Favre

They were getting worse every year and were 5-11 in 2000 then started 0-2 in '01. GB was a good team just a few seasons before Favre got there. GB was bad for a long time so Favre defintiely deserves credit but he didn't turn GB into a dynasty like Brady did in NE.

Montana won TWO SBs w/o Jerry Rice and won SB XVI w/ Ricky patton and earl Cooper as his RBs, Charle Young as his TE and Dwight Clark(good, not great player) and Freddie Solomon as his WRs.

 

First of all, Brett is not the greatest to ever play the game.

This notion that Brett has helped the Jets organization is noting but a farce.
He hasn't done anything yet. No playoffs yet, no Superbowl, nothing.

It's not even as if we only lost one game or are undefeated.
We have a record that Kellen Clemens or Chad could have gotten us.

It's also sickening to see everyone in the media protect Favre.
CALL HIM OUT ALREADY!

 

OK, one more time and I'm done: I'm not sure what your definition of "good" is, but the Packers had consecutive losing seasons before trading for Favre, and had not been in the playoffs for ten years. Were the Jets "good" last year? I ask because both the Jets and pack had 4-12 records the year before trading for Favre.

I'll let you have a free shot to take one last round to explain to us how that equals "good" if you absolutely must. But I am done, if you don't concede now that you don't make any sense, then you never will.

 

I wish you actually believed that.

You as a internet-being suck at the internet.

 

You can't seriously be comparing what Brady came into to what Favre came into can you? Since Lombardi left the Packers had reached the playoffs only 2 out of 22 years before Favre showed up. They had only 3 winning seasons as well. The Patriots had made the playoffs 4 of the last 7 seasons before brady, including a SB appearance. How are these two circumstances even remotely comparable? Favre took one of the worst franchises from the previous TWO DECADES and took them to the team with the BEST RECORD during his command. What Brady did is amazing, but the Patriots were not on a 2 decade slump.

 

"
p.s. also, this "the only thing that matters is if you win the superbowl, everything else is complete failure, no matter if you lose one game or 15 it's the exact same thing" crap is getting REAL old. What is wrong with you people? Do you all regard yourself as complete failures in life because you were not valedictorian of your class, and make the most money in your company, block, zip, city, state, or country? Because that's what you expect of OTHER people. Look closer in the mirror tomorrow morning dudes, none of you are George Clooney either I bet!"

I agree. The 49ers started this SB or nothing stuff when there was no salary cap, it doesn't make sense now.

 

New England went to the Super Bowl with Parcells. It's not like New England had a 30 year drought.

 

You, sir, are smoking crack.

 

I already said what Favre did was impressive as he resurrected a franchise that wasn't very good for a long time. He deserves major credit for that BUT he didn't lead his team to a dynasty like Tom Brady did. He has 1 SB title, Tom has 3. Both took over struggling franchises. Favre also took over when Mike Holmgren was the new coach in GB and Holmgren also truned around a struggling Seattle franchise and guided them back to the SB- hs Favre ever made a SB w/o Holmgren? Pre-Brady Belichick was a complete failure as a HC in both Cleveland and NE.

Obviously the Pats weren't bad for as long but they were a franchise in steep decline and Brady halted that and turend them into a dynasty. Favre took over a bad franchiose and turend them around BUT again Holmgren's 1st year was '92 also and he did the same thing in Seattle so that cuts into Favre's credit a bit especially since Holmgren got to a SB in Seattle while Brett never made one w/o Holmgren.

 

He took one of if not the losing-est franchises over a two-decade period and made them the winning-est over the next 16 years. The Pats were 2 years removed from the playoffs and 5 from the SB. Those are not even REMOTELY the same "steep declines". Man there are so many teams that are two years removed from the playoffs and EVEN more that are 5 removed from a SB. I guess I never realized that like 25 teams in the NFL are in "steep decline". You're argument about Brady coming into a similar situation is absurd. I'll give you that his ceiling in postseason was much higher. 3 out of 4 superbowls is amazing. But if you bring up "cutting into credit", how about the spygate scandal. None of us can be sure that Bellicheat didn't "help" secure any/all of those SB's. That will forever taint the Patriots accomplishments to some degree. Let's also not forget that Brady has had a very short career at this point compared to Favre. Looking at his first 6 seasons, Favre went to two superbowls and won 3 MVP awards. Brady has been to 4 superbowls, won 3 of them and has an MVP award. Let's see how the rest of Brady's career plays out before we use the latter part of Favre's career. They both came into the league and were without a doubt the MVP of the league over their first 6-7 seasons. It astonishes me that you don't like people nitpicking Penny's career but you nitpick Favre's. They are not even in the same category.

 

I am not going to research the complete ("resumes") stats for every QB I think is was better then Farve.

Lets just say if I was going into a season and could pick any QB in history to be my starter, Farve would not be in the top 5.

 

If you don't think the 1996 era Brett Favre is worth considering, you are insane. A guy who played at a very, very, very high level the three years before, and will continue to play very, very, very, very, VERY well the next three ... well enough to be the league MVP three years in a row? And who NEVER gets knocked out of a game?

Have you even watched a single game that Brett played in that era? If not, then what are you basing your statements on?

Sometimes I think people knock Favre's overall accomplishments merely because he's kept playing so long, and didn't just "ride off into the sunset" a la Barry Sanders. that if he did that, he would be more highly regarded by them. Somehow, Brett Favre continuing to play the last 10 years and, while not being the MVP every year any more, still consistently string together more sinning seasons and starts diminishes his achievements, rather than adds to them. Okie-dokie. I think these same people who say Montana is the greatest ever, would probably NOT say he was the greatest ever if you asked him the same question in 1995 while he was still playing in KC and "merely" leading them into the playoffs, because they are incapable of or don't have the historical POV to step back from how he was playing right then, when he was still playing, and regarding the whole arc of his career.

 

Reg season wins are nice but he only led GB to ONE Championship. In a fraction of the time Brady led his team to 3 Championships and yes GB was down for a long time but NE was headed to the bottom finsihing 5-11 in '00 and starting 0-2 w/o Brady in 2001. it's not just about compiling #s, Brady will never catch favre's # but he's a much better QB than Favre. Brady steps up in big games, that hasn't been a Favre staple as GB has stunk in postseason since they lost that SB to Denver and Favre was a major reason why w/ his poor play.

Favre w/ Holmgren in postseason:
270-449, 3390 yds, 25 TDs, 12 INTs, 9-5 record, 91 rating

Favre w/o Holmgren in postseason:
168-272, 1921 yds, 14 TDs, 16 INTs, 3-5, 75 rating


W/o favre Holmgren reached another Super Bowl, W/o Holmgren Favre never reached another SB.

 

First off, we are talking about "individuals", so of course #'s are very important. I won't argue that the Patriots accomplished more than the Packers when they won 3 out of 4 championships. It's so frustrating debating with you cause you always throw out numbers that don't support your argument. I give Brady full credit for winning 3 out of 4 superbowls. Thats amazing. You brush off 3 MVP awards as if its not that important. You probably don't put as much emphasis on individual accomplishments, but we are comparing individuals here and not teams. If you compare their first 7 years, Favre won a superbowl and won BACK TO BACK TO BACK MVP AWARDS. That has NEVER been accomplished by ANYONE else at ANY position. I mean seriously he was the BEST player in the league 3 years in a row. Other QB's have won 3 SB's. Then you try and punish Favre for continuing to play at a high level, just not as high as before. I guess we'll see next year 10 years if Brady can continue to play at the same level as before.

 

Yes, that is the way to measure these things.

By the way, Trent Dilfer was a better quarterback than Dan Marino. Because that is the way to measure these things.

p.s., So tell me, would Brett Favre be twice as good a quarterback if Mark Chmura had held onto his fourth down pass in the closing minutes of Super Bowl XXXII, and the Packers finished that last drive and beat the Broncos? Since Favre would then have two rings and all. Amazing how the whole measure of a two decade career essentially comes down to a receiver making a single catch.

And John Elway was a better QB when he was old and DIDN'T throw the ball (in the two 90's superbowl wins, where he managed game and mostly handed off to Terrell Davis) than when he did (when he aired it out in the 80s superbowl and lost).

sigh

 

Actually it's 496 TDs, just four more to half a grand, if you count the postseason. But who's counting? :wink: