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
packerfanoutwest (2h) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (2h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (2h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (5h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (5h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (5h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (5h) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (5h) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (5h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (5h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (5h) : 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 (6h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (6h) : 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 (6h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (7h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (7h) : 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 (7h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (7h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (7h) : 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 (8h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (8h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (8h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (8h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (9h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (9h) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (9h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (10h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (10h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (11h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (11h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (11h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (11h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (11h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (11h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (11h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (11h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (11h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (11h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (11h) : 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 (11h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (11h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (12h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (12h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (12h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (12h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Zero2Cool (12h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.
packerfanoutwest (12h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in
packerfanoutwest (12h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker
packerfanoutwest (12h) : if bucs win out they win their division
beast (12h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
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
5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

10h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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