Bretts legacy to be on ESPN2
- Thread starter longtimefan
- Start date
Bogart
Duke Mantee
I thought he was coming back, so how can they make this? 
IluvGB
I <3 Packers!!!!
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2006
- Messages
- 4,409
- Reaction score
- 653
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz its been on every year he was supposed to retire... over it!
SanDiegoCheese
West Coast Cheesehead
Legacy? Brett will be remembered for his love of phones......... 
You must be logged in to see this image or video!
Bensalama21
Ben
Lol.. Thats pretty funny.Legacy? Brett will be remembered for his love of phones.........
You must be logged in to see this image or video!
weeds
Fiber deprived old guy.
Phft ... I don't dislike Favre....hell, the guy played a Hall of Fame career here....but....the discussion of a "legacy" or what remains of it is a few years into the future from my perspective. Again, I need to restate that I've never owned a player's jersey with a name on it and never will - I'm not a fan of the player, I'm a fan of the team... always have been, always will be...so, I wouldn't be interested. Besides, there will be nothing new, you know?
Guacamole
Full On Cheesehead
Buck Frett
FrankRizzo
Cheesehead
I'm just tired of this guy, way tired.
Was tired of him in 2007 when he had a nice regular season, except the game I was at here in Dallas when he sucked.
Was tired of him when he froze up, and threw the season away that title game.
Was happy he retired.
Was sick of him when he wanted to come back.
Was sick of him when he went to the Vikings, and carved us up in 2008, twice.
Just tired of him.
I won't usually contribute any words to any threads about him.
Because I'm tired of the guy.
I'm more tired now after typing all that. lol
Was tired of him in 2007 when he had a nice regular season, except the game I was at here in Dallas when he sucked.
Was tired of him when he froze up, and threw the season away that title game.
Was happy he retired.
Was sick of him when he wanted to come back.
Was sick of him when he went to the Vikings, and carved us up in 2008, twice.
Just tired of him.
I won't usually contribute any words to any threads about him.
Because I'm tired of the guy.
I'm more tired now after typing all that. lol
CarolinaPackerFan
Packers fan in Panthers country
Just when I thought Tebow was the player I was most tired hearing about... then this guy has to pop back up.
bhuggins
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2011
- Messages
- 73
- Reaction score
- 15
I was disapponted with all the circumstances surrounding Brett's departure from the Pack. I wish he had just retired after the 2007 season BUT I can also understand him not wanting to have his last game end like it did against the NYG in the NFC Title game. However, you cannot discount the 16 seasons he played for Green Bay and all the national attention he brought to this organization. For 16 seasons he was MUST-SEE TV, arguably one the most exciting players in the league. Just like Michael Jordan was to the NBA, Favre was the same to the NFL. People loved to watch him play. Yes, yes, I know he threw a lot of picks but he also won a ton of games with some unbelievable throws.
All I know is the Packers were one of the bottom feeders in the NFL for 20 years prior to Favre taking the reigns at QB. Nobody wanted to play in Green Bay and rarely were they ever on national TV. I certainly do not care for his antics and attitude the last few years since leaving the Packers, but I believe his 16 years while with the organization cannot be forgotten. He is and will always be considered one of the all-time greats.
The Packers are really blessed in the fact that we now have Aaron Rodgers to carry on the legacy and take the organization to even greater heights.
All I know is the Packers were one of the bottom feeders in the NFL for 20 years prior to Favre taking the reigns at QB. Nobody wanted to play in Green Bay and rarely were they ever on national TV. I certainly do not care for his antics and attitude the last few years since leaving the Packers, but I believe his 16 years while with the organization cannot be forgotten. He is and will always be considered one of the all-time greats.
The Packers are really blessed in the fact that we now have Aaron Rodgers to carry on the legacy and take the organization to even greater heights.
weeds
Fiber deprived old guy.
You remember the early 80's don't you....I have a feeling, by the tone of your comments, that you were alive to witness THAT mess too, weren't you? Haha... I can sense the angst in the sound of your keyboard tapping that you were there.
bhuggins
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2011
- Messages
- 73
- Reaction score
- 15
You remember the early 80's don't you....I have a feeling, by the tone of your comments, that you were alive to witness THAT mess too, weren't you? Haha... I can sense the angst in the sound of your keyboard tapping that you were there.
I've been around watching the Packers since the early 60's. So, I've seen the best of times, the worst of times and now back to the best of times.
I would like to point out that the stretch of time since 1992 when Favre arrived to the present is the longest stretch of consistent success the Packers have ever experienced - 20 years only 2 losing seasons.
weeds
Fiber deprived old guy.
Thought so ... I knew you were a kindred spirit. I'm still not sure that I've excorcised the remaining demons that seem to linger from the 1983 Packers' defense. 
greenandgold
I'm Dirty Hairy Callahan
Probably why he popped up. Hey, they're praising another QB. What can I say or do to grab the headlines again?
bhuggins
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2011
- Messages
- 73
- Reaction score
- 15
Thought so ... I knew you were a kindred spirit. I'm still not sure that I've excorcised the remaining demons that seem to linger from the 1983 Packers' defense.
This year's version isn't performing so well either except for the turnovers. Speaking of that era, Lynn ****ey was certainly one of the great passing QB's of that time. The offense was fun to watch. Bart Starr is still my all-time favorite Packer and I wish he had succeeded as coach but at the same time, he was handcuffed by the devastation brought on by the John Hadl trade prior to him taking over. We gave up numerous draft picks for him and he was a bust. It took years to recover. Also, Starr wanted to draft Montana out of college and was over ruled by management. The question is, would Montana have been as great in Green Bay as he was playing for Bill Walsh?
Favre defenders remind me of Joe Pa defenders.
People need to realize that no matter what you have done your entire life, it can all thrown away with one bad move, or decision. Favre decided to throw his legacy away and betray the packers. I can not forget that, or forgive.
Oh and the "favre saved the packers" line is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. His name was Ron Wolf.
Its amazing that he threw for over 500 TDs but still isnt a top 10 QB
People need to realize that no matter what you have done your entire life, it can all thrown away with one bad move, or decision. Favre decided to throw his legacy away and betray the packers. I can not forget that, or forgive.
Oh and the "favre saved the packers" line is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. His name was Ron Wolf.
Its amazing that he threw for over 500 TDs but still isnt a top 10 QB
IluvGB
I <3 Packers!!!!
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2006
- Messages
- 4,409
- Reaction score
- 653
I"ll up you a Ron Wolf and add the rest of the Packer team/management/coach that was presently playing/ managing and coaching during that era!!
One player does not a win/ game/team/ season/ or savior make!
One player does not a win/ game/team/ season/ or savior make!
bhuggins
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2011
- Messages
- 73
- Reaction score
- 15
Ron wolf was smart enough to realize the talent Favre possessed but it was still Favre who played at an extremely high level throughout his 16 years with the Packers. The only reason Brett moved onto play for another organization was because the Packers didn't want him any longer. How is his situation any different than any other business decision made by you or I? If your employer decided to terminate your employment wouldn't you pursue another opportunity with a different company even if that company was a competitor of your former employer? Would that tarnish your reputation? The NFL is a business and sometimes business decisions are not always popular but we as individuals have every right to seek employment whereever the oppurtunity takes us.
Yes, Favre did not win all those games by himself, but I challenge you to name one potential Hall of Famer besides Reggie White that played with him during his 16 years. As for Favre not being a Top 10 QB that is your opinion, but I would venture to guess that he is most certainly on most every football scholar's list as an all-time top 10 quarterback.
Packers fans should show the same respect for Favre as the Eagles fans have shown toward Reggie even after he left them on his own terms via free agency to join the Packers. Favre never even considered free agency during his time with Green Bay and I'm sure there would have been about 31 other teams lined up for the chance to sign him. The man deserves our respect and admiration for the attention he brought to the smallest city in the NFL. He put the Packers on the national stage. Do you really think the rest of the country tuned into watch Packers games because of all the other players? He was fun to watch. He won many more games than he lost not to mention all the good things he and his wife did within the community.
greenandgold
I'm Dirty Hairy Callahan
I thought Brett's legacy was pictures of his junk?
OP
OP
This is one reason why Brett defenders dont make sense..
Reggie didnt do/say the things to Philly....You know this, so please dont compare the two..
There is no player that did the same stuff as Brett to compare to..So to say show same respect, it isnt right....Two different circumstances
Brett played an "extremely high level throughout his 16 years with the Packers"? news to me. He blew way too many games in the playoffs for that to be true.
The Packers wanted a QB that was committed to playing. Not one that would repeatedly call them up and then change his mind about what he wanted to do. Plus Aaron was better at that point.
You challenge me to name 1 potential Hall of Famer besides Reggie? Oh thats reaaaaaaally easy. Sterling Sharpe is the first name that comes to mind. career cut short but falls in the terrell davis area of HOF. Was the best WR in the league for several years. Holmgren should get a shot at some point. As should Mike McCarthy. Leroy Butler has a shot, dont forget he was an all decade player and had more all pros than Favre did! Darren Sharper should get a look as well. 63 career INTs is very impressive. Then there is Charles Woodson. And Aaron Rodgers. Maybe Greg Jennings too, but he only has an outside shot. But you did say "potential Hall of Famer", hope those 8 are enough to end that silly argument that favre wasnt surrounded by talent.
While not HOF caliber, you have players that set Packers records that deserve some mention like Donald Driver, Ahman Green and KGB. receptions, rushing yards, and sacks respectively.
Brett deserves the same respect as Joe Paterno. He disgraced himself. Calling another rival the week they play the packers to tell them everything he knows about the offense? Thats bush league. Trying to play GM through the media? Know your role and shut your mouth if you are a player. If anything Brett should be ever so thankful for what the Packers and fans have provided for him. In any other city, in any other market brett would never have been allowed to QB a team after being responsible for blowing so many seasons. Any other organization would have ran him out of town. People need to stop glorifying that egomaniac.
As far as top 10 all time you have (in no order at this time) you have Elway, Brady, Graham, Starr, Manning, Young, Staubach, Unitas, Baugh, and Montana. There is a reason I leave off players with big numbers and few rings like Marino, Favre, and Tarkenton. There are many similar lists like this. Rodgers is headed to a spot on this list as well. Peter King has Favre as #6 on his top 10 and he worships the guy. Then again Peter left off a guy who won 5 NFL championships so not sure where his head is at.
weeds
Fiber deprived old guy.
Are we still in this "bad place"? "Apologists"??? "Defenders"??? "Haters"?? I mean, if it's not someone being a "Shermanista" ... it's a "Favre Apologist"? Man, all that stuff is yesterday's news. The Green Bay Packers are Super Bowl champions ... the "next" guy is on a strong path for MVP and another run at the Lombardi ... life's good. The Other Guy (T.O.G.) is sitting in Mississippi living in something of a "purgatory"...paying for his sins...as I said, any discussion of what remains of his legacy is a good number of years away. Still and the same, T.O.G.'s 1998 and prior game was indeed a thing of beauty. After that, not so much... point being, it's hard for me to have a ******* against T.O.G. with the Pack doing what they're doing...I'm too busy enjoying the current ride.
In round figures, Favre's tenure with the Packers can be broken down three blocks of years - 3,3, & 10.
The first block is really 57 games (or about 3.5 years). The reason? I've downloaded all QB stat lines for every start from '92 through about four weeks ago, into an excel spreadsheet. Favre did not start playing at an elite level (defined as very good to great consistently) until the 10th game of the '95 season. That's 57 games. Up to that point, Favre had an 83 QB rating (82.969 to be more precise) and the Packers went 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, and were 5-4 through 9 games in '95. That's an 83 QB rating and the team was 32-25. Not terrible, but not world beating either. Starting 11/12/95-9/27/98 Favre did indeed play elite football, but it must be understood that that was only after those 57 games of general mediocrity and all the patience and training and 2nd and 3rd chances.
Favre, as Peter King wrote in '97 and Favre himself wrote about in his auto-biography, was nearly benched in favor of Mark Brunell in '94. Favre was effectively benched in the seventh game of the '94 season after sustaining a thigh bruise, but was ready to go back in, but the staff kept Brunell. It is obvious that they wanted to see what he could do. That game was a Thursday game and the Packers had all the way until the following Monday night before their next game. That gave them three extra days to decide what to do. King said that the offensive coaching staff DID vote to bench Favre. But it was a "non-binding referendum" and the story is Holmgren decided to stick with Favre after Mariucci pled his case (and of course Mariucci had a dog in the fight as he was the QB coach and it wouldn't have looked too good for him to have a long term QB benched under his watch).
Back to those first 57 games after Favre came to town. It so happens that from '81-'84 the Packers played exactly 57 games due to the strike in '82. The Packers had a very good passing game, anemic rushing attacks, poor to bad offensive lines, horrible defenses, and Bart Starr and Forrest Gregg as coach/GM (or least a share of talent finding duties). Quarterbacking wasn't the Packers main problem in the '80's. Wright wasn't good, but Majkowski wasn't terrible, he just was Jay Cutler 1.0 behind a horrid offensive line (the defenses under Infante were actually mediocre instead of terrible). Basically everything BUT quarterbacking was mediocre to terrible. The Packers in the '81-'84 era actually scored significantly more points than the early 90's block - 160 more. Their terrible defense gave up 225 more. The Packers of the early 80's had a terrible rushing margin (the difference between offensive gotten and defensive given) that was corrected by the early 90's through the mid 90's. After signing Reggie White, the Packers moved from generally in the bottom quarter of the league defensively to the top quarter from '93-'98. The Packers of '81-'84 went 29-27-1. So compared to the first 57 with Favre in town, that is 32-25 versus 29.5-27.5. That's a stunning 2.5 game swing over 57 games with a team that had Wolf over Starr/Gregg/Braatz, Holmgren and his successful WCO scheme direct from the Walsh fountainhead over Starr/Gregg, and an upgrade in talent at just about every position on both sides of the ball AND THEN Brett Favre. And out of all that upgrade, through 57 games, 2.5 swing games was the result. And Favre was almost benched in the mean time. I'd hardly say the narrative that Favre somehow instantly, and single handedly altered the Packers fortunes is worth a steaming pile.
Then there is the second roughly 3 year block (or more precisely, according to my spreadsheet, 2-2/3rds years, or 42 games) Favre played great. It can't be denied or disputed, as some people now trying to build Rodgers into the Second Coming of J.C. seem to want to say. Favre's mid 90's run was about as good as Rodgers's now, adjusted for era. Rodgers just now might be exceeding what Favre accomplished with these last few games. The Packers went 35-7 in the regular season, and, as we all know, the Packers made three straight NFCCG and two Super Bowls with a win. And Favre had a Yound-esque 100 QB rating over that time.
What suddenly changed? A new GM came to town? A new coach? Three new receivers exited a space ship? Nothing changed except Favre. He suddenly stopped throwing so many interceptions. The GM, coaching, scheming nor players changed. Favre finally "got it". And when he did, he played great. But the team ALREADY was ready to go toward the upper tier, they just had to wait from mid '94 (and the near benching) to mid '95 before Favre finally got it. And everything was great. But the narrative, as written starting in '97, insisted on giving Favre all the credit. But the team was great too, and I am sure Brunell could have had near the same success, IF NOT MORE, had he taken over in '94. Brunell, after going 3-7 in his starts with the expansion Jaguars, helped the Jags go 45-19 with two AFCCG appearances from '96-'99. The Packers actually could have faced Brunell in SB XXXI if they had beaten the Patriots. One can ponder what Brunell might have been able to do with a superior Packers team than his Jags in the mid 90's.
So when it is taken into account how slow the progress was, and the team fortunes, despite all the across the board upgrades, didn't rocket into space instantly, and that the Packers are the only team in NFL history with four different 4,000+ yard passers (****ey, Majkowski, Favre, and Rodgers), and the cost-benefit replaceability of Favre with Brunell, it would seem that Favre wasn't the main key after all. Did he play good for a long, long time? Yes, but he didn't exclusively raise the teams fortunes by himself as his incremental value wasn't so vastly different, at least at first, than his predecessors', and there was a contemporary replacement for him in Brunell. It was EVERY OTHER aspect of the team that needed improvement, which after about two years was, by Ron Wolf, and the scheme of Holmgren had taken effect. And it was felt that Favre actually was holding up the works hence the near benching.
Then there's the last ten year block, after Favre finally "got it". The Packers still had decent talent, but did have some lulls when coaching change overs occured or some guys didn't continue to be dependable (Freeman was very good for about thre years, but once he got his ring and payday, he allowed himself to go to seed) and Wolf's middle round draft magic faltered. From '98-'07 the Packers still were the best team in the NFC in the regular season, but falling from the top of the NFL heap as New England and Indianapolis surged out of the AFC. But the Packers still had the best W/L record, best point differential, and the best record against playoff caliber teams in the NFC. Yet when the playoffs were reached, Favre would implode and the team would be washed out. Effectively, Favre played like Tony Romo for the last decade with the Packers. Nice stat building regular seasons with nearly single handed collapses in the post season. Favre had about a 64 QB rating the the washout playoff games from '98-'07. He simply would channel his inner 1993 Favre in those critical, single elimination games.
So the first three years were mediocre and not overly impressive given the preceding and contemporaneous QB talent, three years that were indeniably elite ALONG WITH a great team, and ten years of Tony Romo-esque regular season/playoff schism in output.
And all of the above was embraceable even by fans that were so blindly adoring. There were a lot of Packers fans, after a decade of slo-mo montages of the same twenty nice throws and endless groveling by commentators, who themselves believed it was all Favre and many of whom stated on message boards that they were giving up their fandom of the Packers for that of Favre. But from a guy who did want Favre benched in favor of Brunell in '94 (before I knew of the intrigue that actually occurred) I think I've always had a reasonable opinion of Favre his whole career. And just about the time I embraced the career as it was - a lot of upside with considerable overall downside and less than substantian team success - Favre decided to go menstrual.
He threatened to likely not come back if Sherman was fired. It was then that whatever defense I made for Favre and his downside stopped. I didn't hate him, and still preferred him to a possible replacement, but there was no grace extended on my part. Then, when the team apparently wasn't sizing up properly he said "cut me" in 2006. Then when Moss wasn't signed, Favre said "trade me" then back pedaled. Favre wasn't simply waffling, he was issuing demands/commands as conditions on coming back. The whole period is summed up by the Greta interviews where Favre whined about not getting his linemen resigned, not interviewing his buddies for coach, and not signing his hand selected free agent. But it was in an early 2009 interview where Favre said the most unforgiveable action by Thompson was drafting two QB's and "closing the door on me" that had me hate Favre. Favre simply wanted to dictate player retention, coaching retention/hires, free agent signings, and EVEN IN RETIREMENT, be consulted on/dictate the draft. It would seem that Favre wanted to do Ted Thompson's job for him, and when for some odd reason Thompson didn't let him, Favre HATED Thompson and HE was the one who injected hate into the relationship, to the point where he burned his legacy (no one took if from him).
No one can deny that Favre had a long, long career and compiled a lot of nice personal stats. But he also has a lot of negative stats (he is 118th out of 166 in INT %, adjust for era, of all QB's with > 1,500 attempts). Favre will get into the Hall of Fame on those stats. But Favre HAD TO HAVE a talented team around him to compile those stats, and that needs to be recognized. It's too bad that it took Favre so long to "get it", help get just one championship, and be up front responsible for a lot of lost playoffs in the 2000's with a yet even higher INT % than the regular season. There simply wasn't enough TEAM success for Favre to be so demanding and self centered at the end, and then to go out the way he did, and try to "stick it" to the team that made him who he was, was intolerable. Packer fans DO NOT have to take Favre back just because. If we do, it simply justifies what he did. "Favre saved the franchise from the bad ol' days, so he gets to do or say whatever he wants, including harming the team from within and without for six years, and we HAVE to take back and he needn't show any remorse". That's B.S. Again, Favre burned his legacy, we didn't take it from him. Favre will already be honored for his personal stats he used the team to obtain by the Hall of Fame. That doesn't mean we have to honor him. IF he shows some regret, then maybe. But he won't. He we don't HAVE TO forget what he did the last few years with the team and thenafter. He HATED first, and his behaviors extended from it. We have the right to hate him right back. I guess it's a staring contest and I don't intend to blink.
And is it even necessary to have Favre back? We are so accustomed to having the old Lombardi guys come back, and a lot of other teams do too with their old timers. But a lot of that has to do with these guys HAD TO work their legend as they needed to make money. Favre is set for life. He doesn't need anything from us and we don't need anything from him to enjoy the past. The future can be Favre free if that's how it is. If it's important to Favre to be honored, he can rebuild the bridge he burned. It's not necessary for me to suddenly honor Favre to make something out of 1993, or 1996, or 2000, or 2004, or 2007. He has to actively rebuild and undo the effects of his hate of the Thompson/McCarthy/Rodgers/The Team before we lift a finger.
The first block is really 57 games (or about 3.5 years). The reason? I've downloaded all QB stat lines for every start from '92 through about four weeks ago, into an excel spreadsheet. Favre did not start playing at an elite level (defined as very good to great consistently) until the 10th game of the '95 season. That's 57 games. Up to that point, Favre had an 83 QB rating (82.969 to be more precise) and the Packers went 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, and were 5-4 through 9 games in '95. That's an 83 QB rating and the team was 32-25. Not terrible, but not world beating either. Starting 11/12/95-9/27/98 Favre did indeed play elite football, but it must be understood that that was only after those 57 games of general mediocrity and all the patience and training and 2nd and 3rd chances.
Favre, as Peter King wrote in '97 and Favre himself wrote about in his auto-biography, was nearly benched in favor of Mark Brunell in '94. Favre was effectively benched in the seventh game of the '94 season after sustaining a thigh bruise, but was ready to go back in, but the staff kept Brunell. It is obvious that they wanted to see what he could do. That game was a Thursday game and the Packers had all the way until the following Monday night before their next game. That gave them three extra days to decide what to do. King said that the offensive coaching staff DID vote to bench Favre. But it was a "non-binding referendum" and the story is Holmgren decided to stick with Favre after Mariucci pled his case (and of course Mariucci had a dog in the fight as he was the QB coach and it wouldn't have looked too good for him to have a long term QB benched under his watch).
Back to those first 57 games after Favre came to town. It so happens that from '81-'84 the Packers played exactly 57 games due to the strike in '82. The Packers had a very good passing game, anemic rushing attacks, poor to bad offensive lines, horrible defenses, and Bart Starr and Forrest Gregg as coach/GM (or least a share of talent finding duties). Quarterbacking wasn't the Packers main problem in the '80's. Wright wasn't good, but Majkowski wasn't terrible, he just was Jay Cutler 1.0 behind a horrid offensive line (the defenses under Infante were actually mediocre instead of terrible). Basically everything BUT quarterbacking was mediocre to terrible. The Packers in the '81-'84 era actually scored significantly more points than the early 90's block - 160 more. Their terrible defense gave up 225 more. The Packers of the early 80's had a terrible rushing margin (the difference between offensive gotten and defensive given) that was corrected by the early 90's through the mid 90's. After signing Reggie White, the Packers moved from generally in the bottom quarter of the league defensively to the top quarter from '93-'98. The Packers of '81-'84 went 29-27-1. So compared to the first 57 with Favre in town, that is 32-25 versus 29.5-27.5. That's a stunning 2.5 game swing over 57 games with a team that had Wolf over Starr/Gregg/Braatz, Holmgren and his successful WCO scheme direct from the Walsh fountainhead over Starr/Gregg, and an upgrade in talent at just about every position on both sides of the ball AND THEN Brett Favre. And out of all that upgrade, through 57 games, 2.5 swing games was the result. And Favre was almost benched in the mean time. I'd hardly say the narrative that Favre somehow instantly, and single handedly altered the Packers fortunes is worth a steaming pile.
Then there is the second roughly 3 year block (or more precisely, according to my spreadsheet, 2-2/3rds years, or 42 games) Favre played great. It can't be denied or disputed, as some people now trying to build Rodgers into the Second Coming of J.C. seem to want to say. Favre's mid 90's run was about as good as Rodgers's now, adjusted for era. Rodgers just now might be exceeding what Favre accomplished with these last few games. The Packers went 35-7 in the regular season, and, as we all know, the Packers made three straight NFCCG and two Super Bowls with a win. And Favre had a Yound-esque 100 QB rating over that time.
What suddenly changed? A new GM came to town? A new coach? Three new receivers exited a space ship? Nothing changed except Favre. He suddenly stopped throwing so many interceptions. The GM, coaching, scheming nor players changed. Favre finally "got it". And when he did, he played great. But the team ALREADY was ready to go toward the upper tier, they just had to wait from mid '94 (and the near benching) to mid '95 before Favre finally got it. And everything was great. But the narrative, as written starting in '97, insisted on giving Favre all the credit. But the team was great too, and I am sure Brunell could have had near the same success, IF NOT MORE, had he taken over in '94. Brunell, after going 3-7 in his starts with the expansion Jaguars, helped the Jags go 45-19 with two AFCCG appearances from '96-'99. The Packers actually could have faced Brunell in SB XXXI if they had beaten the Patriots. One can ponder what Brunell might have been able to do with a superior Packers team than his Jags in the mid 90's.
So when it is taken into account how slow the progress was, and the team fortunes, despite all the across the board upgrades, didn't rocket into space instantly, and that the Packers are the only team in NFL history with four different 4,000+ yard passers (****ey, Majkowski, Favre, and Rodgers), and the cost-benefit replaceability of Favre with Brunell, it would seem that Favre wasn't the main key after all. Did he play good for a long, long time? Yes, but he didn't exclusively raise the teams fortunes by himself as his incremental value wasn't so vastly different, at least at first, than his predecessors', and there was a contemporary replacement for him in Brunell. It was EVERY OTHER aspect of the team that needed improvement, which after about two years was, by Ron Wolf, and the scheme of Holmgren had taken effect. And it was felt that Favre actually was holding up the works hence the near benching.
Then there's the last ten year block, after Favre finally "got it". The Packers still had decent talent, but did have some lulls when coaching change overs occured or some guys didn't continue to be dependable (Freeman was very good for about thre years, but once he got his ring and payday, he allowed himself to go to seed) and Wolf's middle round draft magic faltered. From '98-'07 the Packers still were the best team in the NFC in the regular season, but falling from the top of the NFL heap as New England and Indianapolis surged out of the AFC. But the Packers still had the best W/L record, best point differential, and the best record against playoff caliber teams in the NFC. Yet when the playoffs were reached, Favre would implode and the team would be washed out. Effectively, Favre played like Tony Romo for the last decade with the Packers. Nice stat building regular seasons with nearly single handed collapses in the post season. Favre had about a 64 QB rating the the washout playoff games from '98-'07. He simply would channel his inner 1993 Favre in those critical, single elimination games.
So the first three years were mediocre and not overly impressive given the preceding and contemporaneous QB talent, three years that were indeniably elite ALONG WITH a great team, and ten years of Tony Romo-esque regular season/playoff schism in output.
And all of the above was embraceable even by fans that were so blindly adoring. There were a lot of Packers fans, after a decade of slo-mo montages of the same twenty nice throws and endless groveling by commentators, who themselves believed it was all Favre and many of whom stated on message boards that they were giving up their fandom of the Packers for that of Favre. But from a guy who did want Favre benched in favor of Brunell in '94 (before I knew of the intrigue that actually occurred) I think I've always had a reasonable opinion of Favre his whole career. And just about the time I embraced the career as it was - a lot of upside with considerable overall downside and less than substantian team success - Favre decided to go menstrual.
He threatened to likely not come back if Sherman was fired. It was then that whatever defense I made for Favre and his downside stopped. I didn't hate him, and still preferred him to a possible replacement, but there was no grace extended on my part. Then, when the team apparently wasn't sizing up properly he said "cut me" in 2006. Then when Moss wasn't signed, Favre said "trade me" then back pedaled. Favre wasn't simply waffling, he was issuing demands/commands as conditions on coming back. The whole period is summed up by the Greta interviews where Favre whined about not getting his linemen resigned, not interviewing his buddies for coach, and not signing his hand selected free agent. But it was in an early 2009 interview where Favre said the most unforgiveable action by Thompson was drafting two QB's and "closing the door on me" that had me hate Favre. Favre simply wanted to dictate player retention, coaching retention/hires, free agent signings, and EVEN IN RETIREMENT, be consulted on/dictate the draft. It would seem that Favre wanted to do Ted Thompson's job for him, and when for some odd reason Thompson didn't let him, Favre HATED Thompson and HE was the one who injected hate into the relationship, to the point where he burned his legacy (no one took if from him).
No one can deny that Favre had a long, long career and compiled a lot of nice personal stats. But he also has a lot of negative stats (he is 118th out of 166 in INT %, adjust for era, of all QB's with > 1,500 attempts). Favre will get into the Hall of Fame on those stats. But Favre HAD TO HAVE a talented team around him to compile those stats, and that needs to be recognized. It's too bad that it took Favre so long to "get it", help get just one championship, and be up front responsible for a lot of lost playoffs in the 2000's with a yet even higher INT % than the regular season. There simply wasn't enough TEAM success for Favre to be so demanding and self centered at the end, and then to go out the way he did, and try to "stick it" to the team that made him who he was, was intolerable. Packer fans DO NOT have to take Favre back just because. If we do, it simply justifies what he did. "Favre saved the franchise from the bad ol' days, so he gets to do or say whatever he wants, including harming the team from within and without for six years, and we HAVE to take back and he needn't show any remorse". That's B.S. Again, Favre burned his legacy, we didn't take it from him. Favre will already be honored for his personal stats he used the team to obtain by the Hall of Fame. That doesn't mean we have to honor him. IF he shows some regret, then maybe. But he won't. He we don't HAVE TO forget what he did the last few years with the team and thenafter. He HATED first, and his behaviors extended from it. We have the right to hate him right back. I guess it's a staring contest and I don't intend to blink.
And is it even necessary to have Favre back? We are so accustomed to having the old Lombardi guys come back, and a lot of other teams do too with their old timers. But a lot of that has to do with these guys HAD TO work their legend as they needed to make money. Favre is set for life. He doesn't need anything from us and we don't need anything from him to enjoy the past. The future can be Favre free if that's how it is. If it's important to Favre to be honored, he can rebuild the bridge he burned. It's not necessary for me to suddenly honor Favre to make something out of 1993, or 1996, or 2000, or 2004, or 2007. He has to actively rebuild and undo the effects of his hate of the Thompson/McCarthy/Rodgers/The Team before we lift a finger.
vancouverpackerfan
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2010
- Messages
- 85
- Reaction score
- 16
I agree, you can't discount Favre's accomplishments. He brought back the Packers to prominence during his career. He did Rodgers a great service in his last few years... This is how you Don't play the position and fortunately Aaron has the talent a brilliance to take from that...
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
why threads about a former viking QB on a Packer board?
Similar threads
