I do think it is getting just a bit late in Brett's career for him to learn that he needs to reign in his enthusiasm. May just be a mute point though, as he may just decide to hang it up now. And if he does, we'll find out in a hurry whether a different QB will improve the wins versus losses or not. Every sport figure has his day in the sun; Brett has had numerous ones, and if he no longer leads the Pack we'll have to support whomever does.
Favre - Big Game Choke Theory
- Thread starter RedSoxExcel
- Start date
I do think it is getting just a bit late in Brett's career for him to learn that he needs to reign in his enthusiasm. May just be a mute point though, as he may just decide to hang it up now. And if he does, we'll find out in a hurry whether a different QB will improve the wins versus losses or not. Every sport figure has his day in the sun; Brett has had numerous ones, and if he no longer leads the Pack we'll have to support whomever does.I agree Trippster.
There have been 212 quarterbacks that have started in the NFL since Favre started his first game for us. 212!!!
Yes, Favre takes chances........but he has been FORCED to take those chances because of our defense's lack of being able to stop the other team, or our O-line's inability to open any holes for our running backs.
Back in the mid 1990's, we had a powerful D that could shut down the other teams offense. Against the Giants, our D was playing mediocre, and our RB's could hardly gain a yard. So Favre had to try to force it. If he wouldn't have been put in that position, he wouldn't have had to feel like he HAD to do it.
Rodgers played well in the Dallas game.......but once teams know him, they will game plan to shut him down. He hasn't shown the escapeability Favre has. The "eyes in the back of his head" that Favre seems to have. He MIGHT turn out to be good, or he MIGHT be just so-so. He's an unknown right now. We got to the NFC title game BECAUSE of Favre's early season heroics. We could have EASILY lost 4 or 5 games, that he took charge of and won for us.
Alot of people arn't going to realize what we had until he's gone.....and then it will be too late.
Zombieslayer
Cheesehead
I should start singing that 80s ballad "Don't know what you got, 'til it's gone."
Cheesey hate to point out that Favre didn't have to force anything. On three of his errant throws during the Giant game he did have another receiver in the open. He either didn't see them or decided to get it all in one throw.
I agree Fan4......the drops, no "D", no running game.....blame Favre. (At least some do) Rodgers couldn't have done more under those circumstances. The QB doesn't catch the ball, run the ball, or block, or play D-back. He made some plays, and had some bad plays. But no one else did anything to help the guy.
Yeah......just stick in an unproven back up QB and see what happens.
Chibiabos......we got there BECAUSE of Favre, but no one (other then Driver) came to play that day......and no one seemed able to coach either. Plus lets face it, the Giants played out of their minds the whole post season.
op: Not to burst your fantasy bubble but according to the stats the only GB QB with interceptions is Brett. Yeah! I know he threw a lot more passes then the other two. But didn't Rodgers do a much better job of quarterbacking then Brett once he took over in the Dallas game? I have always thought Brett a great QB with a penchant for overlooking the short or easy pass. You guys seem to always overlook contributions by other players in GB.
SO you're going to take one half of football that Rodger's played and compare that to one game that Favre played?
Rodger's played well at Dallas. I also think Dallas let up a little once Favre was out as they felt that it was in the bag. But once the Packers got close, how did Rodgers do?
I will tell everyone right now. If Favre retires, we don't sniff the Superbowl for at least the next 5 years. I will also say that if Favre retires, we might not even make the playoffs next year. I would love to be wrong......
the mental adjustments that Favre makes at the line of scrimmage and during the play come only from his 17 yrs of experience. Someone better be remarkably better physically than Favre to make up for that.
If Rodgers had won the game in Dallas and then stayed healthy enough to play the next couple of games when Favre's arm was healing, we might be having a different conversation.
He couldn't, he didn't, and until he proves that he can, the starting job in GB will be Favre's.
And before you say that it is unfair to judge Rodgers on 3/4 of a game, I will remind you of two things: 1) Favre directed an offense that came back from a 14-pt deficit by the end of the 1st quarter and went on to crush its playoff opponent by halftime; and 2) if 3/4 of a game isn't enough time to judge whether Aaron Rodgers can be "the man" in GB, then one botched play certainly isn't evidence that Favre can't be.
Great points Trippster! And i agree!chibiabos said:
SO you're going to take one half of football that Rodger's played and compare that to one game that Favre played?
Rodger's played well at Dallas. I also think Dallas let up a little once Favre was out as they felt that it was in the bag. But once the Packers got close, how did Rodgers do?
I will tell everyone right now. If Favre retires, we don't sniff the Superbowl for at least the next 5 years. I will also say that if Favre retires, we might not even make the playoffs next year. I would love to be wrong......
the mental adjustments that Favre makes at the line of scrimmage and during the play come only from his 17 yrs of experience. Someone better be remarkably better physically than Favre to make up for that.
One half of one game versus a 17 year career of winning games. It doesn't really equal the same, does it? Like you said......i think the Cowboys let up once Brett wasn't there. And after all, Rodgers did NOT win the game, did he? If just getting close is good enough, then i guess Rodgers is "the man".
Now, Rodgers MIGHT be good......might be mediocre. He's an unproven commodity right now. If teams game plan for what he can or can't do, he might be totally shut down.
I just can't understnd people wanting to get rid of Favre when he has PROVEN himself. But ONE player CAN'T do it all by himself. I don't care WHO that QB is. Not Peyton Manning, not Tom Brady (look at what happened to HIM in the SB) not Bart Starr, Johnny Unitas, Joe Montana (He had Jerry Rice!) not ONE QB can do it alone. We need some O-line work and D work to make it all the way next year. We have a chance, IF Favre comes back.
PackFanWithTwins
Cheesehead
Great points Trippster! And i agree!trippster said:chibiabos said:
SO you're going to take one half of football that Rodger's played and compare that to one game that Favre played?
Rodger's played well at Dallas. I also think Dallas let up a little once Favre was out as they felt that it was in the bag. But once the Packers got close, how did Rodgers do?
I will tell everyone right now. If Favre retires, we don't sniff the Superbowl for at least the next 5 years. I will also say that if Favre retires, we might not even make the playoffs next year. I would love to be wrong......
the mental adjustments that Favre makes at the line of scrimmage and during the play come only from his 17 yrs of experience. Someone better be remarkably better physically than Favre to make up for that.
One half of one game versus a 17 year career of winning games. It doesn't really equal the same, does it? Like you said......i think the Cowboys let up once Brett wasn't there. And after all, Rodgers did NOT win the game, did he? If just getting close is good enough, then i guess Rodgers is "the man".
Now, Rodgers MIGHT be good......might be mediocre. He's an unproven commodity right now. If teams game plan for what he can or can't do, he might be totally shut down.
I just can't understnd people wanting to get rid of Favre when he has PROVEN himself. But ONE player CAN'T do it all by himself. I don't care WHO that QB is. Not Peyton Manning, not Tom Brady (look at what happened to HIM in the SB) not Bart Starr, Johnny Unitas, Joe Montana (He had Jerry Rice!) not ONE QB can do it alone. We need some O-line work and D work to make it all the way next year. We have a chance, IF Favre comes back.
I was impressed with what Rodgers did in the Dallas game. But also in the early part of the game Brett was moving the team when in the 4, 5WR sets, and it seemed that the play calling changed some in the 2nd Q. Lots of 1 and 2 FB, RB, 2 TE, and 2WR (Not all at the same time). That is when things went south.
After Brett got injured the team seemed to go back to the spread formations. I can not say that is because MM decided to switch because it would be better for Rodgers or if that was the game plan from the beginning and it just happened that it was after Bretts injury.
I just say play the better player. If Rodgers jumps up and plays and practices better than Brett then let him start. And I think MM will do that if it happens. Not that I think it will.
RedSoxExcel
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2006
- Messages
- 79
- Reaction score
- 0
This is unbelievable. Do YOU realize what you are saying? How many other teams in the NFL had a QB like Favre.
When is the last time Favre won us a game? Did you watch Seahawks at Packers. We were down 14-0 in the 1st quarter. Favre was a BIG factor in that game and was completely in control in terrible snow conditions. They scored a TD, I think in 6 straight drives. You will honestly not give him in credit in that he looked "great" that game? Seriously?
IronMan
Cheesehead
Get real Redsoxexel. Favre has never won a game for the Packers. (160) And he isnt accurate either(completed 67 percent of his passes this year)
If Rodgers was the quarterback, we would have gone 19-0 and Rodgers wouldnt have thrown ANY interceptions. We would win the Super Bowl every year and all would be great in Packer land.
Didn't you see how awesome he was in the Dallas game? And yeah Favre had an awesome year, and finished 2nd in the MVP voting, but Rodgers played 2 decent quarters and then got injured(again). So to me, that proves that he is better than Favre. Rodgers definitely would have won the MVP had he been the starter. (end of sarcasm)
bozz_2006
Cheesehead
Get real Midwest. with Rodg at the helm, we would've gone 20-0
It seems that you don't understand the checkdown system in QB-ing.
On the throw to DRIVER(vs Giants) He WAS the first option and he LOOKED to be getting open in Favre's mind. So he threw him the @#$*&! ball. ANY QB who sees his first receiver who seems to be getting open on the play would have thrown the ball to him.
How many times do we have to beat a dead horse?
chibiabos said:
It seems that you don't understand the checkdown system in QB-ing.
On the throw to DRIVER(vs Giants) He WAS the first option and he LOOKED to be getting open in Favre's mind. So he threw him the @#$*&! ball. ANY QB who sees his first receiver who seems to be getting open on the play would have thrown the ball to him.
Yeah, and the Dbs knew it. Favre was locking on to Driver like a rookie, and it was only a matter of time before they jumped one if he didn't start spreading it around(to those other guys who were open, you know, in the pics we looked at 12983 times).
Sometimes he plays like a god. Sometimes he plays like a rookie.
Obi1 said:chibiabos said:
It seems that you don't understand the checkdown system in QB-ing.
On the throw to DRIVER(vs Giants) He WAS the first option and he LOOKED to be getting open in Favre's mind. So he threw him the @#$*&! ball. ANY QB who sees his first receiver who seems to be getting open on the play would have thrown the ball to him.
Yeah, and the Dbs knew it. Favre was locking on to Driver like a rookie, and it was only a matter of time before they jumped one if he didn't start spreading it around(to those other guys who were open, you know, in the pics we looked at 12983 times).
Sometimes he plays like a god. Sometimes he plays like a rookie.
He has always played the way he does. My problem is that no one WANTS to see him actually hang it up but people are saying that he is getting too old... That he is NOT making the plays anymore like he used to.
I don't know about you but he lit it up this year and had a VERY strong year. His heroics have been discussed ad nauseum here and everywhere else...
On that particular throw, The ball came out a bit slow and the DB made a good play on it. I don't know that Elway, Montana, or even Unitas would not throw that pass and I don't know that given the circumstances, that the end result would not have been the same.
I don't think it was Favre making a rookie mistake as much as the DB making great play on the ball. Bottomline is that it WAS the winning play for the Giants. Hats off to 'em
My problem isn't that he's not making the same plays he used, my beef is that he IS STILL making the same plays, the same dumb, rookie-like mistakes. Look at some of the earlier games in the year. Spreading it around(and this was with no run game, remember), playing smart, playing safe, but then the playoffs roll around, and the pressure builds and he reverts to locking on to players he is familiar with and forcing things.
I put the blame not on Favre or McCarthy, but on Thompson, for putting Brett in that situation. Thompson's good defense he built apparently isn't good enough. We must go in to the 4th quarter of playoff games with big leads, and a big part of that is keeping the opposing teams scoring to a minimum. And get Favre some WR help. Jennings,Jones, and Driver(and Lee)(and Grant!) just aren't good enough. Favre needs all-pro players at every position to succeed.
Also, since that game ended, I've been saying I want Favre back. I really do, because while my above paragraph there is somewhat sarcastic, I really do feel this very good team can get better and keep Favre from HAVING to try to win the games for us, because putting your eggs in that basket just isn't going to do it. He's been around forever, defenses know his weaknesses.
2009 Packers will get it done.
You must be logged in to see this image or video!
Timmons
Cheesehead
Yes, Favre =great and 17 years and good numbers and blah blah blah... however if this is the case then why should we put up with the dumb choices? IF he's that good at the LOS, then where is this experience at times like the first interception thrown in the NY playoff game?
As for the earlier remarks, yes, I said show me a game where Brett won... and against a good team. The Thread is 'big game' choke theory... and from what I've seen he's lost more big games than won them. TO's kill you and in order for our team to win through the play-offs, he has to make no bad decisions.
Eli Manning did it. My point is why can't Brett?
I see Brett for the same legend that you do, I just don't accept that we should have to deal with the poor decision-making. Furthermore, I don't accept it either as "just Brett". HE can work on that too.
Someone mentioned his winning the Seattle game. I would have to go back and review it. That definately qualifies as a big game. And I do remember three great passes in it.. two for TDs.
We will probably never see a QB with his ability, however, if we replace him with a QB who is a better risk taker, I think we'll be better off. His highs are higher and his lows are lower. I believe that it is the lows that kill us. I also believe that consistency is what wins SBs.
Time will tell.
As for the earlier remarks, yes, I said show me a game where Brett won... and against a good team. The Thread is 'big game' choke theory... and from what I've seen he's lost more big games than won them. TO's kill you and in order for our team to win through the play-offs, he has to make no bad decisions.
Eli Manning did it. My point is why can't Brett?
I see Brett for the same legend that you do, I just don't accept that we should have to deal with the poor decision-making. Furthermore, I don't accept it either as "just Brett". HE can work on that too.
Someone mentioned his winning the Seattle game. I would have to go back and review it. That definately qualifies as a big game. And I do remember three great passes in it.. two for TDs.
We will probably never see a QB with his ability, however, if we replace him with a QB who is a better risk taker, I think we'll be better off. His highs are higher and his lows are lower. I believe that it is the lows that kill us. I also believe that consistency is what wins SBs.
Time will tell.
Zombieslayer
Cheesehead
The thread is about Brett Favre choking in big games. For the sake of argument, let's say big games mean playoff games.
Now, look at Brett Favre's overall Playoff statistics (all-time):
438-721-5311-39-28. Actually, that's not too bad. His QB rating is 85.2, which is slightly worse than his 85.7 career rating in regular season. Both are actually pretty dang good.
Now, let's take the 2 most important games he's ever played - his two Super Bowls.
Against the Patriots, he went 14-27-246-2-0 for an amazing 107.9 rating.
Against the Broncos, he went 25-42-256-3-1 for a really good 91 rating. Hate to break it to you, but the Broncos game was lost on the ground. Elway stunk up the joint statistically. Favre smoked Elway, but the Packers still lost.
It takes a team to win a game. One man can only do so much. Favre has 3 MVPs, but we only got one SB win.
Note the Giants win over the Patriots. Note how the entire team stepped up. Note how the D put pressure on Tom Brady and how it ruined what would have been the best QB season ever in the history of the NFL. Also note how Brady was so close to perfect but they shut down the running game and made the Patriots one dimensional. It is a team effort, folks. A QB can only do so much.
For those of you who put the blame on Favre for our losses in the Playoffs, please use logic and statistics instead of emotion. I know that's a lot to ask. The statistics plainly show in the two biggest games of his career, Favre looked spectacular. You can't expect to win a game though when your D allows 31 points and the SB MVP is the opposing team's RB. The Broncos made a point to keep the ball out of Favre's hands. They respected Favre's talents, and did what they could to minimize them by not giving him chances to kill them. I don't understand why some Packer fans can't appreciate Favre's talents.
Now, look at Brett Favre's overall Playoff statistics (all-time):
438-721-5311-39-28. Actually, that's not too bad. His QB rating is 85.2, which is slightly worse than his 85.7 career rating in regular season. Both are actually pretty dang good.
Now, let's take the 2 most important games he's ever played - his two Super Bowls.
Against the Patriots, he went 14-27-246-2-0 for an amazing 107.9 rating.
Against the Broncos, he went 25-42-256-3-1 for a really good 91 rating. Hate to break it to you, but the Broncos game was lost on the ground. Elway stunk up the joint statistically. Favre smoked Elway, but the Packers still lost.
It takes a team to win a game. One man can only do so much. Favre has 3 MVPs, but we only got one SB win.
Note the Giants win over the Patriots. Note how the entire team stepped up. Note how the D put pressure on Tom Brady and how it ruined what would have been the best QB season ever in the history of the NFL. Also note how Brady was so close to perfect but they shut down the running game and made the Patriots one dimensional. It is a team effort, folks. A QB can only do so much.
For those of you who put the blame on Favre for our losses in the Playoffs, please use logic and statistics instead of emotion. I know that's a lot to ask. The statistics plainly show in the two biggest games of his career, Favre looked spectacular. You can't expect to win a game though when your D allows 31 points and the SB MVP is the opposing team's RB. The Broncos made a point to keep the ball out of Favre's hands. They respected Favre's talents, and did what they could to minimize them by not giving him chances to kill them. I don't understand why some Packer fans can't appreciate Favre's talents.
Well put Zombie... May be we can get this to die down for a while.
Favre is, has been, and will be the Packers best QB... I would have to always disagree with those who bash Favre for the INT by the Giants.
I don't know of a QB who would NOT have thrown that pass on that play to driver if he had read the receivers the way Favre did.
Giants made a great play and beat the Pack... THAT simple.
Except it's not that simple at all. How did the Giant player make that great play? Because he noticed Favre was locking on to Driver, his safety valve, like a rookie QB. Favre does this at times. Sometimes it works and it stuns us all, but a lot of times....well...he's the all time interception leader. Favre is known for trying to throw 21 point TDs, and winning the game all by himself. It's one of the things that "makes brett brett."
Zombieslayer
Cheesehead
You know why I personally like it that he does this? It's because it's often better to do something than to do nothing. Favre has had times when he has had nothing. Look at his WRs - best ever was by far Sterling Sharpe. 2nd? I don't know. Antonio Freeman?
Best TE he's ever had. Mark Chmura or Bubba Franks who both would be a long shot for even the Packers Hall of Fame.
Best RB he's ever had - Ahman Green. The bad thing about the Green era was that it overlapped with Mike Sherman. As we all know, the Sherman years gave us good Os but mediocre Ds. History has shown us that good Os and mediocre Ds don't win SBs. However, good Ds and mediocre Os sometimes do win the big one.
Would you prefer a QB who gets 0 INTs but 0 TDs? Sure, Favre leads the NFL in INTs. He also leads the NFL in attempts, completions, yards, and TDs. You take the good with the bad.
Now, let's take a look at his INT percentage. It's 3.3%. In the Playoffs, it's 3.88%. In Super Bowls, it's only 1.45%.
Let's compare that to John Elway, who some people for some odd reason think is better than Brett Favre (people need to stop smoking crack when talking about sports). His career is 3.1%, which is better than Favre. But his TD % is only 4.1 compared to Favre's 5.0. Give me the points any day of the week.
Now, let's take John Elway in Super Bowls - 5.26% INTs. Ouch! Is that what we want?
Joe Montana is the greatest SB QB ever to play the game. Unfortunately, I'd have to concede that as much as I love Favre. But I really think fans are ******* Favre because they expect unhumanly things from him.
My first choice for a SB QB would be Joe Montana. But if I can't have Joe, I'd take Brett. We're talking about big games, right? Well, it doesn't get bigger than the Super Bowl. When we win it all this year with Brett at the helm, I hope people would get off of Favre once and for all.
I'll take that as long as his play helps us move the ball and win the game. Sure.
Your rant on the (lack of) talent Favre has had is a good point, except NOW the team is solid. The team doesn't NEED Favre to thread the needle through triple coverage. Play smart, don't turn it over. Move us down the field. Is that defense playing great on this 3rd down conversion? Throw it away, check down, don't force it.
But Favre DOES force it (Brett being Brett) and he has a good defense to help out, a good kicker, and a head coach who doesn't have his head up his ***.
My issue with Brett is a losing battle for me though. I want Brett to play smarter, but he won't. He would have by now, and when things get tough, he reverts to the gunslinger.
Look how Favre was when the Packers had leads. He was\is AMAZING. It brings tears to my eyes who awesome they go about things....
but when the lead is gone, or it's a tight spot in an important game, he gunslings it up. It works sometimes, no doubt, and it's awesome to watch...but...well you know.
I still love him, and have said multiple times I want him back.
Just gotta make sure that defense is better so we're not DOWN in playoff games.
Brady played it "smart" in the SB... and lost gracefully. Manning winged it out there.... was nearly intercepted a number of times, but also made the great plays that eventually won the game. (PS - don't cite any s&*^ about how Brady's defense couldn't hold on NY's final drive! If Brady had scored a few more points, he wouldn't have had to rely on his admittedly mediocre defense on the final drive...)
If those two teams played each other ten times, I bet they would be 5-5.
When those of you who want Favre to play more like Brady and less like himself (or Manning, as in the SB) finally figure out that not making mistakes doesn't mean you win the game, you'll live the real world.
No coach likes mistakes.... but there isn't a coach who, when his team is losing, or evenly matched and clearly unable to hold against the competition, doesn't tell his guys to "go make a play" (as in, "we're not going to win this unless we take some risks.") Sometimes, like Manning and Tyree, it works.
Sometimes, like Favre to Driver, Romo to Glenn, Manning (P) to whoever he was throwing to, and Garrard to whoever he was throwing to, the play is broken up when the defense makes the interception or breaks up the pass to win (or save) the game.
This year's game against Dallas is a perfect example. Down 10 pts, Rodgers comes in and almost gets the team in position to win. But he couldn't do it. And his coach knew he couldn't do it. Maybe his coach didn't think Rodgers' psyche could endure the wrath of his adoring fans if he played aggressively and threw an int to end the game... I don't know. But I can you this; if Favre had been under center instead of Rodgers, GB would not have quit in the 4th qtr.
They might not have won.... but they would have played aggressively, gone for the onside kick, and at least winged it into the end zone a couple of times.
When not surrounded by talent that has a clear advantage over the competion, Favre wins big and loses ugly. With the exception of a few years, he and his offenses have consistently ranked near the top of the NFL in terms of total yards, YPG, scoring and other metrics, like 3rd down % and effectiveness vs. the blitz. To say that he would win more games by playing differently, "smarter", is pure speculation -- and myth. And not very smart.
Just ask Tom Brady.
If those two teams played each other ten times, I bet they would be 5-5.
When those of you who want Favre to play more like Brady and less like himself (or Manning, as in the SB) finally figure out that not making mistakes doesn't mean you win the game, you'll live the real world.
No coach likes mistakes.... but there isn't a coach who, when his team is losing, or evenly matched and clearly unable to hold against the competition, doesn't tell his guys to "go make a play" (as in, "we're not going to win this unless we take some risks.") Sometimes, like Manning and Tyree, it works.
Sometimes, like Favre to Driver, Romo to Glenn, Manning (P) to whoever he was throwing to, and Garrard to whoever he was throwing to, the play is broken up when the defense makes the interception or breaks up the pass to win (or save) the game.
This year's game against Dallas is a perfect example. Down 10 pts, Rodgers comes in and almost gets the team in position to win. But he couldn't do it. And his coach knew he couldn't do it. Maybe his coach didn't think Rodgers' psyche could endure the wrath of his adoring fans if he played aggressively and threw an int to end the game... I don't know. But I can you this; if Favre had been under center instead of Rodgers, GB would not have quit in the 4th qtr.
They might not have won.... but they would have played aggressively, gone for the onside kick, and at least winged it into the end zone a couple of times.
When not surrounded by talent that has a clear advantage over the competion, Favre wins big and loses ugly. With the exception of a few years, he and his offenses have consistently ranked near the top of the NFL in terms of total yards, YPG, scoring and other metrics, like 3rd down % and effectiveness vs. the blitz. To say that he would win more games by playing differently, "smarter", is pure speculation -- and myth. And not very smart.
Just ask Tom Brady.
Similar threads
