What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

So Favre was the king of the comeback? (1 Viewer)

Mr.Pack

Footballguy
I read and hear a lot of people who keep saying "Oh with favre he would have led us back to a win, Rodgers sucks."

Really?

According to STATS, Inc., before Sunday's game, Favre had played in 92 games in which his team was trailing by 8 points or fewer with 5 minutes or less remaining in the fourth quarter. Favre's record in those games? 23-69.

As much as Favre became known for his late-game heroics — and the unforgettable way he launched his legendary Green Bay career with his 1992 touchdown strike to Kitrick Taylor to beat the Cincinnati Bengals — his record in such situations was 6-22 from 1992 through '95, his first four seasons as the Packers' starter. During the Packers' most recent losing season of 2005 (4-12), Favre was 0-11 in such games.
I think Rodgers has done a great job this year. Better than anyone expected. He's ranked 5th in NFC QB rankings with a 91.8 rating, he has 23TD passes, and only 12 ints.Yes he hasn't had a "Come from behind" win yet. Some of that is on him as he has led scoring drives at the end of the game, only to have the Defense let the opponents walk on down the field to win the game.

Those wins will come.

How anyone can say they would be much better right now with Favre at the helm, well that's just wrong.

I hope this puts an end to this nonsense, because it all really is very tired and old and I'm sick of :unsure:

Enough already

 
Is this where we remind everyone that Rodgers has yet to lead the Packers to a victory in the closing minutes of the game?

 
So Favre has won 23 games in his career when down by 8 or fewer points with under 5 minutes to go in the 4th and you think that makes the discussion over with? I guess it depends on how you look at the numbers.

 
I read and hear a lot of people who keep saying "Oh with favre he would have led us back to a win, Rodgers sucks."

Really?

According to STATS, Inc., before Sunday's game, Favre had played in 92 games in which his team was trailing by 8 points or fewer with 5 minutes or less remaining in the fourth quarter. Favre's record in those games? 23-69.

As much as Favre became known for his late-game heroics — and the unforgettable way he launched his legendary Green Bay career with his 1992 touchdown strike to Kitrick Taylor to beat the Cincinnati Bengals — his record in such situations was 6-22 from 1992 through '95, his first four seasons as the Packers' starter. During the Packers' most recent losing season of 2005 (4-12), Favre was 0-11 in such games.
I think Rodgers has done a great job this year. Better than anyone expected. He's ranked 5th in NFC QB rankings with a 91.8 rating, he has 23TD passes, and only 12 ints.Yes he hasn't had a "Come from behind" win yet. Some of that is on him as he has led scoring drives at the end of the game, only to have the Defense let the opponents walk on down the field to win the game.

Those wins will come.

How anyone can say they would be much better right now with Favre at the helm, well that's just wrong.

I hope this puts an end to this nonsense, because it all really is very tired and old and I'm sick of :popcorn:

Enough already
Get this info to Kornheiser STAT.
 
You may make a good point, but I wouldn't know since the same numbers aren't reproduced for any other significant quarterback that Favre is generally compared to. How did Marino, Elway, etc. do in the same situations?

 
I read and hear a lot of people who keep saying "Oh with favre he would have led us back to a win, Rodgers sucks."

Really?

According to STATS, Inc., before Sunday's game, Favre had played in 92 games in which his team was trailing by 8 points or fewer with 5 minutes or less remaining in the fourth quarter. Favre's record in those games? 23-69.

As much as Favre became known for his late-game heroics — and the unforgettable way he launched his legendary Green Bay career with his 1992 touchdown strike to Kitrick Taylor to beat the Cincinnati Bengals — his record in such situations was 6-22 from 1992 through '95, his first four seasons as the Packers' starter. During the Packers' most recent losing season of 2005 (4-12), Favre was 0-11 in such games.
I think Rodgers has done a great job this year. Better than anyone expected. He's ranked 5th in NFC QB rankings with a 91.8 rating, he has 23TD passes, and only 12 ints.Yes he hasn't had a "Come from behind" win yet. Some of that is on him as he has led scoring drives at the end of the game, only to have the Defense let the opponents walk on down the field to win the game.

Those wins will come.

How anyone can say they would be much better right now with Favre at the helm, well that's just wrong.

I hope this puts an end to this nonsense, because it all really is very tired and old and I'm sick of :unsure:

Enough already
How many of those games when farve was down with under 5 min to play were they down by 7 or whatever and the other team had the ball, or even worse had the ball in their territory. Im not defending farve, or bashing rodgers (i think he was great this year), but you have to look farther into those numbers. Also, you have to compare those number to other QB's and how they did when trailing like that....

 
Rodgers is not a leader. He doesn't inspire anyone. He will at best, be an average NFL qb. And that's ok. The Packers will enjoy many years of 8-8ish seasons. Congrats & Enjoy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
I read and hear a lot of people who keep saying "Oh with favre he would have led us back to a win, Rodgers sucks."

Really?

According to STATS, Inc., before Sunday's game, Favre had played in 92 games in which his team was trailing by 8 points or fewer with 5 minutes or less remaining in the fourth quarter. Favre's record in those games? 23-69.

As much as Favre became known for his late-game heroics — and the unforgettable way he launched his legendary Green Bay career with his 1992 touchdown strike to Kitrick Taylor to beat the Cincinnati Bengals — his record in such situations was 6-22 from 1992 through '95, his first four seasons as the Packers' starter. During the Packers' most recent losing season of 2005 (4-12), Favre was 0-11 in such games.
I think Rodgers has done a great job this year. Better than anyone expected. He's ranked 5th in NFC QB rankings with a 91.8 rating, he has 23TD passes, and only 12 ints.Yes he hasn't had a "Come from behind" win yet. Some of that is on him as he has led scoring drives at the end of the game, only to have the Defense let the opponents walk on down the field to win the game.

Those wins will come.

How anyone can say they would be much better right now with Favre at the helm, well that's just wrong.

I hope this puts an end to this nonsense, because it all really is very tired and old and I'm sick of :P

Enough already
In the games you mention how many times to Favre lead the team down the field to score but then the defense let the game go as you suggest is happening to Rodgers this year?
 
Link to complete article

I wonder how those numbers change when the difference in score is changed to seven or less. I understand that the two point conversion was adopted the season after Favre's rookie year, so that doesn't change much here, but the point threshold might. Ryan Longwell has won a LOT of games on his foot to break a tie or just go over.

 
You may make a good point, but I wouldn't know since the same numbers aren't reproduced for any other significant quarterback that Favre is generally compared to. How did Marino, Elway, etc. do in the same situations?
That was my first thought as well. I can't exactly duplicate the STATS figures, but I do have score-by-quarters in my database. So I looked at every QB who debuted in 1970 or later, and I found all games started by that QB where his team trailed by 8 or fewer points at the end of the 3rd quarter. There were 29 QBs who had at least 30 such games. Here they are in descending order of team record in those games. See notes at bottom.
Code:
+--------------------+-------+---------+-------------------------+| player			 | games | record  | average_trailing_margin |+--------------------+-------+---------+-------------------------+| Joe Montana		|	38 | 19-19-0 | -4.3					|| Peyton Manning	 |	31 | 15-16-0 | -4.3					|| Dan Marino		 |	56 | 26-30-0 | -4.6					|| Jim Kelly		  |	40 | 18-22-0 | -4.8					|| Terry Bradshaw	 |	30 | 13-17-0 | -4.5					|| Neil O'Donnell	 |	34 | 14-20-0 | -4.1					|| Randall Cunningham |	34 | 14-20-0 | -5.3					|| Jake Plummer	   |	30 | 12-18-0 | -4.3					|| Warren Moon		|	58 | 23-35-0 | -4.3					|| Phil Simms		 |	30 | 11-19-0 | -4.4					|| Steve Bartkowski   |	41 | 15-26-0 | -4.8					|| John Elway		 |	62 | 22-39-1 | -5.0					|| Troy Aikman		|	33 | 11-22-0 | -4.8					|| Boomer Esiason	 |	39 | 13-26-0 | -5.3					|| Dave Krieg		 |	36 | 11-25-0 | -4.8					|| Chris Chandler	 |	33 | 10-23-0 | -4.5					|| Kerry Collins	  |	37 | 11-26-0 | -4.2					|| Vinny Testaverde   |	54 | 15-39-0 | -5.0					|| Jim Plunkett	   |	36 | 10-26-0 | -4.6					|| Dan Fouts		  |	40 | 11-29-0 | -5.3					|| Drew Bledsoe	   |	40 | 11-29-0 | -4.8					|| Jeff George		|	30 | 8-22-0  | -4.6					|| Joe Ferguson	   |	34 | 9-25-0  | -4.5					|| Archie Manning	 |	31 | 7-22-2  | -4.7					|| Steve DeBerg	   |	44 | 10-33-1 | -4.6					|| Ken Anderson	   |	39 | 9-30-0  | -4.9					|| Brett Favre		|	52 | 12-40-0 | -4.3					|| Jim Everett		|	35 | 7-28-0  | -5.6					|| Jim Harbaugh	   |	35 | 4-31-0  | -4.9					|+--------------------+-------+---------+-------------------------+
I included the average trailing margin at the end of three quarters for each QB just to see if it looked like we were comparing apples to apples. Note that this includes all games started by the QB in question. It's possible that there are some games in there where the listed QB wasn't actually in the game in the fourth quarter because he got injured during the game. FYI. EDIT: also forgot to mention that this doesn't include 2008, for Favre or anyone else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You may make a good point, but I wouldn't know since the same numbers aren't reproduced for any other significant quarterback that Favre is generally compared to. How did Marino, Elway, etc. do in the same situations?
That was my first thought as well. I can't exactly duplicate the STATS figures, but I do have score-by-quarters in my database. So I looked at every QB who debuted in 1970 or later, and I found all games started by that QB where his team trailed by 8 or fewer points at the end of the 3rd quarter. There were 29 QBs who had at least 30 such games. Here they are in descending order of team record in those games. See notes at bottom.
Code:
+--------------------+-------+---------+-------------------------+| player			 | games | record  | average_trailing_margin |+--------------------+-------+---------+-------------------------+| Joe Montana		|	38 | 19-19-0 | -4.3					|| Peyton Manning	 |	31 | 15-16-0 | -4.3					|| Dan Marino		 |	56 | 26-30-0 | -4.6					|| Jim Kelly		  |	40 | 18-22-0 | -4.8					|| Terry Bradshaw	 |	30 | 13-17-0 | -4.5					|| Neil O'Donnell	 |	34 | 14-20-0 | -4.1					|| Randall Cunningham |	34 | 14-20-0 | -5.3					|| Jake Plummer	   |	30 | 12-18-0 | -4.3					|| Warren Moon		|	58 | 23-35-0 | -4.3					|| Phil Simms		 |	30 | 11-19-0 | -4.4					|| Steve Bartkowski   |	41 | 15-26-0 | -4.8					|| John Elway		 |	62 | 22-39-1 | -5.0					|| Troy Aikman		|	33 | 11-22-0 | -4.8					|| Boomer Esiason	 |	39 | 13-26-0 | -5.3					|| Dave Krieg		 |	36 | 11-25-0 | -4.8					|| Chris Chandler	 |	33 | 10-23-0 | -4.5					|| Kerry Collins	  |	37 | 11-26-0 | -4.2					|| Vinny Testaverde   |	54 | 15-39-0 | -5.0					|| Jim Plunkett	   |	36 | 10-26-0 | -4.6					|| Dan Fouts		  |	40 | 11-29-0 | -5.3					|| Drew Bledsoe	   |	40 | 11-29-0 | -4.8					|| Jeff George		|	30 | 8-22-0  | -4.6					|| Joe Ferguson	   |	34 | 9-25-0  | -4.5					|| Archie Manning	 |	31 | 7-22-2  | -4.7					|| Steve DeBerg	   |	44 | 10-33-1 | -4.6					|| Ken Anderson	   |	39 | 9-30-0  | -4.9					|| Brett Favre		|	52 | 12-40-0 | -4.3					|| Jim Everett		|	35 | 7-28-0  | -5.6					|| Jim Harbaugh	   |	35 | 4-31-0  | -4.9					|+--------------------+-------+---------+-------------------------+
I included the average trailing margin at the end of three quarters for each QB just to see if it looked like we were comparing apples to apples. Note that this includes all games started by the QB in question. It's possible that there are some games in there where the listed QB wasn't actually in the game in the fourth quarter because he got injured during the game. FYI.
Wow. That should open some eyes.
 
You may make a good point, but I wouldn't know since the same numbers aren't reproduced for any other significant quarterback that Favre is generally compared to. How did Marino, Elway, etc. do in the same situations?
That was my first thought as well. I can't exactly duplicate the STATS figures, but I do have score-by-quarters in my database. So I looked at every QB who debuted in 1970 or later, and I found all games started by that QB where his team trailed by 8 or fewer points at the end of the 3rd quarter. There were 29 QBs who had at least 30 such games. Here they are in descending order of team record in those games. See notes at bottom.
Code:
+--------------------+-------+---------+-------------------------+| player			 | games | record  | average_trailing_margin |+--------------------+-------+---------+-------------------------+| Joe Montana		|	38 | 19-19-0 | -4.3					|| Peyton Manning	 |	31 | 15-16-0 | -4.3					|| Dan Marino		 |	56 | 26-30-0 | -4.6					|| Jim Kelly		  |	40 | 18-22-0 | -4.8					|| Terry Bradshaw	 |	30 | 13-17-0 | -4.5					|| Neil O'Donnell	 |	34 | 14-20-0 | -4.1					|| Randall Cunningham |	34 | 14-20-0 | -5.3					|| Jake Plummer	   |	30 | 12-18-0 | -4.3					|| Warren Moon		|	58 | 23-35-0 | -4.3					|| Phil Simms		 |	30 | 11-19-0 | -4.4					|| Steve Bartkowski   |	41 | 15-26-0 | -4.8					|| John Elway		 |	62 | 22-39-1 | -5.0					|| Troy Aikman		|	33 | 11-22-0 | -4.8					|| Boomer Esiason	 |	39 | 13-26-0 | -5.3					|| Dave Krieg		 |	36 | 11-25-0 | -4.8					|| Chris Chandler	 |	33 | 10-23-0 | -4.5					|| Kerry Collins	  |	37 | 11-26-0 | -4.2					|| Vinny Testaverde   |	54 | 15-39-0 | -5.0					|| Jim Plunkett	   |	36 | 10-26-0 | -4.6					|| Dan Fouts		  |	40 | 11-29-0 | -5.3					|| Drew Bledsoe	   |	40 | 11-29-0 | -4.8					|| Jeff George		|	30 | 8-22-0  | -4.6					|| Joe Ferguson	   |	34 | 9-25-0  | -4.5					|| Archie Manning	 |	31 | 7-22-2  | -4.7					|| Steve DeBerg	   |	44 | 10-33-1 | -4.6					|| Ken Anderson	   |	39 | 9-30-0  | -4.9					|| Brett Favre		|	52 | 12-40-0 | -4.3					|| Jim Everett		|	35 | 7-28-0  | -5.6					|| Jim Harbaugh	   |	35 | 4-31-0  | -4.9					|+--------------------+-------+---------+-------------------------+
I included the average trailing margin at the end of three quarters for each QB just to see if it looked like we were comparing apples to apples. Note that this includes all games started by the QB in question. It's possible that there are some games in there where the listed QB wasn't actually in the game in the fourth quarter because he got injured during the game. FYI. EDIT: also forgot to mention that this doesn't include 2008, for Favre or anyone else.
:goodposting:
 
Here are all 52 of those Favre games:

1992-10-18 - CLE (7-9): 3-10 after 3 quarters, final = 6-17

1992-11-08 - NYG (6-10): 7-13 after 3 quarters, final = 7-27

1992-11-29 - TAM (5-11): 12-14 after 3 quarters, final = 19-14

1993-09-26 - MIN (9-7): 10-12 after 3 quarters, final = 13-15

1993-11-08 - KAN (11-5): 9-13 after 3 quarters, final = 16-23

1993-11-14 - NOR (8-8): 13-14 after 3 quarters, final = 19-17

1993-11-21 - DET (10-6): 16-17 after 3 quarters, final = 26-17

1993-12-05 - CHI (7-9): 17-20 after 3 quarters, final = 17-30

1993-12-19 - MIN (9-7): 10-14 after 3 quarters, final = 17-21

1994-09-18 - PHI (7-9): 7-13 after 3 quarters, final = 7-13

1994-11-20 - BUF (7-9): 20-27 after 3 quarters, final = 20-29

1994-11-24 - DAL (12-4): 24-25 after 3 quarters, final = 31-42

1995-09-03 - STL (7-9): 7-14 after 3 quarters, final = 14-17

1995-10-29 - DET (10-6): 16-21 after 3 quarters, final = 16-24

1995-11-05 - MIN (8-8): 16-24 after 3 quarters, final = 24-27

1995-12-10 - TAM (7-9): 3-7 after 3 quarters, final = 10-13

1996-10-14 - SFO (12-4): 14-17 after 3 quarters, final = 23-20

1997-09-28 - DET (9-7): 15-20 after 3 quarters, final = 15-26

1997-11-16 - IND (3-13): 28-30 after 3 quarters, final = 38-41

1998-01-25 - DEN (12-4): 17-24 after 3 quarters, final = 24-31

1998-11-01 - SFO (12-4): 19-22 after 3 quarters, final = 36-22

1998-12-07 - TAM (8-8): 9-17 after 3 quarters, final = 22-24

1999-01-03 - SFO (12-4): 17-20 after 3 quarters, final = 27-30

1999-09-12 - OAK (8-8): 14-17 after 3 quarters, final = 28-24

1999-09-19 - DET (8-8): 6-14 after 3 quarters, final = 15-23

1999-11-07 - CHI (6-10): 10-14 after 3 quarters, final = 13-14

1999-12-12 - CAR (8-8): 21-24 after 3 quarters, final = 31-33

1999-12-20 - MIN (10-6): 13-17 after 3 quarters, final = 20-24

1999-12-26 - TAM (11-5): 10-16 after 3 quarters, final = 10-29

2000-11-12 - TAM (10-6): 9-14 after 3 quarters, final = 15-20

2001-11-04 - TAM (9-7): 14-17 after 3 quarters, final = 21-20

2001-11-18 - ATL (7-9): 13-16 after 3 quarters, final = 20-23

2001-12-16 - TEN (7-9): 13-18 after 3 quarters, final = 20-26

2002-11-17 - MIN (6-10): 14-21 after 3 quarters, final = 21-31

2002-11-24 - TAM (12-4): 7-14 after 3 quarters, final = 7-21

2003-09-21 - ARI (4-12): 10-13 after 3 quarters, final = 13-20

2004-01-04 - SEA (10-6): 13-20 after 3 quarters, final = 33-27

2004-12-12 - DET (6-10): 10-13 after 3 quarters, final = 16-13

2004-12-19 - JAX (9-7): 17-21 after 3 quarters, final = 25-28

2005-09-11 - DET (5-11): 3-10 after 3 quarters, final = 3-17

2005-09-25 - TAM (11-5): 13-17 after 3 quarters, final = 16-17

2005-10-30 - CIN (11-5): 7-14 after 3 quarters, final = 14-21

2005-11-06 - PIT (11-5): 10-13 after 3 quarters, final = 10-20

2005-12-04 - CHI (11-5): 7-9 after 3 quarters, final = 7-19

2005-12-11 - DET (5-11): 10-13 after 3 quarters, final = 16-13

2006-09-17 - NOR (10-6): 13-20 after 3 quarters, final = 27-34

2006-10-08 - STL (8-8): 13-17 after 3 quarters, final = 20-23

2006-11-05 - BUF (7-9): 7-10 after 3 quarters, final = 10-24

2006-12-21 - MIN (6-10): 6-7 after 3 quarters, final = 9-7

2007-09-23 - SDG (11-5): 17-21 after 3 quarters, final = 31-24

2007-11-29 - DAL (13-3): 24-27 after 3 quarters, final = 27-37

2008-01-20 - NYG (10-6): 17-20 after 3 quarters, final = 20-23

 
Last edited by a moderator:
i might be missing something, but that 0-11 from 2005 doesnt add up to me. The packers got crushed by Baltimore that year and they were down 20-10 with 5 minutes left against the steelers and that was the final score.

 
What most people overlook about leading your team to a dramatic comeback is that you have to fall behind first.

 
How many of those games when farve was down with under 5 min to play were they down by 7 or whatever and the other team had the ball, or even worse had the ball in their territory. Im not defending farve, or bashing rodgers (i think he was great this year), but you have to look farther into those numbers. Also, you have to compare those number to other QB's and how they did when trailing like that....
I asked Jason Wilde, who was the one whose article that was from, why was down 8 points chosen instead of down 7? Is it a different argument if it is 7 or does it even strengthen the case against his comeback ability? Here is the response. It's 8 points because they could theoretically tie the game with a touchdown and 2-point conversion. I actually asked about 7 points and STATS Inc. was the one that pointed it out to me. So I can't blame anyone for asking. And for the record, not that you're necessarily implying it, but my point was that it's REALLY HARD to come back in those situations, that even a HALL OF FAMER didn't have a very good winning pct. in such comeback scenarios. A lot of people took it as a rip on Favre, which it wasn't ... JW
 
What most people overlook about leading your team to a dramatic comeback is that you have to fall behind first.
Exactly. It is pretty rare for a Brett Favre led team to even fall behind in the first place.
I was thinking the same thing, but with a different take. How many of Favre's comebacks were necessary only because he had thrown multiple INT's early in the game? There were several of these in recent years, two examples being two come-back wins against Minnesota - the one two years ago at Lambeau where he threw the standard TAINT to Smoot and then Rayner made a game winning FG with under 2 minutes left; and the one a few years earlier in the Metrodome that clinched the division for the Packers - where Favre was standing in his own end zone and tossed one to Clairborne to give the Vikings a lead in the 4th qtr, leading to Longwell's dramatic game winner.
 
Rodgers is not a leader. He doesn't inspire anyone. He will at best, be an average NFL qb. And that's ok. The Packers will enjoy many years of 8-8ish seasons. Congrats & Enjoy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At best he will be an average NFL QB?Where are you people coming up with this stuff?
 
What most people overlook about leading your team to a dramatic comeback is that you have to fall behind first.
Exactly. It is pretty rare for a Brett Favre led team to even fall behind in the first place.
I was thinking the same thing, but with a different take. How many of Favre's comebacks were necessary only because he had thrown multiple INT's early in the game? There were several of these in recent years, two examples being two come-back wins against Minnesota - the one two years ago at Lambeau where he threw the standard TAINT to Smoot and then Rayner made a game winning FG with under 2 minutes left; and the one a few years earlier in the Metrodome that clinched the division for the Packers - where Favre was standing in his own end zone and tossed one to Clairborne to give the Vikings a lead in the 4th qtr, leading to Longwell's dramatic game winner.
Like he did against KC this year too for the Jets.Look, he brought them back alot...I don't think people are denying it.The point is...he was not perfect at it...he failed at it quite a bit too...just as Rodgers will...just as many QBs will do.And Rodgers will have to find a way to get it done late in a game and have it stick too...and at some point, he will also need the defense to step up and stop the other team.
 
Isn't it amazing how many Packer fans have turned so quickly on Favre. The OP brought up this post just to turn on Favre because he feels the need to defend Aaron Rodgers. :goodposting:

 
CletiusMaximus said:
GreenNGold said:
Borat said:
What most people overlook about leading your team to a dramatic comeback is that you have to fall behind first.
Exactly. It is pretty rare for a Brett Favre led team to even fall behind in the first place.
I was thinking the same thing, but with a different take. How many of Favre's comebacks were necessary only because he had thrown multiple INT's early in the game? There were several of these in recent years, two examples being two come-back wins against Minnesota - the one two years ago at Lambeau where he threw the standard TAINT to Smoot and then Rayner made a game winning FG with under 2 minutes left; and the one a few years earlier in the Metrodome that clinched the division for the Packers - where Favre was standing in his own end zone and tossed one to Clairborne to give the Vikings a lead in the 4th qtr, leading to Longwell's dramatic game winner.
you mean the game where the packers scored 10 unanswered points to end the game and where Favre had 365 yards and 3 TDs against that one interception?The game where the Packers defense gave up 416 yards and 24 points(if you take away that Pick 6) and the Packers still won on the road?

Yeah. What a bum.

 
Isn't it amazing how many Packer fans have turned so quickly on Favre. The OP brought up this post just to turn on Favre because he feels the need to defend Aaron Rodgers. :goodposting:
Not to turn on him...that is the spin of those who like to bash others who don't just think he was the end all be all savior of this team right now.Yes...to defend Rodgers from criticism.Favre did have alot of comebacks...but as the numbers show...he was not as successful as some make him out to be. He failed quite a bit too.As Rodgers will at times.
 
CletiusMaximus said:
GreenNGold said:
Borat said:
What most people overlook about leading your team to a dramatic comeback is that you have to fall behind first.
Exactly. It is pretty rare for a Brett Favre led team to even fall behind in the first place.
I was thinking the same thing, but with a different take. How many of Favre's comebacks were necessary only because he had thrown multiple INT's early in the game? There were several of these in recent years, two examples being two come-back wins against Minnesota - the one two years ago at Lambeau where he threw the standard TAINT to Smoot and then Rayner made a game winning FG with under 2 minutes left; and the one a few years earlier in the Metrodome that clinched the division for the Packers - where Favre was standing in his own end zone and tossed one to Clairborne to give the Vikings a lead in the 4th qtr, leading to Longwell's dramatic game winner.
you mean the game where the packers scored 10 unanswered points to end the game and where Favre had 365 yards and 3 TDs against that one interception?The game where the Packers defense gave up 416 yards and 24 points(if you take away that Pick 6) and the Packers still won on the road?

Yeah. What a bum.
I don't think he called him a bum.Just that the comeback was needed after a bad play by Favre (he did it in Detroit too in the playoff game others have brought up in these threads...but the final pass to Sharpe was a thing of beauty falling the other direction off his back foot).

 
Isn't it amazing how many Packer fans have turned so quickly on Favre. The OP brought up this post just to turn on Favre because he feels the need to defend Aaron Rodgers. :popcorn:
Not to turn on him...that is the spin of those who like to bash others who don't just think he was the end all be all savior of this team right now.Yes...to defend Rodgers from criticism.Favre did have alot of comebacks...but as the numbers show...he was not as successful as some make him out to be. He failed quite a bit too.As Rodgers will at times.
This is not directed at you sho nuff, I suppose you're included but not the aim of this comment. As a 49er fan I don't recall myself or my friends ever taking shots at Joe when he moved on to Kansas City. I am glad I didn't, even on a message board or at this point in time I would feel dirty for bashing my childhood idol, Steve Young was great too and also one of the greatest 49ers, I am just glad that I didn't take shots and bash Joe who is a legend just like Brett Favre.
 
Isn't it amazing how many Packer fans have turned so quickly on Favre. The OP brought up this post just to turn on Favre because he feels the need to defend Aaron Rodgers. :popcorn:
Not to turn on him...that is the spin of those who like to bash others who don't just think he was the end all be all savior of this team right now.Yes...to defend Rodgers from criticism.Favre did have alot of comebacks...but as the numbers show...he was not as successful as some make him out to be. He failed quite a bit too.As Rodgers will at times.
This is not directed at you sho nuff, I suppose you're included but not the aim of this comment. As a 49er fan I don't recall myself or my friends ever taking shots at Joe when he moved on to Kansas City. I am glad I didn't, even on a message board or at this point in time I would feel dirty for bashing my childhood idol, Steve Young was great too and also one of the greatest 49ers, I am just glad that I didn't take shots and bash Joe who is a legend just like Brett Favre.
Im not taking it just directed at me...but plenty love that spin...that anything that is brought up that is a bit negative to Favre...means people turned on him.Plenty of negative was said about him while he was in GB.Joe's departure was a bit different too.Im not bashing Favre...saying anything at all negative about him to contradict people making him out to be the savior is not just straight bashing.
 
CletiusMaximus said:
GreenNGold said:
Borat said:
What most people overlook about leading your team to a dramatic comeback is that you have to fall behind first.
Exactly. It is pretty rare for a Brett Favre led team to even fall behind in the first place.
I was thinking the same thing, but with a different take. How many of Favre's comebacks were necessary only because he had thrown multiple INT's early in the game? There were several of these in recent years, two examples being two come-back wins against Minnesota - the one two years ago at Lambeau where he threw the standard TAINT to Smoot and then Rayner made a game winning FG with under 2 minutes left; and the one a few years earlier in the Metrodome that clinched the division for the Packers - where Favre was standing in his own end zone and tossed one to Clairborne to give the Vikings a lead in the 4th qtr, leading to Longwell's dramatic game winner.
you mean the game where the packers scored 10 unanswered points to end the game and where Favre had 365 yards and 3 TDs against that one interception?The game where the Packers defense gave up 416 yards and 24 points(if you take away that Pick 6) and the Packers still won on the road?

Yeah. What a bum.
I never said he is a bum. I'm as big a Favre fan as anyone. The point is that the statistics on comebacks can't tell the whole story. In some cases, the team may have had a lead going into the 4th quarter, lost it, and then came back to win. In some of those cases, Favre was a hero, in others a goat. Furthermore, Rodgers has lead late drives to take a lead in several games this season, only to lose for reasons beyond his personal control (other than, of course, his lack of that intangible leadership ability to inspire his defense from the sidelines - a quality Favre showed once again this past Sunday when his presence in the stadium intimidated the opposing QB, causing a fumble, followed by Favre inspiring his teamate to scoop and score the gamewinner).
 
Isn't it amazing how many Packer fans have turned so quickly on Favre. The OP brought up this post just to turn on Favre because he feels the need to defend Aaron Rodgers. :)
Not to turn on him...that is the spin of those who like to bash others who don't just think he was the end all be all savior of this team right now.Yes...to defend Rodgers from criticism.Favre did have alot of comebacks...but as the numbers show...he was not as successful as some make him out to be. He failed quite a bit too.As Rodgers will at times.
This is not directed at you sho nuff, I suppose you're included but not the aim of this comment. As a 49er fan I don't recall myself or my friends ever taking shots at Joe when he moved on to Kansas City. I am glad I didn't, even on a message board or at this point in time I would feel dirty for bashing my childhood idol, Steve Young was great too and also one of the greatest 49ers, I am just glad that I didn't take shots and bash Joe who is a legend just like Brett Favre.
Im not taking it just directed at me...but plenty love that spin...that anything that is brought up that is a bit negative to Favre...means people turned on him.Plenty of negative was said about him while he was in GB.Joe's departure was a bit different too.Im not bashing Favre...saying anything at all negative about him to contradict people making him out to be the savior is not just straight bashing.
Again not directed at you, I have no problems with people saying something a bit negative about Favre, Joe wasn't the greatest teacher to Steve Young, he feared him - that's a bit negative what i just said about Joe.I think it's beyond a "bit negative" the fact that "Mr. Pack" created a thread, read the original post and remember he started this thread on his own with the intent on ripping Favre, it's not like he ripped Favre because Aaron needed someone to come to his side, he STARTED the thread bashing Favre. I would never do something like that to Joe Montana is my point.
 
Isn't it amazing how many Packer fans have turned so quickly on Favre. The OP brought up this post just to turn on Favre because he feels the need to defend Aaron Rodgers. :wub:
Not to turn on him...that is the spin of those who like to bash others who don't just think he was the end all be all savior of this team right now.Yes...to defend Rodgers from criticism.Favre did have alot of comebacks...but as the numbers show...he was not as successful as some make him out to be. He failed quite a bit too.As Rodgers will at times.
This is not directed at you sho nuff, I suppose you're included but not the aim of this comment. As a 49er fan I don't recall myself or my friends ever taking shots at Joe when he moved on to Kansas City. I am glad I didn't, even on a message board or at this point in time I would feel dirty for bashing my childhood idol, Steve Young was great too and also one of the greatest 49ers, I am just glad that I didn't take shots and bash Joe who is a legend just like Brett Favre.
The move didn't need defending in the same way that the move to Rodgers' does for the Packers. Young was already in place, so it must have been easier to make the transition to a new QB without having to denigrate the memory of the legend that was moved out. In the case of the Packers, no Packer fans wanted to admit he was a primadonna...until he tried to come out of retirement. Favre made everyone who defended him realize they were foolish to do so because he is what he is. Now some Packer fans really focus on the negatives that everybody else was always aware of, it's very odd but also amusing.Since the decision was to move away from Favre, where in San Fran the decision was to keep what they had in Young, it's an interesting but opposite situation, and really there is no better example of the ideal transition from legendary QB to legendary QB. The Packers record this year only compounds the necessity for some Packer fans to back it up as the right decision, and the only way to do that is to discount what Favre could have meant to the team. There's no way of doing that without taking cheap shots at him.
 
Isn't it amazing how many Packer fans have turned so quickly on Favre. The OP brought up this post just to turn on Favre because he feels the need to defend Aaron Rodgers. :popcorn:
Not to turn on him...that is the spin of those who like to bash others who don't just think he was the end all be all savior of this team right now.Yes...to defend Rodgers from criticism.Favre did have alot of comebacks...but as the numbers show...he was not as successful as some make him out to be. He failed quite a bit too.As Rodgers will at times.
This is not directed at you sho nuff, I suppose you're included but not the aim of this comment. As a 49er fan I don't recall myself or my friends ever taking shots at Joe when he moved on to Kansas City. I am glad I didn't, even on a message board or at this point in time I would feel dirty for bashing my childhood idol, Steve Young was great too and also one of the greatest 49ers, I am just glad that I didn't take shots and bash Joe who is a legend just like Brett Favre.
The move didn't need defending in the same way that the move to Rodgers' does for the Packers. Young was already in place, so it must have been easier to make the transition to a new QB without having to denigrate the memory of the legend that was moved out. In the case of the Packers, no Packer fans wanted to admit he was a primadonna...until he tried to come out of retirement. Favre made everyone who defended him realize they were foolish to do so because he is what he is. Now some Packer fans really focus on the negatives that everybody else was always aware of, it's very odd but also amusing.Since the decision was to move away from Favre, where in San Fran the decision was to keep what they had in Young, it's an interesting but opposite situation, and really there is no better example of the ideal transition from legendary QB to legendary QB. The Packers record this year only compounds the necessity for some Packer fans to back it up as the right decision, and the only way to do that is to discount what Favre could have meant to the team. There's no way of doing that without taking cheap shots at him.
:)
 
Isn't it amazing how many Packer fans have turned so quickly on Favre. The OP brought up this post just to turn on Favre because he feels the need to defend Aaron Rodgers. :lmao:
Not to turn on him...that is the spin of those who like to bash others who don't just think he was the end all be all savior of this team right now.Yes...to defend Rodgers from criticism.Favre did have alot of comebacks...but as the numbers show...he was not as successful as some make him out to be. He failed quite a bit too.As Rodgers will at times.
This is not directed at you sho nuff, I suppose you're included but not the aim of this comment. As a 49er fan I don't recall myself or my friends ever taking shots at Joe when he moved on to Kansas City. I am glad I didn't, even on a message board or at this point in time I would feel dirty for bashing my childhood idol, Steve Young was great too and also one of the greatest 49ers, I am just glad that I didn't take shots and bash Joe who is a legend just like Brett Favre.
Im not taking it just directed at me...but plenty love that spin...that anything that is brought up that is a bit negative to Favre...means people turned on him.Plenty of negative was said about him while he was in GB.Joe's departure was a bit different too.Im not bashing Favre...saying anything at all negative about him to contradict people making him out to be the savior is not just straight bashing.
Again not directed at you, I have no problems with people saying something a bit negative about Favre, Joe wasn't the greatest teacher to Steve Young, he feared him - that's a bit negative what i just said about Joe.I think it's beyond a "bit negative" the fact that "Mr. Pack" created a thread, read the original post and remember he started this thread on his own with the intent on ripping Favre, it's not like he ripped Favre because Aaron needed someone to come to his side, he STARTED the thread bashing Favre. I would never do something like that to Joe Montana is my point.
IMO...he started the thread because the criticism of Rodgers and praise of Favre on this site recently has gotten ridiculous.I don't think he did it to just come out and bash Favre.
 
Isn't it amazing how many Packer fans have turned so quickly on Favre. The OP brought up this post just to turn on Favre because he feels the need to defend Aaron Rodgers. :lmao:
Not to turn on him...that is the spin of those who like to bash others who don't just think he was the end all be all savior of this team right now.Yes...to defend Rodgers from criticism.Favre did have alot of comebacks...but as the numbers show...he was not as successful as some make him out to be. He failed quite a bit too.As Rodgers will at times.
This is not directed at you sho nuff, I suppose you're included but not the aim of this comment. As a 49er fan I don't recall myself or my friends ever taking shots at Joe when he moved on to Kansas City. I am glad I didn't, even on a message board or at this point in time I would feel dirty for bashing my childhood idol, Steve Young was great too and also one of the greatest 49ers, I am just glad that I didn't take shots and bash Joe who is a legend just like Brett Favre.
The move didn't need defending in the same way that the move to Rodgers' does for the Packers. Young was already in place, so it must have been easier to make the transition to a new QB without having to denigrate the memory of the legend that was moved out. In the case of the Packers, no Packer fans wanted to admit he was a primadonna...until he tried to come out of retirement. Favre made everyone who defended him realize they were foolish to do so because he is what he is. Now some Packer fans really focus on the negatives that everybody else was always aware of, it's very odd but also amusing.Since the decision was to move away from Favre, where in San Fran the decision was to keep what they had in Young, it's an interesting but opposite situation, and really there is no better example of the ideal transition from legendary QB to legendary QB. The Packers record this year only compounds the necessity for some Packer fans to back it up as the right decision, and the only way to do that is to discount what Favre could have meant to the team. There's no way of doing that without taking cheap shots at him.
Also amusing is those who bashed him for years are now defending Favre and put aside most of what they used to bash him about (and this is not totally directed at you).I don't discount what he could have meant...I just don't think he would have meant as some want to think he would have.And they are not cheap shots...they are facts. As this thread started with.
 
Isn't it amazing how many Packer fans have turned so quickly on Favre. The OP brought up this post just to turn on Favre because he feels the need to defend Aaron Rodgers. :lmao:
Not to turn on him...that is the spin of those who like to bash others who don't just think he was the end all be all savior of this team right now.Yes...to defend Rodgers from criticism.Favre did have alot of comebacks...but as the numbers show...he was not as successful as some make him out to be. He failed quite a bit too.As Rodgers will at times.
This is not directed at you sho nuff, I suppose you're included but not the aim of this comment. As a 49er fan I don't recall myself or my friends ever taking shots at Joe when he moved on to Kansas City. I am glad I didn't, even on a message board or at this point in time I would feel dirty for bashing my childhood idol, Steve Young was great too and also one of the greatest 49ers, I am just glad that I didn't take shots and bash Joe who is a legend just like Brett Favre.
The move didn't need defending in the same way that the move to Rodgers' does for the Packers. Young was already in place, so it must have been easier to make the transition to a new QB without having to denigrate the memory of the legend that was moved out. In the case of the Packers, no Packer fans wanted to admit he was a primadonna...until he tried to come out of retirement. Favre made everyone who defended him realize they were foolish to do so because he is what he is. Now some Packer fans really focus on the negatives that everybody else was always aware of, it's very odd but also amusing.Since the decision was to move away from Favre, where in San Fran the decision was to keep what they had in Young, it's an interesting but opposite situation, and really there is no better example of the ideal transition from legendary QB to legendary QB. The Packers record this year only compounds the necessity for some Packer fans to back it up as the right decision, and the only way to do that is to discount what Favre could have meant to the team. There's no way of doing that without taking cheap shots at him.
Also amusing is those who bashed him for years are now defending Favre and put aside most of what they used to bash him about (and this is not totally directed at you).I don't discount what he could have meant...I just don't think he would have meant as some want to think he would have.And they are not cheap shots...they are facts. As this thread started with.
I'm only in it for the irony.
 
Isn't it amazing how many Packer fans have turned so quickly on Favre. The OP brought up this post just to turn on Favre because he feels the need to defend Aaron Rodgers. :thumbup:
Not to turn on him...that is the spin of those who like to bash others who don't just think he was the end all be all savior of this team right now.Yes...to defend Rodgers from criticism.Favre did have alot of comebacks...but as the numbers show...he was not as successful as some make him out to be. He failed quite a bit too.As Rodgers will at times.
This is not directed at you sho nuff, I suppose you're included but not the aim of this comment. As a 49er fan I don't recall myself or my friends ever taking shots at Joe when he moved on to Kansas City. I am glad I didn't, even on a message board or at this point in time I would feel dirty for bashing my childhood idol, Steve Young was great too and also one of the greatest 49ers, I am just glad that I didn't take shots and bash Joe who is a legend just like Brett Favre.
Im not taking it just directed at me...but plenty love that spin...that anything that is brought up that is a bit negative to Favre...means people turned on him.Plenty of negative was said about him while he was in GB.Joe's departure was a bit different too.Im not bashing Favre...saying anything at all negative about him to contradict people making him out to be the savior is not just straight bashing.
Again not directed at you, I have no problems with people saying something a bit negative about Favre, Joe wasn't the greatest teacher to Steve Young, he feared him - that's a bit negative what i just said about Joe.I think it's beyond a "bit negative" the fact that "Mr. Pack" created a thread, read the original post and remember he started this thread on his own with the intent on ripping Favre, it's not like he ripped Favre because Aaron needed someone to come to his side, he STARTED the thread bashing Favre. I would never do something like that to Joe Montana is my point.
IMO...he started the thread because the criticism of Rodgers and praise of Favre on this site recently has gotten ridiculous.I don't think he did it to just come out and bash Favre.
Mr. Pack bashes Favre whenever he can just like you. The attacks on Favre and the support of Thompson has also gotten ridiculous as the season goes down the toilet. The Packers were 13-3 last year and are now at 5-9. One more loss means this Packers team will set the 90-year team record for biggest drop-off in victories from one season to the next, a sobering record of ineffectiveness.
 
Isn't it amazing how many Packer fans have turned so quickly on Favre. The OP brought up this post just to turn on Favre because he feels the need to defend Aaron Rodgers. :thumbup:
Not to turn on him...that is the spin of those who like to bash others who don't just think he was the end all be all savior of this team right now.Yes...to defend Rodgers from criticism.Favre did have alot of comebacks...but as the numbers show...he was not as successful as some make him out to be. He failed quite a bit too.As Rodgers will at times.
This is not directed at you sho nuff, I suppose you're included but not the aim of this comment. As a 49er fan I don't recall myself or my friends ever taking shots at Joe when he moved on to Kansas City. I am glad I didn't, even on a message board or at this point in time I would feel dirty for bashing my childhood idol, Steve Young was great too and also one of the greatest 49ers, I am just glad that I didn't take shots and bash Joe who is a legend just like Brett Favre.
Im not taking it just directed at me...but plenty love that spin...that anything that is brought up that is a bit negative to Favre...means people turned on him.Plenty of negative was said about him while he was in GB.Joe's departure was a bit different too.Im not bashing Favre...saying anything at all negative about him to contradict people making him out to be the savior is not just straight bashing.
Again not directed at you, I have no problems with people saying something a bit negative about Favre, Joe wasn't the greatest teacher to Steve Young, he feared him - that's a bit negative what i just said about Joe.I think it's beyond a "bit negative" the fact that "Mr. Pack" created a thread, read the original post and remember he started this thread on his own with the intent on ripping Favre, it's not like he ripped Favre because Aaron needed someone to come to his side, he STARTED the thread bashing Favre. I would never do something like that to Joe Montana is my point.
IMO...he started the thread because the criticism of Rodgers and praise of Favre on this site recently has gotten ridiculous.I don't think he did it to just come out and bash Favre.
Packers 2007: 13-3Packers 2008: 5-9Jets 2007: 4-12Jets 2008: 9-5I'm not a Packer fan, Jets fan, or Favre fan. Bot those numbers speak louder than any of the previous 3.
 
Isn't it amazing how many Packer fans have turned so quickly on Favre. The OP brought up this post just to turn on Favre because he feels the need to defend Aaron Rodgers. :lmao:
Not to turn on him...that is the spin of those who like to bash others who don't just think he was the end all be all savior of this team right now.Yes...to defend Rodgers from criticism.Favre did have alot of comebacks...but as the numbers show...he was not as successful as some make him out to be. He failed quite a bit too.As Rodgers will at times.
This is not directed at you sho nuff, I suppose you're included but not the aim of this comment. As a 49er fan I don't recall myself or my friends ever taking shots at Joe when he moved on to Kansas City. I am glad I didn't, even on a message board or at this point in time I would feel dirty for bashing my childhood idol, Steve Young was great too and also one of the greatest 49ers, I am just glad that I didn't take shots and bash Joe who is a legend just like Brett Favre.
Im not taking it just directed at me...but plenty love that spin...that anything that is brought up that is a bit negative to Favre...means people turned on him.Plenty of negative was said about him while he was in GB.Joe's departure was a bit different too.Im not bashing Favre...saying anything at all negative about him to contradict people making him out to be the savior is not just straight bashing.
Again not directed at you, I have no problems with people saying something a bit negative about Favre, Joe wasn't the greatest teacher to Steve Young, he feared him - that's a bit negative what i just said about Joe.I think it's beyond a "bit negative" the fact that "Mr. Pack" created a thread, read the original post and remember he started this thread on his own with the intent on ripping Favre, it's not like he ripped Favre because Aaron needed someone to come to his side, he STARTED the thread bashing Favre. I would never do something like that to Joe Montana is my point.
IMO...he started the thread because the criticism of Rodgers and praise of Favre on this site recently has gotten ridiculous.I don't think he did it to just come out and bash Favre.
Packers 2007: 13-3Packers 2008: 5-9Jets 2007: 4-12Jets 2008: 9-5I'm not a Packer fan, Jets fan, or Favre fan. Bot those numbers speak louder than any of the previous 3.
:thumbup: Now here come the excuses!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top