Favre will go down as the best QB in history.
- Thread starter cinnamon
- Start date
Yes, he will and statistically, he's already the greatest QB of all time.
I've noticed lately that the people that tend to hate on Brett are the types that for the most part, don't enjoy their own lives - sad. They really envy that Brett continues to remain relevant and is again the leading candidate for NFL MVP. They hate he LOVES what he is doing and they really hate that he continues to find huge amounts of success in doing so.
If his groin injury isn't too lingering, and if All Day continues his mediocre ways (in regards to Adrian and not an average NFL RB), Favre should again be in the top 5 at season's end, and close to the top in team wins.
bad93ex
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 751
- Reaction score
- 7
He already has a statue at the high school he went to even though while he was there they ran the option primarily. I think it would take a long time before they would put any kind of tribute up for Favre in Green Bay.
Greastest of all-time? Tom Brady? Peyton Manning?Bart Starr? Ofcoarse Starr does not have the numbers but back in the day it was 3 yds and a cloud of dust in the Black & Blue division but yeah some how I don't see a shrine put up on Murphy,Thompson and McCarthys watch.
The best post I have seen from you. Hopefully he will have to throw less as season goes on. Old man River is alittle old to be getting in a shootout every week
PackersRS
Cheesehead
Bart Starr has one of the best QB records in the postseason of all time. Cold, Hard Football Facts.com: The Lord of Postseason Stats
Favre needs to first de-trone Starr as the greatest Packers QB of all time, then he can be considered for the greatest QB of all time.
Stats, as Favre fans keep reminding me, don't matter as much as wins. And even though Favre has the most wins altogether, he played 18 seasons, and has only 1 SB ring...
-
As far as statue is concerned, there are A LOT of people right now that wouldn't even consider his number being retired, and you want a statue of him? That's got to be a joke. Over my dead body that a Minnesota player gets a statue at Lambeau Field.
Quientus
Oenophile
That is a highly biased posts ... - Most the times most of the fans, keep reminding that Rodgers stats are better than Favre's ... to back up the claim that Rodgers is clearly the better quarterback, when he isn't ...
Playing regular season is about consistency, whereas playing in the play offs is actually very different - as it's one single game where everything is "at stake" ...
Having one or only a few "bad" games during the preseason, *can* be remedied ... whereas in the play-offs you don't get a 2nd chance ...
How many would have pegged the Giants as Super Bowl winners in the 2007 season ? or the Steelers winning in 2008, based on both teams play during the regular season ?
Mind you that New England Patriots went 16-0 in the 2007 season ... only to lose to the Giants in the Super Bowl ...
Statistically, yes.
PackersRS
Cheesehead
So you're saying that winning in the playoffs is much harder? Because that's exactly what I'm saying. That's why Starr was a better QB than Favre. 2 times SB MVP, that IMO is more important than a league MVP.
Of course, IMO, the gap between the 2 is not large. Played in different eras, different environments. But nonetheless, Star is the greatest Packers QB of all time. Favre is the 2nd.
Bart Starr? You're kidding us, right?
Favre is a different animal. Brett Favre wins in ANY era and under ANY circumstances. Bart Starr wins only under certain conditions, namely a dominant offensive scheme featuring dominant rushing.
I think if you're gonna compare, you have to set up the argument in a sensible manner. Saying Starr is a better NFL QB than Favre because he's got more Championships is like saying Roy Gerela is the greatest Steelers field goal kicker because he's got the most rings. Exactly - Roy, who???
realoatesman
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2009
- Messages
- 159
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree that Favre is a better QB than Starr, but you can't compare a QB to Kicker.
angryguy77
Cheesehead
This is comical. Starr was great but you have to be kidding. To be saying he is better. I wonder how much better Favre would do if he had one of the greatest coaches ever to call a game on his sidline? Not to mention that Favre was screwed out of a good playoff run by the 4th and 26 tragedy under Sherman. We win that game and I believe we would have won the sb.
Quientus
Oenophile
He wasn't comparing a QB to a Kicker ... - He was comparing your arguements and reasoning for arguing that Bart Starr was a better quarterback than Favre ...
I didn't say Play Off games were "harder" to win that regular season games, but they are very different ... - Because one bad game during the regular season more often than not can be remedied ... and thus that particular season can still result in a play off contention, where as when you play in a play off game, everyone has to be "on point" ... because if you play bad, there is no 2nd chance ...
Regular Season ---> Consistency through out 16 games played ...
Play Offs ---> "Who is best on that given day" (doesn't matter what the regular season record was) ... - Not necessarily meaning that either of the teams are bad, just that one of the teams will most likely just be plain better on *That* given day ...
PackersRS
Cheesehead
Did you read the link I posted, AT ALL?
In what do you base your arguments that Favre would win in any era, as opposed to Starr only winning because of conditions?
Quientus
Oenophile
For one ... Take a look at the Packer Teams that won those 5 Super Bowls, not mention how that team faired against the rest in the NFL ...
Then compare the teams that Favre played with - and you *might* see why Favre didn't win more than 1 Super Bowl - so far ... - Yet for most part of his Career in Green Bay - regardless of teams, Packers were still a pretty "consistent" team that had regular play off runs ...
PackersRS
Cheesehead
That is called CLUTCHINESS. It is a QB intangible. Saying that Favre had "bad days" during more than 10 postseasons is preposterous.
If you're gonna take SB titles out of the equation, then Marino is the best qb of all time, not Favre. Because in average, Marino had better stats AND results in the regular season than Favre. Regular season-wise, the Miami Dolphins are the best team in the NFL, in winning percentage.
PackersRS
Cheesehead
So show me how bad those teams were... Last time I checked, the only year in which Favre won the SB we were the BEST D in the league and the BEST ST team in the league...
So by that conclusion, Favre couldn't overcome deficencies and win it by himself? Because here I though he was just magical...
Give me a break. Favre is a first ballot HoF QB, but you have to wear pretty big #4 glasses to call him the greatest of all time, disregarding everything the other Qbs did, and the importance of winning the SB...
I don't think you understood my point. It certainly wasn't about comparing QB's to Kickers.
Green_Bay_Packers
Cheesehead
Lets face it
Mason Crosby is better than Brett Favre
Mason Crosby is better than Brett Favre
PackersRS
Cheesehead
Don't get me started on Mason "Wide Right" Crosby...
Green_Bay_Packers
Cheesehead
OMG thats brilliant, Im still laughing posting this.
what about Ryan Longwell?
I think it is
Crosby>Longwell
Starr better than Favre.....
-
-
-
So you can't argue and goes on to make those kind of statements?
It's being naive, much like children that are told something and they take it as gospel, without having the benefit of due dilligence and research. The difference being you have access to ALL the information in the world and still would argue Starr is a better NFL QB than Favre. That is fine, but I'd have to disagree.
Objectivity is tough in this department as each of us chooses which stats to incorporate in our arguments. However, if one sticks to the bread-n-butter, then wins would have to have the upper hand. Because each year you play in the NFL, your chances of gaining or maintaining success are not good. So, for Favre to have had just one losing season in 19 is pretty phenomenal in itself.
-
-
-
So you can't argue and goes on to make those kind of statements?
It's being naive, much like children that are told something and they take it as gospel, without having the benefit of due dilligence and research. The difference being you have access to ALL the information in the world and still would argue Starr is a better NFL QB than Favre. That is fine, but I'd have to disagree.
Objectivity is tough in this department as each of us chooses which stats to incorporate in our arguments. However, if one sticks to the bread-n-butter, then wins would have to have the upper hand. Because each year you play in the NFL, your chances of gaining or maintaining success are not good. So, for Favre to have had just one losing season in 19 is pretty phenomenal in itself.
angryguy77
Cheesehead
Put Mike Sherman, Rhodes, Mcburger on Starr's team and lets see how many SB he wins
PackersRS
Cheesehead
Favre spent 7 seasons with both Holmgren and White. So you're saying that from 92-98 only the 96 Packers were a good team? And they only won 1 SB.
Conjectures... Fact is Starr has 5 NFL championships, 2 SBs, and in both was named SB MVP, and has 1 NFL MVP; Favre has 2 SB appearances, 1 win, and 0 SB MVPs, and 3 NFL MVPs. Coulda Woulda Shoulda aren't parameters. What if we had a great running game now?
I agree that if Holmgren spent more time in here, we probably would've win at least one more SB. But he didn't. Starr did.
realoatesman
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2009
- Messages
- 159
- Reaction score
- 0
You basically said that just because a QB has the most rings it doesn't mean that he's the best. You said the same thing goes for kickers. The difference is that your QB play is often the thing that wins or loses you the game. Not your kicker. It's two different things. The QB-ring argument has merit. The kicker-ring argument does not.
Similar threads
Members online
No members online now.
