QB's who choke in The Big Game (1 Viewer)

[moleculo]

I was watching the NFL's greatest games last night, and I got to thinking - outside of one SB, Favre would have the reputation of losing in the big game.

Fore reference, here's a summary of Favre's final playoff game each season:

1993: 28 45 331 2 2 - lost to DAL 17-27

1994: 18 35 211 0 1 - lost to DAL 9-35

1995: 21 39 307 3 2 - lost to DAL 27-38 - championship round

1996: 14 27 246 2 0 - SB champs

1997: 25 42 256 3 1 - lost SB to DEN 24-31

1998: 20 35 292 2 2 - lost to SF 27-30

2001: 26 44 281 2 6 - lost to STL 17-45

2002:20 42 247 1 2 - lost to ATL 7-27

2003: 15 28 180 2 1 - lost to PHIL 17-20

2004: 22 33 216 1 4 - lost to MIN 17-31

2007: 19 35 236 2 2 - lost to NYG 23-20 - championship round

By definition, everyone's final playoff game will be a loss unless they happened to win the SB that year. Generally, people's stats aren't terrific in a loss, I understand that.

Here's the historical context for my hypothetical: In 2006, Denver was the best team in the AFC, by record and scoring differential. The Broncos had HFA wrapped up early, and sat people for the playoffs. The Jags came into Denver and upset the Broncos, which gave NE a trip to the SB. The difference in this game was a critical 4th down conversion by penalty - Michael Dean Perry didn't get his fat ### off of the field when JAX was punting. The ensuing penalty gave JAX a 1st down, which they turned into a FG which became the difference in the game. ( ).

Now - here's the hypothetical: Had MDP not casually walked off the field, JAX would have punted on that drive and it is very possible Denver would have won that game. They would have hosted NE, (whom they beat earlier that season, IN New England, 34-8). Denver was primed to make a SB trip in 1996. Had they faced GB in the 1996 SB, it's not clear that Denver could have beaten GB (who was a superior team), but they would have certainly put up a better fight than NE did. for the sake of this hypothetical, let's assume that Denver won in 1996, and history since SB XXX unfolded exactly the same.

Note: I understand that GB did beat Denver pretty badly in 1996. That was a meaningless game as Denver already had HFA wrapped up and Elway did not play. I make the assumption that Denver could have beat GB in XXX based on what happened in 1997.

Within the confines of this hypothetical, we would then be looking at Favre in 2008, saying - "man, he can't win the big one", like we say about Marino and we said about Manning (up until last year). In 22 playoff games, Favre has thrown 2 or more ints 8x, or 36%. for comparison, Elway has thrown for 2 or more in 18% , Brady is also @ 18%, Manning joins Favre @ 36%, Marino has 55% Montana - 23%, Young - 20%. I think that Favre's hypothetical reputation as a choker might be deserved.

In a nutshell, I am linking MDP's penalty to Favre's lone SB win: Because of MDP, Denver lost, which enabled a lesser NE team go to the SB, which allowed GB to win, giving Favre his lone SB ring.

after all of this rambling, I basically have two points: (1): butterfly effect: something as trivial as a 12 man on the field penalty could forever alter reputations of players not even involved in that game. (2) reputations such as "choker" are pretty irrelevant due to the sheer number of factors that go into end of season success.

note: To GB homers - this is not meant to be an anti-Favre thread, nor is it meant to be a Favre-Elway comparison.

edit: changed title

 

[scott72]

I don't understand the point of your thread at all. You say it's not an anti-Favre thread, but yet you basically call him a choker in big games? How ridiculous. So what your saying is Brett Favre alone lost all of those big games they played in the last 14 years and the only big game he won (96) he lucked out because he got to play a lesser NE team? Alrighty then..

 

[IM666]

I don't understand the point of your thread at all. You say it's not an anti-Favre thread, but yet you basically call him a choker in big games? How ridiculous. So what your saying is Brett Favre alone lost all of those big games they played in the last 14 years and the only big game he won (96) he lucked out because he got to play a lesser NE team? Alrighty then..

I think his point is Favre is not that reliable in the “Big Games” . Something I agree with in principle. He illustrates that the SB win might not have been a given, if it was not for an error on Denver’s part. I find it interesting that the only game Favre did not throw a INT in, was the SB win.I really do not believe the OP meant any malice towards Favre, or his fan base.But, take it as you will.

 

[moleculo]

I don't understand the point of your thread at all. You say it's not an anti-Favre thread, but yet you basically call him a choker in big games? How ridiculous. So what your saying is Brett Favre alone lost all of those big games they played in the last 14 years and the only big game he won (96) he lucked out because he got to play a lesser NE team? Alrighty then..

I tried to sum it up my intentions in the last paragraph:

after all of this rambling, I basically have two points: (1): butterfly effect: something as trivial as a 12 man on the field penalty could forever alter reputations of players not even involved in that game. (2) reputations such as "choker" are pretty irrelevant due to the sheer number of factors that go into end of season success.

Favre was the focus of my train of thought, but this was not meant to be an indictment of Favre. I suppose I should have titled it better - i should have known that people from "Title Town" would only read the title.

 

[sho nuff]

So...the games that led up to that final game were not big?

The Seattle game this year was not big?

The playoff games before the 2nd Super Bowl were not big?

The playoff games leading up to some of those other playoff games were not big?

Why is it just bringing up his losses? Id say you can look at most QBs stats when they lost...and they are not as good as some other stats.

Does not make them chokers.

 

[Tough As Nails]

Since the Super Bowl loss to the Broncos...Favre's Packers are 3-6 in the playoffs (with 4 years of not making the playoffs). He has 16 TDs and 18 INTs in those games. Talk about the defense, the coaching, the kicking, the weather, etc...but this is NOT good. In fact, it's pretty bad. 3 playoff wins in 10 years. And NO it's not ALL his fault. But he's certainly been a part of the problem the Packers have had in the playoffs in the last decade.

 

[moleculo]

So...the games that led up to that final game were not big?The Seattle game this year was not big?The playoff games before the 2nd Super Bowl were not big?The playoff games leading up to some of those other playoff games were not big?Why is it just bringing up his losses? Id say you can look at most QBs stats when they lost...and they are not as good as some other stats.Does not make them chokers.

ok, I changed the title. Let me unpack my position a little more clearly:What does Dan Marino, John Elway pre-1997, and Peyton Manning pre-2006 all have in common? They are considered "chokers", or guys who cannot win the big game. Elway and Manning eventually got over that, Marino never did. Favre would be in that same category, save one game (where his opponent was not the best the AFC had to offer). The difference is that Favre got his SB out of the way early, and never had to live with that dubious distinction.Therefore, one must conclude that (1) either Favre should be considered a "choker", or (2) the title of "choker" is stupid. At the same time, I think that the butterfly effect in football, especially in historical context, is pretty interesting.

 

[dgreen]

Therefore, one must conclude that (1) either Favre should be considered a "choker", or (2) the title of "choker" is stupid.

In general, I think (2) is right.

 

[sho nuff]

So...the games that led up to that final game were not big?The Seattle game this year was not big?The playoff games before the 2nd Super Bowl were not big?The playoff games leading up to some of those other playoff games were not big?Why is it just bringing up his losses? Id say you can look at most QBs stats when they lost...and they are not as good as some other stats.Does not make them chokers.

ok, I changed the title. Let me unpack my position a little more clearly:What does Dan Marino, John Elway pre-1997, and Peyton Manning pre-2006 all have in common? They are considered "chokers", or guys who cannot win the big game. Elway and Manning eventually got over that, Marino never did. Favre would be in that same category, save one game (where his opponent was not the best the AFC had to offer). The difference is that Favre got his SB out of the way early, and never had to live with that dubious distinction.Therefore, one must conclude that (1) either Favre should be considered a "choker", or (2) the title of "choker" is stupid. At the same time, I think that the butterfly effect in football, especially in historical context, is pretty interesting.

His opponent got to the Super Bowl...obviously they were the best the AFC had to offer. Nor would it have mattered that year...the Packers were simply the best team in the NFL that year.The title of chocker is stupid if all you want to use as big games are those that the Packers lost.Last time I checked...the games they won were pretty big too.

 

[H.K.]

In 22 playoff games, Favre has thrown 2 or more ints 8x, or 36%. for comparison, Elway has thrown for 2 or more in 18% , Brady is also @ 18%, Manning joins Favre @ 36%, Marino has 55%

Marino is the only choker on your list. The rest have rings.

 

[Tough As Nails]

In 22 playoff games, Favre has thrown 2 or more ints 8x, or 36%. for comparison, Elway has thrown for 2 or more in 18% , Brady is also @ 18%, Manning joins Favre @ 36%, Marino has 55%

Marino is the only choker on your list. The rest have rings.

So, by that logic, everybody without a ring is a choker. Is that fair to say?

 

[IM666]

It seems rather paradoxical. First there is the notion that seems to be ingrained into the fabric of the American Football culture, and arguably American culture in general, that the Quarterback is directly responsible for the games outcome. Which, may or may not be true in any given set of circumstances. The familiar motto is not “Monday Morning Running back” or “Monday Morning Linebacker”; it is “Monday Morning Quarterback” indicating that the Quarterback made mistakes that lost the game.

Then, of course is the argument that the Quarterback gets the blame in games lost regardless of his performance, and labeled a “choker”. That said Quarterback has won numerous games that would be considered “big”. I ask you then, why is it certain the Quarterback was directly responsible for the win? Certainly the win could be credited to a good defensive performance, or an outstanding run game—As illustrated by the SB winning Ravens.

The problem in my mind with Favre, not that my mental processes bare any substantial influence in this thread’s discussion, is he has been the one mainstay of the Packers. Coaches, players, and team personnel have come and left. Yet the Quarterback remains the light tower for Green Bay, a symbol of solid performances, and generally revered by fans. I do think that anyone that is not emotionally tied to the team, and views the situation in an unbiased light, will see that Favre is undoubtedly human and has had a hand in the team’s failures as much as their successes.

Again, the mythology in football is, win, lose, or draw, the outcome rests solely on the Quarterback’s shoulders; so it is a natural tendency for the casual fan such as myself, to look at the record of Brett Favre and deem him in terms that would translate as a “choker”

 

[larry_boy_44]

sorry, but you can't make a list and then go "except for the good games he had, he choked in big games"...

Well, of course, when you remove the good games where he didn't choke then he did bad and choked in the others... just looking at your list and going purely from stats (as I don't vividly remember all these games), I would say that:

1993: 28 45 331 2 2 - lost to DAL 17-27

1995: 21 39 307 3 2 - lost to DAL 27-38 - championship round

1996: 14 27 246 2 0 - SB champs

1997: 25 42 256 3 1 - lost SB to DEN 24-31

1998: 20 35 292 2 2 - lost to SF 27-30

2007: 19 35 236 2 2 - lost to NYG 23-20 - championship round

2003: 15 28 180 2 1 - lost to PHIL 17-20

these werent' bad games... Leaving only the loss to Dallas in 1994, Atlanta in 2002, St. Louis in 2001, and Minnesota in 2004 as bad losses... But I do remember the horrible HORRIBLE coaching in 2001, 2002, and 2004... and I also remember how 1994 was his SECOND SEASON!!

Also, to the person who said he is 3-6 with 16 tds and 18 interceptions in his last 9 playoff games (since the SB loss)... Take out the STL game and the MIN game and he has thrown 13 TDs and 8 INTs... The issue here is SAMPLE SIZE skewing teh stats with a few very bad games (when he didn't have very good teams and had horrible coaches)...

 

[H.K.]

In 22 playoff games, Favre has thrown 2 or more ints 8x, or 36%. for comparison, Elway has thrown for 2 or more in 18% , Brady is also @ 18%, Manning joins Favre @ 36%, Marino has 55%

Marino is the only choker on your list. The rest have rings.

So, by that logic, everybody without a ring is a choker. Is that fair to say?

Read it again: on that list.Marino is unique from everyone else listed in two areas:

1) His % of multiple INT playoff games is the worst by a wide margin

2) No ring

Simple cause and effect.

The champions on that list deserve far better than to be lumped in with that loser.

 

[the Jag Zone]

I consider Myself a fan of 'the Game'..

and yes I certainly support My Team..

but after being involved in and around the Game of Football as a player ,Coach, etc for as long as I have at various levels the simple fact of the matter is that you must have lots of ability and even some good fortune in order to play in the NFL at even an average level... PERIOD..

and doing so for any length of time takes talent , skill, intelligence, and even with all of that, you need "heart" and some "very good fortune" along the way...

with that being said.. you can bust on Favre all ya want.. and Elway as well for getting blown out in Super Bowls until TD came along.... and you take the Dan Marino's, the Joe Montana's, the Terry Bradshaw's, and go right on down the line and tell Me what QB's had it all in their career... did any of these guys have it all?

Dan Marino? naaa.. sure he was on bad teams.. which "kept him from winning any Championships" but it also allowed him to pad.. and I mean PAD his numbers in a big way... and really, what did he ever accomplish other than piling up stats for mediocre Teams and then yelling at his WR's afte he was the one that threw the pick to the other guy..

Terry Bradshaw? naaa... the guy had 'umteen Hall Of Famers along his side.. we can all name 15-20 QB's that could have won with that talent on both sides of the ball...

Joe Montana? naaa... see Terry Bradshaw.. only add in the system along with him being a very intelligent QB.. still was surrounded with Hall Of Famers...

look at John Elway and Brett Favre... add in the talent on the Teams they played on compared to these other so-called "Greatest of All Time" QB's... and then ponder who the best has been... look at the Super Bowls Elway single handedly took very average Bronco teams to... sure he didn't win any until Terrell Davis came along.. but when ya want to talk great QB's ..look at who has won Games.. PERIOD.. not necessarily Super Bowls... but won Games for a long long time and without all the Hall of Fame help some of these guys have had or .. without all the glamour boys... without the system that allowed them to toss the pigskin around 45 times a game.. measure your Super Bowls all ya like... but don't forget about the guy that doesn't have the Talent top to bottom like these teams do but yet still can get the most out of his team mates...

Elway and Favre.. the best ever at their position ...and for My money it's not even close.. no statistic is relavant to what they had in the entire package...



(there..maybe that will stir up some banter)

 

[H.K.]

I ask you then, why is it certain the Quarterback was directly responsible for the win? Certainly the win could be credited to a good defensive performance, or an outstanding run game—As illustrated by the SB winning Ravens.

Not a very good example: In that SB Dilfer threw for 1 TD pass and 0 INT's where as Collins threw for 4 Int's and 0 TD's...the team with superior QB play won because of that reason.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

after all of this rambling, I basically have two points: (1): butterfly effect: something as trivial as a 12 man on the field penalty could forever alter reputations of players not even involved in that game. (2) reputations such as "choker" are pretty irrelevant due to the sheer number of factors that go into end of season success.

I agree with these two points, but otherwise don't have much comment on the hypothetical. The ball is oblong, it takes funny bounces and there is much more luck, seredipity or happenstance affecting games and careers that is readily apparent.

 

[IM666]

I ask you then, why is it certain the Quarterback was directly responsible for the win? Certainly the win could be credited to a good defensive performance, or an outstanding run game—As illustrated by the SB winning Ravens.

Not a very good example: In that SB Dilfer threw for 1 TD pass and 0 INT's where as Collins threw for 4 Int's and 0 TD's...the team with superior QB play won because of that reason.

I failed to specify I was referring to the entire season for the Ravens. I tend to credit them with having a strong defense, and running game. Perhaps this is false, and the Ravens won and lost their games due to their QB's performance. Personally, I was rather delighted I knew the Ravens won a SB. I honestly do not think I could name four teams that won the SB since the year of my birth (1981).

 

[moleculo]

I ask you then, why is it certain the Quarterback was directly responsible for the win? Certainly the win could be credited to a good defensive performance, or an outstanding run game—As illustrated by the SB winning Ravens.

Not a very good example: In that SB Dilfer threw for 1 TD pass and 0 INT's where as Collins threw for 4 Int's and 0 TD's...the team with superior QB play won because of that reason.

I failed to specify I was referring to the entire season for the Ravens. I tend to credit them with having a strong defense, and running game. Perhaps this is false, and the Ravens won and lost their games due to their QB's performance. Personally, I was rather delighted I knew the Ravens won a SB. I honestly do not think I could name four teams that won the SB since the year of my birth (1981).

for reals?

 

[switz]

I was watching the NFL's greatest games last night, and I got to thinking - outside of one SB, Favre would have the reputation of losing in the big game.

Fore reference, here's a summary of Favre's final playoff game each season:

1993: 28 45 331 2 2 - lost to DAL 17-27

1994: 18 35 211 0 1 - lost to DAL 9-35

1995: 21 39 307 3 2 - lost to DAL 27-38 - championship round

1996: 14 27 246 2 0 - SB champs

1997: 25 42 256 3 1 - lost SB to DEN 24-31

1998: 20 35 292 2 2 - lost to SF 27-30

2001: 26 44 281 2 6 - lost to STL 17-45

2002:20 42 247 1 2 - lost to ATL 7-27

2003: 15 28 180 2 1 - lost to PHIL 17-20

2004: 22 33 216 1 4 - lost to MIN 17-31

2007: 19 35 236 2 2 - lost to NYG 23-20 - championship round

By definition, everyone's final playoff game will be a loss unless they happened to win the SB that year. Generally, people's stats aren't terrific in a loss, I understand that.

Here's the historical context for my hypothetical: In 2006, Denver was the best team in the AFC, by record and scoring differential. The Broncos had HFA wrapped up early, and sat people for the playoffs. The Jags came into Denver and upset the Broncos, which gave NE a trip to the SB. The difference in this game was a critical 4th down conversion by penalty - Michael Dean Perry didn't get his fat ### off of the field when JAX was punting. The ensuing penalty gave JAX a 1st down, which they turned into a FG which became the difference in the game. ( :X ).

Now - here's the hypothetical: Had MDP not casually walked off the field, JAX would have punted on that drive and it is very possible Denver would have won that game. They would have hosted NE, (whom they beat earlier that season, IN New England, 34-8). Denver was primed to make a SB trip in 1996. Had they faced GB in the 1996 SB, it's not clear that Denver could have beaten GB (who was a superior team), but they would have certainly put up a better fight than NE did. for the sake of this hypothetical, let's assume that Denver won in 1996, and history since SB XXX unfolded exactly the same.

Note: I understand that GB did beat Denver pretty badly in 1996. That was a meaningless game as Denver already had HFA wrapped up and Elway did not play. I make the assumption that Denver could have beat GB in XXX based on what happened in 1997.

Within the confines of this hypothetical, we would then be looking at Favre in 2008, saying - "man, he can't win the big one", like we say about Marino and we said about Manning (up until last year). In 22 playoff games, Favre has thrown 2 or more ints 8x, or 36%. for comparison, Elway has thrown for 2 or more in 18% , Brady is also @ 18%, Manning joins Favre @ 36%, Marino has 55% Montana - 23%, Young - 20%. I think that Favre's hypothetical reputation as a choker might be deserved.

In a nutshell, I am linking MDP's penalty to Favre's lone SB win: Because of MDP, Denver lost, which enabled a lesser NE team go to the SB, which allowed GB to win, giving Favre his lone SB ring.

after all of this rambling, I basically have two points: (1): butterfly effect: something as trivial as a 12 man on the field penalty could forever alter reputations of players not even involved in that game. (2) reputations such as "choker" are pretty irrelevant due to the sheer number of factors that go into end of season success.

note: To GB homers - this is not meant to be an anti-Favre thread, nor is it meant to be a Favre-Elway comparison.

edit: changed title

Using your hypothesis, NE didn't win a few SuperBowls either, and Tom Brady is a choker.

 

[IM666]

I ask you then, why is it certain the Quarterback was directly responsible for the win? Certainly the win could be credited to a good defensive performance, or an outstanding run game—As illustrated by the SB winning Ravens.

Not a very good example: In that SB Dilfer threw for 1 TD pass and 0 INT's where as Collins threw for 4 Int's and 0 TD's...the team with superior QB play won because of that reason.

I failed to specify I was referring to the entire season for the Ravens. I tend to credit them with having a strong defense, and running game. Perhaps this is false, and the Ravens won and lost their games due to their QB's performance. Personally, I was rather delighted I knew the Ravens won a SB. I honestly do not think I could name four teams that won the SB since the year of my birth (1981).

for reals?

Indeed. I watched my first football game in its entirety the year I started participating in fantasy football. Previously, I had no desire to view the sport. And I still maintain a sterile view of the sport. I have no real emotions toward or against any team.

 

[Sabertooth]

Favre is my favorite player on my favorite team. It pains me to admit it but he's a choker.

 

[moleculo]

I was watching the NFL's greatest games last night, and I got to thinking - outside of one SB, Favre would have the reputation of losing in the big game.

Fore reference, here's a summary of Favre's final playoff game each season:

1993: 28 45 331 2 2 - lost to DAL 17-27

1994: 18 35 211 0 1 - lost to DAL 9-35

1995: 21 39 307 3 2 - lost to DAL 27-38 - championship round

1996: 14 27 246 2 0 - SB champs

1997: 25 42 256 3 1 - lost SB to DEN 24-31

1998: 20 35 292 2 2 - lost to SF 27-30

2001: 26 44 281 2 6 - lost to STL 17-45

2002:20 42 247 1 2 - lost to ATL 7-27

2003: 15 28 180 2 1 - lost to PHIL 17-20

2004: 22 33 216 1 4 - lost to MIN 17-31

2007: 19 35 236 2 2 - lost to NYG 23-20 - championship round

By definition, everyone's final playoff game will be a loss unless they happened to win the SB that year. Generally, people's stats aren't terrific in a loss, I understand that.

Here's the historical context for my hypothetical: In 2006, Denver was the best team in the AFC, by record and scoring differential. The Broncos had HFA wrapped up early, and sat people for the playoffs. The Jags came into Denver and upset the Broncos, which gave NE a trip to the SB. The difference in this game was a critical 4th down conversion by penalty - Michael Dean Perry didn't get his fat ### off of the field when JAX was punting. The ensuing penalty gave JAX a 1st down, which they turned into a FG which became the difference in the game. ( ).

Now - here's the hypothetical: Had MDP not casually walked off the field, JAX would have punted on that drive and it is very possible Denver would have won that game. They would have hosted NE, (whom they beat earlier that season, IN New England, 34-8). Denver was primed to make a SB trip in 1996. Had they faced GB in the 1996 SB, it's not clear that Denver could have beaten GB (who was a superior team), but they would have certainly put up a better fight than NE did. for the sake of this hypothetical, let's assume that Denver won in 1996, and history since SB XXX unfolded exactly the same.

Note: I understand that GB did beat Denver pretty badly in 1996. That was a meaningless game as Denver already had HFA wrapped up and Elway did not play. I make the assumption that Denver could have beat GB in XXX based on what happened in 1997.

Within the confines of this hypothetical, we would then be looking at Favre in 2008, saying - "man, he can't win the big one", like we say about Marino and we said about Manning (up until last year). In 22 playoff games, Favre has thrown 2 or more ints 8x, or 36%. for comparison, Elway has thrown for 2 or more in 18% , Brady is also @ 18%, Manning joins Favre @ 36%, Marino has 55% Montana - 23%, Young - 20%. I think that Favre's hypothetical reputation as a choker might be deserved.

In a nutshell, I am linking MDP's penalty to Favre's lone SB win: Because of MDP, Denver lost, which enabled a lesser NE team go to the SB, which allowed GB to win, giving Favre his lone SB ring.

after all of this rambling, I basically have two points: (1): butterfly effect: something as trivial as a 12 man on the field penalty could forever alter reputations of players not even involved in that game. (2) reputations such as "choker" are pretty irrelevant due to the sheer number of factors that go into end of season success.

note: To GB homers - this is not meant to be an anti-Favre thread, nor is it meant to be a Favre-Elway comparison.

edit: changed title

Using your hypothesis, NE didn't win a few SuperBowls either, and Tom Brady is a choker.

pls note the difference between hypothesis and hypothetical.

 

[Tough As Nails]

Also, to the person who said he is 3-6 with 16 tds and 18 interceptions in his last 9 playoff games (since the SB loss)... Take out the STL game and the MIN game and he has thrown 13 TDs and 8 INTs... The issue here is SAMPLE SIZE skewing teh stats with a few very bad games (when he didn't have very good teams and had horrible coaches)...

I thought 10 years was a pretty good sample size.

 

[scott72]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choke_(sports)

Teams choke, not players individually. Sure Favre throwing the pick basically giving the Giants the game at that point can be seen as a choke, but had the team played better they wouldn't have been in that position in the first place. So how does the pick Brett threw mean any more than say Bush not falling on the fumble? Or Harris getting shredded by Plax? Or Sanders refusing to put the safety over the top of Harris? Or McCarthy for abandoning the run game? Wouldn't you consider this choking per the example given? The point is we can dissect this until we're blue in the face with every team in the NFL, but it's a team game and the team chokes, not one player. How many of those pics Brett threw in past playoff games were a result of bad throws and how many were tipped passes? How many were as a result of a WR running the wrong route? You see how easy it is to assign blame without knowing all the facts.

 

[Tough As Nails]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choke_(sports)

Teams choke, not players individually.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

 

[renesauz]

sorry, but you can't make a list and then go "except for the good games he had, he choked in big games"...

Well, of course, when you remove the good games where he didn't choke then he did bad and choked in the others... just looking at your list and going purely from stats (as I don't vividly remember all these games), I would say that:

1993: 28 45 331 2 2 - lost to DAL 17-27

1995: 21 39 307 3 2 - lost to DAL 27-38 - championship round

1996: 14 27 246 2 0 - SB champs

1997: 25 42 256 3 1 - lost SB to DEN 24-31

1998: 20 35 292 2 2 - lost to SF 27-30

2007: 19 35 236 2 2 - lost to NYG 23-20 - championship round

2003: 15 28 180 2 1 - lost to PHIL 17-20

these werent' bad games... Leaving only the loss to Dallas in 1994, Atlanta in 2002, St. Louis in 2001, and Minnesota in 2004 as bad losses... But I do remember the horrible HORRIBLE coaching in 2001, 2002, and 2004... and I also remember how 1994 was his SECOND SEASON!!

Also, to the person who said he is 3-6 with 16 tds and 18 interceptions in his last 9 playoff games (since the SB loss)... Take out the STL game and the MIN game and he has thrown 13 TDs and 8 INTs... The issue here is SAMPLE SIZE skewing teh stats with a few very bad games (when he didn't have very good teams and had horrible coaches)...

You lost your argument badly including that Philly game. Favre was terrible in that game.All too often we judge a performance on the stat line. The truth is that Favre tends to press when his team is doing poorly (losing)...that "pressing" sometimes leads to highlight reel plays, sometimes to very ugly interceptions (and subsequent stat lines).

Since playoff games are against a higher caliber of opponent, with a far higher incidence of "losing", it is only natural that Favre has "pressed" more often in them...thus earning the title of "choker". BUt said title is unfair simply because of the circumstances. The truth is, without "pressing", Favre would have lost most of those games anyway.

 

[Anarchy99]

Hmmm . . .

I'm trying to figure out if "not winning" = "choking" as the point of this thread.

Jim Kelly played on teams that lost 4 Super Bowls.

Fran Tarkenton played on teams that lost 3 Super Bowls.

Craig Morton did not win a Super Bowl with either the Cowboys or the Broncos.

Does that make them chokers because they did not win multiple Super Bowls?

 

[switz]

I was watching the NFL's greatest games last night, and I got to thinking - outside of one SB, Favre would have the reputation of losing in the big game.

Fore reference, here's a summary of Favre's final playoff game each season:

1993: 28 45 331 2 2 - lost to DAL 17-27

1994: 18 35 211 0 1 - lost to DAL 9-35

1995: 21 39 307 3 2 - lost to DAL 27-38 - championship round

1996: 14 27 246 2 0 - SB champs

1997: 25 42 256 3 1 - lost SB to DEN 24-31

1998: 20 35 292 2 2 - lost to SF 27-30

2001: 26 44 281 2 6 - lost to STL 17-45

2002:20 42 247 1 2 - lost to ATL 7-27

2003: 15 28 180 2 1 - lost to PHIL 17-20

2004: 22 33 216 1 4 - lost to MIN 17-31

2007: 19 35 236 2 2 - lost to NYG 23-20 - championship round

By definition, everyone's final playoff game will be a loss unless they happened to win the SB that year. Generally, people's stats aren't terrific in a loss, I understand that.

Here's the historical context for my hypothetical: In 2006, Denver was the best team in the AFC, by record and scoring differential. The Broncos had HFA wrapped up early, and sat people for the playoffs. The Jags came into Denver and upset the Broncos, which gave NE a trip to the SB. The difference in this game was a critical 4th down conversion by penalty - Michael Dean Perry didn't get his fat ### off of the field when JAX was punting. The ensuing penalty gave JAX a 1st down, which they turned into a FG which became the difference in the game. ( ).

Now - here's the hypothetical: Had MDP not casually walked off the field, JAX would have punted on that drive and it is very possible Denver would have won that game. They would have hosted NE, (whom they beat earlier that season, IN New England, 34-8). Denver was primed to make a SB trip in 1996. Had they faced GB in the 1996 SB, it's not clear that Denver could have beaten GB (who was a superior team), but they would have certainly put up a better fight than NE did. for the sake of this hypothetical, let's assume that Denver won in 1996, and history since SB XXX unfolded exactly the same.

Note: I understand that GB did beat Denver pretty badly in 1996. That was a meaningless game as Denver already had HFA wrapped up and Elway did not play. I make the assumption that Denver could have beat GB in XXX based on what happened in 1997.

Within the confines of this hypothetical, we would then be looking at Favre in 2008, saying - "man, he can't win the big one", like we say about Marino and we said about Manning (up until last year). In 22 playoff games, Favre has thrown 2 or more ints 8x, or 36%. for comparison, Elway has thrown for 2 or more in 18% , Brady is also @ 18%, Manning joins Favre @ 36%, Marino has 55% Montana - 23%, Young - 20%. I think that Favre's hypothetical reputation as a choker might be deserved.

In a nutshell, I am linking MDP's penalty to Favre's lone SB win: Because of MDP, Denver lost, which enabled a lesser NE team go to the SB, which allowed GB to win, giving Favre his lone SB ring.

after all of this rambling, I basically have two points: (1): butterfly effect: something as trivial as a 12 man on the field penalty could forever alter reputations of players not even involved in that game. (2) reputations such as "choker" are pretty irrelevant due to the sheer number of factors that go into end of season success.

note: To GB homers - this is not meant to be an anti-Favre thread, nor is it meant to be a Favre-Elway comparison.

edit: changed title

Using your hypothesis, NE didn't win a few SuperBowls either, and Tom Brady is a choker.

pls note the difference between hypothesis and hypothetical.

No... I don't think you know the meaning of either word. Here's some help -hypothesis:

1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.

hypothetical:

1. assumed by hypothesis; supposed: a hypothetical case.

2. of, pertaining to, involving, or characterized by hypothesis: hypothetical reasoning.

3. given to making hypotheses.

4. Logic.

- 4a. (of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence.

- 4b. (of a proposition or syllogism) conditional.

Your English lesson is over now. You stated something was hypothetical, based on a hypothesis. I merely showed the flaw in that hypothesis.

 

[moleculo]

Hmmm . . .I'm trying to figure out if "not winning" = "choking" as the point of this thread.Jim Kelly played on teams that lost 4 Super Bowls.Fran Tarkenton played on teams that lost 3 Super Bowls.Craig Morton did not win a Super Bowl with either the Cowboys or the Broncos.Does that make them chokers because they did not win multiple Super Bowls?

basically. I'm talking about perception here. Kelly, Tarkenton, and Morton have that same "stink" that plagued Elway, Marino, and Manning. I say that "stink" is not deserved, as Favre could have had a similar perception had things gone slightly differently, and Favre does not have that same perception.

 

[MDSkinner]

Hmmm . . .I'm trying to figure out if "not winning" = "choking" as the point of this thread.Jim Kelly played on teams that lost 4 Super Bowls.Fran Tarkenton played on teams that lost 3 Super Bowls.Craig Morton did not win a Super Bowl with either the Cowboys or the Broncos.Does that make them chokers because they did not win multiple Super Bowls?

basically. I'm talking about perception here. Kelly, Tarkenton, and Morton have that same "stink" that plagued Elway, Marino, and Manning. I say that "stink" is not deserved, as Favre could have had a similar perception had things gone slightly differently, and Favre does not have that same perception.

Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that the "stink" you are talking about goes away just as soon as the player wins one super bowl, regardless of how that game was won. If Favre had lost that Super Bowl, I would not be in the slightest bit surprised that he would have that stink. But he did win it, and he has lots of records, so he does not have that stink.Marino....different story. Elway and Manning won theirs, so no stink. There are probably not too many that are playing in the league right now that will not end up having that stink when their career is over, given the fact that only one team can win each year. It is probably not a fair thing, but it is what it is. Favre got his, so he is not a choker regardless of how every other year ended for him.

 

[moleculo]

I was watching the NFL's greatest games last night, and I got to thinking - outside of one SB, Favre would have the reputation of losing in the big game.

Fore reference, here's a summary of Favre's final playoff game each season:

1993: 28 45 331 2 2 - lost to DAL 17-27

1994: 18 35 211 0 1 - lost to DAL 9-35

1995: 21 39 307 3 2 - lost to DAL 27-38 - championship round

1996: 14 27 246 2 0 - SB champs

1997: 25 42 256 3 1 - lost SB to DEN 24-31

1998: 20 35 292 2 2 - lost to SF 27-30

2001: 26 44 281 2 6 - lost to STL 17-45

2002:20 42 247 1 2 - lost to ATL 7-27

2003: 15 28 180 2 1 - lost to PHIL 17-20

2004: 22 33 216 1 4 - lost to MIN 17-31

2007: 19 35 236 2 2 - lost to NYG 23-20 - championship round

By definition, everyone's final playoff game will be a loss unless they happened to win the SB that year. Generally, people's stats aren't terrific in a loss, I understand that.

Here's the historical context for my hypothetical: In 2006, Denver was the best team in the AFC, by record and scoring differential. The Broncos had HFA wrapped up early, and sat people for the playoffs. The Jags came into Denver and upset the Broncos, which gave NE a trip to the SB. The difference in this game was a critical 4th down conversion by penalty - Michael Dean Perry didn't get his fat ### off of the field when JAX was punting. The ensuing penalty gave JAX a 1st down, which they turned into a FG which became the difference in the game. ( ).

Now - here's the hypothetical: Had MDP not casually walked off the field, JAX would have punted on that drive and it is very possible Denver would have won that game. They would have hosted NE, (whom they beat earlier that season, IN New England, 34-8). Denver was primed to make a SB trip in 1996. Had they faced GB in the 1996 SB, it's not clear that Denver could have beaten GB (who was a superior team), but they would have certainly put up a better fight than NE did. for the sake of this hypothetical, let's assume that Denver won in 1996, and history since SB XXX unfolded exactly the same.

Note: I understand that GB did beat Denver pretty badly in 1996. That was a meaningless game as Denver already had HFA wrapped up and Elway did not play. I make the assumption that Denver could have beat GB in XXX based on what happened in 1997.

Within the confines of this hypothetical, we would then be looking at Favre in 2008, saying - "man, he can't win the big one", like we say about Marino and we said about Manning (up until last year). In 22 playoff games, Favre has thrown 2 or more ints 8x, or 36%. for comparison, Elway has thrown for 2 or more in 18% , Brady is also @ 18%, Manning joins Favre @ 36%, Marino has 55% Montana - 23%, Young - 20%. I think that Favre's hypothetical reputation as a choker might be deserved.

In a nutshell, I am linking MDP's penalty to Favre's lone SB win: Because of MDP, Denver lost, which enabled a lesser NE team go to the SB, which allowed GB to win, giving Favre his lone SB ring.

after all of this rambling, I basically have two points: (1): butterfly effect: something as trivial as a 12 man on the field penalty could forever alter reputations of players not even involved in that game. (2) reputations such as "choker" are pretty irrelevant due to the sheer number of factors that go into end of season success.

note: To GB homers - this is not meant to be an anti-Favre thread, nor is it meant to be a Favre-Elway comparison.

edit: changed title

Using your hypothesis, NE didn't win a few SuperBowls either, and Tom Brady is a choker.

pls note the difference between hypothesis and hypothetical.

No... I don't think you know the meaning of either word. Here's some help -hypothesis:

1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.

hypothetical:

1. assumed by hypothesis; supposed: a hypothetical case.

2. of, pertaining to, involving, or characterized by hypothesis: hypothetical reasoning.

3. given to making hypotheses.

4. Logic.

- 4a. (of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence.

- 4b. (of a proposition or syllogism) conditional.

Your English lesson is over now. You stated something was hypothetical, based on a hypothesis. I merely showed the flaw in that hypothesis.

fine. English lesson noted. My hypothetical situation is based on a highly conjectural piece of logic which is not at all rooted in fact. I accept that. I also clearly stated that my hypothetical situation is bounded by SB XXX, so this does not extend beyond 1996.You are trying to show a flaw in my hypothetical situation by extending it beyond it's stated limits, and expanding it without any basis for "what if's".

My hypothesis, if i am forced to pen one, clearly has nothing to do with Brady. If you force me to discuss this, I would claim that Brady played against the Rams in 2001 (NFC's top seed), and Eagles in 2004 (NFC's top seed), and therefore twice faced the best competition he could have. Brady has never lost a SB, has a very low ratio of playoff games played with more than 1 ints, and after Sunday is likely to have won more playoff games than any QB in history. There is no convolution of events I can come up with that would one to believe Brady is a choker.

If you would like to claim that NE shouldn't have beaten the raiders in 2001 and draw some crazy conclusion, have at it, but that's your show.

 

[moleculo]

Hmmm . . .I'm trying to figure out if "not winning" = "choking" as the point of this thread.Jim Kelly played on teams that lost 4 Super Bowls.Fran Tarkenton played on teams that lost 3 Super Bowls.Craig Morton did not win a Super Bowl with either the Cowboys or the Broncos.Does that make them chokers because they did not win multiple Super Bowls?

basically. I'm talking about perception here. Kelly, Tarkenton, and Morton have that same "stink" that plagued Elway, Marino, and Manning. I say that "stink" is not deserved, as Favre could have had a similar perception had things gone slightly differently, and Favre does not have that same perception.

Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that the "stink" you are talking about goes away just as soon as the player wins one super bowl, regardless of how that game was won. If Favre had lost that Super Bowl, I would not be in the slightest bit surprised that he would have that stink. But he did win it, and he has lots of records, so he does not have that stink.Marino....different story. Elway and Manning won theirs, so no stink. There are probably not too many that are playing in the league right now that will not end up having that stink when their career is over, given the fact that only one team can win each year. It is probably not a fair thing, but it is what it is. Favre got his, so he is not a choker regardless of how every other year ended for him.

that's exactly right. elway played 15 seasons with that stink. Marino - 17. Manning - 9. I don't like it and I never did, but that was the perception for a majority of these guys careers. Favre never really had that reputation of a choker - all I'm trying to point out is that the difference between a perceived choker and a proven winner can be a very slim margin, even a single play in a game that player wasn't involved in.

 

[Ripleys]

I assumed this thread was about Donovan McChoke...

 

[NorrisB]

My list:

Ben Roethlisberger

Donovan McNabb

Tony Romo

Just these three guys Favre Im not sure about, although Id think no

 

[larry_boy_44]

Also, to the person who said he is 3-6 with 16 tds and 18 interceptions in his last 9 playoff games (since the SB loss)... Take out the STL game and the MIN game and he has thrown 13 TDs and 8 INTs... The issue here is SAMPLE SIZE skewing teh stats with a few very bad games (when he didn't have very good teams and had horrible coaches)...

I thought 10 years was a pretty good sample size.

not when its playoff games he lost in...There is no such thing as "large sample size" when you are comparins something that small...Like I said, he says Favre threw 16 TDs and 18 INTs in the 9 games (3-6) since the SB loss, but I can reply that 10 of those picks were in 2 games along with only 3 TDs, meaning he was 13/8 in the other 7 games, and that is far from choke-worthy... Not as good? Sure. But not choking.The issue is the sample size is not large enough to account for the 2 massive outliers as far as bad games go. The ST. Louis game just had abysmal stats because they weren't built to throw the way they did and yet they kept trying all game... I don't remember the Minnesota game, but still, that's one really awful game and one game that got absurd statistically but probably wasn't that bad...PLUS the fact is that the teams he had and the coach he had (Sherman) were not that good... This isn't the '07 Patriots or the 80s 49ers or early 90s Cowboys we're talking about...

 

[larry_boy_44]

sorry, but you can't make a list and then go "except for the good games he had, he choked in big games"...

Well, of course, when you remove the good games where he didn't choke then he did bad and choked in the others... just looking at your list and going purely from stats (as I don't vividly remember all these games), I would say that:

1993: 28 45 331 2 2 - lost to DAL 17-27

1995: 21 39 307 3 2 - lost to DAL 27-38 - championship round

1996: 14 27 246 2 0 - SB champs

1997: 25 42 256 3 1 - lost SB to DEN 24-31

1998: 20 35 292 2 2 - lost to SF 27-30

2007: 19 35 236 2 2 - lost to NYG 23-20 - championship round

2003: 15 28 180 2 1 - lost to PHIL 17-20

these werent' bad games... Leaving only the loss to Dallas in 1994, Atlanta in 2002, St. Louis in 2001, and Minnesota in 2004 as bad losses... But I do remember the horrible HORRIBLE coaching in 2001, 2002, and 2004... and I also remember how 1994 was his SECOND SEASON!!

Also, to the person who said he is 3-6 with 16 tds and 18 interceptions in his last 9 playoff games (since the SB loss)... Take out the STL game and the MIN game and he has thrown 13 TDs and 8 INTs... The issue here is SAMPLE SIZE skewing teh stats with a few very bad games (when he didn't have very good teams and had horrible coaches)...

You lost your argument badly including that Philly game. Favre was terrible in that game.All too often we judge a performance on the stat line. The truth is that Favre tends to press when his team is doing poorly (losing)...that "pressing" sometimes leads to highlight reel plays, sometimes to very ugly interceptions (and subsequent stat lines).

Since playoff games are against a higher caliber of opponent, with a far higher incidence of "losing", it is only natural that Favre has "pressed" more often in them...thus earning the title of "choker". BUt said title is unfair simply because of the circumstances. The truth is, without "pressing", Favre would have lost most of those games anyway.

Uh... that was the 4th and 27 game... Favre had absolutely nothing to do with losing that game...

 

[Tough As Nails]

Also, to the person who said he is 3-6 with 16 tds and 18 interceptions in his last 9 playoff games (since the SB loss)... Take out the STL game and the MIN game and he has thrown 13 TDs and 8 INTs... The issue here is SAMPLE SIZE skewing teh stats with a few very bad games (when he didn't have very good teams and had horrible coaches)...

I thought 10 years was a pretty good sample size.

not when its playoff games he lost in...There is no such thing as "large sample size" when you are comparins something that small...Like I said, he says Favre threw 16 TDs and 18 INTs in the 9 games (3-6) since the SB loss, but I can reply that 10 of those picks were in 2 games along with only 3 TDs, meaning he was 13/8 in the other 7 games, and that is far from choke-worthy... Not as good? Sure. But not choking.The issue is the sample size is not large enough to account for the 2 massive outliers as far as bad games go. The ST. Louis game just had abysmal stats because they weren't built to throw the way they did and yet they kept trying all game... I don't remember the Minnesota game, but still, that's one really awful game and one game that got absurd statistically but probably wasn't that bad...PLUS the fact is that the teams he had and the coach he had (Sherman) were not that good... This isn't the '07 Patriots or the 80s 49ers or early 90s Cowboys we're talking about...

I'm not focusing on losses. I'm just showing the bottom line. Like I said...go ahead and rationalize the playoff successes and failures anyway you want (coaches, defense, o-line...they alllll contributed to every win and loss, nobody is saying anything different). But 3-6 with 4 non-appearances in 10 years is not good no matter how you want to spin it.

 

[Tough As Nails]

sorry, but you can't make a list and then go "except for the good games he had, he choked in big games"...

Well, of course, when you remove the good games where he didn't choke then he did bad and choked in the others... just looking at your list and going purely from stats (as I don't vividly remember all these games), I would say that:

1993: 28 45 331 2 2 - lost to DAL 17-27

1995: 21 39 307 3 2 - lost to DAL 27-38 - championship round

1996: 14 27 246 2 0 - SB champs

1997: 25 42 256 3 1 - lost SB to DEN 24-31

1998: 20 35 292 2 2 - lost to SF 27-30

2007: 19 35 236 2 2 - lost to NYG 23-20 - championship round

2003: 15 28 180 2 1 - lost to PHIL 17-20

these werent' bad games... Leaving only the loss to Dallas in 1994, Atlanta in 2002, St. Louis in 2001, and Minnesota in 2004 as bad losses... But I do remember the horrible HORRIBLE coaching in 2001, 2002, and 2004... and I also remember how 1994 was his SECOND SEASON!!

Also, to the person who said he is 3-6 with 16 tds and 18 interceptions in his last 9 playoff games (since the SB loss)... Take out the STL game and the MIN game and he has thrown 13 TDs and 8 INTs... The issue here is SAMPLE SIZE skewing teh stats with a few very bad games (when he didn't have very good teams and had horrible coaches)...

You lost your argument badly including that Philly game. Favre was terrible in that game.All too often we judge a performance on the stat line. The truth is that Favre tends to press when his team is doing poorly (losing)...that "pressing" sometimes leads to highlight reel plays, sometimes to very ugly interceptions (and subsequent stat lines).

Since playoff games are against a higher caliber of opponent, with a far higher incidence of "losing", it is only natural that Favre has "pressed" more often in them...thus earning the title of "choker". BUt said title is unfair simply because of the circumstances. The truth is, without "pressing", Favre would have lost most of those games anyway.

Uh... that was the 4th and 27 game... Favre had absolutely nothing to do with losing that game...

Nothing? Really? His team didn't have the ball in overtime with a chance to win? There are certainly a number of things you can point to as contributing factors to the loss...but to completely eliminate Favre from that list is not legit at all. He definitely contributed to the loss.

 

[Ghost Rider]

sorry, but you can't make a list and then go "except for the good games he had, he choked in big games"...

Well, of course, when you remove the good games where he didn't choke then he did bad and choked in the others... just looking at your list and going purely from stats (as I don't vividly remember all these games), I would say that:

1993: 28 45 331 2 2 - lost to DAL 17-27

1995: 21 39 307 3 2 - lost to DAL 27-38 - championship round

1996: 14 27 246 2 0 - SB champs

1997: 25 42 256 3 1 - lost SB to DEN 24-31

1998: 20 35 292 2 2 - lost to SF 27-30

2007: 19 35 236 2 2 - lost to NYG 23-20 - championship round

2003: 15 28 180 2 1 - lost to PHIL 17-20

these werent' bad games... Leaving only the loss to Dallas in 1994, Atlanta in 2002, St. Louis in 2001, and Minnesota in 2004 as bad losses... But I do remember the horrible HORRIBLE coaching in 2001, 2002, and 2004... and I also remember how 1994 was his SECOND SEASON!!

Also, to the person who said he is 3-6 with 16 tds and 18 interceptions in his last 9 playoff games (since the SB loss)... Take out the STL game and the MIN game and he has thrown 13 TDs and 8 INTs... The issue here is SAMPLE SIZE skewing teh stats with a few very bad games (when he didn't have very good teams and had horrible coaches)...

You lost your argument badly including that Philly game. Favre was terrible in that game.All too often we judge a performance on the stat line. The truth is that Favre tends to press when his team is doing poorly (losing)...that "pressing" sometimes leads to highlight reel plays, sometimes to very ugly interceptions (and subsequent stat lines).

Since playoff games are against a higher caliber of opponent, with a far higher incidence of "losing", it is only natural that Favre has "pressed" more often in them...thus earning the title of "choker". BUt said title is unfair simply because of the circumstances. The truth is, without "pressing", Favre would have lost most of those games anyway.

Uh... that was the 4th and 27 game... Favre had absolutely nothing to do with losing that game...

Um, Favre threw the ridiculously awful INT in overtime which set up Philly's winning score. I like Favre, but that was one of the worst INTs at a crucial time in a playoff game that I have ever seen. He just turned and lofted it up for grabs.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Also, to the person who said he is 3-6 with 16 tds and 18 interceptions in his last 9 playoff games (since the SB loss)... Take out the STL game and the MIN game and he has thrown 13 TDs and 8 INTs... The issue here is SAMPLE SIZE skewing teh stats with a few very bad games (when he didn't have very good teams and had horrible coaches)...

I thought 10 years was a pretty good sample size.

not when its playoff games he lost in...There is no such thing as "large sample size" when you are comparins something that small...Like I said, he says Favre threw 16 TDs and 18 INTs in the 9 games (3-6) since the SB loss, but I can reply that 10 of those picks were in 2 games along with only 3 TDs, meaning he was 13/8 in the other 7 games, and that is far from choke-worthy... Not as good? Sure. But not choking.The issue is the sample size is not large enough to account for the 2 massive outliers as far as bad games go. The ST. Louis game just had abysmal stats because they weren't built to throw the way they did and yet they kept trying all game... I don't remember the Minnesota game, but still, that's one really awful game and one game that got absurd statistically but probably wasn't that bad...PLUS the fact is that the teams he had and the coach he had (Sherman) were not that good... This isn't the '07 Patriots or the 80s 49ers or early 90s Cowboys we're talking about...

I'm not focusing on losses. I'm just showing the bottom line. Like I said...go ahead and rationalize the playoff successes and failures anyway you want (coaches, defense, o-line...they alllll contributed to every win and loss, nobody is saying anything different). But 3-6 with 4 non-appearances in 10 years is not good no matter how you want to spin it.

yeah, it is good...Again, look at those teams... they were not only truely awful as far as players go, they were coached horribly... The only reason those Packer teams weren't 3-13 and 2-14 those years is because of Favre... The fact that those teams MADE the playoffs shows that Favre is one of the best ever to play the game...

 

[larry_boy_44]

sorry, but you can't make a list and then go "except for the good games he had, he choked in big games"...

Well, of course, when you remove the good games where he didn't choke then he did bad and choked in the others... just looking at your list and going purely from stats (as I don't vividly remember all these games), I would say that:

1993: 28 45 331 2 2 - lost to DAL 17-27

1995: 21 39 307 3 2 - lost to DAL 27-38 - championship round

1996: 14 27 246 2 0 - SB champs

1997: 25 42 256 3 1 - lost SB to DEN 24-31

1998: 20 35 292 2 2 - lost to SF 27-30

2007: 19 35 236 2 2 - lost to NYG 23-20 - championship round

2003: 15 28 180 2 1 - lost to PHIL 17-20

these werent' bad games... Leaving only the loss to Dallas in 1994, Atlanta in 2002, St. Louis in 2001, and Minnesota in 2004 as bad losses... But I do remember the horrible HORRIBLE coaching in 2001, 2002, and 2004... and I also remember how 1994 was his SECOND SEASON!!

Also, to the person who said he is 3-6 with 16 tds and 18 interceptions in his last 9 playoff games (since the SB loss)... Take out the STL game and the MIN game and he has thrown 13 TDs and 8 INTs... The issue here is SAMPLE SIZE skewing teh stats with a few very bad games (when he didn't have very good teams and had horrible coaches)...

You lost your argument badly including that Philly game. Favre was terrible in that game.All too often we judge a performance on the stat line. The truth is that Favre tends to press when his team is doing poorly (losing)...that "pressing" sometimes leads to highlight reel plays, sometimes to very ugly interceptions (and subsequent stat lines).

Since playoff games are against a higher caliber of opponent, with a far higher incidence of "losing", it is only natural that Favre has "pressed" more often in them...thus earning the title of "choker". BUt said title is unfair simply because of the circumstances. The truth is, without "pressing", Favre would have lost most of those games anyway.

Uh... that was the 4th and 27 game... Favre had absolutely nothing to do with losing that game...

Um, Favre threw the ridiculously awful INT in overtime which set up Philly's winning score. I like Favre, but that was one of the worst INTs at a crucial time in a playoff game that I have ever seen. He just turned and lofted it up for grabs.

overtime never should have happened...remember 4th and 27...

 

[phthalatemagic]

My list of chokers:

The 2006 New England Patriots

 

[Ghost Rider]

sorry, but you can't make a list and then go "except for the good games he had, he choked in big games"...

Well, of course, when you remove the good games where he didn't choke then he did bad and choked in the others... just looking at your list and going purely from stats (as I don't vividly remember all these games), I would say that:

1993: 28 45 331 2 2 - lost to DAL 17-27

1995: 21 39 307 3 2 - lost to DAL 27-38 - championship round

1996: 14 27 246 2 0 - SB champs

1997: 25 42 256 3 1 - lost SB to DEN 24-31

1998: 20 35 292 2 2 - lost to SF 27-30

2007: 19 35 236 2 2 - lost to NYG 23-20 - championship round

2003: 15 28 180 2 1 - lost to PHIL 17-20

these werent' bad games... Leaving only the loss to Dallas in 1994, Atlanta in 2002, St. Louis in 2001, and Minnesota in 2004 as bad losses... But I do remember the horrible HORRIBLE coaching in 2001, 2002, and 2004... and I also remember how 1994 was his SECOND SEASON!!

Also, to the person who said he is 3-6 with 16 tds and 18 interceptions in his last 9 playoff games (since the SB loss)... Take out the STL game and the MIN game and he has thrown 13 TDs and 8 INTs... The issue here is SAMPLE SIZE skewing teh stats with a few very bad games (when he didn't have very good teams and had horrible coaches)...

You lost your argument badly including that Philly game. Favre was terrible in that game.All too often we judge a performance on the stat line. The truth is that Favre tends to press when his team is doing poorly (losing)...that "pressing" sometimes leads to highlight reel plays, sometimes to very ugly interceptions (and subsequent stat lines).

Since playoff games are against a higher caliber of opponent, with a far higher incidence of "losing", it is only natural that Favre has "pressed" more often in them...thus earning the title of "choker". BUt said title is unfair simply because of the circumstances. The truth is, without "pressing", Favre would have lost most of those games anyway.

Uh... that was the 4th and 27 game... Favre had absolutely nothing to do with losing that game...

Um, Favre threw the ridiculously awful INT in overtime which set up Philly's winning score. I like Favre, but that was one of the worst INTs at a crucial time in a playoff game that I have ever seen. He just turned and lofted it up for grabs.

overtime never should have happened...remember 4th and 27...

But overtime DID happen! And Favre's INT was the biggest reason why they lost the game in overtime, rather than winning it.

 

[switz]

I was watching the NFL's greatest games last night, and I got to thinking - outside of one SB, Favre would have the reputation of losing in the big game.

The ensuing penalty gave JAX a 1st down, which they turned into a FG which became the difference in the game. ( ).

Now - here's the hypothetical: Had MDP not casually walked off the field, JAX would have punted on that drive and it is very possible Denver would have won that game. They would have hosted NE, (whom they beat earlier that season, IN New England, 34-8). Denver was primed to make a SB trip in 1996. Had they faced GB in the 1996 SB, it's not clear that Denver could have beaten GB (who was a superior team), but they would have certainly put up a better fight than NE did. for the sake of this hypothetical, let's assume that Denver won in 1996, and history since SB XXX unfolded exactly the same.

In a nutshell, I am linking MDP's penalty to Favre's lone SB win: Because of MDP, Denver lost, which enabled a lesser NE team go to the SB, which allowed GB to win, giving Favre his lone SB ring.

Using your hypothesis, NE didn't win a few SuperBowls either, and Tom Brady is a choker.

pls note the difference between hypothesis and hypothetical.

No... I don't think you know the meaning of either word. Here's some help -English lesson .

fine. English lesson noted. My hypothetical situation is based on a highly conjectural piece of logic which is not at all rooted in fact. I accept that. I also clearly stated that my hypothetical situation is bounded by SB XXX, so this does not extend beyond 1996.You are trying to show a flaw in my hypothetical situation by extending it beyond it's stated limits, and expanding it without any basis for "what if's".

My hypothesis, if i am forced to pen one, clearly has nothing to do with Brady. If you force me to discuss this, I would claim that Brady played against the Rams in 2001 (NFC's top seed), and Eagles in 2004 (NFC's top seed), and therefore twice faced the best competition he could have. Brady has never lost a SB, has a very low ratio of playoff games played with more than 1 ints, and after Sunday is likely to have won more playoff games than any QB in history. There is no convolution of events I can come up with that would one to believe Brady is a choker.

If you would like to claim that NE shouldn't have beaten the raiders in 2001 and draw some crazy conclusion, have at it, but that's your show.

Looking at your argument, you are basing it all on a FG that changed the outcome of the game.While you place limits on the application of your hypothesis, my point was that IF you want to say one play changed the entire course of history, that's fine. But then you also need to examine other single plays which had obvious effects on the outcome of the game. Whether it be the tuck (never seen it called before or after, what a joke) or Vinatieri's FG in SuperBowl XXVI which won them the game (how in the heck does a QB who only throws 1 TD get MVP anyway?).

I simply don't think your hypothesis stands up to any scrutiny, as you don't have a control group to test against, nor even want a control group to test against.

 

[scott72]

sorry, but you can't make a list and then go "except for the good games he had, he choked in big games"...

Well, of course, when you remove the good games where he didn't choke then he did bad and choked in the others... just looking at your list and going purely from stats (as I don't vividly remember all these games), I would say that:

1993: 28 45 331 2 2 - lost to DAL 17-27

1995: 21 39 307 3 2 - lost to DAL 27-38 - championship round

1996: 14 27 246 2 0 - SB champs

1997: 25 42 256 3 1 - lost SB to DEN 24-31

1998: 20 35 292 2 2 - lost to SF 27-30

2007: 19 35 236 2 2 - lost to NYG 23-20 - championship round

2003: 15 28 180 2 1 - lost to PHIL 17-20

these werent' bad games... Leaving only the loss to Dallas in 1994, Atlanta in 2002, St. Louis in 2001, and Minnesota in 2004 as bad losses... But I do remember the horrible HORRIBLE coaching in 2001, 2002, and 2004... and I also remember how 1994 was his SECOND SEASON!!

Also, to the person who said he is 3-6 with 16 tds and 18 interceptions in his last 9 playoff games (since the SB loss)... Take out the STL game and the MIN game and he has thrown 13 TDs and 8 INTs... The issue here is SAMPLE SIZE skewing teh stats with a few very bad games (when he didn't have very good teams and had horrible coaches)...

You lost your argument badly including that Philly game. Favre was terrible in that game.All too often we judge a performance on the stat line. The truth is that Favre tends to press when his team is doing poorly (losing)...that "pressing" sometimes leads to highlight reel plays, sometimes to very ugly interceptions (and subsequent stat lines).

Since playoff games are against a higher caliber of opponent, with a far higher incidence of "losing", it is only natural that Favre has "pressed" more often in them...thus earning the title of "choker". BUt said title is unfair simply because of the circumstances. The truth is, without "pressing", Favre would have lost most of those games anyway.

Uh... that was the 4th and 27 game... Favre had absolutely nothing to do with losing that game...

Um, Favre threw the ridiculously awful INT in overtime which set up Philly's winning score. I like Favre, but that was one of the worst INTs at a crucial time in a playoff game that I have ever seen. He just turned and lofted it up for grabs.

Yeah but if Nick flippin Barnett covers his lane Favre never makes that throw. And it was 4th and 26. These numbers will ring out in Packer history forever. Just walk up to any Packer fan and say 4th and 26 and watch the look on his/her face.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_and_26

 

[scott72]

sorry, but you can't make a list and then go "except for the good games he had, he choked in big games"...

Well, of course, when you remove the good games where he didn't choke then he did bad and choked in the others... just looking at your list and going purely from stats (as I don't vividly remember all these games), I would say that:

1993: 28 45 331 2 2 - lost to DAL 17-27

1995: 21 39 307 3 2 - lost to DAL 27-38 - championship round

1996: 14 27 246 2 0 - SB champs

1997: 25 42 256 3 1 - lost SB to DEN 24-31

1998: 20 35 292 2 2 - lost to SF 27-30

2007: 19 35 236 2 2 - lost to NYG 23-20 - championship round

2003: 15 28 180 2 1 - lost to PHIL 17-20

these werent' bad games... Leaving only the loss to Dallas in 1994, Atlanta in 2002, St. Louis in 2001, and Minnesota in 2004 as bad losses... But I do remember the horrible HORRIBLE coaching in 2001, 2002, and 2004... and I also remember how 1994 was his SECOND SEASON!!

Also, to the person who said he is 3-6 with 16 tds and 18 interceptions in his last 9 playoff games (since the SB loss)... Take out the STL game and the MIN game and he has thrown 13 TDs and 8 INTs... The issue here is SAMPLE SIZE skewing teh stats with a few very bad games (when he didn't have very good teams and had horrible coaches)...

You lost your argument badly including that Philly game. Favre was terrible in that game.All too often we judge a performance on the stat line. The truth is that Favre tends to press when his team is doing poorly (losing)...that "pressing" sometimes leads to highlight reel plays, sometimes to very ugly interceptions (and subsequent stat lines).

Since playoff games are against a higher caliber of opponent, with a far higher incidence of "losing", it is only natural that Favre has "pressed" more often in them...thus earning the title of "choker". BUt said title is unfair simply because of the circumstances. The truth is, without "pressing", Favre would have lost most of those games anyway.

Uh... that was the 4th and 27 game... Favre had absolutely nothing to do with losing that game...

Um, Favre threw the ridiculously awful INT in overtime which set up Philly's winning score. I like Favre, but that was one of the worst INTs at a crucial time in a playoff game that I have ever seen. He just turned and lofted it up for grabs.

overtime never should have happened...remember 4th and 27...

But overtime DID happen! And Favre's INT was the biggest reason why they lost the game in overtime, rather than winning it.

Why is Brett's interception any bigger than Barnett blowing his assignment allowing them to convert the 4th down? Just because he's the QB? Did Brett contribute to the loss, heck yeah, but he's wasn't soley respondible.

 

[Jous]

My list:Ben RoethlisbergerDonovan McNabbTony RomoJust these three guys Favre Im not sure about, although Id think no

McNabb, maybe. Roethlisberger, hell no. He has a SuperBowl ring in his first 4 years so that automatically makes him not a choker. Tony Romo I also disgaree with, he's 0-2 in the playoffs but played clearly well enough to win his first playoff loss, he fumbled the snap which has nothing to do with QB play and he shouldn't have even been holding the snap anyway. Bad coaching move to put your starting QB in to hold kicks.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

sorry, but you can't make a list and then go "except for the good games he had, he choked in big games"...

Well, of course, when you remove the good games where he didn't choke then he did bad and choked in the others... just looking at your list and going purely from stats (as I don't vividly remember all these games), I would say that:

1993: 28 45 331 2 2 - lost to DAL 17-27

1995: 21 39 307 3 2 - lost to DAL 27-38 - championship round

1996: 14 27 246 2 0 - SB champs

1997: 25 42 256 3 1 - lost SB to DEN 24-31

1998: 20 35 292 2 2 - lost to SF 27-30

2007: 19 35 236 2 2 - lost to NYG 23-20 - championship round

2003: 15 28 180 2 1 - lost to PHIL 17-20

these werent' bad games... Leaving only the loss to Dallas in 1994, Atlanta in 2002, St. Louis in 2001, and Minnesota in 2004 as bad losses... But I do remember the horrible HORRIBLE coaching in 2001, 2002, and 2004... and I also remember how 1994 was his SECOND SEASON!!

Also, to the person who said he is 3-6 with 16 tds and 18 interceptions in his last 9 playoff games (since the SB loss)... Take out the STL game and the MIN game and he has thrown 13 TDs and 8 INTs... The issue here is SAMPLE SIZE skewing teh stats with a few very bad games (when he didn't have very good teams and had horrible coaches)...

You lost your argument badly including that Philly game. Favre was terrible in that game.All too often we judge a performance on the stat line. The truth is that Favre tends to press when his team is doing poorly (losing)...that "pressing" sometimes leads to highlight reel plays, sometimes to very ugly interceptions (and subsequent stat lines).

Since playoff games are against a higher caliber of opponent, with a far higher incidence of "losing", it is only natural that Favre has "pressed" more often in them...thus earning the title of "choker". BUt said title is unfair simply because of the circumstances. The truth is, without "pressing", Favre would have lost most of those games anyway.

Uh... that was the 4th and 27 game... Favre had absolutely nothing to do with losing that game...

Um, Favre threw the ridiculously awful INT in overtime which set up Philly's winning score. I like Favre, but that was one of the worst INTs at a crucial time in a playoff game that I have ever seen. He just turned and lofted it up for grabs.

overtime never should have happened...remember 4th and 27...

But overtime DID happen! And Favre's INT was the biggest reason why they lost the game in overtime, rather than winning it.

Why is Brett's interception any bigger than Barnett blowing his assignment allowing them to convert the 4th down? Just because he's the QB? Did Brett contribute to the loss, heck yeah, but he's wasn't soley respondible.

Additionally, if Sherman had the balls to go for it on 4th & inches with ~3 minutes left in the game, and the Pack across the 50 yd line, the game would have been over. Sherman is a pansy, he punts, defense gives up 4th & 26, Favre throws a horrible pass, game to the Eagles.In that overall flow, I place the relative blame on a few parties: 1) Sherman - should have gone for it on 4th, 2) Ed Donatell - you're the D-coordinator; a rookie LB is on the field, and you let him forget his assignment, 3) Barnett/Sharper - you cannot let a guy get open 27 yds down the field!!! 4) Favre - absolutely brutal INT at the end. Should never happen.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

My list:Ben RoethlisbergerDonovan McNabbTony RomoJust these three guys Favre Im not sure about, although Id think no

McNabb, maybe. Roethlisberger, hell no. He has a SuperBowl ring in his first 4 years so that automatically makes him not a choker. Tony Romo I also disgaree with, he's 0-2 in the playoffs but played clearly well enough to win his first playoff loss, he fumbled the snap which has nothing to do with QB play and he shouldn't have even been holding the snap anyway. Bad coaching move to put your starting QB in to hold kicks.

Sorry, but Romo is already a choke artist.