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
packerfanoutwest (2h) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (3h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (13h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (13h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (13h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (14h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (14h) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (17h) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (17h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (17h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (20h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (20h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (20h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (20h) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (20h) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (20h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (20h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (20h) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (21h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (21h) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (22h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (22h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (22h) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (22h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (22h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (23h) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (23h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (23h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (23h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (23h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
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
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
3h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

9h / GameDay Threads / Mucky Tundra

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.