Bad Luck Wrecked 3 straight SB

[PackFanWithTwins]

When I think back to what Brett has accomplished and what was missed. I realize how close the Packers, Brett and GB were to having 3 straight SB titles.

If Sterling Sharpe's career had not been cut short by injury, I could easily see the Pack, Brett and GB having the 95', 96, and 97 titles, and possibly more. Could have made NE's recent run pale in comparison.

 

[porky88]

I agree. I read Shannon Sharpe gave Sterling his ring because he felt that Packers would've beat Denver with Sterling. That's what I heard at least.

Favre has had a lot of bad luck in his career. The most talented receiver he ever played with had injuries that ended his career. Unlike a lot of other players, Favre's coach left the team in the middle of Favre's prime. Ron Wolf retired soon after.

 

[Zero2Cool]

I disagree. Sterling Sharpe was my favorite Packer for a long time even after he retired.

When Brett had Sterling he had massive tunnel vision. When Sterling retired Brett grew as a QB. He learned he had to trust his receivers. It made him a better QB.

 

[PackFanWithTwins]

I disagree. Sterling Sharpe was my favorite Packer for a long time even after he retired.

When Brett had Sterling he had massive tunnel vision. When Sterling retired Brett grew as a QB. He learned he had to trust his receivers. It made him a better QB.

I don't agree. When you have a receiver like Sharpe you throw it to him. In the three seasons they played together Brett threw 983 completions, Sterling caught 314. That leaves 669 receptions by other players. Brett spread the ball around fine for a beginning QB and that progress would have continued with Sharpe on the team.

 

[Zero2Cool]

I disagree. Sterling Sharpe was my favorite Packer for a long time even after he retired.

When Brett had Sterling he had massive tunnel vision. When Sterling retired Brett grew as a QB. He learned he had to trust his receivers. It made him a better QB.

I don't agree. When you have a receiver like Sharpe you throw it to him. In the three seasons they played together Brett threw 983 completions, Sterling caught 314. That leaves 669 receptions by other players. Brett spread the ball around fine for a beginning QB and that progress would have continued with Sharpe on the team.

I wish I could find the article or interview where Brett said that losing Sterling made him into a better QB because he didn't have the safety net. He said he would have rather had him enjoy a full career but said with Sterling being gone, it forced him into maturing as a QB.

 

[Zero2Cool]

Reading through some articles on my site and came across this from Brett.

"I’m not going to pull a Sterling or anything, where I walk out the day before San Francisco," Favre said, referring to former wide receiver Sterling Sharpe and his one-day holdout before the ’94 season opener. "I’m satisfied with my contract. That’s something I said yes to.

 

[longtimefan]

I disagree. Sterling Sharpe was my favorite Packer for a long time even after he retired.

When Brett had Sterling he had massive tunnel vision. When Sterling retired Brett grew as a QB. He learned he had to trust his receivers. It made him a better QB.

I will agree with Zero..

Sterling even said in an interview that he told Brett if your in trouble just toss me the ball

It was a blessing for Brett that Sterling was hurt..I too think Brett only saw Sterling and didnt know how pass ball around..


It probably would have taken Brett a few more years to develop into the q.b he became if Sterling was a Packer longer then he was..

Sterlings last year was 94 he had 94 catches, Edgar had 78, next wr only had 58

93 was even worse Sterling 112, next guy 59 and again that was Edgar

Same in 92 Sterling got most with 108 then Jackie Harris got 55

Brett didnt know how to pass to other WR with Sterling there

 

[Rios39]

I disagree. Sterling Sharpe was my favorite Packer for a long time even after he retired.

When Brett had Sterling he had massive tunnel vision. When Sterling retired Brett grew as a QB. He learned he had to trust his receivers. It made him a better QB.

I will agree with Zero..

Sterling even said in an interview that he told Brett if your in trouble just toss me the ball

That's the point of having a guy like that. What do you think makes Brady (this year) and Peyton Manning so good. Having the fall back of having Elite receivers to air it out to when problems occur. Brett Favre never really had that luxury in his whole career after Sterling Sharpe.. Unfortunately.

 

[Zombieslayer]

I disagree. Sterling Sharpe was my favorite Packer for a long time even after he retired.

When Brett had Sterling he had massive tunnel vision. When Sterling retired Brett grew as a QB. He learned he had to trust his receivers. It made him a better QB.

I disagree. NOBODY could cover Sterling Sharpe. He was the best possession WR I've ever seen, and I've watched a lot of football in my days.

Sterling was stronger than a TE and as fast as a WR. He was a monster. You'd have to combine several WRs to get the traits Sterling had.

If you were throwing to Sterling Sharpe, you'd have tunnel vision too.

Robert Brooks was starting to get developed in Sharpe's last year. WRs (except for Gregorious) take a few years to develop and if Sharpe hadn't been hurt, we'd have Sharpe on one side and Brooks on the other and Freeman would be developing. I really think we would have won 3 straight.

Also keep in mind, the greatest DE ever was at his peak in the mid-90s. Brett Favre peaking, Reggie White peaking, and Sterling Sharpe peaking at the same time? Forget it. 3 straight Rings. It's really a shame it didn't happen like that. But that's Fate for you.

 

[porky88]

I still don't know if GB beats Dallas in Dallas during the NFC title game. They had the Pack's number.

I think Favre just developed during those years. Most good QB's need time to develop and they hit their prime fast then. That's what happen with Favre in my opinion. It just takes time and coaching.

I think Favre probably would've put up even bigger numbers through that span with Sterling. Heck in 94 he threw 33 touchdowns, 3800+ yards and 14 INT's. That was in Sharpe's last year.

There really is no definite answer but Sharpe was as talented as a receiver as Favre ever had in my opinion.

 

[Zombieslayer]

I still don't know if GB beats Dallas in Dallas during the NFC title game. They had the Pack's number.

I think Favre just developed during those years. Most good QB's need time to develop and they hit their prime fast then. That's what happen with Favre in my opinion. It just takes time and coaching.

I think Favre probably would've put up even bigger numbers through that span with Sterling. Heck in 94 he threw 33 touchdowns, 3800+ yards and 14 INT's. That was in Sharpe's last year.

There really is no definite answer but Sharpe was as talented as a receiver as Favre ever had in my opinion.

Yes. I love Donald Driver and am a huge fan of Gregorious, but Sharpe was by far the best WR Favre ever had. You throw a ball in his direction, he comes down with it. He was just stronger and better than everyone else.

The low INTs was partly due to Sharpe. He probably took away a few ones that could have been INTs. In a fight for the ball, Sharpe wins.

They had an unspoken chemistry too. When a play breaks down, Sharpe knew exactly what to do. Losing Sharpe really hurt Favre's game. It didn't help. Whenever you have a player of that caliber, it's a huge loss when you lose them. Even if opposing teams did everything they could to stop FAvre to Sharpe, they just couldn't do it.

If I remember correctly, our game was one dimensional not because of Sharpe but because we had no running game back then. This is before Dorsey Levens, remember?

 

[longtimefan]

I still don't know if GB beats Dallas in Dallas during the NFC title game. They had the Pack's number.

I think Favre just developed during those years. Most good QB's need time to develop and they hit their prime fast then. That's what happen with Favre in my opinion. It just takes time and coaching.

I think Favre probably would've put up even bigger numbers through that span with Sterling. Heck in 94 he threw 33 touchdowns, 3800+ yards and 14 INT's. That was in Sharpe's last year.

There really is no definite answer but Sharpe was as talented as a receiver as Favre ever had in my opinion.

Yes. I love Donald Driver and am a huge fan of Gregorious, but Sharpe was by far the best WR Favre ever had. You throw a ball in his direction, he comes down with it. He was just stronger and better than everyone else.

The low INTs was partly due to Sharpe. He probably took away a few ones that could have been INTs. In a fight for the ball, Sharpe wins.

They had an unspoken chemistry too. When a play breaks down, Sharpe knew exactly what to do. Losing Sharpe really hurt Favre's game. It didn't help. Whenever you have a player of that caliber, it's a huge loss when you lose them. Even if opposing teams did everything they could to stop FAvre to Sharpe, they just couldn't do it.

If I remember correctly, our game was one dimensional not because of Sharpe but because we had no running game back then. This is before Dorsey Levens, remember?

Losing Sharpe really hurt Favre's game. It didn't help. Whenever you have a player of that caliber, it's a huge loss when you lose them. Even if opposing teams did everything they could to stop FAvre to Sharpe, they just couldn't do it.

So if losing him hurt Bretts game then explain this

1994 9-7 no real running game, had about 1200 yards with the 2 main guys..........363 comp...... 3882 yards...... 33 tds.....14 ints....90.7 rating

95 11-5 less rushing yards, Brett was 2nd leading rusher ( how crazy is that now? ).....359 comp........4413 yards....38 tds.......13 int...99.5 rating

 

[nathaniel]

Sterling was my favorite player when I was a kid, and I was at his last game when he injured his neck against the Bucs. It was sad when he went down, especially knowing he still had a lot left in him.

 

[Obi1]

Yet, Sterling Sharpe is NOT in th4e NFL Hall of Fame. Why?

Favre matured as a QB when he did because he was ready to. Whether, SS was there or not, Favre would have been the Star he was and may be MORE so.

Think about Sterling Sharpe with the current WRs. I guarantee you more Superbowls, more records would have been shattered. Had SS not retired and continued to play, he would be hailed right now as the GREATEST receiver to EVER play the game. MAY BE Second only to Don Hutson.

 

[Zombieslayer]

I still don't know if GB beats Dallas in Dallas during the NFC title game. They had the Pack's number.

I think Favre just developed during those years. Most good QB's need time to develop and they hit their prime fast then. That's what happen with Favre in my opinion. It just takes time and coaching.

I think Favre probably would've put up even bigger numbers through that span with Sterling. Heck in 94 he threw 33 touchdowns, 3800+ yards and 14 INT's. That was in Sharpe's last year.

There really is no definite answer but Sharpe was as talented as a receiver as Favre ever had in my opinion.

Yes. I love Donald Driver and am a huge fan of Gregorious, but Sharpe was by far the best WR Favre ever had. You throw a ball in his direction, he comes down with it. He was just stronger and better than everyone else.

The low INTs was partly due to Sharpe. He probably took away a few ones that could have been INTs. In a fight for the ball, Sharpe wins.

They had an unspoken chemistry too. When a play breaks down, Sharpe knew exactly what to do. Losing Sharpe really hurt Favre's game. It didn't help. Whenever you have a player of that caliber, it's a huge loss when you lose them. Even if opposing teams did everything they could to stop FAvre to Sharpe, they just couldn't do it.

If I remember correctly, our game was one dimensional not because of Sharpe but because we had no running game back then. This is before Dorsey Levens, remember?

Losing Sharpe really hurt Favre's game. It didn't help. Whenever you have a player of that caliber, it's a huge loss when you lose them. Even if opposing teams did everything they could to stop FAvre to Sharpe, they just couldn't do it.

So if losing him hurt Bretts game then explain this

1994 9-7 no real running game, had about 1200 yards with the 2 main guys..........363 comp...... 3882 yards...... 33 tds.....14 ints....90.7 rating

95 11-5 less rushing yards, Brett was 2nd leading rusher ( how crazy is that now? ).....359 comp........4413 yards....38 tds.......13 int...99.5 rating

Simple - maturity. You don't expect QBs to do much in their first few years. Those who do are extremely rare. Dan Marino immediately comes to mind. But most QBs suck their first 2 or 3 years.

One year is a HUGE difference for a young QB.

 

[Zombieslayer]

Yet, Sterling Sharpe is NOT in th4e NFL Hall of Fame. Why?

Favre matured as a QB when he did because he was ready to. Whether, SS was there or not, Favre would have been the Star he was and may be MORE so.

Think about Sterling Sharpe with the current WRs. I guarantee you more Superbowls, more records would have been shattered. Had SS not retired and continued to play, he would be hailed right now as the GREATEST receiver to EVER play the game. MAY BE Second only to Don Hutson.

He's not in the Hall because his career was so short. It's really a shame.

He was the best WR of his time and the guy I'd compare him to is Jerry Rice. With his injury, all we can do is guess what could have been.

 

[longtimefan]

I still don't know if GB beats Dallas in Dallas during the NFC title game. They had the Pack's number.

I think Favre just developed during those years. Most good QB's need time to develop and they hit their prime fast then. That's what happen with Favre in my opinion. It just takes time and coaching.

I think Favre probably would've put up even bigger numbers through that span with Sterling. Heck in 94 he threw 33 touchdowns, 3800+ yards and 14 INT's. That was in Sharpe's last year.

There really is no definite answer but Sharpe was as talented as a receiver as Favre ever had in my opinion.

Yes. I love Donald Driver and am a huge fan of Gregorious, but Sharpe was by far the best WR Favre ever had. You throw a ball in his direction, he comes down with it. He was just stronger and better than everyone else.

The low INTs was partly due to Sharpe. He probably took away a few ones that could have been INTs. In a fight for the ball, Sharpe wins.

They had an unspoken chemistry too. When a play breaks down, Sharpe knew exactly what to do. Losing Sharpe really hurt Favre's game. It didn't help. Whenever you have a player of that caliber, it's a huge loss when you lose them. Even if opposing teams did everything they could to stop FAvre to Sharpe, they just couldn't do it.

If I remember correctly, our game was one dimensional not because of Sharpe but because we had no running game back then. This is before Dorsey Levens, remember?

Losing Sharpe really hurt Favre's game. It didn't help. Whenever you have a player of that caliber, it's a huge loss when you lose them. Even if opposing teams did everything they could to stop FAvre to Sharpe, they just couldn't do it.

So if losing him hurt Bretts game then explain this

1994 9-7 no real running game, had about 1200 yards with the 2 main guys..........363 comp...... 3882 yards...... 33 tds.....14 ints....90.7 rating

95 11-5 less rushing yards, Brett was 2nd leading rusher ( how crazy is that now? ).....359 comp........4413 yards....38 tds.......13 int...99.5 rating

Simple - maturity. You don't expect QBs to do much in their first few years. Those who do are extremely rare. Dan Marino immediately comes to mind. But most QBs suck their first 2 or 3 years.

One year is a HUGE difference for a young QB.

Exactly our point..Brett needed Sterling gone to MATURE

 

[Obi1]

I still don't know if GB beats Dallas in Dallas during the NFC title game. They had the Pack's number.

I think Favre just developed during those years. Most good QB's need time to develop and they hit their prime fast then. That's what happen with Favre in my opinion. It just takes time and coaching.

I think Favre probably would've put up even bigger numbers through that span with Sterling. Heck in 94 he threw 33 touchdowns, 3800+ yards and 14 INT's. That was in Sharpe's last year.

There really is no definite answer but Sharpe was as talented as a receiver as Favre ever had in my opinion.

Yes. I love Donald Driver and am a huge fan of Gregorious, but Sharpe was by far the best WR Favre ever had. You throw a ball in his direction, he comes down with it. He was just stronger and better than everyone else.

The low INTs was partly due to Sharpe. He probably took away a few ones that could have been INTs. In a fight for the ball, Sharpe wins.

They had an unspoken chemistry too. When a play breaks down, Sharpe knew exactly what to do. Losing Sharpe really hurt Favre's game. It didn't help. Whenever you have a player of that caliber, it's a huge loss when you lose them. Even if opposing teams did everything they could to stop FAvre to Sharpe, they just couldn't do it.

If I remember correctly, our game was one dimensional not because of Sharpe but because we had no running game back then. This is before Dorsey Levens, remember?

Losing Sharpe really hurt Favre's game. It didn't help. Whenever you have a player of that caliber, it's a huge loss when you lose them. Even if opposing teams did everything they could to stop FAvre to Sharpe, they just couldn't do it.

So if losing him hurt Bretts game then explain this

1994 9-7 no real running game, had about 1200 yards with the 2 main guys..........363 comp...... 3882 yards...... 33 tds.....14 ints....90.7 rating

95 11-5 less rushing yards, Brett was 2nd leading rusher ( how crazy is that now? ).....359 comp........4413 yards....38 tds.......13 int...99.5 rating

Simple - maturity. You don't expect QBs to do much in their first few years. Those who do are extremely rare. Dan Marino immediately comes to mind. But most QBs suck their first 2 or 3 years.

One year is a HUGE difference for a young QB.

Exactly our point..Brett needed Sterling gone to MATURE

What would have Favre's stats been like HAD SS been there in 1995?
Brett matured because it was his time. Sharpe's departure was unfortunate. I can't imagine what would have happened had Sharpe been there for 5 more years... WOW!

 

[Zombieslayer]

What would have Favre's stats been like HAD SS been there in 1995?
Brett matured because it was his time. Sharpe's departure was unfortunate. I can't imagine what would have happened had Sharpe been there for 5 more years... WOW!

They would have been incredible. Instead of in the high 30s, I'd imagine 40+ TDs a year in the mid-90s. Sharpe was not only strong catching the ball, he was hard to bring down.

 

[PackFanWithTwins]

Sterlings three years he caught 108,112,94 passes.
Brooks in 95 caught 102.

It was after that when Brett really started to spread the ball around. Since 95 nobody on the Pack has had over 100 reception. There are a few that nobody had even 80. The closest was 06' when Driver had 92.

Loosing Sterling may have started Brett on this path but I think his progress was more of a natural aging process.

Also if Sterling would have been aroung Brett would have 3 rings and would have retired after 02'. We all would have missed out on a bunch of Brett moments.

 

[nyghater]

When I think back to what Brett has accomplished and what was missed. I realize how close the Packers, Brett and GB were to having 3 straight SB titles.

If Sterling Sharpe's career had not been cut short by injury, I could easily see the Pack, Brett and GB having the 95', 96, and 97 titles, and possibly more. Could have made NE's recent run pale in comparison.

I feel it takes more than having one go-to receiver to win a Super Bowl. Especially when you're trying to repeat back-to-back SBs. So "bad luck" does not seem to fit into this.

I still feel if us Packers fans really wanted Brett to return for one more season then we should demonstrat that by winning the 4th Tempt Destiny billboard for our team. It worked for the Giants, no reason why it should not work for us!

Press Release

 

[Zombieslayer]

Sterlings three years he caught 108,112,94 passes.
Brooks in 95 caught 102.

It was after that when Brett really started to spread the ball around. Since 95 nobody on the Pack has had over 100 reception. There are a few that nobody had even 80. The closest was 06' when Driver had 92.

Loosing Sterling may have started Brett on this path but I think his progress was more of a natural aging process.

Also if Sterling would have been aroung Brett would have 3 rings and would have retired after 02'. We all would have missed out on a bunch of Brett moments.

Do you have TD totals? TDs > receptions. Sharpe breaks and/or dodges tackles and finds his way into the end zone.

 

[Zombieslayer]

Ok, now to answer my own question. Sterling Sharpe's 3 years with Brett Favre, he led the NFL twice in receiving TDs, twice in yards, and twice in receptions.

I don't think Robert Brooks really recovered from the '96 injury, so I don't want to critique him. he was a dang good WR, but not on the same caliber as Sharpe.

If the two had played together with of course Antonio Freeman emerging, I think it's a good shot at a three-peat. Imagine covering Sharpe, Brooks, and Freeman at their peaks. Brooks and Sharpe would have peaked at the same time and Freeman would have peaked a year later. If you're an opposing D, forget it.

Also keep in mind we had the emergence of Dorsey Levens.

I strongly think with Sharpe, we would have simply worn out opposing Ds. You can't cover Sharpe, Brooks, and Freeman when they're all peaking at the same time. Just forget it. We would have been on the field the whole time.

Shannon Sharpe even said it. He's not saying that just because Sterling is his big brother, but he knows of the 2, Sterling was the better athlete. And I remember Shannon being on the cover of some sports magazine as being the most in fit player in the NFL. So that's really saying something. Shannon was a beast. Sterling was even better.

 

[PackFanWithTwins]

Sterlings three years he caught 108,112,94 passes.
Brooks in 95 caught 102.

It was after that when Brett really started to spread the ball around. Since 95 nobody on the Pack has had over 100 reception. There are a few that nobody had even 80. The closest was 06' when Driver had 92.

Loosing Sterling may have started Brett on this path but I think his progress was more of a natural aging process.

Also if Sterling would have been aroung Brett would have 3 rings and would have retired after 02'. We all would have missed out on a bunch of Brett moments.

Do you have TD totals? TDs > receptions. Sharpe breaks and/or dodges tackles and finds his way into the end zone.

Here are the TD leaders each year
92' Sharpe 13
93' Sharpe 11
94' Sharpe 18
95' Brooks 13
96' Jackson 10, Freeman 9
97' Freeman 12
98' Freeman 14
99' Freeman 6, Schroeder 5, Bradford 5
00' Freeman 9
01' Bubba 9, Schroeder 9
02' Driver 9
03' Walker 9
04' Walker 12
05' Driver 5
06' Driver 8
07' Jennings 12

 

[Zombieslayer]

Sterlings three years he caught 108,112,94 passes.
Brooks in 95 caught 102.

It was after that when Brett really started to spread the ball around. Since 95 nobody on the Pack has had over 100 reception. There are a few that nobody had even 80. The closest was 06' when Driver had 92.

Loosing Sterling may have started Brett on this path but I think his progress was more of a natural aging process.

Also if Sterling would have been aroung Brett would have 3 rings and would have retired after 02'. We all would have missed out on a bunch of Brett moments.

Do you have TD totals? TDs > receptions. Sharpe breaks and/or dodges tackles and finds his way into the end zone.

Here are the TD leaders each year
92' Sharpe 13
93' Sharpe 11
94' Sharpe 18
95' Brooks 13
96' Jackson 10, Freeman 9
97' Freeman 12
98' Freeman 14
99' Freeman 6, Schroeder 5, Bradford 5
00' Freeman 9
01' Bubba 9, Schroeder 9
02' Driver 9
03' Walker 9
04' Walker 12
05' Driver 5
06' Driver 8
07' Jennings 12

Thanks.

But going back to an old point, do you really think he would have retired in '02? Why do you think that?

I'm not arguing, but wonder why you'd think that (assuming he has 3 Rings).