OlHoss1884
11 years ago


34 career comebacks sounds like a lot until you find out that it was out of 100 attempts. More than twice as many attempts as the next guy with 38 comebacks.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



By your own logic, if they trail 42-10 at the start of the 4th quarter, and lose 42-41, that's a failure to come back despite putting up 31 in the quarter. THAT's why I said you statistics are meaningless. I've watched a lot of football since I started paying attention to it and specifically a lot of Packer games dating back to the days when John Hadl was thought to be an upgrade, and never saw anyone who could pull a victory out of nowhere like that. His own coach would have said the same things I have, and announcer after announcer DID say it.

It's not hard to find statistics to support your case, especially when they are really vague. Like look at the Packers record before his tenure and immediately after, when he didn't have an experienced A-Rod to take his place, and the team record is pretty abysmal. Is that all to his credit? Of course not, so I am not cherry picking it as a vague stat to support my opinion, and unlike you, I don't allow a (clear, in your case) dislike for Favre to color my judgment about his play, despite the fact that I like and respect him no more than you do.


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" --Albert Einstein
Dexter_Sinister
11 years ago

Do you have a clue about the difference between "best" and "greatest"? Do you have a clue about ANYTHING?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



Then šŸ¤· I guess that I must not be very smart.

[sarcasm]

Does an average player only need to play longer than anyone to be great?

Because Vinny Teseverde and Steve DeBerg played for 21 years and I never heard anyone mistake them for great QBs.

Are Testeverde and Moon top 10 QBs because they are top 10 in completions, TDs and yards?

Bledsoe is top 10 in a couple of those aslo.

That is a pretty rare group to be in. Top 10 greatest QBs all time. Specially for Testeverde and Bledsoe. Since they were really below average QBs. Moon is only a little above average.

I think everyones top 10 greatest QBs all time is going have to be adjusted to include these great players.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Dexter_Sinister
11 years ago

By your own logic, if they trail 42-10 at the start of the 4th quarter, and lose 42-41, that's a failure to come back despite putting up 31 in the quarter. THAT's why I said you statistics are meaningless. I've watched a lot of football since I started paying attention to it and specifically a lot of Packer games dating back to the days when John Hadl was thought to be an upgrade, and never saw anyone who could pull a victory out of nowhere like that. His own coach would have said the same things I have, and announcer after announcer DID say it.

It's not hard to find statistics to support your case, especially when they are really vague. Like look at the Packers record before his tenure and immediately after, when he didn't have an experienced A-Rod to take his place, and the team record is pretty abysmal. Is that all to his credit? Of course not, so I am not cherry picking it as a vague stat to support my opinion, and unlike you, I don't allow a (clear, in your case) dislike for Favre to color my judgment about his play, despite the fact that I like and respect him no more than you do.

Originally Posted by: OlHoss1884 



I don't find stats. I find out why.

Huge difference.

They are not vague or obscure cherry picked stats. Favre failed 69 times in come backs opportunities and was successful 30 times. You said that he was clutch. Brady is successful over 70 % of the time. Eli, who is mediocre is about 45% successful.

If you say Favre pulled out more wins than he choked away, fine. Support your argument.

Prove it.

You will have to forgive me for being a cynic, but I can't accept an eye test. I can't accept public opinion or a guess based on media hype. I also can't accept hypothetical arguments or conjecture about what someone's opinion might have been. Specially when his coach would have said "It was a bitch to get him to stay in control in the clutch."
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
dfosterf
11 years ago

I will say for most under rated I would have to go with"You may beat our Pack but you won't lick our Dickey" Lynn Dickey was a good qb and he was all we had back in the 80's.



Over rated is a hard one so i will just throw this out there and say the wr corp the past few years. People keep saying they are the best in the league we can go 6 deep blah blah blah. But seriously were they that great I don't think so.

Originally Posted by: dhazer 



It's "corps", dumbass, you know how I hate that. I applauded you for the Lynn Dickey pick, not the wr corps thing. Teams run out of db's long before we run out of quality wide receivers/ TE's It's an UNDERRATED advantage. Way off-base on that one, imo.

You're probably still bitter 'cause we didn't draft your boy Crabdouche. šŸ˜



Dexter_Sinister
11 years ago

I understand your premise. Herber was a better quarterback for his era than Favre was in his era. Thatā€™s a comparison, though. You may not mean to compare the two, but thatā€™s doing it. Itā€™s a flawed way of judging players, too. Youā€™re clearly referencing some form of higher knowledge of stats. Regardless, your stats cannot account for every single variable. For example, itā€˜s easier to dominate in an average league than to dominate in a greater league. In addition, you seem to have views of your own. We all have our opinions, but stats should always be objective. Iā€™m not sure thatā€™s the case here.


Iā€™ve actually heard this argument a lot since ā€˜09. Itā€™s a nitpick if there ever was one. So the ā€™96 team was so dominating that they didnā€™t need Favre in the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl. Never mind the fact that Favre was a big reason why they were winning in the 4th quarter.

All he did was account for three touchdowns, including two perfect throws to Andre Rison and Antonio Freeman. Other than that, you know, he didnā€™t do much of anything.

I do believe many people, including myself, share your frustration with the Favre apologists. However, thereā€™s also the other side of the spectrum. The NFL Network segment and Herber > Favre represent that side, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by: porky88 



Fine,

Then nobody can ever make a greatest all time list. Because the NFL is NEVER the same from decade to decade.

We can never compare QBs ever. That is evil and wrong.

The NFL Montana played in is significantly different from when Staubach played. Marino played in a different NFL than Brady played in. Then you can't say Favre was greatest ever. Because QBs now are putting up more than he put up per year on a regular basis.

The point was that Favre didn't have to step up with the ball in his hand and score or lose. Which was his big weakness in the post season. Which set him way behind Starr who was the greatest post season QB ever.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
dfosterf
11 years ago
... Favre is not even close to being the most overrated or underrated Packer, by any reasonably objective opinion. His name shouldn't have even been brought up in the conversation, imo.

Objectivity is a rare commodity when Packer fans decide to interject Favre in any conversation.



DoddPower
11 years ago

If you don't know what stats mean, you wouldn't know the difference.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



Not surprisingly, you completely missed the point of my post to fit your argument in some way. I'm well aware of what statistics mean. I did statistical analysis professionally for 4 years, although I don't really miss doing that as my 8-6 (who actually gets to work a 9-5 anyway? Damn public sector). I don't consider any difference between what statistics "say" and "mean" because it's one and the same to me, and any other intelligent inference maker. That's precisely why I mentioned needing to have "background knowledge of the situation" and "empirical experience." One must have a thorough understanding of the circumstances that brought about any statistic because that's important in explaining the context, relevance, and limitations of the inferences made. Stating that something is statically significant or that certain factors are correlated is great, but such a finding should always be explained in order to establish what it really means meaning. Without that, the raw numbers mean little to me, which was my point from the beginning. I assumed such was rhetorical, but obviously not. I didn't think I needed to spell everything out. I suppose some will take stats at face value without thinking of the context in which they were derived, but I think the majority know there is a much bigger story behind the numbers. I really don't make much a distinction there because I consider it a linear process. Understand what the statistics say and then understand what they mean and their limitations. Stopping short of that is just poor analysis.

This is very important when using statistics to support NFL arguments. One could point out that player A has/had better numbers in category X, Y, and Z, which he or she then uses as a justification that player A is/was better than player B. That almost always involves taking a big leap because doing so generalizes so many other influencing factors behind those stats that can never be truly resolved. It's just another example of the limitations of statistics, especially in sports. They're obviously a strong basis for arguments, but they are anything but definitive most of the time, and other things need to be considered. As a result, judgments are always going to be somewhat subjective. It's just the way it is, but it needs to be acknowledged when making such judgments. Of course, sports media doesn't need to acknowledge anything because their only goal is to draw viewers, ratings, etc. Objectivity or fairness isn't their concern at all. Those things don't pay the bills, so I can't blame them, I suppose. It always comes back to what pays.
OlHoss1884
11 years ago


You will have to forgive me for being a cynic, but I can't accept an eye test.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



Here's the crux of it. I agree that an eye test is not even as scientific as what you are doing, but there is a reason for the term "lies, damned lies and statistics". It's because used in a vague way, they can be incredibly misleading, yet they still carry the weight of authority so people assume they are true. Here's an example, though not really applicable here but it illustrates the problem with statistics and how they are presented if vague.

Taste test....80% say no difference between A and B. 11% say A, 9% say B. Commercial? "91% say A as good or better than B"

True, but misleading. In Brady's 70% 4th quarter comeback success, what was the average margin of deficit? How many of those comebacks were spurred by defensive turnovers? I am not saying Favre was a better QB than Brady, nor better at comebacks, but knowing the team he had around him for most of his career, that Favre had a percentage just over half as good as Brady's in this regard is probably more significant. Brady has had a Super Bowl contending team around him every year and nearly for every snap he's ever taken. Not true of Favre. Both clearly made the people around them a lot better but on the whole Favre had less talent to work with, tougher division opponents and for a few years even inferior coaches.




"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" --Albert Einstein
DoddPower
11 years ago

Here's the crux of it. I agree that an eye test is not even as scientific as what you are doing, but there is a reason for the term "lies, damned lies and statistics". It's because used in a vague way, they can be incredibly misleading, yet they still carry the weight of authority so people assume they are true. Here's an example, though not really applicable here but it illustrates the problem with statistics and how they are presented if vague.

Taste test....80% say no difference between A and B. 11% say A, 9% say B. Commercial? "91% say A as good or better than B"

True, but misleading. In Brady's 70% 4th quarter comeback success, what was the average margin of deficit? How many of those comebacks were spurred by defensive turnovers? I am not saying Favre was a better QB than Brady, nor better at comebacks, but knowing the team he had around him for most of his career, that Favre had a percentage just over half as good as Brady's in this regard is probably more significant. Brady has had a Super Bowl contending team around him every year and nearly for every snap he's ever taken. Not true of Favre. Both clearly made the people around them a lot better but on the whole Favre had less talent to work with, tougher division opponents and for a few years even inferior coaches.



Originally Posted by: OlHoss1884 




I just wish Favre had the luxury of offense lines the likes that Tom Brady has had. Or even better, Aaron Rodgers. As long as our defense was just average, there would be no way to stop Aaron Rodgers if he had a great offensive line. Too bad it doesn't appear like that's ever going to happen. Some of the protection Tom Brady has had, or even P. Manning in Denver last season is just . . . well amazing. At least as a Packer fan.
Dexter_Sinister
11 years ago

My statement stands...as a single player he had as much or more impact on his team's ability to win a game than anyone during his era and I include Elway and Marino in that statement.

Originally Posted by: OlHoss1884 



Favre was almost as likely to turn the ball over as score when the game was not on the line.

When it was on the line, he was more likely to fail than he was to succeed. Look up every post season game and see how well he played.

In 9 of 10 playoff runs, Favre personally choked, played poorly or with time on the clock, the ball in his hands and within a score, He failed to generate a first down.

'93 playoff game against Dallas, 2 picks and a fumble lost.

'95 in the middle of a great NFC Championship game where the Packers were matching the Cowboys blow for blow, he was driving to take the lead back in the 4th quarter. He threw a bad pass into the chest of a DB who set up a score by the Cowboys. Giving them a 2 score lead. After which a suddenly ineffective Favre failed to complete a pass, then never got the ball back.

'98 playoff game against the 49er had a 79.7 rating with 57% completions and threw 2 picks in a 3 point loss.

'01 The 6 interception game vs the Rams, Favre threw 3 pick 6s and another one returned to inside the 5. Essentially giving the Rams the margin of victory by handing them 28 points.

'02 Packers first home playoff loss to the Falcons as Favre turned the game over in the second half with a pick and a lost fumble. He had 47.6% completions and a 54.4 rating

'03 The 4th and 26 game, Favre couldn't move the ball in spite of over 200 yards by the running backs, 7 sacks by the D and 2 forced turnovers. One more yard and the ball never goes back to McNabb. Ending in an OT pick.

'04 he threw 4 picks to the 8-8 MN Vikings and 54.4 rating

'07 Lame duck in the Giants game after a whole game of looking like an old man in the cold. 70.7 rating, 2 picks and 54.3% completions..

The '96 Super Bowl was pretty much 2 passes to WRs that ran about 80 yards after the catchs and then Favre getting nothing down field to his WRs after about 20 minutes into the game. He wasn't needed to step up because of the D and ST, so they won.

The '97 Super Bowl, Favre got the ball back with time and failed to complete a pass. I wouldn't say he lost the game, played poorly or anything other than he didn't step up like Starr would have.

His come from behind wins are way over stated. He had the most opportunities by a long shot. If he were just average at comebacks, he would easily lead the league. But since he was only about 30% successful, he actually blew more chances than he won. By a wide margin.

If he played in the '70s people wouldn't be excusing and glossing over Favres post season failures.

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Fan Shout
Martha Careful (1h) : Two terrific NCAA Football Semi-Final Games...We can only hope the Championship game is as good
Zero2Cool (21h) : Eagles WR DeVonta Smith will be a DNP in todayā€™s practice. Heā€™s dealing with back tightness. But the expectation is that heā€™ll play Sunday.
Zero2Cool (22h) : Jalen Hurts has cleared the concussion protocol. Heā€™s playing Sunday.
Zero2Cool (22h) : š•avier McKinney First Team All-Pro
Zero2Cool (10-Jan) : NFL moves Vikings-Rams playoff tilt to Arizona due to fires
Zero2Cool (10-Jan) : Rams lose home field advantage for Monday game.
Mucky Tundra (9-Jan) : Notre Lame=Notre Dame, Luckeyes=Ohio State, Pedo St=Penn St
Zero2Cool (9-Jan) : ... It clearly was not what we were supposed to be in, certainly."
Zero2Cool (9-Jan) : Hafley says 3rd and 11 call there was a miscommunication.
Zero2Cool (9-Jan) : The only team I know is Texas from that. Who are the other three?
Mucky Tundra (9-Jan) : Notre Lame vs Pedo St tonight and the Luckeyes vs Texas tomorrow
Mucky Tundra (9-Jan) : Stud
Zero2Cool (9-Jan) : E. Cooper. Rookie of Month. Defense.
Mucky Tundra (8-Jan) : @AaronNagler Ā· 2m Both Jordan Love and Malik Willis were Limited participants at Packers practice today.
Zero2Cool (8-Jan) : Johnson didn't make it until 2020. Ring 2023. šŸ¤· Personally, he should have been in years prior to Hall.
Zero2Cool (8-Jan) : HUMP DAY
beast (8-Jan) : Guys that have a good shot at making the NFL Hall of Fame usually get into their teams pretty fast
beast (8-Jan) : Yeah, but is Kampman and the others in the NFL Hall of Fame?
Zero2Cool (8-Jan) : Johnson was Hall of Fame, 2020. Should haev been in Ring a year later, not three years.
Zero2Cool (8-Jan) : I could be wrong there though
Zero2Cool (8-Jan) : Guys like Kampman, Tim Harris, Al Harris, etc all over 15 years. Hall of Fame is 5 year wait
Zero2Cool (8-Jan) : I guess I see players in Packers Hall come way later
beast (8-Jan) : Yeah, usually teams hall of fames are a much lower bar than the NFL
Zero2Cool (8-Jan) : is it uncommon for Hall before Ring?
Zero2Cool (8-Jan) : S Xavier McKinney named first-team All-Pro by NFLPA
beast (8-Jan) : I missed it, sorry, but he got into the NFL Hall of Fame years before that
Zero2Cool (8-Jan) : Jones took his sweet ole time!
Zero2Cool (8-Jan) : Yeah, he's in the ring of honor, just saw video and his name is up there
Zero2Cool (8-Jan) : Didn't they have a thing in 2023 for Jimmy's ring of honor? I swear I saw it
beast (8-Jan) : Though if they're legitimately trying to re-sign MM, then it makes sense.
beast (8-Jan) : Jerry Jones still hasn't put Jimmy Johnson in the Ring of Honor, but he's in the NFL's Hall of Fame, Jones is petty
Mucky Tundra (8-Jan) : Unless the Cowboys are planning an extension, seems kinda petty
beast (8-Jan) : Cowboys denied Bears request
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : From what I'm reading, MM is under contract through the 14th of January; after that he's free game
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : McCarthy let go or not extended??
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Chicago Bears have asked the Dallas Cowboys permission to interview Mike McCarthy for head coaching vacancy
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : The winners page that is
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : I was not hoping for that. It messes up the page lol
beast (6-Jan) : Thank you, and I was really opening we were going to get 4 or more tied for the top 3.
beast (6-Jan) : Thank you, and I was really opening we were going to get 4 or more tied for the top 3.
beast (6-Jan) : Thank you, and I was really opening we were going to get 4 or more tied for the top 3
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : congrats beast on 2024 !
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : congrats porky on winning 2023 pick'em! (oops sorry)
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : Packers have $60M+ of 2025 cap space on paper TODAY.
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Missed FG into a Lions TD; that'll do pig, that'll do
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : That might be it for the Vikings
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Oh so the refs do know what intentional grounding is
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : what the hell was that Goff?! Not much pressure and he just air mails it to Harrison
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : They really need to to get rid of the auto first down for illegal contact
Martha Careful (6-Jan) : watching the Vikings and Lions it's understandable why they swept the Packers. So much better product
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

9-Jan / Around The NFL / beast

9-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

9-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

8-Jan / Around The NFL / beast

7-Jan / Fantasy Sports Talk / wpr

7-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

7-Jan / Fantasy Sports Talk / Zero2Cool

6-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

6-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

6-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

6-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright Ā© 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.comā„¢. All Rights Reserved.