texaspackerbacker
11 years ago

Pussy! Dex just cleaned your clock and you run like a little girl, excuse last word freak little girl. 😆

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



I borrowed that last line from you, Dakota hahahahaha.

These other sick trolls just seem to get off on their Favre hate. I didn't think you swung that way, though, Dakota. You may be a loon in politics, but you're usually pretty sensible when it comes to football.


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

Pussy! Dex just cleaned your clock and you run like a little girl, excuse last word freak little girl. 😆

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 





Well, it's an actual GBP football discussion, vs apple/oranges off-season stuff. I suspect Texas will do just fine in the GBP arena.

What did he do? Attack Dakota on a personal level at some point?


Get the fuck over it you crybaby bitch, the man has things to say, and your fucking whining is INTERRUPTING them. I want to hear what he has to say without your commie bitchin'.

imo
DakotaT
11 years ago

Well, it's an actual GBP football discussion, vs apple/oranges off-season stuff. I suspect Texas will do just fine in the GBP arena.

What did he do? Attack Dakota on a personal level at some point?


Get the fuck over it you crybaby bitch, the man has things to say, and your fucking whining is INTERRUPTING them. I want to hear what he has to say without your commie bitchin'.

imo

Originally Posted by: dfosterf 



Fuck you, old grouchy bastard. All Texas ever has to say is Liberals this and that. Brett Favre is the greatest - no reasons why - just take his word for it. Texas has spread a really wide wake in all forums and if these guys want to rip him an asshole, I think it is funny. That OK with you?
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
11 years ago

I borrowed that last line from you, Dakota hahahahaha.

These other sick trolls just seem to get off on their Favre hate. I didn't think you swung that way, though, Dakota. You may be a loon in politics, but you're usually pretty sensible when it comes to football.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



All you have is calling people un-American, loons, or whatever shit you spew just because they don't agree with you. It really is sad that you believe the America that you grew up in was the pinnacle of civilization. That era really sucked for minorities, but hey, they made good servants.

When we talk about Favre, with the exception of his three MVP years, he really was a choke artist because he lacked the discipline to become one of the greats. But you go ahead and believe what you think is "right".
UserPostedImage
Dexter_Sinister
11 years ago

Stats can be helpful in analyzing players, especially from previous eras where there’s a lack of film. However, you’re glorifying stats and particularly the QB rating, which in itself is flawed. Therefore, the formula you are using to reach your conclusions is using a flawed stat. The QB rating emphasizes completion percentage. The problem with that is going 3 for 3 for 8 yards gives you a better rating than 1 for 3 for 25 yards. This is why Chad Pennington ranks above Brett Favre, John Elway, and Warren Moon. Pennington didn’t have the arm to stretch the field. Defenses happily gave up the short to intermediate completions. They literally let him have that play. They didn’t care. There’s no skill in that whatsoever. It led to a pretty good QB rating, but his teammates had to pickup the slack. This is just one of a number of problems with the QB rating, which is central to your argument.

Your formula seems to be an attempt at an all-time list. You deserve credit for putting in that work. However, all-time lists are trivial and really have nothing to do with the evaluation of a player. No matter how you slice it, such a list is based upon subjective viewpoints.

Originally Posted by: porky88 



Yards per attempt matters. So 8 yards in 3 attempts is not better than 25 yards in 3 attempts.

The passer rating is not a stat. It is a combination of ratios of several different stats weighted for importance.

It is essentially
Completion %
Yards per attempt
TD %
INT %

But not in equal amounts.

What it tells you is how efficient a QB is. A great arm like Cutler and Jeff George doesn't mean much if they struggle to complete passes 10+ yards down field. Accuracy, decision making, ball security and scoring mean more than a big arm.

QBs are rewarded for being able to complete passes down field. Not for being able to throw it 70 yards and have it intercepted. Rodgers is better than Brees because he has more yards per attempt, more TDs per attempt and fewer INTs per attempt. While Brees has more totals, his attempts are so high, it brings down his rating.

It may be flawed, but the correlation to winning is stronger than any stat out there. It is unbiased and unaffected by hype or opinion. Teams that have a higher passer rating and allow the opponents a lower passer rating win the most.

If adjusted for the years that they QB played in, you eliminate any changes in the NFL from rules to equipment.

Modern QBs have an extremely large number of advantages QBs from the '40s didn't have. From schemes, rules protecting the QB and WR from injury and being interfered with, helmets, medical care, nutrition, workouts etc.

Come up with a better way to rate a QB all the way back to 1940 that is more accurate and not subject to people's obviously biased opinions and I will drop passer rating then and there.

I have said that probably 50 times. Nobody has even tried yet.
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

Dexter, your list above is LAUGHABLE. This whole discussion is STUPID. YOU should be ashamed to call yourself a Packer fan.

BRETT FAVRE IS THE GREATEST QUARTERBACK/THE GREATEST PLAYER IN NFL HISTORY. HE WILL BE THAT UNTIL GOD-WILLING, AARON RODGERS SURPASSES HIM.

Everything else here is irrelevant bullshit. Case closed, end of discussion - something I almost never do, I hereby stop reading or discussing the topic.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



It is a disgrace to rank Favre above Hutson who changed the league from a running to a passing league. Before Hutson, everyone ran the Notre Dame box formation. After, nobody did.

There has never been another player to totally change the game like Hutson. He was as good as the next 3 best WRs of his day combined. His record stood for almost 50 years. Only broken when they went to 16 games. If Hutson played 16 games a year and had the option of having his knee surgically repaired like Jerry Rice, he would still hold every receiving record.

Hutson was the Babe Ruth of Baseball.

Bart Starr is the greatest post season QB in the history of the NFL.

Comparing Starr to Favre is a joke. Starr didn't choke 9 out of 10 years.

What is the difference between ignorance and indifference?

You don't know and you don't care.[neener]


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 would like to point out that my list seems to be slightly out of order.

It is actually there for a reason and I just realized that I probably should explain why.

Lynn Dickey is ranked #92 and his rating above average is listed at 4.95 which should put him at 61 over all.

I changed his career passer rating to his Packers passer rating.

He normally would be ranked #92 but I wanted to show how close he was to Favre to show that it wasn't really Favre who changed the fortunes of the Packers.

It was Harlan, Wolf and Holmgren. When they left, so did a lot of Favre's success.

To go back to the point of the thread and show that Favre was over rated.

That is not to say Favre wasn't great at times. He obviously was. That isn't my contention.

Favre was so up and down, he could have a year with a rating in the 70s, in fact he had 7 of them, or he could have a year with a rating in the 90s.

For his whole career, Favre sucked badly enough and often enough to bring his average down to tied with Trent Green. Since his great years were so great, it took a lot of suckage to bring him down that far.

Since the length of his career is so incredibly important to some people in saying how great he was, how can you completely disregard 40% of his career?
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
texaspackerbacker
11 years ago

I would like to point out that my list seems to be slightly out of order.

It is actually there for a reason and I just realized that I probably should explain why.

Lynn Dickey is ranked #92 and his rating above average is listed at 4.95 which should put him at 61 over all.

I changed his career passer rating to his Packers passer rating.

He normally would be ranked #92 but I wanted to show how close he was to Favre to show that it wasn't really Favre who changed the fortunes of the Packers.

It was Harlan, Wolf and Holmgren. When they left, so did a lot of Favre's success.

To go back to the point of the thread and show that Favre was over rated.

That is not to say Favre wasn't great at times. He obviously was. That isn't my contention.

Favre was so up and down, he could have a year with a rating in the 70s, in fact he had 7 of them, or he could have a year with a rating in the 90s.

For his whole career, Favre sucked badly enough and often enough to bring his average down to tied with Trent Green. Since his great years were so great, it took a lot of suckage to bring him down that far.

Since the length of his career is so incredibly important to some people in saying how great he was, how can you completely disregard 40% of his career?

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



I don't know why I even bother to reply to this nonsense, but I got nothing to do right now except watch TV, and the computer is in front of the TV.

I would NEVER say a negative word about either Don Hutson or Bart Starr. What you say about them is basically all true. Hutson certainly would be among the very greatest all-time players. Starr is absolutely number one depending how you define the category. It is my contention, though, that when you are talking GREATEST, you need to include longevity, and you need to emphasize numerical records - yardage, TDs, completions, etc., and you shouldn't over-emphasize playoff performance. When somebody piles up the most yards and the most TD passes - arguably the two most important categories - at the most important position, THAT makes him the GREATEST. And if he sets a record for consecutive games that may never be broken, given today's standards for injuries, that's the frosting on the cake.

I just can't help myself from commenting again about your idiotic list. First, can you say copy and paste? I don't even believe its your work. You know enough to rank guys like George Ratterman and Tommy Thompson, etc.? Come on! And your BASIS is rating compared to when they played? That's real objective! Comparison based on exactly WHAT at the time they played? I said earlier, you seem to not be able to distinguish between "greatest" and "best". Somebody ought to make side by side lists of each.

I'd rank the top five GREATEST QBs as: 1 Favre 2 Marino 3 Tarkenton 4 Elway 5 P. Manning. THAT is easily supportable by career statistics.

Ranking the top five BEST QBs is not so easy, and a lot more subjective. Basically, I'd call "best" the QB that would give you the best talent and knack for winning games - in his era and weighted by the quality of the team around them. I'll take the risk of being called a homer and put Aaron Rodgers at #1 (are you gonna rag on that one also? hahahaha). Otto Graham, Joe Namath, Roger Staubach, Steve Young, Tom Brady those names come to mind as among the best. Of the top five GREATEST, the only two near the top of BEST IMO would be Marino and P. Manning.


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
dfosterf
11 years ago
It's all valid, except I'm not feeling Joe Namath. He beat an aged team, talked smack, backed it up...

As far as the Packers go, I'd put more stock in the value of Reggie White in context. At the time, other coaches would threaten to send a player to Green Bay as punishment. Black players did not want to come to Green Bay. In addition to his play, he single-handedly changed the perception of the team and city of Green Bay. That was priceless.


Your love for Brett is certainly understandable, but you are also old enough and smart enough to put Lord Favre in context. Brett and his agent got you by the brain-cells, man.


Bart Starr never rolled that way, either as a player or a former player. I could make a legitimate argument that Bart Starr MADE Vince Lombardi, and he did it in his usual quiet fashion, as that is what Bart Starr did, as an example. Bart was a true field general on that 100 yards. You know that, you could feel the intellect on your tv.
Dexter_Sinister
11 years ago

I don't know why I even bother to reply to this nonsense, but I got nothing to do right now except watch TV, and the computer is in front of the TV.

I would NEVER say a negative word about either Don Hutson or Bart Starr. What you say about them is basically all true. Hutson certainly would be among the very greatest all-time players. Starr is absolutely number one depending how you define the category. It is my contention, though, that when you are talking GREATEST, you need to include longevity, and you need to emphasize numerical records - yardage, TDs, completions, etc., and you shouldn't over-emphasize playoff performance. When somebody piles up the most yards and the most TD passes - arguably the two most important categories - at the most important position, THAT makes him the GREATEST. And if he sets a record for consecutive games that may never be broken, given today's standards for injuries, that's the frosting on the cake.

I just can't help myself from commenting again about your idiotic list. First, can you say copy and paste? I don't even believe its your work. You know enough to rank guys like George Ratterman and Tommy Thompson, etc.? Come on! And your BASIS is rating compared to when they played? That's real objective! Comparison based on exactly WHAT at the time they played? I said earlier, you seem to not be able to distinguish between "greatest" and "best". Somebody ought to make side by side lists of each.

I'd rank the top five GREATEST QBs as: 1 Favre 2 Marino 3 Tarkenton 4 Elway 5 P. Manning. THAT is easily supportable by career statistics.

Ranking the top five BEST QBs is not so easy, and a lot more subjective. Basically, I'd call "best" the QB that would give you the best talent and knack for winning games - in his era and weighted by the quality of the team around them. I'll take the risk of being called a homer and put Aaron Rodgers at #1 (are you gonna rag on that one also? hahahaha). Otto Graham, Joe Namath, Roger Staubach, Steve Young, Tom Brady those names come to mind as among the best. Of the top five GREATEST, the only two near the top of BEST IMO would be Marino and P. Manning.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



Copy and paste?

Do you have any clue where I got the list?

Before you accuse someone of plagiarism, you better have a shred of evidence.

I know for a fact that you do not.

The reason you couldn't have any evidence what so ever is that I wrote the formula and created the spreadsheet myself. It took me quite a few hours.

You and your random insupportable opinions are worse than useless.

Namath was below average. Elway was a little above average. Not even as good as Lynn Dickey was for the Packers.

Career stats are a joke. Is Vinny Testeverde a top 10 all time greatest QB? He is top 10 in yards, completion and TDs,

Like I said, would you rather have an average QB for 20 years or the best ever for 15. Because that average will beat the best ever in career stats. Is your position that you can be the greatest and average at the same time?
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Fan Shout
wpr (2h) : 7 days
Zero2Cool (23h) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep
dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire
dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that
dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.
dfosterf (15-Apr) : I may have to move
dfosterf (15-Apr) : My wife just told the ancient Japanese sushi dude not enough rice under his fish
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I think a dozen is what I need
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Go fund me for this purpose just might work. A dozen nurses show up at 1265 to provide mental health assistance.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Maybe send a crew of Angels to the Packers draft room on draft day.
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I am the Angel that gets visited.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Visiting Angels has a pretty good reputation
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : what
Martha Careful (14-Apr) : WINNING IT, not someone else losing it. The best victory though was re-uniting with his wife
Martha Careful (14-Apr) : The manner in which he won it was just amazing and wonderful. First blowing the lead then getting back, then blowing it. But ultimately
Zero2Cool (12-Apr) : I'm guessing since the thumb was broken, he wasn't feeling it.
dfosterf (10-Apr) : Looking for guidance. Not feeling the thumb.
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : If they knew about it or not
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : I don't recall that he did which is why I asked.
Zero2Cool (10-Apr) : Guessing they probably knew. Did he have cast or something on?
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : Did they know that at the time or was that something the realized afterwards?
Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Van Ness played most of season with broken thumb
wpr (9-Apr) : yay
Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Mark Murphy says Steelers likely to protect Packers game. Meaning, no Ireland
Zero2Cool (8-Apr) : Struggling to figure out what text editor options are needed and which are 'nice to have'
Mucky Tundra (8-Apr) : *CHOMP CHOMP CHOMP*
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : WR who said he'd break Xavier Worthy 40 time...and ran slower than you
Mucky Tundra (2-Apr) : Who?
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : Texas’ WR Isaiah Bond is scheduled to visit the Bills, Browns, Chiefs, Falcons, Packers and Titans starting next week.
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : Spotting ball isn't changing, only measuring distance is, Which wasn't the issue.
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : The spotting of the ball IS the issue. Not the chain gang.
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 / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

16-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

15-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

13-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

12-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

11-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Rockmolder

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

30-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

29-Mar / Random Babble / wpr

28-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

26-Mar / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

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