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.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 

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 

Look up every post season game and see how well he played.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 

There are too many moving parts to sports, especially the NFL, to simply look at a piece of paper and definitively conclude player A is superior to player B. That’s why we watch the games.

For example, fourth quarter comebacks are a theme in your arguments, yet you leave out the fact that Favre gave Green Bay the lead with two minutes remaining at San Francisco in ‘98. The defense couldn’t stop the 49ers’ offense twice (Jerry Rice fumbled).

Your data does not take into account dropped passes, missed blocks, missed reads, etc….

Another issue in your analysis is your diminishing the play of quarters 1-3 to support your argument that Favre didn’t have as much to do with the Super Bowl win. Those quarters happened. They are apart of history, specifically, Packer history. Would Favre’s darts to Rison and Freeman mean more in the 4th quarter? The answer is no. They would’ve meant six points in quarter one and six points in quarter four. However, you feel the need to emphasis that particular 15 minutes rather than the first 45 minutes.

What I see is somebody putting in place their own guidelines to get the predetermined result they want. There’s no factual account here, but rather a flawed narrative of the bigger picture. There’s a reason coaches, players, and scouts, actually watch (perhaps study is a better word) film and not rely on stats on a page sheet.

Originally Posted by: porky88 

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.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 

There are too many moving parts to sports, especially the NFL, to simply look at a piece of paper and definitively conclude player A is superior to player B. That’s why we watch the games.

What I see is somebody putting in place their own guidelines to get the predetermined result they want. There’s no factual account here, but rather a flawed narrative of the bigger picture. There’s a reason coaches, players, and scouts, actually watch (perhaps study is a better word) film and not rely on stats on a page sheet.

Originally Posted by: porky88 

Dex I know what you re trying to say. But those loses were not were not completely Favres' fault. I won''t go through the whole list but if I recall the 2001 game in St Louis the Packers were underdogs. None of us knows what their game plan was but it was clear Brett was trying to throw the team on his shoulders and carry them to victory. The line was porous and favre was under pressure the whole game. He certainly was forcing passes. Way too many times but if we were able to get on honest answer from him he would tell us that taking chances would be the only way to win that game.

The next year in 2002 the team was pretty beat up by the end of the season. Green was the leading rusher with only 34 yards. That indicates issues beyond just the qb.

And the 4th and 26 Phillie game was more a defensive failure than a Favre loss.

Did Brett push it more than he should? Certainly. That was a part of his mantra. It worked some times and didn't work other times. Thing is if the team is trailing late int e game the opponent expects your team to throw the ball and they have a defense that is designed to prevent your success.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

OK, give me your unbiased rating of Otto Graham. Without using stats.

If anyone is going to say Favre is greatest all time, all time goes a long way back.

How does Favre stack up against Tarkenton? Johnny U? Kenny Anderson?

How does John Elway stack up against Joe Namath or Sonny Jergenson?

Since you didn't watch every QB take every snap in every game since 1920, comparing QBs cannot be done without stats unless you resort to opinions that you heard from someone else. So calling any QB great without stats is a BS waste of time. Because you really can't compare them without stats.

I am really offended you would say I am using stats to support a predetermined result.

The ranking system I use has a lot of results I don't like. Putting a Bears QB at all time greatest is not something I would aim for because I don't like the Bears. Ranking Staubach ahead of Starr is pretty offensive because I hate the Cowboys.

But the stats are what they are. They can't be biased, subject to hype or fooled. They are more honest than people's perceptions.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister