Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="toolkien" data-source="post: 414061" data-attributes="member: 4637">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.</blockquote>

Verification

Members online

Total: 78 (members: 4, guests: 74)

Latest posts

2022 Draft Romeo Doubs #132
- Latest: gopkrs
- 27 minutes ago
Draft Talk
Starting 5 - CB
- Latest: Pkrjones
- Today at 11:18 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
NFC North Predictions
- Latest: OldSchool101
- Today at 11:03 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Away Stadium You Would Like to Visit
- Latest: El Guapo
- Today at 10:33 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Transfer portal and NIL Money, how they have changed college sports".
- Latest: Pokerbrat2000
- Today at 9:38 AM
College Sports