Interesting take on Favre (1 Viewer)

[Koya]

Sal isn't saying Favre sucked, he's saying he hasn't been as good during the back half of his career as he was in the front half. He's saying he's been overhyped the last few years due to how good he was in the front half of his career.

Interesting. How many elite QBs are as good in the second half of their careers as in the first half?

How many elite QBs killed their teams chances in the playoffs that often?

I really do not know where to go with this empty assertion of yours. There is no basis for this statement.

Again, since that SB they lost (including that game actually) Favre is 3-7 with 19 INTs and a 4 and 6 INT games. Plus we all remember a number of regular season games where evil favre showed his face resulting in a disastrous performance. He is an all time great but had some absolute disaster games... and sometimes those bad moments came at the worst time (Giants, OT, for example)

 

[Dusty Rhodes]

Favre led his team to a Superbowl win, followed it with another Superbowl appearance against Elway, and then lost in the playoffs to Steve Young in his final huge year. I don't think anyone could argue with that. After that, the team around him went to pot, and his #1 receivers were mediocre talents like Donald Driver and Bill Schroeder. Javon Walker looks like a world beater compared to those guys, and Favre only had him during his second and third years. Even this year, he had the youngest team in the NFL around him, and he still led them to one of the best records in the NFL. You can point to his playoff INTs, but the fact that they made the playoffs in eleven of sixteen seasons is pretty impressive. The Packers had only one losing season the entire time he was there, went 171-85 in the regular season and 12-10 in the postseason while setting virtually every career passing record. And from the first game he played for the Packers, he started every single game. Where does his career place in history? Hard to say, especially with the current guys. But I don't care how negative a case you want to make for him, he's one of, if not the, best of all time.

Damn Beergogglz and Sal won't like this post very much though.

 

[Challenge Everything]

Sal isn't saying Favre sucked, he's saying he hasn't been as good during the back half of his career as he was in the front half. He's saying he's been overhyped the last few years due to how good he was in the front half of his career.

Interesting. How many elite QBs are as good in the second half of their careers as in the first half?

How many elite QBs killed their teams chances in the playoffs that often?

I really do not know where to go with this empty assertion of yours. There is no basis for this statement.

Again, since that SB they lost (including that game actually) Favre is 3-7 with 19 INTs and a 4 and 6 INT games. Plus we all remember a number of regular season games where evil favre showed his face resulting in a disastrous performance. He is an all time great but had some absolute disaster games... and sometimes those bad moments came at the worst time (Giants, OT, for example)

So, Favre had 8 INTs in 7 games and in those the Packers were 3-4. The two games you keep mentioning the Packers were outplayed greatly. Also, when were those INT's that Favre did throw? Were the Packers down by 7, or 10, or 20, or were they winning when he threw them? Simply stating the numbers you are stating and coming to the conclusion you appear to be coming to is a poorly construed argument you are trying to present.In reference to the "bad timing." Any football fan would not pit the Philadelphia loss or the NY Giants loss on Favre if they knew anything about football. The coaching and defense was clearly to blame for the Philadelphia loss... i.e. not running on 4th and 1 with Green and not holding a 4th and 26. Game, set, match if either of those turn the other way at crucial times of the game. The Giants game, the whole Packers team was outplayed and had no reason being in OT. I was at the game and the Giants blew many chances to capture the game. But, if reading stats and coming to a conclusion is what makes an argument have validity, well, there is no reason to continue.Edit - I had to amend the statistics. Due to Football Reference Favre had 18 INTs in the last 9 playoff games. Favre also had 16 TDs. Taking out the two horrible games Favre had 8 INTs in 7 games while also throwing 13 TDs in those games. These are concerning games after the Denver Super Bowl.

 

[Dusty Rhodes]

Again, that's the pet argument of the Favre supporters, that his surrounding cast was just too damn mediocre. Was it really, though? Solid O-line, good running game, receivers that can catch a ball when it's not hummed at them from 10 feet away at 80 mph. Sorry, but the "He made everyone so much better argument!" doesn't hold much that much water with me. And, as one D coordinator said (don't know why I'm thinking it was a Lions guy), "We want the ball in Favre's hands."It was thought to be blaphemous at the time, but in reality, it was pretty much right on the money. He was just as likely to cough it up with a poor decision as he was to win the game. Probably even moreso over the past 10 years. And that was the point of Sal's piece, ironically.....

Good running game? Here are the Packers' running game ranks (in rushing yards) during Favre's career: 21, 22, 19, 23, 11, 12, 25, 21, 23, 21, 12, 3, 10, 30, 23, 21. That is an average of 18.6. Only 2 times in the top 10 and 5 times in the top half of the league in 16 seasons. You call that good? I'd call it below average.I don't really know of good objective measures to assess his OL. How about Pro Bowl selections:Clifton in 2007Rivera in 2004Flanagan and Rivera in 2003Rivera in 2002Winters in 1996That's it - 6 selections in 16 seasons. This is a poor measure for sure, but it sure doesn't make me think it was a good OL. Then again, I guess you said "solid." If by solid you meant average, maybe you're right... though I'd argue that the running game performance suggest otherwise. If by solid you meant above average, I disagree.As for Favre having more bad decisions cost his team games, I'd argue two things on that. First, that he did not have a lot of playmakers during the last 10 years, and thus had to try to make plays himself oftentimes. Also, one reason it seems like he made a lot of bad plays is because he spent so much more time on the field than most other QBs. The bottom line is that he made a lot more good plays than bad plays, or he wouldn't have the numbers or winning percentage he has.I'm not a Favre apologist, nor a Packers fan. But this whole line of reasoning is off base IMO.

I'm curious to know how much those ranks were off the league average, if you have the ability to find that out. It could be a bit misleading to say, "Well, the running game had an average of 19th overall when Favre was there" when in reality that ended up being a difference of 20 yards from the leader in the category, no?And again, Favre's strong point has never been patience. Whether or not he had the discipline to trust his teammates to make plays, well, that's another story entirely.....

I guess that depends on what your definition of "is" is.Geez Beer, just admit it you hate Favre and think he sucks. I'll admit this is probably more of a fishing trip because really, can one person be this ignorant?

 

[Phase of the Game]

Favre led his team to a Superbowl win, followed it with another Superbowl appearance against Elway, and then lost in the playoffs to Steve Young in his final huge year. I don't think anyone could argue with that. After that, the team around him went to pot, and his #1 receivers were mediocre talents like Donald Driver and Bill Schroeder. Javon Walker looks like a world beater compared to those guys, and Favre only had him during his second and third years. Even this year, he had the youngest team in the NFL around him, and he still led them to one of the best records in the NFL. You can point to his playoff INTs, but the fact that they made the playoffs in eleven of sixteen seasons is pretty impressive. The Packers had only one losing season the entire time he was there, went 171-85 in the regular season and 12-10 in the postseason while setting virtually every career passing record. And from the first game he played for the Packers, he started every single game. Where does his career place in history? Hard to say, especially with the current guys. But I don't care how negative a case you want to make for him, he's one of, if not the, best of all time.

Damn Beergogglz and Sal won't like this post very much though.

Beergoober has posted negative things about Favre often.The simple questions that should end all of this "hater" nonsense is this........Would the Packers done what they did from 1992 to 2007 without Favre? Would the Packers have been 13-3 this year without Favre?The answer is no and anyone with any sense of football knows this. I really have no idea why a few minority want to try and rip on him?

 

[Koya]

Why is it being say the 7th-10th best QB ever seems like such and afront to some? Its not like we are saying Favre sucks - but when you are judging the very very best against the very very best, any weakness is exaggerated and Favre had some fatal flaws in certain (key) situations for one of the all time greats.

 

[Phase of the Game]

Again, that's the pet argument of the Favre supporters, that his surrounding cast was just too damn mediocre. Was it really, though? Solid O-line, good running game, receivers that can catch a ball when it's not hummed at them from 10 feet away at 80 mph. Sorry, but the "He made everyone so much better argument!" doesn't hold much that much water with me. And, as one D coordinator said (don't know why I'm thinking it was a Lions guy), "We want the ball in Favre's hands."It was thought to be blaphemous at the time, but in reality, it was pretty much right on the money. He was just as likely to cough it up with a poor decision as he was to win the game. Probably even moreso over the past 10 years. And that was the point of Sal's piece, ironically.....

Good running game? Here are the Packers' running game ranks (in rushing yards) during Favre's career: 21, 22, 19, 23, 11, 12, 25, 21, 23, 21, 12, 3, 10, 30, 23, 21. That is an average of 18.6. Only 2 times in the top 10 and 5 times in the top half of the league in 16 seasons. You call that good? I'd call it below average.I don't really know of good objective measures to assess his OL. How about Pro Bowl selections:Clifton in 2007Rivera in 2004Flanagan and Rivera in 2003Rivera in 2002Winters in 1996That's it - 6 selections in 16 seasons. This is a poor measure for sure, but it sure doesn't make me think it was a good OL. Then again, I guess you said "solid." If by solid you meant average, maybe you're right... though I'd argue that the running game performance suggest otherwise. If by solid you meant above average, I disagree.As for Favre having more bad decisions cost his team games, I'd argue two things on that. First, that he did not have a lot of playmakers during the last 10 years, and thus had to try to make plays himself oftentimes. Also, one reason it seems like he made a lot of bad plays is because he spent so much more time on the field than most other QBs. The bottom line is that he made a lot more good plays than bad plays, or he wouldn't have the numbers or winning percentage he has.I'm not a Favre apologist, nor a Packers fan. But this whole line of reasoning is off base IMO.

I'm curious to know how much those ranks were off the league average, if you have the ability to find that out. It could be a bit misleading to say, "Well, the running game had an average of 19th overall when Favre was there" when in reality that ended up being a difference of 20 yards from the leader in the category, no?And again, Favre's strong point has never been patience. Whether or not he had the discipline to trust his teammates to make plays, well, that's another story entirely.....

I guess that depends on what your definition of "is" is.Geez Beer, just admit it you hate Favre and think he sucks. I'll admit this is probably more of a fishing trip because really, can one person be this ignorant?

Beergoober hates Favre and yes, he is that ignorant.

 

[BelichicksRevenge]

Dr. z had a similar article about Favre a few days ago.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writ...avre/index.html

Popularity, skills prevented Favre from true greatness

Posted: Tuesday March 4, 2008 2:25PM; Updated: Friday March 7, 2008 3:19PM

While Brett Favre's ability to turn a broken play into a productive one made him special, it also made him vulnerable to mistakes.

A few of us were standing around Brett Favre's locker on the Friday before the Giants' playoff game, and he was telling stories of what it was like playing for his father at Hancock North Central High in Kiln, Miss.

"Last play of the game against Long Beach," he said. "One of those hot days ... everyone cramping up. I ran a draw to the left side. Missed the handoff, so I kept it and scored. My dad yelled at me, 'What the hell are you doing? Get in the back of the truck.'

"No dates after the game ... nothing. I went home with my dad."

Seems like he's been around forever. Seems he was always the Green Bay angle heading into the season. Brett Favre says he'll play this season, wait a minute, he might not, yes he will. Whew, that was close. Now that that's out of the way, how about cutting down on the interceptions this year?

The Packers have compiled a list of quarterbacks who started at least one game since Favre settled in as their QB 16 years ago. Going into last season, there were 202 of them. Dave Brown and Stoney Case bloomed briefly in the Arizona desert, Bernie Kosar wowed 'em in Cleveland, Joe Montana looked weird, quarterbacking the Chiefs in the playoffs ... and so on. Favre saw them all come and go. The Bears, for instance, went through 21 QBs while the Packers hung in with just one.

The Green Bay press book doesn't leave anything to conjecture.

"A certain first ballot Hall of Famer," is the way the 28-page section on Favre begins, and woe to the Hall of Fame selector who someday would dare neglect the Packers' greatest quarterback in history. In history? Whoa, there. How about Bart Starr? And then you had Arnie Herber and Cecil Isbell, the great passers of the single-wing era, and Johnny Blood, wow, he must have been some back, and ...

Hold on. The old-timers were, well, great old-timers. And Favre never had a cast around him like Starr did. No one had the gun Favre did. Nope, not even the old-timers with that fat football could bring it the way he could. And there never has been a more durable QB in history.

We don't even know how bad some of his injuries were. He didn't exactly carry a sign around, announcing them. He lined up 275 straight times, counting playoffs, since he first was anointed starter in 1992, and we can only guess how close he came to missing some of those outings. And this was and is during the era in which quarterbacks are wrapped in cellophane.

You can make up almost any adjective you want to describe his greatness, and there will be some truth in it, but here's the thing that always killed me about Favre. He could have been greater. Ron Wolf knew it. The Packers' GM knew he was onto an all-time score when he worked the deals that brought Favre over from Atlanta. He was close.

Mike Holmgren knew it. The coach who once sat up nights with Montana, going over the game plan, had Favre for the first seven years of his career. And if you place any value on the passer ratings, you could note Favre's numbers climbed into the 90s, and stayed there for four straight years, stretching from 90.7 to a dazzling 99.5 during Holmgren's last four years with him.

It couldn't have been easy. The coach had a wild stallion on his hands, ever restless, always looking for the big strike, the big gamble. How do you coach caution while you're telling the guy to go out and win it for you in the last minute? It was the coach's dilemma.

Holmgren knew how to handle greatness. He had worked with Montana, who could get into streaks of almost surreal accuracy, plus he had outstanding athletic ability to fall back on. But Favre had the gun Montana never had ... plus the gunslinger's mentality. Play it safe? Coaches' talk. Throw a pick? Well, let's go out and get seven back, then we're even, right?

The surprising thing was that Favre's ratings stayed high, despite his occasional looseness with the ball. That was how hot he could get. Remember the night in Oakland, when it was iffy whether he'd play, following his father's death? Four TD passes and 399 yards in the air was the legacy he left out there. But there were downers, too, and it only hurt Favre that the knights of the TV screen always were ready to make excuses for him.

His fourth quarter and overtime meltdown against the Giants last season, which put a sad end to a remarkably classy season? Never mind ... the redemption of the Giants' field-goal kicker was the angle. The goofy, looping interception that cost the Pack the Eagles' game in OT in the divisionals in 2004? Oh, let's put it on the defense for allowing McNabb his fourth-and-26 completion in regulation.

Always ready to make excuses, always braying about "what a good time he's having," that was the continual barrage from TV. Maybe a few frowns, a stern reprimand or two, might have toned down the wild maverick a little, but gosh, he sure is having fun out there. And that's what the game is all about, isn't it? Fun, boys acting like men and so forth.

This past season was a strange one. It seemed Mike McCarthy's continual harping about how Favre had to protect the ball finally kicked in because his completion-to-interception ratio was close to the highest of his 17-year career, and his percentage of passes completed was the highest. And the team was winning. It fell apart in the last two periods of the Giants game, but what the hell, it had been a hell of a ride.

How will history evaluate him? Capable of almost anything on the field. Heroic. Indestructible. Maddening at times, but great to root for. With only this low key aftermath.

Could have been greater.

 

[Beergogglz]

Favre led his team to a Superbowl win, followed it with another Superbowl appearance against Elway, and then lost in the playoffs to Steve Young in his final huge year. I don't think anyone could argue with that. After that, the team around him went to pot, and his #1 receivers were mediocre talents like Donald Driver and Bill Schroeder. Javon Walker looks like a world beater compared to those guys, and Favre only had him during his second and third years. Even this year, he had the youngest team in the NFL around him, and he still led them to one of the best records in the NFL. You can point to his playoff INTs, but the fact that they made the playoffs in eleven of sixteen seasons is pretty impressive. The Packers had only one losing season the entire time he was there, went 171-85 in the regular season and 12-10 in the postseason while setting virtually every career passing record. And from the first game he played for the Packers, he started every single game. Where does his career place in history? Hard to say, especially with the current guys. But I don't care how negative a case you want to make for him, he's one of, if not the, best of all time.

Damn Beergogglz and Sal won't like this post very much though.

Again, the supporting cast argument is old and tired. To hear some tell the tale, poor Brett had some bums off the street as teammates who were lucky to find their way onto an NFL roster. That's simply not the case. And the point of Sal's article was that Favre has been living off of his rep from years ago, nothing more.

 

[Beergogglz]

Again, that's the pet argument of the Favre supporters, that his surrounding cast was just too damn mediocre. Was it really, though? Solid O-line, good running game, receivers that can catch a ball when it's not hummed at them from 10 feet away at 80 mph. Sorry, but the "He made everyone so much better argument!" doesn't hold much that much water with me. And, as one D coordinator said (don't know why I'm thinking it was a Lions guy), "We want the ball in Favre's hands."It was thought to be blaphemous at the time, but in reality, it was pretty much right on the money. He was just as likely to cough it up with a poor decision as he was to win the game. Probably even moreso over the past 10 years. And that was the point of Sal's piece, ironically.....

Good running game? Here are the Packers' running game ranks (in rushing yards) during Favre's career: 21, 22, 19, 23, 11, 12, 25, 21, 23, 21, 12, 3, 10, 30, 23, 21. That is an average of 18.6. Only 2 times in the top 10 and 5 times in the top half of the league in 16 seasons. You call that good? I'd call it below average.I don't really know of good objective measures to assess his OL. How about Pro Bowl selections:Clifton in 2007Rivera in 2004Flanagan and Rivera in 2003Rivera in 2002Winters in 1996That's it - 6 selections in 16 seasons. This is a poor measure for sure, but it sure doesn't make me think it was a good OL. Then again, I guess you said "solid." If by solid you meant average, maybe you're right... though I'd argue that the running game performance suggest otherwise. If by solid you meant above average, I disagree.As for Favre having more bad decisions cost his team games, I'd argue two things on that. First, that he did not have a lot of playmakers during the last 10 years, and thus had to try to make plays himself oftentimes. Also, one reason it seems like he made a lot of bad plays is because he spent so much more time on the field than most other QBs. The bottom line is that he made a lot more good plays than bad plays, or he wouldn't have the numbers or winning percentage he has.I'm not a Favre apologist, nor a Packers fan. But this whole line of reasoning is off base IMO.

I'm curious to know how much those ranks were off the league average, if you have the ability to find that out. It could be a bit misleading to say, "Well, the running game had an average of 19th overall when Favre was there" when in reality that ended up being a difference of 20 yards from the leader in the category, no?And again, Favre's strong point has never been patience. Whether or not he had the discipline to trust his teammates to make plays, well, that's another story entirely.....

I guess that depends on what your definition of "is" is.Geez Beer, just admit it you hate Favre and think he sucks. I'll admit this is probably more of a fishing trip because really, can one person be this ignorant?

That's not my position at all. I've already said he's a top 10 QB all time and a first ballot HOFer. I just asked clarification on some stats which were presented without context.

 

[Beergogglz]

Dr. z had a similar article about Favre a few days ago.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writ...avre/index.html

Popularity, skills prevented Favre from true greatness

Posted: Tuesday March 4, 2008 2:25PM; Updated: Friday March 7, 2008 3:19PM

While Brett Favre's ability to turn a broken play into a productive one made him special, it also made him vulnerable to mistakes.

A few of us were standing around Brett Favre's locker on the Friday before the Giants' playoff game, and he was telling stories of what it was like playing for his father at Hancock North Central High in Kiln, Miss.

"Last play of the game against Long Beach," he said. "One of those hot days ... everyone cramping up. I ran a draw to the left side. Missed the handoff, so I kept it and scored. My dad yelled at me, 'What the hell are you doing? Get in the back of the truck.'

"No dates after the game ... nothing. I went home with my dad."

Seems like he's been around forever. Seems he was always the Green Bay angle heading into the season. Brett Favre says he'll play this season, wait a minute, he might not, yes he will. Whew, that was close. Now that that's out of the way, how about cutting down on the interceptions this year?

The Packers have compiled a list of quarterbacks who started at least one game since Favre settled in as their QB 16 years ago. Going into last season, there were 202 of them. Dave Brown and Stoney Case bloomed briefly in the Arizona desert, Bernie Kosar wowed 'em in Cleveland, Joe Montana looked weird, quarterbacking the Chiefs in the playoffs ... and so on. Favre saw them all come and go. The Bears, for instance, went through 21 QBs while the Packers hung in with just one.

The Green Bay press book doesn't leave anything to conjecture.

"A certain first ballot Hall of Famer," is the way the 28-page section on Favre begins, and woe to the Hall of Fame selector who someday would dare neglect the Packers' greatest quarterback in history. In history? Whoa, there. How about Bart Starr? And then you had Arnie Herber and Cecil Isbell, the great passers of the single-wing era, and Johnny Blood, wow, he must have been some back, and ...

Hold on. The old-timers were, well, great old-timers. And Favre never had a cast around him like Starr did. No one had the gun Favre did. Nope, not even the old-timers with that fat football could bring it the way he could. And there never has been a more durable QB in history.

We don't even know how bad some of his injuries were. He didn't exactly carry a sign around, announcing them. He lined up 275 straight times, counting playoffs, since he first was anointed starter in 1992, and we can only guess how close he came to missing some of those outings. And this was and is during the era in which quarterbacks are wrapped in cellophane.

You can make up almost any adjective you want to describe his greatness, and there will be some truth in it, but here's the thing that always killed me about Favre. He could have been greater. Ron Wolf knew it. The Packers' GM knew he was onto an all-time score when he worked the deals that brought Favre over from Atlanta. He was close.

Mike Holmgren knew it. The coach who once sat up nights with Montana, going over the game plan, had Favre for the first seven years of his career. And if you place any value on the passer ratings, you could note Favre's numbers climbed into the 90s, and stayed there for four straight years, stretching from 90.7 to a dazzling 99.5 during Holmgren's last four years with him.

It couldn't have been easy. The coach had a wild stallion on his hands, ever restless, always looking for the big strike, the big gamble. How do you coach caution while you're telling the guy to go out and win it for you in the last minute? It was the coach's dilemma.

Holmgren knew how to handle greatness. He had worked with Montana, who could get into streaks of almost surreal accuracy, plus he had outstanding athletic ability to fall back on. But Favre had the gun Montana never had ... plus the gunslinger's mentality. Play it safe? Coaches' talk. Throw a pick? Well, let's go out and get seven back, then we're even, right?

The surprising thing was that Favre's ratings stayed high, despite his occasional looseness with the ball. That was how hot he could get. Remember the night in Oakland, when it was iffy whether he'd play, following his father's death? Four TD passes and 399 yards in the air was the legacy he left out there. But there were downers, too, and it only hurt Favre that the knights of the TV screen always were ready to make excuses for him.

His fourth quarter and overtime meltdown against the Giants last season, which put a sad end to a remarkably classy season? Never mind ... the redemption of the Giants' field-goal kicker was the angle. The goofy, looping interception that cost the Pack the Eagles' game in OT in the divisionals in 2004? Oh, let's put it on the defense for allowing McNabb his fourth-and-26 completion in regulation.

Always ready to make excuses, always braying about "what a good time he's having," that was the continual barrage from TV. Maybe a few frowns, a stern reprimand or two, might have toned down the wild maverick a little, but gosh, he sure is having fun out there. And that's what the game is all about, isn't it? Fun, boys acting like men and so forth.

This past season was a strange one. It seemed Mike McCarthy's continual harping about how Favre had to protect the ball finally kicked in because his completion-to-interception ratio was close to the highest of his 17-year career, and his percentage of passes completed was the highest. And the team was winning. It fell apart in the last two periods of the Giants game, but what the hell, it had been a hell of a ride.

How will history evaluate him? Capable of almost anything on the field. Heroic. Indestructible. Maddening at times, but great to root for. With only this low key aftermath.

Could have been greater.

Another guy who dares to voice his opinion that the Emperor wears no clothes......

 

[Beergogglz]

Beergoober hates Favre and yes, he is that ignorant.

That's excellent, Phase. Thanks for the input!

 

[Ghost Rider]

Some good points were made in that article, but if he is going to point out Favre's lack of playoff wins over the last few years, he needs to point out how outstanding his playoff win total was the first few years. Over the first 7 years of Favre's career, his playoff record was 9-4. By comparison, here is what the W/L record was for the first 7 years of their careers and then their whole career of Favre and other QBs of the last 25-30 years that he is often compared to:Favre 9-4 (1 Super Bowl win) / 12-10Montana 7-2 (2 Super Bowl win) / 16-7Elway 6-5 (0 Super Bowl wins) / 14-8Marino 3-3 (0 Super Bowl wins) / 8-10Brady 12-2 (3 Super Bowl wins) / 14-3 (still active)Manning 3-5 (0 Super Bowl wins) / 7-7 (still active)So, Favre won more playoff games than any of those QBs except for Brady in the first 7 years of his career, and won a Super Bowl, something three of those guys didn't do, but I guess we are just supposed to focus on his playoff failures of the past few years. Yeah, that makes sense.

I think you missed the point of the article. Sal isn't saying Favre sucked, he's saying he hasn't been as good during the back half of his career as he was in the front half. He's saying he's been overhyped the last few years due to how good he was in the front half of his career.

No, I get the point of the article, which was to say that Favre wasn't as good in his later years as he was in his good years, and to imply that he was cut too much slack over the last few years, but anyone with a brain knows that when any player is as great as Favre was for so many years, he is pretty much cut slack for the remainder of his career, unless he starts flat-out sucking. For example, if Tom Brady suddenly tailed off a tad like Favre did, he would still be talked about in glowing terms, because of his many years of greatness.

Some good points were made in that article, but if he is going to point out Favre's lack of playoff wins over the last few years, he needs to point out how outstanding his playoff win total was the first few years. Over the first 7 years of Favre's career, his playoff record was 9-4. By comparison, here is what the W/L record was for the first 7 years of their careers and then their whole career of Favre and other QBs of the last 25-30 years that he is often compared to:Favre 9-4 (1 Super Bowl win) / 12-10Montana 7-2 (2 Super Bowl win) / 16-7Elway 6-5 (0 Super Bowl wins) / 14-8Marino 3-3 (0 Super Bowl wins) / 8-10Brady 12-2 (3 Super Bowl wins) / 14-3 (still active)Manning 3-5 (0 Super Bowl wins) / 7-7 (still active)So, Favre won more playoff games than any of those QBs except for Brady in the first 7 years of his career, and won a Super Bowl, something three of those guys didn't do, but I guess we are just supposed to focus on his playoff failures of the past few years. Yeah, that makes sense.

I guess the question begging to be asked is where does the determination of the 7 year cutoff come from?

The article talked about his playoff record over the last 10 years, so I felt that pointing out how great his first 7 years were was relevant.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

Yeah, like, that last Roxy Music album was bad. But I don't hold it against them.

 

[Tau837]

Sal isn't saying Favre sucked, he's saying he hasn't been as good during the back half of his career as he was in the front half. He's saying he's been overhyped the last few years due to how good he was in the front half of his career.

Interesting. How many elite QBs are as good in the second half of their careers as in the first half?

How many elite QBs killed their teams chances in the playoffs that often?

Peyton Manning?ETA: Dan Marino?Favre lost 10 playoff games in his career. He had 18 TDs and 23 interceptions in those games.Manning has lost 7 playoff games in his career. He has 6 TDs and 9 interceptions in those games.Marino lost 10 playoff games in his career. He had 15 TDs and 19 interceptions in those games.That isn't bad company. All 3 of them are or will be all time top 10 QBs.

 

[Tau837]

Again, that's the pet argument of the Favre supporters, that his surrounding cast was just too damn mediocre. Was it really, though? Solid O-line, good running game, receivers that can catch a ball when it's not hummed at them from 10 feet away at 80 mph. Sorry, but the "He made everyone so much better argument!" doesn't hold much that much water with me.

And, as one D coordinator said (don't know why I'm thinking it was a Lions guy), "We want the ball in Favre's hands."

It was thought to be blaphemous at the time, but in reality, it was pretty much right on the money. He was just as likely to cough it up with a poor decision as he was to win the game. Probably even moreso over the past 10 years. And that was the point of Sal's piece, ironically.....

Good running game? Here are the Packers' running game ranks (in rushing yards) during Favre's career: 21, 22, 19, 23, 11, 12, 25, 21, 23, 21, 12, 3, 10, 30, 23, 21. That is an average of 18.6. Only 2 times in the top 10 and 5 times in the top half of the league in 16 seasons. You call that good? I'd call it below average.I don't really know of good objective measures to assess his OL. How about Pro Bowl selections:

Clifton in 2007

Rivera in 2004

Flanagan and Rivera in 2003

Rivera in 2002

Winters in 1996

That's it - 6 selections in 16 seasons. This is a poor measure for sure, but it sure doesn't make me think it was a good OL. Then again, I guess you said "solid." If by solid you meant average, maybe you're right... though I'd argue that the running game performance suggest otherwise. If by solid you meant above average, I disagree.

As for Favre having more bad decisions cost his team games, I'd argue two things on that. First, that he did not have a lot of playmakers during the last 10 years, and thus had to try to make plays himself oftentimes. Also, one reason it seems like he made a lot of bad plays is because he spent so much more time on the field than most other QBs. The bottom line is that he made a lot more good plays than bad plays, or he wouldn't have the numbers or winning percentage he has.

I'm not a Favre apologist, nor a Packers fan. But this whole line of reasoning is off base IMO.

I'm curious to know how much those ranks were off the league average, if you have the ability to find that out. It could be a bit misleading to say, "Well, the running game had an average of 19th overall when Favre was there" when in reality that ended up being a difference of 20 yards from the leader in the category, no?And again, Favre's strong point has never been patience. Whether or not he had the discipline to trust his teammates to make plays, well, that's another story entirely.....

First off, pro-football-reference.com doesn't present the difference from the league average in an easily accessible format, so I'm not going back to look it up. I think the league rank is a reasonable approximation. I guarantee you that the Packers' passing offense was above the league average, while the Packers' running game was clearly below the league average. The fact that you get "good running game" and "solid OL" from that means we will just have to agree to disagree.Besides, your series of posts and especially the transition away from your original points I refuted to the above bolded statement show that you are simply here to discredit Favre, and you'll just move to new arguments as needed to do that.

 

[Tau837]

Why is it being say the 7th-10th best QB ever seems like such and afront to some? Its not like we are saying Favre sucks - but when you are judging the very very best against the very very best, any weakness is exaggerated and Favre had some fatal flaws in certain (key) situations for one of the all time greats.

Please respond to post #40. What QBs do you rank above Favre?

 

[Koya]

Why is it being say the 7th-10th best QB ever seems like such and afront to some? Its not like we are saying Favre sucks - but when you are judging the very very best against the very very best, any weakness is exaggerated and Favre had some fatal flaws in certain (key) situations for one of the all time greats.

Please respond to post #40. What QBs do you rank above Favre?

Sorry, must have missed the post.In no particular orderefinately:UnitasMontanaElwayGrahamBradyProbably:Steve YoungMaybe:ManningMarinoProbably not, but close:StaubachBradshawSo he seems right where I thought - in the 7-10 range, probably closer to 10 when I get down to it. I can certainly see people saying he is as good as say 7th - but those top 6 are simply beyond Favre's place due to his downside.

 

[Koya]

Sal isn't saying Favre sucked, he's saying he hasn't been as good during the back half of his career as he was in the front half. He's saying he's been overhyped the last few years due to how good he was in the front half of his career.

Interesting. How many elite QBs are as good in the second half of their careers as in the first half?

How many elite QBs killed their teams chances in the playoffs that often?

Peyton Manning?ETA: Dan Marino?Favre lost 10 playoff games in his career. He had 18 TDs and 23 interceptions in those games.Manning has lost 7 playoff games in his career. He has 6 TDs and 9 interceptions in those games.Marino lost 10 playoff games in his career. He had 15 TDs and 19 interceptions in those games.That isn't bad company. All 3 of them are or will be all time top 10 QBs.

Those are some of the reasons I believe all three QBs are ranked pretty closely in terms of all time greats.

 

[Tau837]

Why is it being say the 7th-10th best QB ever seems like such and afront to some? Its not like we are saying Favre sucks - but when you are judging the very very best against the very very best, any weakness is exaggerated and Favre had some fatal flaws in certain (key) situations for one of the all time greats.

Please respond to post #40. What QBs do you rank above Favre?

Sorry, must have missed the post.In no particular orderefinately:UnitasMontanaElwayGrahamBradyProbably:Steve YoungMaybe:ManningMarinoProbably not, but close:StaubachBradshawSo he seems right where I thought - in the 7-10 range, probably closer to 10 when I get down to it. I can certainly see people saying he is as good as say 7th - but those top 6 are simply beyond Favre's place due to his downside.

I don't want to get into a debate over our rankings now that I see that you didn't mean 17 QBs potentially ranked above Favre, but I think you have forgotten Sammy Baugh. IMO he is more worthy than Staubach and Bradshaw at minimum.Even if we ignore Baugh's superlative punting and defensive back play, he finished in the top 2 in passing yards 9 times, in the top 2 in passing TDs 8 times, and in the top 2 in QB rating 8 times. He was an All Pro 9 times and was one of 4 QBs on the NFL 75th anniversary team (with Montana, Graham, and Unitas). His teams won 2 NFL championships. In 1999, the AP named him the 3rd greatest NFL player of the 20th century. Granted, it was a different era, and it is definitely hard to compare, but IMO it is not justifiable to not list him in the top 10.And if we don't ignore his non QB skills, he was arguably the best punter in history (yes, better than Ray Guy). And he is the only player to lead the league in offensive (passing), defensive (interceptions), and special teams (punting) categories in one season.

 

[Koya]

Why is it being say the 7th-10th best QB ever seems like such and afront to some? Its not like we are saying Favre sucks - but when you are judging the very very best against the very very best, any weakness is exaggerated and Favre had some fatal flaws in certain (key) situations for one of the all time greats.

Please respond to post #40. What QBs do you rank above Favre?

Sorry, must have missed the post.In no particular orderefinately:UnitasMontanaElwayGrahamBradyProbably:Steve YoungMaybe:ManningMarinoProbably not, but close:StaubachBradshawSo he seems right where I thought - in the 7-10 range, probably closer to 10 when I get down to it. I can certainly see people saying he is as good as say 7th - but those top 6 are simply beyond Favre's place due to his downside.

I don't want to get into a debate over our rankings now that I see that you didn't mean 17 QBs potentially ranked above Favre, but I think you have forgotten Sammy Baugh. IMO he is more worthy than Staubach and Bradshaw at minimum.Even if we ignore Baugh's superlative punting and defensive back play, he finished in the top 2 in passing yards 9 times, in the top 2 in passing TDs 8 times, and in the top 2 in QB rating 8 times. He was an All Pro 9 times and was one of 4 QBs on the NFL 75th anniversary team (with Montana, Graham, and Unitas). His teams won 2 NFL championships. In 1999, the AP named him the 3rd greatest NFL player of the 20th century. Granted, it was a different era, and it is definitely hard to compare, but IMO it is not justifiable to not list him in the top 10.And if we don't ignore his non QB skills, he was arguably the best punter in history (yes, better than Ray Guy). And he is the only player to lead the league in offensive (passing), defensive (interceptions), and special teams (punting) categories in one season.

You can put Baugh in. I admit to not know enough of his prowess, althoug I do know he was a true great in his era. Immortal great during it.It's just this sentiment out there that saying Favre is not the unquestionable best ever, when he is likely not top 5 ever, is too much. The guy's a gamer and immensely fun to watch. He helped many of my fantasy teams... being 8th or 9th best ever isnt such a bad thing, ya know?

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Why is it being say the 7th-10th best QB ever seems like such and afront to some? Its not like we are saying Favre sucks - but when you are judging the very very best against the very very best, any weakness is exaggerated and Favre had some fatal flaws in certain (key) situations for one of the all time greats.

Please respond to post #40. What QBs do you rank above Favre?

Sorry, must have missed the post.In no particular orderefinately:UnitasMontanaElwayGrahamBradyProbably:Steve YoungMaybe:ManningMarinoProbably not, but close:StaubachBradshawSo he seems right where I thought - in the 7-10 range, probably closer to 10 when I get down to it. I can certainly see people saying he is as good as say 7th - but those top 6 are simply beyond Favre's place due to his downside.

I don't want to get into a debate over our rankings now that I see that you didn't mean 17 QBs potentially ranked above Favre, but I think you have forgotten Sammy Baugh. IMO he is more worthy than Staubach and Bradshaw at minimum.Even if we ignore Baugh's superlative punting and defensive back play, he finished in the top 2 in passing yards 9 times, in the top 2 in passing TDs 8 times, and in the top 2 in QB rating 8 times. He was an All Pro 9 times and was one of 4 QBs on the NFL 75th anniversary team (with Montana, Graham, and Unitas). His teams won 2 NFL championships. In 1999, the AP named him the 3rd greatest NFL player of the 20th century. Granted, it was a different era, and it is definitely hard to compare, but IMO it is not justifiable to not list him in the top 10.And if we don't ignore his non QB skills, he was arguably the best punter in history (yes, better than Ray Guy). And he is the only player to lead the league in offensive (passing), defensive (interceptions), and special teams (punting) categories in one season.

You can put Baugh in. I admit to not know enough of his prowess, althoug I do know he was a true great in his era. Immortal great during it.It's just this sentiment out there that saying Favre is not the unquestionable best ever, when he is likely not top 5 ever, is too much. The guy's a gamer and immensely fun to watch. He helped many of my fantasy teams... being 8th or 9th best ever isnt such a bad thing, ya know?

Take a piece of advice I just read from a Milwaukee Packer reporter recently. He's covered the Packers and the NFL for decades. He didn't feel qualified to put together a respectable list of the top 10 of all time. His opinion was that if someone like Ron Wolf, (someone whose been a pro and been involved with evaluating players for numerous decades), would put together a list he'd read it. Otherwise it would be uninformed BS.As for Sal's article, yeah he's got some points. Favre didn't come through with the big win late in his career. I will say this regarding Sal, he'll never do anything in his life approaching the accomplishments that Favre has strung together. To come out with this article now seems in very poor taste.Also Sal was on a local radio show this fall, and when questioned about his Favre bashing in the book, he was quick to give Favre some serious praise. Seems to me he'll say or write anything in order to sell a book or some fishwrap.

 

[Reaper]

Why is it being say the 7th-10th best QB ever seems like such and afront to some? Its not like we are saying Favre sucks - but when you are judging the very very best against the very very best, any weakness is exaggerated and Favre had some fatal flaws in certain (key) situations for one of the all time greats.

Please respond to post #40. What QBs do you rank above Favre?

Sorry, must have missed the post.In no particular order:

Definately:

Unitas

Montana

Elway

Graham

Brady

Probably:

Steve Young

Maybe:

Manning

Marino

Probably not, but close:

Staubach

Bradshaw

So he seems right where I thought - in the 7-10 range, probably closer to 10 when I get down to it. I can certainly see people saying he is as good as say 7th - but those top 6 are simply beyond Favre's place due to his downside.

I don't want to get into a debate over our rankings now that I see that you didn't mean 17 QBs potentially ranked above Favre, but I think you have forgotten Sammy Baugh. IMO he is more worthy than Staubach and Bradshaw at minimum.Even if we ignore Baugh's superlative punting and defensive back play, he finished in the top 2 in passing yards 9 times, in the top 2 in passing TDs 8 times, and in the top 2 in QB rating 8 times. He was an All Pro 9 times and was one of 4 QBs on the NFL 75th anniversary team (with Montana, Graham, and Unitas). His teams won 2 NFL championships. In 1999, the AP named him the 3rd greatest NFL player of the 20th century. Granted, it was a different era, and it is definitely hard to compare, but IMO it is not justifiable to not list him in the top 10.

And if we don't ignore his non QB skills, he was arguably the best punter in history (yes, better than Ray Guy). And he is the only player to lead the league in offensive (passing), defensive (interceptions), and special teams (punting) categories in one season.

You can put Baugh in. I admit to not know enough of his prowess, althoug I do know he was a true great in his era. Immortal great during it.It's just this sentiment out there that saying Favre is not the unquestionable best ever, when he is likely not top 5 ever, is too much. The guy's a gamer and immensely fun to watch. He helped many of my fantasy teams... being 8th or 9th best ever isnt such a bad thing, ya know?

Favre is around the 7th - 8th QB on any list I'd try to come up with...

That's pretty Amazing.... I totally get what the original post is saying - If I were a person who grew up loving Favre I'd never try to debate it, when it comes to debates like this Just "Being In the debate" is what it's all about.... Favre himself would probably have a hard time with people saying "Best Ever" or where he' be ranked.

One thing I like to see though in debates like this is the age and perspective people are talking through - I've seen Favre's whole career - a lot of times though, I'll debate Dan Marino, who as a rival fan, I saw a lot of and then find out that the other person was born in 83 and really didn't see the real Marino - I bet the same thing happens to Favre - a younger Football fan might not have seen the best of Favre.

I can't really speak for a QB who's career I didn't see like Unitas or Baugh.

 

[H.K.]

Some good points were made in that article, but if he is going to point out Favre's lack of playoff wins over the last few years, he needs to point out how outstanding his playoff win total was the first few years. Over the first 7 years of Favre's career, his playoff record was 9-4. By comparison, here is what the W/L record was for the first 7 years of their careers and then their whole career of Favre and other QBs of the last 25-30 years that he is often compared to:Favre 9-4 (1 Super Bowl win) / 12-10Montana 7-2 (2 Super Bowl win) / 16-7Elway 6-5 (0 Super Bowl wins) / 14-8Marino 3-3 (0 Super Bowl wins) / 8-10Brady 12-2 (3 Super Bowl wins) / 14-3 (still active)Manning 3-5 (0 Super Bowl wins) / 7-7 (still active)So, Favre won more playoff games than any of those QBs except for Brady in the first 7 years of his career, and won a Super Bowl, something three of those guys didn't do, but I guess we are just supposed to focus on his playoff failures of the past few years. Yeah, that makes sense.

I think you missed the point of the article. Sal isn't saying Favre sucked, he's saying he hasn't been as good during the back half of his career as he was in the front half. He's saying he's been overhyped the last few years due to how good he was in the front half of his career.

No, I get the point of the article, which was to say that Favre wasn't as good in his later years as he was in his good years, and to imply that he was cut too much slack over the last few years, but anyone with a brain knows that when any player is as great as Favre was for so many years, he is pretty much cut slack for the remainder of his career, unless he starts flat-out sucking. For example, if Tom Brady suddenly tailed off a tad like Favre did, he would still be talked about in glowing terms, because of his many years of greatness.

Some good points were made in that article, but if he is going to point out Favre's lack of playoff wins over the last few years, he needs to point out how outstanding his playoff win total was the first few years. Over the first 7 years of Favre's career, his playoff record was 9-4. By comparison, here is what the W/L record was for the first 7 years of their careers and then their whole career of Favre and other QBs of the last 25-30 years that he is often compared to:Favre 9-4 (1 Super Bowl win) / 12-10Montana 7-2 (2 Super Bowl win) / 16-7Elway 6-5 (0 Super Bowl wins) / 14-8Marino 3-3 (0 Super Bowl wins) / 8-10Brady 12-2 (3 Super Bowl wins) / 14-3 (still active)Manning 3-5 (0 Super Bowl wins) / 7-7 (still active)So, Favre won more playoff games than any of those QBs except for Brady in the first 7 years of his career, and won a Super Bowl, something three of those guys didn't do, but I guess we are just supposed to focus on his playoff failures of the past few years. Yeah, that makes sense.

I guess the question begging to be asked is where does the determination of the 7 year cutoff come from?

The article talked about his playoff record over the last 10 years, so I felt that pointing out how great his first 7 years were was relevant.

Also the article did not mention his regular season performance in his last ten years where he averaged 3900 yards and 26 TD passes a year, and obviously, never missed a start.

 

[sho nuff]

Sal isn't saying Favre sucked, he's saying he hasn't been as good during the back half of his career as he was in the front half. He's saying he's been overhyped the last few years due to how good he was in the front half of his career.

Interesting. How many elite QBs are as good in the second half of their careers as in the first half?

How many elite QBs killed their teams chances in the playoffs that often?

I really do not know where to go with this empty assertion of yours. There is no basis for this statement.

Again, since that SB they lost (including that game actually) Favre is 3-7 with 19 INTs and a 4 and 6 INT games. Plus we all remember a number of regular season games where evil favre showed his face resulting in a disastrous performance. He is an all time great but had some absolute disaster games... and sometimes those bad moments came at the worst time (Giants, OT, for example)

So...in 10 games he has 19 INTs. 10 of which were in 2 games. So 9 INTs in the other 8 games?You see how the numbers end up skewed because of those two completely terrible games he had (and nobody is saying he was not bad sometimes)He has also had some very good games go unnoticed as well.The loss in the Super Bowl. He was as good, if not better than in the SB win.The loss to San Fran the next year. The 2 INTs were bad...but the rest of the game was played very well. If not for a missed fumble call...and then the last second catch that TO actually hung onto. They had a very good shot again that year.The win over San Fran the next year before the 6 INT game vs St. Louis.The Seattle "Hasselbeck coin flip" game before the loss in Philly.Even in the loss to Philly...he played pretty well until that OT pass. And I am not excusing that pass. But that game was lost by the defense. Not only the 4th and 26...but letting them get down the field on that drive was awful.Just look at all the playoff games since that point...and not just the final numbers. And you would see that it was not just Favre sucking. He actually had some pretty good games in there.Sal pretty much sounded like he had an axe to grind...and he made some valid points for sure. But overall I found it a very bitter and piss poor journalism actually.

 

[Beergogglz]

Sal isn't saying Favre sucked, he's saying he hasn't been as good during the back half of his career as he was in the front half. He's saying he's been overhyped the last few years due to how good he was in the front half of his career.

Interesting. How many elite QBs are as good in the second half of their careers as in the first half?

How many elite QBs killed their teams chances in the playoffs that often?

I really do not know where to go with this empty assertion of yours. There is no basis for this statement.

Again, since that SB they lost (including that game actually) Favre is 3-7 with 19 INTs and a 4 and 6 INT games. Plus we all remember a number of regular season games where evil favre showed his face resulting in a disastrous performance. He is an all time great but had some absolute disaster games... and sometimes those bad moments came at the worst time (Giants, OT, for example)

So...in 10 games he has 19 INTs. 10 of which were in 2 games. So 9 INTs in the other 8 games?You see how the numbers end up skewed because of those two completely terrible games he had (and nobody is saying he was not bad sometimes)

He has also had some very good games go unnoticed as well.

The loss in the Super Bowl. He was as good, if not better than in the SB win.

The loss to San Fran the next year. The 2 INTs were bad...but the rest of the game was played very well. If not for a missed fumble call...and then the last second catch that TO actually hung onto. They had a very good shot again that year.

The win over San Fran the next year before the 6 INT game vs St. Louis.

The Seattle "Hasselbeck coin flip" game before the loss in Philly.

Even in the loss to Philly...he played pretty well until that OT pass. And I am not excusing that pass. But that game was lost by the defense. Not only the 4th and 26...but letting them get down the field on that drive was awful.

Just look at all the playoff games since that point...and not just the final numbers. And you would see that it was not just Favre sucking. He actually had some pretty good games in there.

Sal pretty much sounded like he had an axe to grind...and he made some valid points for sure. But overall I found it a very bitter and piss poor journalism actually.

To an extent, I'd have to agree. However, I think Sal's point was more that no matter what Favre does, there are legions of people willing to ignore/explain away/gloss over poor play based on their admiration in general for the guy, whether it's really warranted or not.

 

[kingmalaki]

If you want to say Favre is a top 5 QB I have no beef with that. He had a great career and has the top records (for now). I do know one thing though...if other QB's were throwing some of those playoff ending picks (which some were really dumb, dumb, horrible, pathetic throws) then they would be crucified like no other. With Favre you get the "ho hum he is a gunslinger" speech or excuses about the lack of a supporting cast...as if that makes it excusable to throw a jump ball in overtime of a playoff game....

 

[switz]

The truth is, Favre did little over the past decade to earn the gushing praise heaped upon him by our fawning brethren in the media. In his 17 seasons, Brett Favre set numerous NFL records, including most yards passing (61,655) and most touchdowns (442).

If careers were measured only by the second half of them, then let's remove Emmitt Smith as well... one of the greatest compilers of stats the NFL has ever seen.

 

[sho nuff]

If you want to say Favre is a top 5 QB I have no beef with that. He had a great career and has the top records (for now). I do know one thing though...if other QB's were throwing some of those playoff ending picks (which some were really dumb, dumb, horrible, pathetic throws) then they would be crucified like no other. With Favre you get the "ho hum he is a gunslinger" speech or excuses about the lack of a supporting cast...as if that makes it excusable to throw a jump ball in overtime of a playoff game....

So Brady got that treatment after the SD game last year? Wait no...SD fumbled to bail Brady out.Then surely, when he did it two weeks in a row and threw an INT everyone totally killed him right?