OlHoss1884
11 years ago

This is a complete myth.

Favre's success rating in comeback opportunities was well below average.

Average would be between 40 and 50%. Favre was actually in the low 30s.

He more than made up for his comebacks with his record number of chokes.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



The myth is that you find statistical significance in that. How far behind? What kind of comebacks? What kind of defensive effort? The factis that for most of his career he had a mediocre supporting cast at best, and when it was good, they were a Super Bowl team. 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.

I am by no means in the Favre camp with the piss poor childish way he handled his exit from GB, but neither am I a basher of his skills because I dislike his maturity. Te question becomes how many more games were won or lost BECAUSE he was the QB instead of someone of average ability? No doubt some embarrassing losses, but many more amazing wins. And I guarantee you Mike Holmgren would tell you the same thing.


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

I don't think anyone is minimizing how good of a player Brett Favre was. Rather, more so just saying he was good, but he also played more games than most and threw more than most, which is an efficient way to get "all time total" records.

Being extremely durable doesn't mean you were the greatest quarterback in the NFL. It means you were extremely durable and for that, the Packers were immensely lucky.

One gripe against Brett Favre is the post season play. Gun slinging is exciting, but it's not how you should play "win or go home" games and we fans know exactly why.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



I thought you basically read EVERY post in every thread, Z2C. There's a WHOLE LOT of minimizin' goin' on hahahaha. All it takes is the words "Brett Favre", and every damn troll and shithead that ever posted piles on with the idiocy.

Duh, he played more games in order to set his records for yardage and touchdowns. That is a large part of what makes him the GREATEST QB/THE GREATEST PLAYER in NFL history.

To the guy who said Bart Starr, Tom Brady, and Joe Montana were "better QBs", did I not say, Favre probably wasn't the "best" player - Aaron Rodgers is better right now than Favre was at his best. However, NOBODY ever had a career like Favre - NOBODY. To illustrate the point, Walter Payton and Emmett Smith were undoubtedly the Greatest RBs of all time, but Gayle Sayers and O.J. Simpson were Better RBs. Durability and Longevity have A LOT to do with it.


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
DoddPower
11 years ago

The myth is that you find statistical significance in that. How far behind? What kind of comebacks? What kind of defensive effort? The factis that for most of his career he had a mediocre supporting cast at best, and when it was good, they were a Super Bowl team. 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.

I am by no means in the Favre camp with the piss poor childish way he handled his exit from GB, but neither am I a basher of his skills because I dislike his maturity. Te question becomes how many more games were won or lost BECAUSE he was the QB instead of someone of average ability? No doubt some embarrassing losses, but many more amazing wins. And I guarantee you Mike Holmgren would tell you the same thing.

Originally Posted by: OlHoss1884 



To be fair though, that's the way the "4th quarter comeback" stats are, and they are the same for all the players. They don't account for other things. They can't. It would be impossible to consider all the factors of each game and every situation. Statistics in sports and in life are way over rated, and there are many cliche's about that. Such as "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." We used to joke when I was in academia that you could ask three different statisticians the same questions and get at least 5 different answers based on the data. However, some type of metric is evaluated and applied to all QB's. I personally think 4th quarter comebacks is one of the most over rated and useless metrics that exists in the NFL, but it is what it is.

Dexter_Sinister
11 years ago

The myth is that you find statistical significance in that. How far behind? What kind of comebacks? What kind of defensive effort? The factis that for most of his career he had a mediocre supporting cast at best, and when it was good, they were a Super Bowl team. 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.

I am by no means in the Favre camp with the piss poor childish way he handled his exit from GB, but neither am I a basher of his skills because I dislike his maturity. Te question becomes how many more games were won or lost BECAUSE he was the QB instead of someone of average ability? No doubt some embarrassing losses, but many more amazing wins. And I guarantee you Mike Holmgren would tell you the same thing.

Originally Posted by: OlHoss1884 



You started with at the end of the game with the ball in his hands, Favre won the game WAY more often than he lost it.

Prove it.

No hype, no opinion, no anecdotal evidence. Just proof.

Stats don't agree with you and it is the stats that are wrong is a not a defense.

Marino was a great QB. Elway is as hyped as and just as over rated. Maybe even more than Favre.


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

To be fair though, that's the way the "4th quarter comeback" stats are, and they are the same for all the players. They don't account for other things. They can't. It would be impossible to consider all the factors of each game and every situation. Statistics in sports and in life are way over rated, and there are many cliche's about that. Such as "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." We used to joke when I was in academia that you could ask three different statisticians the same questions and get at least 5 different answers based on the data. However, some type of metric is evaluated and applied to all QB's. I personally think 4th quarter comebacks is one of the most over rated and useless metrics that exists in the NFL, but it is what it is.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 



It isn't what the stats say. It is what they mean.

That is why good actuaries make $250K a year and statisticians are academics.

I agree that 4th quarter comebacks is worse than useless as a stat. Specially without a ratio.

The best example is the over rated mediocre Eli Manning.

He had an amazing 6 comeback wins in 2011. Unfortunately, that is a bad thing.

They had a 9-7 record that year. They were playing from behind 13 times and lost 6. So they won less than 50% of the time. Which is about average. They were just so bad, they kept losing the lead in the 4th quarter so many times that being average at comebacks gave them 6 in one year.
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

I thought you basically read EVERY post in every thread, Z2C. There's a WHOLE LOT of minimizin' goin' on hahahaha. All it takes is the words "Brett Favre", and every damn troll and shithead that ever posted piles on with the idiocy.

Duh, he played more games in order to set his records for yardage and touchdowns. That is a large part of what makes him the GREATEST QB/THE GREATEST PLAYER in NFL history.

To the guy who said Bart Starr, Tom Brady, and Joe Montana were "better QBs", did I not say, Favre probably wasn't the "best" player - Aaron Rodgers is better right now than Favre was at his best. However, NOBODY ever had a career like Favre - NOBODY. To illustrate the point, Walter Payton and Emmett Smith were undoubtedly the Greatest RBs of all time, but Gayle Sayers and O.J. Simpson were Better RBs. Durability and Longevity have A LOT to do with it.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



Emmitt was the 250th best back all time.

He played much longer than he should have just to get a record.

He had the best O-line in football. He ran into the line and fell down for a 4.2 YPC average. Exactly like Ryan Grant.

Being average longer than anyone else doesn't make them great.

Barry Sanders and Jim Brown were the greatest. Bo Jackson and Terrell Davis would have been if they had more than a couple years.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
DoddPower
11 years ago

It isn't what the stats say. It is what they mean.

That is why good actuaries make $250K a year and statisticians are academics.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



That's a matter of semantics. Whether you want to state what statistics "say" or "mean," it's the same difference to me. The point is that statistics almost never tell the entire picture. They are a tool for those that are educated with background knowledge of the situation and have empirical experience to make inferences based on observed probability. Most of the time, pointing to raw numbers as absolute proof of anything is reaching unless the same numbers have been found in controlled randomly assigned situations many times by many independent entities. Even then, the "facts" may not hold up if a single minor component is changed among endless random variability and biases. Beyond that, it's just taking numbers and trying to fit them into a narrative or an opinion. Sure, the inferences made MAY be right sometimes, but they're very likely to be incredibly wrong many times, as well.

As I said, statistics and numbers are just an inference tool, but in the case of the NFL, very rarely, if ever, do they "prove" anything at all, imo.
porky88
11 years ago

Did you miss the part when I said "for his day he was farther above average than Favre was for his"?

Comparing players from different eras is impossible. So I wouldn't do it.

No helmets, no rules against hitting WRs because the were not WRs, they were offensive ends. They had all the protection of a blocker.

QBs had no protection either. Brady would leave the game in a body bag his first snap.

The players of that era had the same handicaps as the ones they were playing against.

You can't even accurately compare Players from the '60 to today. Even Marino played in an era when the average passer rating was 12.5 points lower than it was for Favre. Comparing them head to head gives Favre a huge advantage for when he played.

To sum up, I am saying that Herber was farther above the standard for his day than Favre was for the '1992-2101 seasons. Relative to when he played, Herber was better.

Otherwise, if you compare Favre head to head with any great QB that played in the past, Staubach, Unitas, Montana, Graham, Luckman, Baugh etc, he looks like he was better. But all those other QBs were so much farther above the standard than Favre, he just doesn't compare. Because the rules protected Favre and his WRs, the medical care kept him playing, the equipment protected him, the game itself is different.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 


I understand your premise. Herber was a better quarterback for his era than Favre was in his era. That’s a comparison, though. You may not mean to compare the two, but that’s doing it. It’s a flawed way of judging players, too. You’re clearly referencing some form of higher knowledge of stats. Regardless, your stats cannot account for every single variable. For example, it‘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. I’m not sure that’s the case here.

The only super bowl we won was when the D and ST made sure Favre wasn't needed in the 4th quarter. All he had to do was not choke.


I’ve actually heard this argument a lot since ‘09. It’s a nitpick if there ever was one. So the ’96 team was so dominating that they didn’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 didn’t do much of anything.

I do believe many people, including myself, share your frustration with the Favre apologists. However, there’s also the other side of the spectrum. The NFL Network segment and Herber > Favre represent that side, in my opinion.
texaspackerbacker
11 years ago

Emmitt was the 250th best back all time.

He played much longer than he should have just to get a record.

He had the best O-line in football. He ran into the line and fell down for a 4.2 YPC average. Exactly like Ryan Grant.

Being average longer than anyone else doesn't make them great.

Barry Sanders and Jim Brown were the greatest. Bo Jackson and Terrell Davis would have been if they had more than a couple years.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



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


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Dexter_Sinister
11 years ago

That's a matter of semantics. Whether you want to state what statistics "say" or "mean," it's the same difference to me. The point is that statistics almost never tell the entire picture. They are a tool for those that are educated with background knowledge of the situation and have empirical experience to make inferences based on observed probability. Most of the time, pointing to raw numbers as absolute proof of anything is reaching unless the same numbers have been found in controlled randomly assigned situations many times by many independent entities. Even then, the "facts" may not hold up if a single minor component is changed among endless random variability and biases. Beyond that, it's just taking numbers and trying to fit them into a narrative or an opinion. Sure, the inferences made MAY be right sometimes, but they're very likely to be incredibly wrong many times, as well.

As I said, statistics and numbers are just an inference tool, but in the case of the NFL, very rarely, if ever, do they "prove" anything at all, imo.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 



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

There is a huge difference to me.

For example, a QB throws for 400 passing yards in a game. That says lots of passing yards. You would think that means the team that put up those yards was great.

What does that really mean?

It means they were either in a shoot out and have a 50% chance to win or were getting blown out and had no chance to win. Teams putting up 400+ yards a game actually lose about 75% of the time.

If you run a correlation of passing yards to wins, on a scale of 0-100, with 100 being a direct 1 to 1 correlation, passing yards would be a negative 1.4, or essentially no correlation.

That is the difference between knowing what they say and what the mean.

So would you say a QB throwing for 5000 yards in a season was great? I wouldn't.

I would look for a stat that correlated to wins. Like Passer rating. Which was about a 90 correlation.

A stat that when you are leading, you are winning.

Now the stat itself isn't important. But doing the things that increase your passer rating have a direct impact on wins. Throw lots of TDs, don't turn the ball over, get few incompletions and get a lot of yards per attempt. So that means an efficient QB is going to win more games than one who throws for a lot of yards.

Which is why ratios mean so much. Comebacks don't mean anything without a per attempt.

6 comebacks says a lot but means little until you find out that it was out of 13 tries.

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.

Was he really good at comebacks? Or did he make up for sucking by sheer volume?

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (3h) : He hasn't been too bad when healthy but I don't feel like I ever heard much about when he is
Zero2Cool (4h) : Felt like he was more interested in his body, than football. He flashed more than I expected
Zero2Cool (4h) : When he was coming out, I thought he'd be flash in pan.
Mucky Tundra (5h) : Joey seems so forgettable compared to his brother for some reason
Zero2Cool (5h) : NFL informed teams today that the 2025 salary cap will be roughly $277.5M-$281.5M
Zero2Cool (9h) : Los Angeles Chargers are likely to release DE Joey Bosa this off-season as a cap casualty, per league source.
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : If the exploit is not fixed, we'll see tons of "50 top free agents, 50 perfect NFL team fits: We picked where each should sign in March" lo
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Issue should be solved, database cleaned and held strong working / meeting. Boom!
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : It should be halted now.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : usually spambots are trying to get traffic to shady websites filled with spyware; the two links being spammed were to the Packers website
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : you know when you put it that way combined with the links it was spamming (to the official Packers website)
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yep. You can do that with holding down ENTER on a command in Console of browser
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : even with the rapid fire posts?
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : I'm not certain it's a bot.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I've got to go to work soon which is a pity because I'm enthralled by this battle between the bot and Zero
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yeah, I see what that did. Kind of funny.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : now it's a link to Wes Hodkiezwicz mailbag
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Now they're back with another topic
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : oh lol
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : I have a script that purges them now.
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : 118 Topics with Message.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : what's 118 (besides a number)?
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : They got 118 slapped in there.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : that's why it confused the hell out of me
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yeah, but this is taking a headline and slapping it into the Packers Talk
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Wasnt there a time guests could post in the help forum?
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : lol good question, kind of impressed!
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : So how is a guest posting?
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Tell them its an emergency
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Working. Meetings.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Lots of fun; the spam goes back 4 or 5 pages by this point
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I thought you'd look for yourself and put 2 and 2 together lol. I overestimated ya ;)
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I thought Guests couldnt post?
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : And gosh that's gonna be fun to clean up! hahaa
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Oh. Why not just say that then? Geez.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : check the main forum, seems a spam bot is running amok
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : What?
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Is the Packers online game "Packers Predict" now available for 2024? I can't tell
Zero2Cool (17-Feb) : Bengals planning to Franchise Tag Tamaurice Higgins
Zero2Cool (14-Feb) : Packers are hiring Luke Getsy as senior offensive assistant.
Martha Careful (12-Feb) : I would love to have them both, esp. Crosby, but either might be too expensive.
Zero2Cool (12-Feb) : Keisean Nixon is trying to get Maxx Crosby and Davante Adams lol
Mucky Tundra (11-Feb) : Yeah where did it go?
packerfanoutwest (11-Feb) : or did you resctrict access to that topic?
packerfanoutwest (11-Feb) : why did you remove the Playoff topic?
Zero2Cool (10-Feb) : Tua’s old DC won a Super Bowl Year 1 with Tua’s former backup
Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : *winning MVP
Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : Funny observation I've heard: Carson Wentz was on the sideline for both Eagles Super Bowl wins w/guys supposed to be his back up winning
Zero2Cool (10-Feb) : NFL thought it would get more attention week preceding Super Bowl.
Zero2Cool (10-Feb) : Yes, the Pro Bowl. It was played Sunday before Super Bowl from 2010-2022
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
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / MintBaconDrivel

18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Feb / Around The NFL / beast

16-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

15-Feb / Around The NFL / beast

15-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

14-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

14-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

13-Feb / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

10-Feb / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.