Retiring Number Four

doughsellz

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
301
Reaction score
2
Location
NWFL
You may well feel that way Levens, but I do not. When I look back at the Lombardi Era, I recall an era of excellence where the Packers became the standard for professional football.

The Favre Era does not evoke the same sentiment because I view the last decade as a vast wasteland of blown opportunities and error-riddled performances in big games.

I'll always be thankful for the role he played (along with many others) in winning the 1996 season Super Bowl, but that doesn't mean that he should be given a pass in perpetuity for subsequent poor play in the playoffs.

As regards Packerlifer's sentiment that we need to have closure as soon as possible, I'd agree but it takes two to tango and God only knows when Favre is going to make reconciliation possible.

I know that Lambeau never reconciled with the brass and the field was named after him only after he died.

Until there is a suitable environment for closure, I don't see any purpose in trying to rush into anything.

It's funny how you harbor disdain for performances in big games & fail to recognize the reason why GB was playing in those big games. Should I spell it out for you? Nobody wins them all.
 

doughsellz

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
301
Reaction score
2
Location
NWFL
It's just my personal speculation & this may have been proposed before but I can visualize why #4 was has called it quits recently & it has roots in the reason why GB parted ways with him last year.

The surgery was necessary, in the minds of the Packers organization, last year. #4 was unwilling to do it since it would permanently affect his throwing motion, either physically or psychologically. For whatever reasons neither #4 nor the team wanted that aspect made public.

Once #4 refused the advice of team doctors he was on the outs with management. Faced with an ultimatum, surgery or retirement, #4 decides: "I know I can play but I don't think I want to", translation: I'm not having the surgery the team insists I need to continue playing.

Maybe #4 knew the loss of arm strength possible after this surgical procedure would put him at a disadvantage compared to the young, stable arm of Aaron Rodgers & he couldn't face the situation of losing the job to him.

So this summer the procedure occurs & now #4 says he can't perform at the level necessary to be a success in the NFL.

I know it's a stretch but it's plausible.
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
doughsellz, plausible, yes. But I didn't hear about surgery until recently. And not only that, early season last year, with the Jets, his arm seemed very strong. It wasn't until late season he started to loose strenght...
-
I cannot believe Favre isn't going to play for the queens. He admittedly wanted to play for them. And let's face it, even being banged up, even not being the qb he was 3 years ago, even with a weaker arm, he would still be an improvement over what they had. And could very well propel them to some playoff wins, and possible the SB. But maybe the anger softened towards TT. Maybe he realized all the effort he would have to put, all the fans he would lose going through that move, and finally stopped he nonsense. These last few years gave me another perspective of him, of a big child. But not of an insensitive man.
 

America

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
77
Reaction score
2
Location
Just South of Hell
It's funny how you harbor disdain for performances in big games & fail to recognize the reason why GB was playing in those big games. Should I spell it out for you? Nobody wins them all.

Maybe you do need to spell it out. Because when I look at the FACTS, I see a team that went as far in the playoffs as their defense took them.

For example, during the Favre Era, the Packers had 3 seasons where they won more than 1 playoff game....1995, 1996, 1997. In those years, the Packers finished 4th, 1st, and 5th respectively in scoring defense.

We also had some seasons where we made the playoffs and won one game.

1993, where our scoring defense was 5th.
1994, where our scoring defense was 9th.
2001, (5th)
2003, (11th)
2007, (6th)

And we had some seasons where we made the playoffs and didn't win a single game.

1998 (11th, but 4th in total defense)
2002 (12th and 12th)
2004 ( 23rd and 25th)

So it looks pretty clear to me: We made the playoffs , and won at least one game, if our defense was in the top 6. If our defense was in the top 12, we made the playoffs and possibly won one game.

The only time we made the playoffs with a weak defense was 2004 when we won a weak division and then lost at home.

So it seems to me that the reason we were in those big games is because we had pretty good defenses those seasons, not because Favre was some miracle worker.
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
Maybe you do need to spell it out. Because when I look at the FACTS, I see a team that went as far in the playoffs as their defense took them.

For example, during the Favre Era, the Packers had 3 seasons where they won more than 1 playoff game....1995, 1996, 1997. In those years, the Packers finished 4th, 1st, and 5th respectively in scoring defense.

We also had some seasons where we made the playoffs and won one game.

1993, where our scoring defense was 5th.
1994, where our scoring defense was 9th.
2001, (5th)
2003, (11th)
2007, (6th)

And we had some seasons where we made the playoffs and didn't win a single game.

1998 (11th, but 4th in total defense)
2002 (12th and 12th)
2004 ( 23rd and 25th)

So it looks pretty clear to me: We made the playoffs , and won at least one game, if our defense was in the top 6. If our defense was in the top 12, we made the playoffs and possibly won one game.

The only time we made the playoffs with a weak defense was 2004 when we won a weak division and then lost at home.

So it seems to me that the reason we were in those big games is because we had pretty good defenses those seasons, not because Favre was some miracle worker.
The only season Payton Manning won the SB is when their defense was amazing in the playoffs. It took pro bowl performances by Mathis, Freeney, and both their CBs, and a DPOY performance by Bob Sanders to win it. NOBODY wins it without at least a very good D.
-
I was just watching the 98 game against SF, the catch II. Favre did his job in that game (sure, the silly int, after Holmgren had screamed to him to watch the LBs, but it was a great final drive). Had the refs made a right call about Rice's fumble, we would probably be in the SB that year. And had the D played decently that last drive, we would too.
-
Don't get me wrong, after Holmgren left, Favre was more of a stereotype gunslinger than a Qb for most of the time. But during his prime, he was the best Qb in the league, and will be a first ballot HoF when and if he retires...
 

America

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
77
Reaction score
2
Location
Just South of Hell
But during his prime, he was the best Qb in the league, and will be a first ballot HoF when and if he retires...

I agree with all that. But his prime was a relatively short period of time in relation to his entire career in Green Bay.

For the record, the Colt defense played well in the playoffs in 2006, but for the season they were ranked 23rd in scoring and 21st in yardage

My point was that it seemed to me that doughsellz was trying to make the point that the Packers were only in the playoff games because of Favre.....my research doesn't support that. It points pretty clearly to the fact that the Packers success was closely tied to their defensive success and that when they didn't have one of the better scoring defenses in the league they didn't make the playoffs.

This would be in contrast to the Colts in 2006. Or the Cardinals last year who were 28th in scoring defense and 19th in yardage.

I could find other exceptions as well. Daunte Culpepper, took the 200 Vikings to the NFCC with a defense that was 24th in scoring and 28th in defense.

Naturally, it's always better to have a good defense. But quarterbacks have led their teams to the playoffs, and advanced all the way to the Conference Championship or even the Super Bowl, with defense FAR worse than those with which Favre was unsuccessful.

So I don't agree with the assertion that we were in these playoff games because Favre got us there. I think that we were there because of the defense as much as anything else.

In short, Favre is given too much credit for us making the playoffs, and not enough blame for some of our early exits.
 
OP
OP
P

Packerlifer

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
118
Until 1998 Favre was a bright light on a team of bright lights; Reggie White, Sterling Sharpe, Keith Jackson, Sean Jones, Santan Dotson, LeRoy Butler, and more. And the Packers were led by an exceptional GM Ron Wolf and coached by one of the most talented staffs ever seen in the NFL; Holmgren, Reid, Mariucci, Gruden, Shurmur, Cromwell. After '98 that cast broke up and Favre stood more to the fore as the sole surviving super star of that period. While he was a great player and playmaker on the field he wasn't one of the real clubhouse leaders on the team for Super Bowl XXXI. That was Reggie and Sean Jones and Butler and Eugene Robinsson and Frankie Winters. They were the ones who would get on guys who weren't doing their jobs or would rally the team when the going was tough. For all his acclaim Favre regarded himself as more "one of the guys." He went out and played and didn't get after anybody on the sideline or in the lockerroom. I don't think he was ever really comfortable acting like a foreman over the rest of the team, even in his later years. And that may be, in part, why when he was the one left for the last 10 years in Green Bay that he and the Packers failed so often in postseason games. He was the quarterback and a fine one but not the "field general" that Bart Starr, Unitas, Montana, or Elway were. With weaker coaching, a team overshadowed by his name, and no "Reggie" to be the motivator and enforcer among the players Favre's limitations were shown up when he was called upon to come thru on the biggest stages between 20001-20007.
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
In short, Favre is given too much credit for us making the playoffs, and not enough blame for some of our early exits.
I agree with that. I think his myth was overblown. Reggie and Butler don't get the same threatment. But hey, it's the Qb. It IS the most glamurous position on the team. And it is, IMO, the most important.
I think we probably wouldn't be what we were without Favre. And I know most certainly we would not be what we were without that D. And you know what's funny? The most decisive factor for our SB win wasn't neither the Offense nor the Defense. It was the special teams... If you think about it, it's crazy. One of the best of all time in the Qb position. The best defensive lineman of all time. And who's the best player in that game? Desmond Howard...
Oh, and one more thing that gets overlooked. Sterling Sharpe. We wouldn't be speaking about only 1 superbowl had he played more. Heck, I think he had in him to rivalry Rice, and even Hutson...
 

doughsellz

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
301
Reaction score
2
Location
NWFL
I agree with that. I think his myth was overblown. Reggie and Butler don't get the same threatment. But hey, it's the Qb. It IS the most glamurous position on the team. And it is, IMO, the most important.
I think we probably wouldn't be what we were without Favre. And I know most certainly we would not be what we were without that D. And you know what's funny? The most decisive factor for our SB win wasn't neither the Offense nor the Defense. It was the special teams... If you think about it, it's crazy. One of the best of all time in the Qb position. The best defensive lineman of all time. And who's the best player in that game? Desmond Howard...
Oh, and one more thing that gets overlooked. Sterling Sharpe. We wouldn't be speaking about only 1 superbowl had he played more. Heck, I think he had in him to rivalry Rice, and even Hutson...

Excellent point about Sharpe. He was dynamic - a stand-out WR who owned the DBs with effortless route-running & strong hands. It's a shame that career ended so abruptly. Also good observation on the '98 playoff "loss" to SF. Who knows? If GB goes the distance that year maybe Holmgren hangs around longer.

-Hey America-

The NFL is a team sport. You want to give the team credit for winning but #4 the blame for not winning.

Your point is teams with good defenses go far. Duh. However it takes the offense scoring points to complete the deal. For #4, mission accomplished - time after time, with a little help from his friends. What games were you watching?

It wasn't #4 who let 4th & 26 happen. If Barnett doesn't lose his man over the middle, it's #4 taking a knee & it's off to CAR for GB.

Since you're such a number cruncher why don't you add up the passing TD totals for the last decade for #4. Seems to me he was at the top of his game in that repsect for most of his career, not just in what you perceive as his "prime".
 
OP
OP
P

Packerlifer

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
118
Let's not forget that back in '94 Holmgren was giving serious consideration to benching Favre for Mark Brunell for awhile because of Favre's wildness.
 

America

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
77
Reaction score
2
Location
Just South of Hell
Since you're such a number cruncher why don't you add up the passing TD totals for the last decade for #4. Seems to me he was at the top of his game in that repsect for most of his career, not just in what you perceive as his "prime".

Every piece of serious research on the subject tells the same story: Touchdown passes don't help your team as much as interceptions hurt it, ESPECIALLY in the playoffs.

I'm off to a tennis tournament this weekend, but when I come back, I'm happy to look that up and give you some links.

I like your 4th and 26 analogy. The defense crushed Philadelphia on that day, all day long, and then they had one bad play so you want to lay that on the defense. Holding Philadelphia to 17 on their home field, 8 sacks, no running game from their running backs.....all Philadelphia did all day was a couple of scrambles from McNabb and then the big breakdown on 4th and 26.

The game was tied when the interception...on first down.... ended our last hope.
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
Excellent point about Sharpe. He was dynamic - a stand-out WR who owned the DBs with effortless route-running & strong hands. It's a shame that career ended so abruptly. Also good observation on the '98 playoff "loss" to SF. Who knows? If GB goes the distance that year maybe Holmgren hangs around longer.

-Hey America-

The NFL is a team sport. You want to give the team credit for winning but #4 the blame for not winning.

Your point is teams with good defenses go far. Duh. However it takes the offense scoring points to complete the deal. For #4, mission accomplished - time after time, with a little help from his friends. What games were you watching?

It wasn't #4 who let 4th & 26 happen. If Barnett doesn't lose his man over the middle, it's #4 taking a knee & it's off to CAR for GB.

Since you're such a number cruncher why don't you add up the passing TD totals for the last decade for #4. Seems to me he was at the top of his game in that repsect for most of his career, not just in what you perceive as his "prime".
I can speak for myself. Favre on his prime was the best qb in the league. Not because he made a lot of plays. But because he made those while not making a lot of dumb plays.

Favre the gunslinger was still a playmaker. However, he made so many dumb plays, specially in playoffs, that it hurt us more than it helped us.

I compare Favre's career with a Safety. A playmaker safety makes a lot of pics. But gives a lot of big plays too. A great safety makes those pics without giving the big plays. Favre on the prime = Ed Reed. Favre the gunslinger = Nick Collins...
 

GrandMstrBud

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Location
Quad Cities, IA
You know they will retire his number there is not question about it. I like how OP and others can only seem to remember the bad things Brett did and not the good.
 

Pugger

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
2,613
Reaction score
756
Location
N. Fort Myers, FL
All Packer fans should be pissed at GB management who hired people like Rhodes and Sherman as HC (and gave Shermy the GM hat!) and squandered those years when we had such a fabulous player in his prime on the roster. Favre is the type of player that needs a strong willed HC who will actually coach him like Holmgren. TT is hired and in 2006 jettisons Sherman and hires McCarthy. In the summer of 2007 MM has Favre get a personal trainer, requires him to attend OTAs and gets after him for boneheaded plays. What happens? Favre has his best season in eons.

Last season he worked out about as much as he did this summer -throwing balls to high school kids. He started out like a house afire but faded badly late in the season. Now, one year later - and older - he's back but he again didn't physically prepare himself for the rigors of a long NFL season. Favre said MN was the perfect fit for him, but is it really? There is no way in h3ll Childress and the O coaches will reign in Favre when he gets excited and begins to try to make a play when there isn't anything there. This lack of preparation and a coach that will treat him like royalty is going to backfire on the Vikes big time.
 

cnc66

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
I have been wondering how you fella's felt about Brett deliberately signing for a division rival. I love Marino but would still hold a grudge if he has signed with a division rival, and prolly hated him had he signed with the Jets. (he considered Minny)Brett made my hate list last year when HE signed with the jests and I could not have been happier that he had a late season meltdown. In appreciation of that move, without us getting Pennington, we would have been lucky to win 5 games instead of 11, so it worked out well despite a favorite qb signing with our enemy. I think it prolly speaks well of y'all that you still love him, I'm not sure I could be that big.
 

D.Levens

Banned
Banned
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
167
Reaction score
1
I agree with all that. But his prime was a relatively short period of time in relation to his entire career in Green Bay.

For the record, the Colt defense played well in the playoffs in 2006, but for the season they were ranked 23rd in scoring and 21st in yardage

My point was that it seemed to me that doughsellz was trying to make the point that the Packers were only in the playoff games because of Favre.....my research doesn't support that. It points pretty clearly to the fact that the Packers success was closely tied to their defensive success and that when they didn't have one of the better scoring defenses in the league they didn't make the playoffs.

This would be in contrast to the Colts in 2006. Or the Cardinals last year who were 28th in scoring defense and 19th in yardage.

I could find other exceptions as well. Daunte Culpepper, took the 200 Vikings to the NFCC with a defense that was 24th in scoring and 28th in defense.

Naturally, it's always better to have a good defense. But quarterbacks have led their teams to the playoffs, and advanced all the way to the Conference Championship or even the Super Bowl, with defense FAR worse than those with which Favre was unsuccessful.

So I don't agree with the assertion that we were in these playoff games because Favre got us there. I think that we were there because of the defense as much as anything else.

In short, Favre is given too much credit for us making the playoffs, and not enough blame for some of our early exits.

You make no sense.

You just proved that other teams had playoff wins with bad defenses, and that blows your theory out of the water.

Your animus against Favre is very evident.

You sir, have been discredited.
 

jkrelt

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
109
Reaction score
13
If someone wants to insult Brett Favre the NFL QB, it is acceptable in any NFL stadium except Lambeau Field. In Green Bay #4 deserves nothing but tipped hats. You don't have to cheer him in Wisconsin, but at least don't make some kind of insulting passive aggressive poetic statement. And I don't care what team he's playing for. Because you cant disrespect Favre in Lambeau without also disrespecting the 3rd Lombardi trophy.

When you're in Lambeau Field when the Pack play the Vikes, try to enjoy the view...ask yourself if the $230 million renovation in 2003 would have ever happened w/o Brett Favre. Then ask yourself if a career move he decided to make in the twilight of his career is really worth disrespecting the man in Green Bay.

ps. small beans, but Favre didn't spoil the 29 game home winning streak. Randy Moss did. Furthermore, even if Favre had, at least he played a crucial role in building a 29 game home win streak, something I still look back at with Packer fan pride. More then most any other team in NFL history can say.
 

Jess

Movement!
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,112
Reaction score
467
Location
Killing the buzz.
I think retiring his number all depends on how successful he is with the Vikings.

Hypothetical #1 (the more likely one): Let's say Favre has 2 average years in Minni. Maybe they make the playoffs both years but they end up not getting out of the early rounds, we retire Favre's number the very next year. Remind everyone of why he was a legend in the first place so we can start forgetting the year with the Jets and the years with the Vikes where he was a washed up, oft-injured shell of his former self. We start the healing process immediately and all is well in a few years. Nobody remembers Michael Jordan looking suddenly mortal as a Washington Wizard.

Hypothetical #2 (The Doomsday Scenario): Let's say Favre really is the missing piece for Minni. Let's say he swoops in like a salt-and-pepper bearded Jesus and is a contributing factor in a Vikings Super Bowl win. God forbid. If this happens, the Packers have to wait until 5 years after Favre stays gone for good to retire that number. Why, you ask? What would be the ultimate middle finger to the Packer management that he hates so much? Going into the Hall of Fame as a Viking. I don't think Favre is that vindictive, but who knows? Maybe he'd think to himself "I won a Super Bowl both places, I really enjoyed my time in Minnesota more than I enjoyed the last bit of my career in Green Bay, maybe I want to be remembered for years to come as a Viking, and going into the Hall in Purple would make that happen". Highly unlikely, granted, but you never really know what's going through that man's mind. And more than that, you don't really know if his spite for the Packers would drive him to going in as a Viking.
 

nelanator

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
142
Reaction score
0
Realistically, what he does in Minnesota shouldn't matter when it comes to retiring the number - but that doesn't mean it won't of course. His career in Green Bay speaks for himself and his relationship with the Packers after he retires for good should be the determining factor. If he kisses and makes up with GB management (with or without TT) all will be well.
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,356
Reaction score
4,086
Location
Milwaukee
Going into the Hall of Fame as a Viking. I don't think Favre is that vindictive, but who knows? Maybe he'd think to himself "I won a Super Bowl both places, I really enjoyed my time in Minnesota more than I enjoyed the last bit of my career in Green Bay, maybe I want to be remembered for years to come as a Viking, and going into the Hall in Purple would make that happen". Highly unlikely, granted, but you never really know what's going through that man's mind. And more than that, you don't really know if his spite for the Packers would drive him to going in as a Viking.


Players do not go into NFL HOF as a member of any certain team.

They go in as a NFL player

It is different than baseball or other sports

Hall of Famers: Selection Process FAQ

Is a New Hall of Fame Member Enshrined as a Member of a Team?


Obviously, teams take great pride in the accomplishments of individuals who have been a part of their organization.



Often individual teams and even the Hall of Fame will list enshrinees according to the team or teams on which they spent a significant period of time.



An enshrinee, however, is not asked to “declare,” nor does the Hall of Fame “choose” a team under which a new member is enshrined.


When elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame, an individual is recognized for his accomplishments as a player, coach, or contributor.
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
Realistically, what he does in Minnesota shouldn't matter when it comes to retiring the number - but that doesn't mean it won't of course. His career in Green Bay speaks for himself and his relationship with the Packers after he retires for good should be the determining factor. If he kisses and makes up with GB management (with or without TT) all will be well.
I think the organization should put an asterisc at the side of his number. Because even if he tries to make ammends, to me it'll all be BS. But as someone said in this forum (sorry for not naming, don't remember), he represents much more than a player or a number. He represents the post-Lombardi 1st (till now) SB. He represents the rebirth of an organization. (I'm not saying he did it by himself, nor that he was the major reason, because that isn't true). So his number should be retired as a statement to that. Him as a person should never have his number retired. And he as a player wasn't to the standards of his myth (he was during a time spam). But what he represents (or represented, depending on the point of view) deserves that place.
 

America

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
77
Reaction score
2
Location
Just South of Hell
The number will be retired eventually because the Packers will take the high road.

But if there's going to be a ceremony then Favre has to cooperate and it doesn't really seem as though he'd be inclined to do that at this time.

Additionally, the organization has a practical problem if it tries to retire the number of a player that half the fan base can't stand.....unless that changes substantially....and eventually it will......there'll be no retirement ceremony.

It's 2009. I'm thinking 2015 or later.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top