earthquake
11 years ago

Again in this thread, there is a whole lot of IDIOCY being posted against Favre by some DISGRACES to be called Packer fans.

The guy may not have been the sharpest knife in the drawer. He may have shown some stupidity and/or disloyalty and/or whatever at the end of his career, but WHILE HE WAS A PACKER he had a career unparalleled in NFL history. We - including the shitheads trashing him if they are old enough, had fifteen wonderful years of winning football, thanks in large part to Brett Favre. That far outweighs whatever petty shit at the end, and his records for yardage and touchdowns along with the consecutive game streak say that NOBODY in NFL history ever had a better career.

I'll be the first to say Aaron Rodgers is a better player right now than Favre was at his best, and that Rodgers likely will surpass Favre as the greatest in history, but for these sick trolls and shitheads to deny the undeniable is just plain disgraceful.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



Bart Starr
Joe Montana
Tom Brady

If you're an honest, objective fan, these three players were better quarterbacks than Brett Favre. You don't have to look far to figure out why; postseason success.

Favre isn't the greatest packer quarterback, or packer player, let along player ever in the league. Star was 9-1 in the playoffs, 2 superbowl wins, 3 straight championships and 5 total championships. Hutson dominated the league like no player has ever done or likely ever will again, he was Jerry Rice before Jerry Rice, but he was even better comparatively than Rice.

Montana won 4 Superbowls with an overall playoff record of 23-16.

Brady is 3-5 in Superbowls (I realize he hasn't been great recently in the playoffs, but getting to 5 in itself is HUGE) for a playoff record of 24-17.

The greatest QBs do not turn the ball over when the game is on the line, this is why Favre will never be considered the greatest. He did many great things, his longevity and durability was certainly the greatest of any player to ever play the game. But greatest QB? No, not even close. He may have been the most exciting, entertaining player to watch. Unfortunately that excitement lead to disappointment and heartache at the end of the season more often than not.
blank
OlHoss1884
11 years ago
On the subject of Favre, it's hard to compare eras. Unitas threw for 40K yards in an era before the 5 yard chuck rule, before QB protection rules, before tackles could start a step back, and when QB were expected to call the plays. While I would certainly list Favre in the top 10, I would not say he was the best. The most entertaining I admit, and his style fit a team that needed to take risks to win for much of his career. Most importantly it was nice ot to have to worry about the position for so long while my Bears fan friends were lamenting the Cade McNowns, Kordell Stewarts, Rick Mirers and Dave Kriegs of the world. Hell the most effective QB they've had in 30 years made a great kicking tee recovery boy for the Favre-led champs.

For overrated/underrated I define these as whether a guy was recognized for being as good s he was or believed to be great despite that he really wasn't. A prospect who comes with hype but doesn't pan out doesn't make that list, nor does someone who comes from nowhere to succeed, as they get "rated" once they are noticed/recognized.

Underrated I have to agree on Lynn Dickey. Never got his due because of all the 41-38 losses the team seemed to have during his time, but to go back even farther I might say Leroy Caffey, who was a terrific LB but overshadowed by his two HOF linemates in Nitschke and Robinson.

overrated I might say Hornung. As good as he was he had a lot of HOFers like Starr, Taylor, Ringo, Gregg, and Kramer making him look good. Surrounded by that cast I would have expected his numbers to be a lot more eye-popping than they are, not that I don't think he's a clear HOFer in any case.

One of the things about having a team in a market the size of GB is that you almost never see overrated players. Bigger markets tend to get a lot more hype for their stars, so guys like Phil Simms, Mark Gastineau, Brian Urlacher, Eric Dickerson and Michael Irvin go from being great players to being legends. Players in smaller, less prominent markets tend to go under the radar a lot more often like Sean Alexander, Ronde Barber, Sam Mills, John Randle or Bert Jones. I bet most of us could a lot more easily come up with a list of 10 underrated Packers than overrated ones.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" --Albert Einstein
nerdmann
11 years ago

On the subject of Favre, it's hard to compare eras. Unitas threw for 40K yards in an era before the 5 yard chuck rule, before QB protection rules, before tackles could start a step back, and when QB were expected to call the plays. While I would certainly list Favre in the top 10, I would not say he was the best. The most entertaining I admit, and his style fit a team that needed to take risks to win for much of his career. Most importantly it was nice ot to have to worry about the position for so long while my Bears fan friends were lamenting the Cade McNowns, Kordell Stewarts, Rick Mirers and Dave Kriegs of the world. Hell the most effective QB they've had in 30 years made a great kicking tee recovery boy for the Favre-led champs.

For overrated/underrated I define these as whether a guy was recognized for being as good s he was or believed to be great despite that he really wasn't. A prospect who comes with hype but doesn't pan out doesn't make that list, nor does someone who comes from nowhere to succeed, as they get "rated" once they are noticed/recognized.

Underrated I have to agree on Lynn Dickey. Never got his due because of all the 41-38 losses the team seemed to have during his time, but to go back even farther I might say Leroy Caffey, who was a terrific LB but overshadowed by his two HOF linemates in Nitschke and Robinson.

overrated I might say Hornung. As good as he was he had a lot of HOFers like Starr, Taylor, Ringo, Gregg, and Kramer making him look good. Surrounded by that cast I would have expected his numbers to be a lot more eye-popping than they are, not that I don't think he's a clear HOFer in any case.

One of the things about having a team in a market the size of GB is that you almost never see overrated players. Bigger markets tend to get a lot more hype for their stars, so guys like Phil Simms, Mark Gastineau, Brian Urlacher, Eric Dickerson and Michael Irvin go from being great players to being legends. Players in smaller, less prominent markets tend to go under the radar a lot more often like Sean Alexander, Ronde Barber, Sam Mills, John Randle or Bert Jones. I bet most of us could a lot more easily come up with a list of 10 underrated Packers than overrated ones.

Originally Posted by: OlHoss1884 




As for Dickey, they had a GREAT offense. Problem there was, the defense couldn't stop anybody. So yeah, he's gonna be underrated.

As for Paul Hornung, Vince Lombardi himself said, "When the game is on the line, Paul Hornung is the greatest player I've ever seen." That's good enough for me.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
porky88
11 years ago

Bart Starr
Joe Montana
Tom Brady

If you're an honest, objective fan, these three players were better quarterbacks than Brett Favre. You don't have to look far to figure out why; postseason success.

Favre isn't the greatest packer quarterback, or packer player, let along player ever in the league. Star was 9-1 in the playoffs, 2 superbowl wins, 3 straight championships and 5 total championships. Hutson dominated the league like no player has ever done or likely ever will again, he was Jerry Rice before Jerry Rice, but he was even better comparatively than Rice.

Montana won 4 Superbowls with an overall playoff record of 23-16.

Brady is 3-5 in Superbowls (I realize he hasn't been great recently in the playoffs, but getting to 5 in itself is HUGE) for a playoff record of 24-17.

The greatest QBs do not turn the ball over when the game is on the line, this is why Favre will never be considered the greatest. He did many great things, his longevity and durability was certainly the greatest of any player to ever play the game. But greatest QB? No, not even close. He may have been the most exciting, entertaining player to watch. Unfortunately that excitement lead to disappointment and heartache at the end of the season more often than not.

Originally Posted by: earthquake 


I don't think most consider Favre the greatest quarterback in history. I don't see that too much. Brady certainly surpassed him, and I don’t think any football historian ever placed him above Joe Montana. I think people have forgotten how good he was, actually. It's a shame because his best was better than most. There was a span (94-98) when he played the position unbelievably well. You never hear about those years in regards to Favre anymore.

It’s also become a common theme to blame him for every playoff defeat in his era. I’ve watched these games multiple times and that’s simply a false analysis. Yes, bash away at the ‘07 and ‘09 championship games, as those were awful throws, but there were other things go on in most of his playoff losses.

Favre fans are quick to defend him. I know first hand. I criticized quite a bit in ‘06 and took some heat on the old site from some people that would go on to hate the man in ‘09. Still, as quick as Favre fans are emotional in defending him, his critics are also emotional in their critique. Labeling him the most overrated Packer in history, as the NFL Network segment did, is among those examples.

OlHoss1884
11 years ago
I will add this to why Favre was not overrated: because for 15 years or so his being in the huddle meant almost no game was out of reach. He had an amazing ability to make some crazy plays (like that cross field TD pass in Detroit in that playoff game), an impact few individual players can have. Did he lose a lot of games with his antics? Of course he did, but he more than made up for it with the number of victories he pulled out of his a$$ over the years as well.


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" --Albert Einstein
Zero2Cool
11 years ago

I will add this to why Favre was not overrated: because for 15 years or so his being in the huddle meant almost no game was out of reach.

Originally Posted by: OlHoss1884 



And that's how the opponents felt too. I recall several times where opponents would say that they "have to keep their hands on the ball because Brett tosses a few INT's a game". Meaning that Brett would throw it into their hands, but if they weren't alert, they'd miss the opportunity.
UserPostedImage
Dexter_Sinister
11 years ago

I will add this to why Favre was not overrated: because for 15 years or so his being in the huddle meant almost no game was out of reach. He had an amazing ability to make some crazy plays (like that cross field TD pass in Detroit in that playoff game), an impact few individual players can have. Did he lose a lot of games with his antics? Of course he did, but he more than made up for it with the number of victories he pulled out of his a$$ over the years as well.

Originally Posted by: OlHoss1884 



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.

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

It's hard to knock Favre for interceptions and then praise Arnie Herber, who threw 106 interceptions and only 81 touchdowns. He also attempted 1,175 career passes. Favre attempted 10,169 passes. Based on the pattern, Herber would have over 900 interceptions by his 10,169th pass attempt. That's nearly 600 more than Favre's 336.

Comparing the eras (and players) is impossible considering the game was far less complex. Some high school sophomores probably can run a faster 40 than many of the players during that era. Rob Gronkowski also would probably play nose tackle and guard. There are a few exceptions (namely Don Hutson), but that’s why they’re exceptions and not the rule.

Another obstacle is the lack of weight training by the players, and the fact many probably were smokers. Regardless, the biggest omission people make in comparing distant eras to today's age is race relations. Herber won championships in the 30s. Jackie Robinson hadn't even broken through the barrier yet. To recap, the players didn’t train, they weren’t as healthy, and prejudices prevented the league from fielding the best players.

Originally Posted by: porky88 



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.
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

Do you think he laid down for Strahan to get the sack record?

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 



Sandbagged '05, sandbagged '06 and tanked the '07 NFCCG.
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 don't think most consider Favre the greatest quarterback in history. I don't see that too much. Brady certainly surpassed him, and I don’t think any football historian ever placed him above Joe Montana. I think people have forgotten how good he was, actually. It's a shame because his best was better than most. There was a span (94-98) when he played the position unbelievably well. You never hear about those years in regards to Favre anymore.

It’s also become a common theme to blame him for every playoff defeat in his era. I’ve watched these games multiple times and that’s simply a false analysis. Yes, bash away at the ‘07 and ‘09 championship games, as those were awful throws, but there were other things go on in most of his playoff losses.

Favre fans are quick to defend him. I know first hand. I criticized quite a bit in ‘06 and took some heat on the old site from some people that would go on to hate the man in ‘09. Still, as quick as Favre fans are emotional in defending him, his critics are also emotional in their critique. Labeling him the most overrated Packer in history, as the NFL Network segment did, is among those examples.

Originally Posted by: porky88 



To paraphrase the greatest coach in history, Teams win and QBs play.

I wouldn't blame Favre for any of his losses, but I would hold him accountable for his play.

9 of 10 playoff runs were ended by Favre playing poorly, throwing last second picks or failing to step up and even get a first down with time on the clock, 4 downs and within 1 score.

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 want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Fan Shout
beast (21m) : 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 (22m) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (32m) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (44m) : 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 (53m) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (1h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (1h) : 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 (1h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (2h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (2h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (2h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (2h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (2h) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (2h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (4h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (4h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (4h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (4h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (5h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (5h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (5h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (5h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (5h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (5h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (5h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (5h) : 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 (5h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (5h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (5h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (5h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Zero2Cool (5h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in
packerfanoutwest (5h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker
packerfanoutwest (5h) : if bucs win out they win their division
beast (5h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
packerfanoutwest (6h) : falcons are already ahead of us
beast (6h) : Packers will get in
beast (6h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen
packerfanoutwest (6h) : they still are in the playoffs
packerfanoutwest (6h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7
Zero2Cool (7h) : We can say it. We don't play.
Mucky Tundra (9h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints
Mucky Tundra (9h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games
Mucky Tundra (9h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.
buckeyepackfan (9h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.
Mucky Tundra (18h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan
beast (19h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings
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
43m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

4h / 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

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