Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Uh oh NFL N is asking (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter cr8f
- Start date
FavreCo
Footballguy
Better weapons than Favre had in any season but yet, if he keeps it up. Seems more consistent. Last week one play where he took off and ran, Favre would have tossed it across the field (possibly getting an INT). Rodgers took the 1st down running. Right now the big differnece is the lack of horrid decisions at crunch time. Favre won a ton with late game heroics but had plenty of head scratchers too.
Bojang0301
Omar4Heisman
Absolutely. He doesn't make the "wtf, Brett?" plays Favre did.
Reepicheep
Footballguy
Favre was a TD machine in his prime. Five straight seasons of 31+ TDs, 176 TDs in five years, it was just ridiculous, we have never seen anything like it and I wonder if we ever will. Manning and Brees are the only other QBs that even have more than two seasons of 31+ TDs.
That said, every other metric (completion percentage, yards per attempt, Ints) favor Rodgers. It's looking like Rodgers will chuck 40+ this year, so at this point it's hard not to say that Rodgers is playing better than Favre in his prime.
That said, every other metric (completion percentage, yards per attempt, Ints) favor Rodgers. It's looking like Rodgers will chuck 40+ this year, so at this point it's hard not to say that Rodgers is playing better than Favre in his prime.
The rules are favoring the QB now too.
CalBear
Footballguy
31+ passing TDs is a pretty arbitrary cutoff, don't you think? Rodgers has three years of 28+ passing TDs, with 4, 5, and 4 rushing TDs in those three years (Favre never had more than 3 rushing TDs). Certainly statistically Rodgers' performance is better than anything Favre ever did.
They're a little better but it's not like Favre played in the 60's or 70's. I think he played just last year if memory serves me correctly.....
Some of Favre's WRs (in their prime/in his prime) were fantasy busts elsewhere. A million years ago, it was actually a bad thing to grab a Favre WR on another team.
The biggest bust went to SEA and another was a supposed sleeper Mickens? that went to Oak and did nothing.
Javon Walker wasn't someone that caught FF people by surprise when he struggled elsewhere. He did due to injury, but the radar was up for the older FF folks.
IIRC Anthony Morgan left for another team, stunk, and the Pack were glad to have him back.
Didn't they have old Mark Clayton? Cmon now.
I might be wrong but I thought making something of this hodge-podge gave Gruden a career. This was when he got really noticed and all.
Favre was blessed with two awesome TEs, maybe more. Chmura's dumb criminal stuff aside, he was a top TE and pushed Jackie Harris off to be a decent TE elsewhere.
At RB, they had some great FBs during Favre's tenure that were good runners. I never liked Levens or the others paraded through there til Ahman Green.
Rodgers' WRs are eons better than all but Sharpe. Sharpe was done so quickly. The way I remember it, Al Toon's abrupt career ending was halfway similar and it was easier to "take" that a team (and the NFL) lost a top WR. Both seemed like a bigger deal in each successive year than it did then. They're both still the best WR their team ever had and Jets fans yelling "Tooooooooon" is about as classic as it gets. People like to talk about that dopey panty-hose with Namath, for me it's "Toooooon" or Klecko's weird stances.
Anyhow...
Rodgers seems to be so very hot and so perfect now. He reminds me of Brady and Brees when they were at their best. When Favre was at his best he was ad-libbing and firing these bullets that no one could catch without breaking a finger. He wasn't a pretty boy but a playground slinger. People flat out didn't like his style of play for years. IIRC some idiots wanted Ty Detmer to replace him.
Favre filled a superman's role there. The Majik man was as big as any NFL player for a year or two and magic really seemed fitting. Green Bay so stunk for so long before that. The guy was magic and deserves some credit for the life he brought into that franchise. Favre was better than the Majik man but similarly crazy with many of his throws. Rodgers seems like the new and improved, this time the Pack got rid of the craziness.
The biggest bust went to SEA and another was a supposed sleeper Mickens? that went to Oak and did nothing.
Javon Walker wasn't someone that caught FF people by surprise when he struggled elsewhere. He did due to injury, but the radar was up for the older FF folks.
IIRC Anthony Morgan left for another team, stunk, and the Pack were glad to have him back.
Didn't they have old Mark Clayton? Cmon now.
I might be wrong but I thought making something of this hodge-podge gave Gruden a career. This was when he got really noticed and all.
Favre was blessed with two awesome TEs, maybe more. Chmura's dumb criminal stuff aside, he was a top TE and pushed Jackie Harris off to be a decent TE elsewhere.
At RB, they had some great FBs during Favre's tenure that were good runners. I never liked Levens or the others paraded through there til Ahman Green.
Rodgers' WRs are eons better than all but Sharpe. Sharpe was done so quickly. The way I remember it, Al Toon's abrupt career ending was halfway similar and it was easier to "take" that a team (and the NFL) lost a top WR. Both seemed like a bigger deal in each successive year than it did then. They're both still the best WR their team ever had and Jets fans yelling "Tooooooooon" is about as classic as it gets. People like to talk about that dopey panty-hose with Namath, for me it's "Toooooon" or Klecko's weird stances.
Anyhow...
Rodgers seems to be so very hot and so perfect now. He reminds me of Brady and Brees when they were at their best. When Favre was at his best he was ad-libbing and firing these bullets that no one could catch without breaking a finger. He wasn't a pretty boy but a playground slinger. People flat out didn't like his style of play for years. IIRC some idiots wanted Ty Detmer to replace him.
Favre filled a superman's role there. The Majik man was as big as any NFL player for a year or two and magic really seemed fitting. Green Bay so stunk for so long before that. The guy was magic and deserves some credit for the life he brought into that franchise. Favre was better than the Majik man but similarly crazy with many of his throws. Rodgers seems like the new and improved, this time the Pack got rid of the craziness.
If you want to compare the two it's only fair to look at them while they are both in their prime. To compare Favre at the end of his career to Rodgers in his prime is just stupid and biased.I would argue the point that Rodgers receivers are eons better. Farve had Sharpe, Antonio Freeman, Javon Walker, Robert Brooks, Terry Glenn + Donald Driver in his prime. He even had a good young Jennings toward the end.Rodgers has Jennings, Nelson , Jones & an old Driver. Nelson & Jones haven't broke 700 yards in a season yet. Jones was a free agent & had little to no interest from the rest of the league & came back to the Pack. People love Finley, but has he even played in 16 games yet? RB? I'd take Ahman Green over anyone that Rodgers has had. It's some talent at WR but I question whether it has more to do with Rodgers than the wideouts.
wiscstlatlmia
Footballguy
Favre's 2009 year was better than any year Rodger's has had thus far...just saying
CalBear
Footballguy
Well, except for throwing an interception to keep the team from going to the Super Bowl.Rodgers' 2011 is almost certainly going to be better in most or all statistical metrics than Favre's 2009. He's averaging 9.8 yards per attempt for heaven's sake, with 17 TDs and 3 INTs. Some of that wlll come down (he'll be playing on the frozen tundra soon), but it's hard to project him for less than 9.0 yards/attempt or less than 4500 yards, 30 TDs at this point. And it could easily be 9.5 y/a, 40 TDs, 5000 yards.
Billy1x
Footballguy
IMO - You can't really compare different eras, coaches, players, opponents, etc. If you want use that premise I'd rate Rogers better than all the QBs in history. I would say he's better than Montana, Elway, Moreno, Brady, Manning, Baugh, Starr, etc. Check the numbers. Highest QB rating of all time and climbing. On track to break every record in the history of football.
Hey, 5 QBs will shatter Marino's record this year. 6000 yds is the new standard. Maybe 7000 this year. Welcome to Arena football!!
Hey, 5 QBs will shatter Marino's record this year. 6000 yds is the new standard. Maybe 7000 this year. Welcome to Arena football!!
Last edited by a moderator:
wiscstlatlmia
Footballguy
Aaron Rodger's ending to 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK-ohNgXuRU
go to 6:55 ...so they both lost the games for there teams blah blah blah. I really dont think one thing like that can define a season.
CalBear
Footballguy
Aaron Rodgers' ending to 2010:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir954TdkS_A
One thing like that can define a season.
Reepicheep
Footballguy
Yeah, I just chose 31 because it was Favre's lowest in that five year stretch. Make it 30 which feels less arbitrary and it doesn't really change anything I said (other than adding Marino and Warner to the "other QBs" list). He still put up 176 TDs (plus 9 rushing) in five years. Dude put points on the board.
Agreed, people really over-hype this "rules favoring the QB now" thing. Here are the per-team passing averages from 1996 and 2009.Year Cmp Att Yards TDs Ints1996 306 532 3319 20.9 18.12009 324 532 3495 22.2 16.4So in exactly the same number of attempts, the average QB completed 18 more passes for about 170 more yards, one more TD, and one or two fewer INTs. It's a difference to be sure, but not nearly what it is made out to be.
Funny, I actually forgot that 2009 was Favre's best year statistically. Either way it seems like a safe bet that Rodgers' 2011 season will go down as clearly superior to anything Favre has done, 2009 season included.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
It's all relative but with the current rules, it sure looks like Rodgers is better.
Using the whole leagues statistics is not fair to compare either. Why? Too much of a mix between running/passing, good/bad and so forth. Take the top 10 or the top 5 passers in each year to get a better barometer of what the main passers did do. Favre had 3900 yards one season he won the MVP, I believe. What have the recent Qb's that have won an MVP, what were their totals.
Lots of people like to claim Rodgers has a Super Bowl MVP to, but Favre's stats were Super Bowl MVP worthy when they won the game. So, again, it's all relative. When you go about comparing stats, you cannot look at total stats but rather what their positions did in each of those years. Marino's 1984 season is, probably, one of the best of not the best QB season because he was much "better" than the rest in the top 5. Have we had such a difference since? Don't look at overall stats, rather relative stats.
If looking at total stats is the barometer, than QB's from the 80's, 70's, 60's need not apply because their stats don't come close.
Using the whole leagues statistics is not fair to compare either. Why? Too much of a mix between running/passing, good/bad and so forth. Take the top 10 or the top 5 passers in each year to get a better barometer of what the main passers did do. Favre had 3900 yards one season he won the MVP, I believe. What have the recent Qb's that have won an MVP, what were their totals.
Lots of people like to claim Rodgers has a Super Bowl MVP to, but Favre's stats were Super Bowl MVP worthy when they won the game. So, again, it's all relative. When you go about comparing stats, you cannot look at total stats but rather what their positions did in each of those years. Marino's 1984 season is, probably, one of the best of not the best QB season because he was much "better" than the rest in the top 5. Have we had such a difference since? Don't look at overall stats, rather relative stats.
If looking at total stats is the barometer, than QB's from the 80's, 70's, 60's need not apply because their stats don't come close.
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear
Footballguy
Favre led the league in passing yards twice, and was top 5 11 times. However, he was top 5 in pass attempts 12 times. In yards/attempt, he never led the league, and was top five only four times. Rodgers has been top 5 in passing yardage twice in three years as a starter and almost certainly will be there again this year--but he has never been top 5 in pass attempts. In yards/attempt he's finished top five twice already and currently is leading the league.
But if you compare the top 10 in each year you will find in 2010 you have 566 more completed passes with 275 more attempts and 7,649 more yards with 65 more passing TDs.
⚡DEADHEAD⚡
Footballguy
As much as I loved Favre as a Packer before all went south, Favre could not do what Aaron did last year to close out the season and win three straight on the road to go to and then win the Super Bowl. Elite, consistent, strategic play. Favre never mastered all three.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
You're not doing it right. You need to evaluate each of the QB's in the top 5 or top 10 and compare their totals in any given year. Placement does not matter. If Favre led the league with 4000 yards and the next QB had 3000 yards, then Favre had one hell of a year. However, if Favre led the leaf he with 4000 yards and the next QB had 3900 yards, then that shows that overall passing, most likely was up. Hell, nothing against Cam Newton but his two 400 yard passing games doesn't tell me he is a great prolific passer. Just like some QB finishing first in passing yards doesn't tell me they are a great prolific passer either. I think it was you but someone quoted how league passing is not much different over the course of some time. So what? What did the top QB's pass for, TD's of the top QB's and so forth. Hard numbers do not tell the story and if they did get ready to throw out the old school QB's cause, I guess, they suck.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
And, the rules do matter in this equation. In Favre's prime, the cb's could be more aggressive and could bump and run more and the receivers were not as big. If you ask any receiver from the 80's or 90's if they would like to play today, 99% of them would rather play today than when they did because how much the game favors the pass.
CalBear
Footballguy
Look, if you want to make the argument, make the argument, I'm not going to make it for you.But if you must, when Favre led the league in 1995 with 4413 yards, Scott Mitchell had 4338, Warren Moon had 4228, and Jeff George had 4143. When he led in 1998 with 4212 yards, Steve Young had 4170.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
Here is the video in question from NFL Total Access tonight:
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d8234823c/A-Call-to-Arms-Favre-vs-Rodgers
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d8234823c/A-Call-to-Arms-Favre-vs-Rodgers
fantasizing
Footballguy
Favre still had D. Driver and G. Jennings for many years. It's not like Favre had no one good to throw to.
Rodgers, imo, is just a better QB, plain and simple. Doesn't force it like Favre did, and hence keeps the INT's down.
Rodgers, imo, is just a better QB, plain and simple. Doesn't force it like Favre did, and hence keeps the INT's down.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
I'm not the one trying to make the argument that Favre > Rodgers. I am, however, pointing out that using hard stats does not tell the story. Again, if you are going to argue either/or by using stats, then use relative stats and not, "Rodgers threw for 5000 yards and Favre never did therefore Rodgers is better" argument. Use relative stats ie, hard numbers in relation to the given year they were achieved using their respective cohorts. Who had the better QB year? The QB who threw for 4000 yards with second place coming in at 3000 or the QB who threw for 4000 yards with second coming in at 3900? Use percentages, standard deviations, means, medians and such. Don't come back saying A > B without statistical analysis. TIA
Dark Matter
Footballguy
As Sterling said, "don't fall for the banana in the tail pipe." Too soon to tell as Aaron needs a few more starts 
Favre had Jennings for 2 years and Jennings first year he caught something like 40 rec for 3 TD.
Now your INT comment... for sure...Rodgers has thrown 2.97 TD per INT Favre (career) threw 1.51 TD per INT Favre (prime 4yrs 94-97) threw 2.58 TD per INTRodgers has thrown 1 INT per 51.9 attempts.Favre (career) threw 1 INT per 30.3 attempts.Favre (prime 4yrs 94-97) threw 1 INT per 39.4 attemptsok ok let's throw in Favre's 2009 year into the stats so 5 "prime" stats years (94,95,96,97,09)Favre threw 2.83 TD per INTFavre threw 1 INT per 43.5 attemptsSo Rodgers wins the stats competition.Let's revisit this thread when Rodgers has 11 pro bowls, 3 first-team all pro, 3 nfl mvp, 15 winnings seasons, 
and 3 years leading the league in INT 
Last edited by a moderator:
wiscstlatlmia
Footballguy
I'm rooting for Rodgers to be honest. I just don't think you can claim that hes a better QB yet, I just don't. If he gets another SB ring this year, that's when this conversation should start.
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear
Footballguy
So Jerry Rice's 1995 wasn't so impressive? He set the all-time record for receiving yards (which still stands) but Isaac Bruce was only 67 yards behind. Andre Johnson's 2008 was much more impressive? I don't think any sane observer would suggest that. You haven't even made the argument for your method of analysis, let alone for Favre > Rodgers.
GreenNGold
Footballguy
Rodgers is going to go down in history as the best QB ever to play the game, and it won't even be close.
adrenaline
Footballguy
Young had a lot better numbers than Montana too, passing in the NFL is continuously evolving. That said I will take Rodgers, Favre just threw too many costly ints.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
You're still not doing it right.There were four players above 1600 yards in 1995, two above 1700 and one above 1800. Each of those seasons is impressive however there were also nine receivers that caught over 100 passes. While the yardage numbers were up, is it that impressive that one of those in a high receiving year break a record? Impressive, yes, but not overly impressive since those four receivers all ranked in the top 5 all-time in receiving yards for a season after that season. Also, its not overly impressive since It took Rice two more games to do it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Favre against Philly ( playoffs ) throws the ball up for grabs in overtime ???
Favre against Giants ( champ game ) OT pick on a WTF throw
Favre against NoLa ( champ game ) needs 8 yards for a first down scrambles and has a WWWWWWIIIIIIDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEEE open field ahead of him - he could have crawled 10 yards instead throws accross his body into double coverage and a pick. All they neeeded was a FG and were already just inside FG range at the 30 something. That was one of the dumbest plays I ever saw a great player make in a huge game.
is Rogers better than Favre - I don't know Favre never had the talent Rogers does on o or D -- unless you count the Sharpe years but that was in the beginging
Favre against Giants ( champ game ) OT pick on a WTF throw
Favre against NoLa ( champ game ) needs 8 yards for a first down scrambles and has a WWWWWWIIIIIIDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEEE open field ahead of him - he could have crawled 10 yards instead throws accross his body into double coverage and a pick. All they neeeded was a FG and were already just inside FG range at the 30 something. That was one of the dumbest plays I ever saw a great player make in a huge game.
is Rogers better than Favre - I don't know Favre never had the talent Rogers does on o or D -- unless you count the Sharpe years but that was in the beginging
CalBear
Footballguy
Well why don't you "do it right" and demonstrate your brilliance, then? Geeze, am I being trolled by an LHUCKS alias?
Mario Kart
Footballguy
I edited my post above. Go reread it. Sorry, it's 1:00am here and I'm on my phone doing this. Your statistical analysis is below average at best. Can't educate you in a couple of hours.
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
This discussion is proof of just how badly Favre tarnished his career with his swan song.
"Playing better" over what time frame? The makeshift "end of last year to beginning of this year" season? It's a compliment to Rodgers to have this discussion, but it's really unfair to him. In the short term, anyone can "play better" than anyone. Let's give him a chance to develop a body of work to make a fair comparison.
Earlier I would have said Rodgers had no chance to have a better career than Favre. Now I'm at "reserve judgment." That's about as big a compliment as I can give at this stage of his career.
"Playing better" over what time frame? The makeshift "end of last year to beginning of this year" season? It's a compliment to Rodgers to have this discussion, but it's really unfair to him. In the short term, anyone can "play better" than anyone. Let's give him a chance to develop a body of work to make a fair comparison.
Earlier I would have said Rodgers had no chance to have a better career than Favre. Now I'm at "reserve judgment." That's about as big a compliment as I can give at this stage of his career.
DoubleG
Footballguy
Axel said it. Just sayin.As Sterling said, "don't fall for the banana in the tail pipe." Too soon to tell as Aaron needs a few more starts
MJD_Mafia
Footballguy
I'm the biggest Packers homer in the world. Unlike many of my peers, I've never been overly polarized on the old man. He is what he is... an ego-maniac, narcissistic, emotional, and immature guy. But he was also a hell of a quarterback, and no matter what he's done since the 2007 NFC Championship, he will be a legendary part of the Green Bay Packers.
Favre was wildly entertaining, giving fans the constant hope that he could will his team to victory. He was also wildly frustrating, single-handedly losing many key playoff games:
2001 season playoffs, ending in an absolutely horrific nightmare 45-17 thrashing, with SIX interceptions
2002 season playoffs, ending in the first ever home Lambeau Field playoff loss
2003 season playoffs, ending in Favre chucking up the game losing interception in OT vs. the Philly game (this game is mis-titled "4th and 26", when indeed it was Favre who lost it
2004 season playoffs, ending in a four interception loss to the Vikings, again tarnishing the Lambeau playoff record
2007 season playoffs, ending in an absolutely head-scratching and heartbreaking interception on a terrible decision (Favre could have hit a conservative throw for the 1st down easily, but chose to "chuck it" again
2009 season playoffs, with Minnesota, ending in another head-scratching and potentially even more ridiculous decision than the 2007 NFC Championship
There's a lot of talk about talent... I'll say one thing for sure... Rodgers has never had a running game even close to what Favre had with the 2003 team, where Ahman Green was absolutely unstoppable behind the most talented Green Bay Offensive Line in the Favre/Rodgers era. So let's not only focus on WRs when we talk about the talent around Rodgers. He is successful behind a pretty suspect O-line.
Bottom line: I'll take Rodgers any time. His professionalism, team-first attitude, unreal accuracy, clutch throws (see 3rd down rating), stellar intelligence, all-pro decision making ability, and mobility all add up to a QB who gives you a much better chance to win any given Sunday. I don't care about how long Favre lasted. Like Gale Sayers proved, you don't have to overstay your welcome to prove you're one of the best all time
Favre was wildly entertaining, giving fans the constant hope that he could will his team to victory. He was also wildly frustrating, single-handedly losing many key playoff games:
2001 season playoffs, ending in an absolutely horrific nightmare 45-17 thrashing, with SIX interceptions
2002 season playoffs, ending in the first ever home Lambeau Field playoff loss
2003 season playoffs, ending in Favre chucking up the game losing interception in OT vs. the Philly game (this game is mis-titled "4th and 26", when indeed it was Favre who lost it
2004 season playoffs, ending in a four interception loss to the Vikings, again tarnishing the Lambeau playoff record
2007 season playoffs, ending in an absolutely head-scratching and heartbreaking interception on a terrible decision (Favre could have hit a conservative throw for the 1st down easily, but chose to "chuck it" again
2009 season playoffs, with Minnesota, ending in another head-scratching and potentially even more ridiculous decision than the 2007 NFC Championship
There's a lot of talk about talent... I'll say one thing for sure... Rodgers has never had a running game even close to what Favre had with the 2003 team, where Ahman Green was absolutely unstoppable behind the most talented Green Bay Offensive Line in the Favre/Rodgers era. So let's not only focus on WRs when we talk about the talent around Rodgers. He is successful behind a pretty suspect O-line.
Bottom line: I'll take Rodgers any time. His professionalism, team-first attitude, unreal accuracy, clutch throws (see 3rd down rating), stellar intelligence, all-pro decision making ability, and mobility all add up to a QB who gives you a much better chance to win any given Sunday. I don't care about how long Favre lasted. Like Gale Sayers proved, you don't have to overstay your welcome to prove you're one of the best all time
cr8f
Footballguy
Also Chmura and Keith Jackson but not Mark Clayton. I think people forget how good Sharpe was. At a time Irvin, Riice and Sharpe were the best in the league.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Favre also played under a different rule set. Corners were allowed to beat the crap out of receivers without getting calls. Defensive linemen were able to actually tackle the quarterback.
I love Rodgers, but he's making his hay right now in a league where you can't hardly hit a qb without risk of getting flagged and wideouts are protected to the point of laughability.
I love Rodgers, but he's making his hay right now in a league where you can't hardly hit a qb without risk of getting flagged and wideouts are protected to the point of laughability.
MJD_Mafia
Footballguy
Wow, the league has changed so much since 2009....
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Favre played his best ball from about 1994-1998. He was nowhere near his prime in 2009. But to answer your question, yes. It has. The QB rules have changed twice in the last two seasons. Look at the aggregate passing stats this season. It has never been easier to pass (rule-wise) in the NFL.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Favre was great.
Rodgers is great.
As a Packer fan, we are very lucky to have these 2 back to back.
Favre was probably better in some areas...Rodgers is better in others.
If Rodgers wins more titles, he will be considered better. (and should be if that happens IMO).
The numbers will end up being similar enough, the titles will dictate where they fit in team/league history.
Rodgers is great.
As a Packer fan, we are very lucky to have these 2 back to back.
Favre was probably better in some areas...Rodgers is better in others.
If Rodgers wins more titles, he will be considered better. (and should be if that happens IMO).
The numbers will end up being similar enough, the titles will dictate where they fit in team/league history.
Last edited by a moderator:
As a Bears fan, obviously I hate them both. However Favre's dominance over the Bears (particularly at home) will be a tough thing for Rodgers to equal, though certainly not impossible with the way he is playing. I am not saying that these numbers make Favre better than Rodgers historically, but from the perspective of a rival this perspective holds some value.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Rodgers is 6-2 against the Bears as a starter ...and was a blocked FG away from being 7-1 against them (includes the NFC title game).
