staubach-74.56

 

[MarshallRob]

Favre vs. Jurgensen:Number of times leading the league in passing yards: Favre - 2; Jurgensen - 5Number of times leading the league in passer rating: Favre - 0; Jurgensen - 1Number of times leading the league in passing touchdowns: Favre - 4; Jurgensen - 2Number of times leading the league in INTs: Favre - 2 (maybe 3); Jurgensen - 2Number of times leading the league in yards per pass: Favre - 0; Jurgensen - 1Number of times leading the league in completion percentage: Favre - 1 (maybe 2); Jurgensen - 2Of course, it was easier to lead the league in categories back then just like it's easier to compile gaudy statistics now. But to say that a guy who is in the HOF isn't capable of being compared to Favre is laughable. The same goes for NVB and Anderson (who isn't, but should be, in the HOF), although I don't have the time or inclination right now to do a similar lengthy analysis. Suffice it to say Ken Anderson twice led the league in the most important stat for QBs, net adjusted yards per attempt; Favre did it zero times (Anderson led the league in QBR four times, but that's less interesting or impressive). And Van Brocklin had some monster years for some great Rams teams.

You can try and crunch all the numbers you can on this. Bottom line is that it is foolish to even think that Anderson, Van Brocklin, and Jurgensen could be ranked ahead of Favre. Do you really think a key measure of a great QB is "adjusted yard per attempt"? Did you see how may losing seasons Anderson had? Did you see his ratio of TD/INTs?Van Brocklin...sure he had some good years BUT HE THREW MORE INTS THAN INTS IN HIS CAREER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Jurgensen..........didn't even had a winning record as a starter.Chase, please stop because you aren't looking good in this thread.

From what I do know about his career Van Brocklin probably doesn't deserve to be considered a better QB than Favre. However, the fact The Dutchman threw more INT's than TD's in his career shouldn't be a valid basis for downgrading him. Of all the great HOF QB's who played most of their career before 1960 (Baugh, Luckman, Waterfield, Layne, Tittle, Graham and Van Brocklin), only Sid Luckman had a positive TD/INT ratio. And Luckman threw just five more TD's than INT's. It was a different time. Sammy Baugh and Otto Graham still made the NFL's 75th Anniversary Team (along with Unitas and Montana). It'll be interesting to see who gets added on for the 100-year team in 2020.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Favre vs. Jurgensen:

Number of times leading the league in passing yards: Favre - 2; Jurgensen - 5

Number of times leading the league in passer rating: Favre - 0; Jurgensen - 1

Number of times leading the league in passing touchdowns: Favre - 4; Jurgensen - 2

Number of times leading the league in INTs: Favre - 2 (maybe 3); Jurgensen - 2

Number of times leading the league in yards per pass: Favre - 0; Jurgensen - 1

Number of times leading the league in completion percentage: Favre - 1 (maybe 2); Jurgensen - 2

Of course, it was easier to lead the league in categories back then just like it's easier to compile gaudy statistics now. But to say that a guy who is in the HOF isn't capable of being compared to Favre is laughable. The same goes for NVB and Anderson (who isn't, but should be, in the HOF), although I don't have the time or inclination right now to do a similar lengthy analysis. Suffice it to say Ken Anderson twice led the league in the most important stat for QBs, net adjusted yards per attempt; Favre did it zero times (Anderson led the league in QBR four times, but that's less interesting or impressive). And Van Brocklin had some monster years for some great Rams teams.

You can try and crunch all the numbers you can on this. Bottom line is that it is foolish to even think that Anderson, Van Brocklin, and Jurgensen could be ranked ahead of Favre. Do you really think a key measure of a great QB is "adjusted yard per attempt"? Did you see how may losing seasons Anderson had? Did you see his ratio of TD/INTs?Van Brocklin...sure he had some good years BUT HE THREW MORE INTS THAN INTS IN HIS CAREER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jurgensen..........didn't even had a winning record as a starter.

Chase, please stop because you aren't looking good in this thread.

From what I do know about his career Van Brocklin probably doesn't deserve to be considered a better QB than Favre. However, the fact The Dutchman threw more INT's than TD's in his career shouldn't be a valid basis for downgrading him. Of all the great HOF QB's who played most of their career before 1960 (Baugh, Luckman, Waterfield, Layne, Tittle, Graham and Van Brocklin), only Sid Luckman had a positive TD/INT ratio. And Luckman threw just five more TD's than INT's. It was a different time. Sammy Baugh and Otto Graham still made the NFL's 75th Anniversary Team (along with Unitas and Montana). It'll be interesting to see who gets added on for the 100-year team in 2020.

Please tell us how these numbers suggest that Van Brocklin is deserving to be mentioned as being ranked ahead of Favre and I'd like to know what years where the "monster years" that Chase stated Norm had. I hope you Favre detractors realize how far you are reaching on this one.http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/V/VanBNo00.htm

PassingGlossary · ProBowl(*), 1st-team All-Pro(+), · CSV · PRE · 100/300/100

Year Age Tm Pos G GS QBrec Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD TD% Int Int% Lng Y/A AY/A Y/C Y/G Rate Sk Yds NY/A ANY/A Sk%

1949 23 RAM 8 0 32 58 55.2 601 6 10.3 2 3.4 51 10.4 9.8 18.8 75.1 111.4

1950* 24 RAM QB 12 6 127 233 54.5 2061 18 7.7 14 6.0 58 8.8 6.9 16.2 171.8 85.1

1951* 25 RAM qb 12 2 100 194 51.5 1725 13 6.7 11 5.7 81 8.9 7.0 17.3 143.8 80.8

1952* 26 RAM QB 12 6 113 205 55.1 1736 14 6.8 17 8.3 84 8.5 5.4 15.4 144.7 71.5

1953* 27 RAM QB 12 12 156 286 54.5 2393 19 6.6 14 4.9 70 8.4 6.8 15.3 199.4 84.1

1954* 28 RAM QB 12 11 139 260 53.5 2637 13 5.0 21 8.1 80 10.1 7.0 19.0 219.8 71.9

1955* 29 RAM QB 12 12 144 272 52.9 1890 8 2.9 15 5.5 74 6.9 4.8 13.1 157.5 62.0

1956 30 RAM qb 12 4 68 124 54.8 966 7 5.6 12 9.7 58 7.8 4.0 14.2 80.5 59.5

1957 31 RAM QB 12 12 132 265 49.8 2105 20 7.5 21 7.9 70 7.9 5.1 15.9 175.4 68.8

1958* 32 PHI QB 12 12 2-9-1 198 374 52.9 2409 15 4.0 20 5.3 91 6.4 4.4 12.2 200.8 64.1

1959* 33 PHI QB 12 12 7-5-0 191 340 56.2 2617 16 4.7 14 4.1 71 7.7 6.3 13.7 218.1 79.5

1960*+ 34 PHI QB 12 12 10-2-0 153 284 53.9 2471 24 8.5 17 6.0 64 8.7 6.9 16.2 205.9 86.5

Career 140 101 19-16-1 1553 2895 53.6 23611 173 6.0 178 6.1 91 8.2 6.0 15.2 168.7 75.1

9 yrs STL 104 65 1011 1897 53.3 16114 118 6.2 127 6.7 84 8.5 6.1 15.9 154.9 74.7

3 yrs PHI 36 36 19-16-1 542 998 54.3 7497 55 5.5 51 5.1 91 7.5 5.8 13.8 208.3 75.7

 

[Phase of the Game]

I can understand the debate between Favre, Montana, Marino, Elway and a few others but the fact anyone wants to bring Ken Anderson, Norm Van Brocklin and Sonny Jurgensen into this is downright laughable.

 

[JohnnyU]

Favre game logs:Game ------- INT Thrown -------- Win/Loss ------- % of games1 ------------ 5 -------------------- 0/1 -------------- 1/266 = .0015 ------------ 4 -------------------- 0/5 -------------- 5/266 = .01929 ----------- 3 -------------------- 9/20 ------------ 29/266 = .1150 ----------- 2 -------------------- 23/27 ------------ 50/266 = .18789 ----------- 1 -------------------- 57/32 ------------ 89/266 = .33492 ----------- 0 -------------------- 81/11 ------------ 92/266 = .345Football reference lists 268 games but I did not include 2 of them which were for Atlanta.Using the criteria I stated in a previous post (0 = good, 1 = average, = >2 = bad) the above data represents Favre's current stats for the games he has played. What can we conclude from them overall? I am not sure, however I would like to see similar comparison's for other top QB's. Those will be skewed somewhat due to the times each have played in respectively, however these are Favre's.181/266 (68%) - Favre has had an "above average" rating has he threw for 0 or 1 INT. In those games the team was a total of 138/43 (76% winning percentage). I did not do a TD comparison because people seem to be hung up on the INT thing. The remaining games with 2 or more INT's, Favre has played 85/266 (32%) and his team went a 32/53 (38% winning percentage) in "bad" games. Now, those are some numbers for stat hounds. What I would like to see is if those compare to other QB's. In the bad games, were those teams doomed for a loss at a greater clip than the 38% winning the Favre team's did? In good games, did the QB's team win more or equal or less than the 76% that the Favre lead teams did? This game is about scoring and more importantly, winning. Well, did these other top QB's win as much during the good games they had and during the bad games. Curious.

Anyone? This also tells us Favre has won 64% of the games he started. Does any QB have a similar percentage of games won?

Manning-65.6%Montana-71.3Young-65.7Elway-64.34Marino-61.25Starr-62.2Staubach-74.56

Yeah, it probably pays to already know the answer to those type of questions.

 

[Challenge Everything]

Favre game logs:Game ------- INT Thrown -------- Win/Loss ------- % of games1 ------------ 5 -------------------- 0/1 -------------- 1/266 = .0015 ------------ 4 -------------------- 0/5 -------------- 5/266 = .01929 ----------- 3 -------------------- 9/20 ------------ 29/266 = .1150 ----------- 2 -------------------- 23/27 ------------ 50/266 = .18789 ----------- 1 -------------------- 57/32 ------------ 89/266 = .33492 ----------- 0 -------------------- 81/11 ------------ 92/266 = .345Football reference lists 268 games but I did not include 2 of them which were for Atlanta.Using the criteria I stated in a previous post (0 = good, 1 = average, = >2 = bad) the above data represents Favre's current stats for the games he has played. What can we conclude from them overall? I am not sure, however I would like to see similar comparison's for other top QB's. Those will be skewed somewhat due to the times each have played in respectively, however these are Favre's.181/266 (68%) - Favre has had an "above average" rating has he threw for 0 or 1 INT. In those games the team was a total of 138/43 (76% winning percentage). I did not do a TD comparison because people seem to be hung up on the INT thing. The remaining games with 2 or more INT's, Favre has played 85/266 (32%) and his team went a 32/53 (38% winning percentage) in "bad" games. Now, those are some numbers for stat hounds. What I would like to see is if those compare to other QB's. In the bad games, were those teams doomed for a loss at a greater clip than the 38% winning the Favre team's did? In good games, did the QB's team win more or equal or less than the 76% that the Favre lead teams did? This game is about scoring and more importantly, winning. Well, did these other top QB's win as much during the good games they had and during the bad games. Curious.

Anyone? This also tells us Favre has won 64% of the games he started. Does any QB have a similar percentage of games won?

Manning-65.6%Montana-71.3Young-65.7Elway-64.34Marino-61.25Starr-62.2Staubach-74.56

Yeah, it probably pays to already know the answer to those type of questions.

What means this comment? I would like to know the breakdown of these and other QB's as well as to what I did with Favre above. Do you have those stats?

 

[hauser42]

A lot of QBs put up great stats in the regular season. The best QBs put up the best stats in postseason play.Joe Montana - 45 touchdowns to 21 interceptions in postseason. That's better than a 2:1 ratio against the top teams in the NFL when the pressure to perform is at its highest.Tom Brady - 26 touchdowns to 12 inteceptions in postseason. Again better than a 2:1 ratio.Bret Favre - 39 touchdowns to 28 interceptions. That's decent. But it simply doesn't even remotely compare to the 2:1 ratios of Montana / Brady. Favre would have to throw 17 touchdowns and 0 intercepts this postseason just to get to 2:1. Of course Montana and Brady are better than 2:1. That's how amazing the numbers of the other two are. Favre isn't even in this conversation. He could win a super bowl this year and still pale in comparison to Montana and Brady. The best QB really comes down to Montana vs Brady. Everyone else is well below them.

As in other pro-Favre arguements...it can also be said that only a couple times did Brett actually take "talented" team to the playoffs. I have been a Packer fan since the mid-1970's and I am not 100% convinced that the overall talent level on the Packers through most of Brett's tenure was much better than the lousy teams the Packers put on the field for the 2 decades preceding Brett. Quite a few seasons during the Favre era in Green Bay...the Packers would make the playoffs...but because of the lack of talent...it would have taken a miracle for them to advance any further than the first round. A great QB can lead a lead an otherwise average team to the playoffs....but it takes more than a great QB to advance deep into the playoffs.

Lack of talent?? Maybe there are not a lot of HOF players with him but there was a number of talented players with him.RB Bennett,Levens and Green during his timeWR Sharpe, Brooks, Freeman,Driver, and JenningsTE Churma and Franks. Say what you want but Franks was solid for years and an awesome Red Zone target.Defense has a lot of very good players. White and Dotson anchored the line for a long period. KGB came on to be a pass rushing force. Butler was around for a ton of years. Evans, Newsome, Harris, and Woodson all played CB during this time.For those playoff runs. In the early 90s Cowboys were the most loaded team around and Packers could not get by them. Once 2000 came along they got out coached in the playoffs. Mike "pear shaped loser" Sherman was out worked and out coached time and time again during the playoffs. Part of the issue was a horrible staff that he put around him.Packers rarely got respect when it came to the Pro Bowl, IMO that is really not a way to measure talent. Wahle and Riviera both got named to Pro Bowls well after they had their best seasons. Only reason you are stating lack of talent was they did not get Pro Bowl honors.

 

[Phase of the Game]

A lot of QBs put up great stats in the regular season. The best QBs put up the best stats in postseason play.Joe Montana - 45 touchdowns to 21 interceptions in postseason. That's better than a 2:1 ratio against the top teams in the NFL when the pressure to perform is at its highest.Tom Brady - 26 touchdowns to 12 inteceptions in postseason. Again better than a 2:1 ratio.Bret Favre - 39 touchdowns to 28 interceptions. That's decent. But it simply doesn't even remotely compare to the 2:1 ratios of Montana / Brady. Favre would have to throw 17 touchdowns and 0 intercepts this postseason just to get to 2:1. Of course Montana and Brady are better than 2:1. That's how amazing the numbers of the other two are. Favre isn't even in this conversation. He could win a super bowl this year and still pale in comparison to Montana and Brady. The best QB really comes down to Montana vs Brady. Everyone else is well below them.

As in other pro-Favre arguements...it can also be said that only a couple times did Brett actually take "talented" team to the playoffs. I have been a Packer fan since the mid-1970's and I am not 100% convinced that the overall talent level on the Packers through most of Brett's tenure was much better than the lousy teams the Packers put on the field for the 2 decades preceding Brett. Quite a few seasons during the Favre era in Green Bay...the Packers would make the playoffs...but because of the lack of talent...it would have taken a miracle for them to advance any further than the first round. A great QB can lead a lead an otherwise average team to the playoffs....but it takes more than a great QB to advance deep into the playoffs.

Lack of talent?? Maybe there are not a lot of HOF players with him but there was a number of talented players with him.RB Bennett,Levens and Green during his timeWR Sharpe, Brooks, Freeman,Driver, and JenningsTE Churma and Franks. Say what you want but Franks was solid for years and an awesome Red Zone target.

Considering Favre was with the Packers for so many years that is a very short list. Franks had 4 Tds or more in 3 of his 8 years with the Packers and was never a threat to get down the middle. If you follow the Packers you know darn well the fodder Favre had to deal with at times at RB and WR.