I could have sworn the final score was 27-7, so I'm not sure how to answer your points.

I've said many times on this forum and elsewhere that the teams of that era were not all that great. I've said repeatedly that they feasted on extremely weak NFL Central and North Divisions. I've pointed out that Favre came out of many a regular season looking much better than he otherwise might have because the Packers' divisions were so pathetic. I've also said that I want to see a strong NFC North division. I want to be proud of this team when it makes the playoffs, not feel like they stomped on a bunch of pansies. I think this will be one of the stronger divisions we've seen in quite a few years, and I'm excited for that. I'd love to see three NFC North teams make it to the playoffs and two teams from this division in the NFC championship game. I think that would be a better test of this team's mettle.

---

There's some irony in the fact that you're talking about Favre being great because he pulled "lesser" teams out of the depths of mediocrity, while you harp on Manning because he plays in a dome and doesn't have that great a play-off record.

Let me put it like this. Most Packers teams have been better than most Colts teams in the last decade. Manning makes that team what it is.

Their offenses have been consistently great, while often featuring a mediocre running game and/or O-line and receivers who "come out of nowhere". He made guys like Brandon Stokley. Their defense has been mediocre for ages, sometimes showing up at pivotal times, but often letting the offense play a huge game of catch-up.

And I know, Favre made Antonio Freeman, Favre hasn't always had a great O-line and Favre hasn't always had the running game... But when he did have a crappy team, he usually struggled, trying to make something out of nothing. Forcing things to badly.

And then the intangibles. They don't get much more obvious than with Manning. His study habits, throws under pressure etc.

Manning's a better QB than Favre.

I said that many times..Those years they had an EASY division all they needed to do in a lot of years was win 9 games ( I think one year only needed 8)

2004 comes to mind, would have won div with 8-8 but they were 10-6


but when they got to playoffs the teams were lot better, hence why the lost alot of times.

Hell 2002 they could have won div with a 7-9 record LOL Minn was 6-10

so you are correct Red, those teams were not that good, just played in a WEAK div

TIME OUT.

Have you ever sat in a bar with a bunch of buddies talking football?

The natural flow of the conversation is so great. It moves, it flows,changes directions, and it gives the original conversation continued life.

This is what is so great about Kevin's web site. This thread is just like a conversation in a bar with a bunch of buddies talking around a table full of beer and two plates of nachos.

I personally have no challenge with it getting off topic or bringing up Brett. It is the natural flow of the conversation. The same way it would be in a bar.

This is a damn good site.

---

Ok fine, it was a FG, right after the TD, still 27-7 instead of 31-7. But you still have not addressed the 24-0 at half but whatever.

I am not going to argue that those were weaker divisions but if you watched Favre play between seasons 1995 to 1997, you will have watched one of the greatest three seasons by any QB in history.

That's why I laugh out loud when I hear about Packers fans talk about how Rodgers is better right now than Favre ever was [I am not saying you think this, hopefully you don't]. Its a joke, they didn't watch Favre in his prime. They look at statistics and point to this and that. Fact is that its a different era, you have so many QBs with 3,000+ yards, 100+ QB Rating, 30+ TDs, etc. In that era, it was completely different and Favre was hands on the best QB.

Rodgers is VERY good but people cannot blindly take stats from now and compare them to stats of the mid 90's. Favre posted a 107.2 QB Rating last year, its artificial.

---

Agreed RP! I was thinking the same thing.

---

Favre posted a 107.2 because he was careful with the football. Something he has never done to that extent for the Packers.

The reason I say if Favre played as well as Rodgers, we would have had more super bowls is that when Favre lost in the playoffs, he had poor ratings. He averaged in the mid 60s for the last 12 years he was in Green Bay. Rodgers playoff loss was rated 121. If Favre played that well, we would have had more super bowl wins.

The Giants game, Favre had a poor game before it got to OT. Including a 70 rating and another int.
The MN game, Favre had 4 ints and a fumble with a 54 rating against an 8-8 team. Tying a record for losing to the worst playoff team ever.
The Philly game Favre was handed a 2 TD lead by the D and YACs, The second score was all runs and 1 dump off to the back, all in the First quarter. Then he was done scoring. He had an incredible 210 yard ground game to back him up and the D had 8 sacks and 2 ints. Favre had a 4th and 1 and got a delay of game penalty to move us back to 4th and 6 so Sherman elected to punt. After all that, is the 4th and 26. It is an out right lie to say he had a bad team around him that he was trying to carry.
The St Louis game, Favre TOs led directly to 28 points. They lost by 28 points. 3 ints ran back for TDs and one to the 4. If Favre had not lost the ball over and over, they might have scored at least 3 more. The D actually held the fastest show on turf to 17. Favre scored the rest for them.
The '97 super bowl year, the team pulled out a win VS Tampa in spite of Favre having a 58 rating in order to move on in the playoffs.

In all of those games, if Favre had played up to his average rating, they would have won. In even more games, if Favre played up to Rodgers average, they would have been easy wins. In just about every loss, if Favre played up to Rodgers rating in the AZ loss, they would have blown everyone out.

He may have been great in the the regular season, but he failed when the game was on the line, it is win or go home and the ball is in his hands.

---

Zero, the payoff at the end of my post, the whole point, is that"if Favre played as well as Rodger..." To point out that Rodgers is a great QB. Defending my point that Rodgers would have gotten us more super bowls. My point was questioned and I answered it. Thoroughly.

---

It wasn't directed at anyone specifically, just a gentle reminder the topic of this thread. 🙂

---

I have stated this repeatedly in the past, as well. It is undeniable, however, that with the exception of last year (and to a lesser extent, 2007), Favre never came close to repeating the success of that three-year run.

I really don't care about Brett Favre one way or the other, any more than I care about the quarterbacks playing for other teams. I only talk about him so much because he is surrounded by such an unreasonable mythos and rabid fan base. If he weren't drooled over by every commentator and sportscaster, I wouldn't feel the need to crusade against the myth that is Favre. After he finally leaves the league for good, I probably will hardly ever mention his name again.

---