Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

Even if they had help they would have thrown the ball a high % of the time. It was their and his downfall. They were not balanced.

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

I'd put that on Shula more than anything. I've always wondered why they never got him the help they needed. By the time they did it was too late.

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

I agree, but those Dolphin teams were not devoid of talent. I would not consider them less talented as some of the early Denver (Elway) teams. They were fairly equal in talent but Elway kept geting them in the SB and of course getting their arse's handed to them in the SB. Dan Fouts had high passing numbers as well and again their offense threw first, ran hardly ever. IMO high stats do not tell the whole story, you need to combine great stats with occasionaly winning something.

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

I watched the Chiefs 23-7 win over the Vikings in SB IV last month and I gotta say I think because of all the hoopla of Namath and the Jets the year before people tend to forget what KC Chiefs of the AFL did.

And Len Dawson looked really sharp in that game. Very accurate passer. I wouldn't say he's top 10, but I would love to know what others here who actually remember seeing him play thought of him.

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

[QUOTE=Redskins8588;429782]Me and you have had this discussion before, so I mostly know where you stand, but I do have to ask this question to you. Why, on your list, is Favre higher than Montana? I am just wondering if you are weighing more on stats vs. championships? Or better players for one and not the other (ie. Montana to Rice vs. Favre to Freeman, Driver, Sharp, or whoever...)[/QUOTE]

No problem skins8688...I've always enjoyed our debates. No matter what side of the fence we're on, we always seem to be informative and respectful...I'll discuss any issue with you.

Just for the record, it was VERY tough for me to rank Favre over Montana, I almost put Farve as 2a, and Montana as 2b, but you can't do a tie, so I chose Favre for his intangibles. I do weigh stuff like the amazing starting streak of 253 games. Montana played only 2 seasons of 16 regular season games, Favre had 15. So no matter what, you could count on your best player taking the field every Sunday, while with Montana, you couldn't. Montana had 4 seasons in which he played 11 or fewer games.
When it comes to turnovers, Montana was very cautious and gets high praise from me on that, however, Favre's TD to INT ratio was +145, and Montana's was +134. Not a whole lot different, but Favre has him by 11. Montana never had a 4000 yard season, and only threw for 30 or more tds 1 time (31 in 87). Not that he needs to top those marks, but they are factors in my mind. Stats are means to compare players, when you pick a fantasy team, do you go for Albert Pujols or Kevin Youkilis? What makes a player better than another? It's their production of course. I do weigh super bowls, but not nearly as much as others here. To me, there is no TEAM game in the world more TEAM oriented than football. 1 person, even QB, can never ever be the sole difference. That in mind, if a guy goes 4 times, or 2 times to the super bowl, that won't be a factor in my decision. Also, to me, if you factor in the 2 super bowls a guy wins, you need to factor in the 3 he lost in (ala John Elway and the fact that when he did win, it was because he rode an RB that had arguably the best back to back seasons ever). So if you can say he got them there, and assume it was him, then you need to assume he lost those games as well. I weigh playoff appearance play, and more importantly regular season performances more than super bowls. Like I have stated before, if you judge someone on their super bowls, then trent dilfer should be ranked higher than Marino, and that is lunacy. You can't have it work for one argument, then dismiss it in another.
About weighing the players around them (Rice vs Freeman etc), that is a small factor, but I also feel certain players make other players better. Would Rice have been the massive stud he was if he didn't have two hall of fame qb's to throw to him? I would say he wouldn't have been as good. Freeman / Driver and even Sharpe were made better by Favre's play. Rice and Taylor were made better by Montana's play. We as fans seem to think that the QB position is like the Michael Jordan of football, and it's not. Jordan COULD do things himself, and had a much easier team sport. If someone sucked, he could neutralize it. If Montana or Favre had a horrible tackle, it would be hard for them to perform, and that's just one of 11 on only offense. Sure QB is important, but you can't be the only good player on your team, or you will lose, and that has nothing to do with the QB.
(btw- Montana played in 15 seasons, so to compare numbers is fairly easy)
I also almost gave Montana the nod for his passer rating, which might be the single most important stat to me in ranking players. No matter what, that stat is the most universal throughout qb's.
I will try to come up with a formula as to how I rank players...you raise an interesting question, because everyone ranks differently in their own mind, so I'll work on trying to get a numerical system on paper.

I hope this long essay gave you the info you were looking for...sorry for it's length.

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

anyone watching his press conference?

I don't really understand his reasoning, he is just kinda rambling and saying that he was too hard on himself and not having fun. I don't really get it.

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

Seems like he is tired of football, not physically but mentally. he says he is just tired.

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

Everyone has talked about Favre's int's, and sure, I understand they are a factor, but Favre took chances, and sometimes they bit him, and most of the time, he was suuccessful. In that respect, I'd rather have a guy that throws for 50 tds and 20 ints than a guy that throws for 20 tds and 10 ints. To me, the TD to INT ratio is more important. So here is how all the guys we have mentioned (and some that we didn't) stack up:

Please note, I double checked the stats on these to make sure, I apparently am a little dislexic (sp?) and was quoting Favre at +145 when he is +154. My bad...these are the accurate readings:

1- Marino - +168
2- Favre - +154
3- Manning - +153
4- Montana - +134
5- Young - +125
6- Brady - +111
7- Tarkenton - +76
8- Elway - +74
9- Jurgensen - +66
10- Esiason - +63
11- Kelly - +62
11- Krieg - +62
13- Moon - +58
14- Staubach - +44
15- Simms - +42
16- Graham - +39
17- Unitas - +37
17- Kosar - +37
19- Aikman - +24
20- Theismann - +22
21- Fouts - +12
22- Bradshaw - +2
23- Tittle - -6
24- Baugh - -16
25- Blanda - -41
26- Namath - -47

Kinda funny that the ones that take the most chances are the ones that succeed. Look at Aikman, widely recognized for his accuracy, and he's sitting at only a plus 24.

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

Bradshaw is the perfect example of why chamionships should not be calculated in the "best ever" catagory. Otherwise he's be at the top, and quite frankly, he's no where near it.

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;429891]No problem skins8688...I've always enjoyed our debates. No matter what side of the fence we're on, we always seem to be informative and respectful...I'll discuss any issue with you.

Just for the record, it was VERY tough for me to rank Favre over Montana, I almost put Farve as 2a, and Montana as 2b, but you can't do a tie, so I chose Favre for his intangibles. I do weigh stuff like the amazing starting streak of 253 games. Montana played only 2 seasons of 16 regular season games, Favre had 15. So no matter what, you could count on your best player taking the field every Sunday, while with Montana, you couldn't. Montana had 4 seasons in which he played 11 or fewer games.
When it comes to turnovers, Montana was very cautious and gets high praise from me on that, however, Favre's TD to INT ratio was +145, and Montana's was +134. Not a whole lot different, but Favre has him by 11. Montana never had a 4000 yard season, and only threw for 30 or more tds 1 time (31 in 87). Not that he needs to top those marks, but they are factors in my mind. Stats are means to compare players, when you pick a fantasy team, do you go for Albert Pujols or Kevin Youkilis? What makes a player better than another? It's their production of course. I do weigh super bowls, but not nearly as much as others here. To me, there is no TEAM game in the world more TEAM oriented than football. 1 person, even QB, can never ever be the sole difference. That in mind, if a guy goes 4 times, or 2 times to the super bowl, that won't be a factor in my decision. Also, to me, if you factor in the 2 super bowls a guy wins, you need to factor in the 3 he lost in (ala John Elway and the fact that when he did win, it was because he rode an RB that had arguably the best back to back seasons ever). So if you can say he got them there, and assume it was him, then you need to assume he lost those games as well. I weigh playoff appearance play, and more importantly regular season performances more than super bowls. Like I have stated before, if you judge someone on their super bowls, then trent dilfer should be ranked higher than Marino, and that is lunacy. You can't have it work for one argument, then dismiss it in another.
About weighing the players around them (Rice vs Freeman etc), that is a small factor, but I also feel certain players make other players better. Would Rice have been the massive stud he was if he didn't have two hall of fame qb's to throw to him? I would say he wouldn't have been as good. Freeman / Driver and even Sharpe were made better by Favre's play. Rice and Taylor were made better by Montana's play. We as fans seem to think that the QB position is like the Michael Jordan of football, and it's not. Jordan COULD do things himself, and had a much easier team sport. If someone sucked, he could neutralize it. If Montana or Favre had a horrible tackle, it would be hard for them to perform, and that's just one of 11 on only offense. Sure QB is important, but you can't be the only good player on your team, or you will lose, and that has nothing to do with the QB.
(btw- Montana played in 15 seasons, so to compare numbers is fairly easy)
I also almost gave Montana the nod for his passer rating, which might be the single most important stat to me in ranking players. No matter what, that stat is the most universal throughout qb's.
I will try to come up with a formula as to how I rank players...you raise an interesting question, because everyone ranks differently in their own mind, so I'll work on trying to get a numerical system on paper.

I hope this long essay gave you the info you were looking for...sorry for it's length.[/QUOTE]

I also like our discussions because, IMO, we both try our best to back up our opinions and thoughts with some sort of stat or fact. Never is it "He is great because I think he is," and thats all you get. I understand what you are doing better now and why you rank they way you rank. And I agree that the QB position is too often weighed too heavily. However,I am not sure how you think about this, and I have said it before, when you have a HOF QB, (ie. Favre, Elway(I know how you feel about him, but he is a HOF'er), Marino, Montana...) that QB is so good that they can make average WR's look good. My point is that, IMO, Favre made Freeman look great those seasons that they went to the SB. Marino, again IMO, made Dupper and Clayton look good. And the list goes on, but then you have anomilies where you get HOF WR's to go with HOF QB's. Montan and Young to Rice, Manning to Harrision, Bradshaw to Lynn and Stallworth.

All I am getting at is that if a Team has a HOF caliber player on it, that player will make average players look above average. Too many times have you see a player shine with another player only to leave and fall flat on there face. Example, Culpepper without Moss, Freeman without Favre and many others I am sure.

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

[QUOTE=Redskins8588;429913]I also like our discussions because, IMO, we both try our best to back up our opinions and thoughts with some sort of stat or fact. Never is it "He is great because I think he is," and thats all you get. I understand what you are doing better now and why you rank they way you rank. And I agree that the QB position is too often weighed too heavily. However,I am not sure how you think about this, and I have said it before, when you have a HOF QB, (ie. Favre, Elway(I know how you feel about him, but he is a HOF'er), Marino, Montana...) that QB is so good that they can make average WR's look good. My point is that, IMO, Favre made Freeman look great those seasons that they went to the SB. Marino, again IMO, made Dupper and Clayton look good. And the list goes on, but then you have anomilies where you get HOF WR's to go with HOF QB's. Montan and Young to Rice, Manning to Harrision, Bradshaw to Lynn and Stallworth.

All I am getting at is that if a Team has a HOF caliber player on it, that player will make average players look above average. Too many times have you see a player shine with another player only to leave and fall flat on there face. Example, Culpepper without Moss, Freeman without Favre and many others I am sure.[/QUOTE]

I absolutely agree with you. I really don't care if I "change people's minds", (like many people think I am trying to achieve) I will put my best argument on the table, and if you can provide a good argument in return, I will respect that, and agree to disagree like we have on several occasions, and on occasion, my mind has been changed with stats, or an argument I didn't think of. I can't respect arguments based totally on opinion, and no stats or facts to back it up.

I do think you are misunderstanding me about Elway. I do agree he's a hall of famer, I just firmly disagree he's above Favre on the all time list, and IMO he lands somewhere from 10th-15th all time. The argument could be made to have him higher, but that's where I rank him.

I do agree with most everything you say. Moss did indeed help Culpepper, however, I would argue that Culpepper was very good without Moss. Look at his 2004 season when he had 4700+ yards...one of the best seasons in the history of football. Moss had only 49 catches for 767 yards, and Burleson had the best statistical season for the Vikings. Culpepper fell off because of that knee injury, he tried to come back too fast and it hurt his rep.
Ultimately I agree with you saying that a HOFer makes and average player look much better. There are plenty of examples too.

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

I say 3 MVPs and a Super Bowl put him on the outer edge of the Top 5 QBs all-time. For my money, there was no other non-Redskin that I enjoyed watching or had more respect for than Brett Favre. I'm kind of sad to see him go.

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;429866]I watched the Chiefs 23-7 win over the Vikings in SB IV last month and I gotta say I think because of all the hoopla of Namath and the Jets the year before people tend to forget what KC Chiefs of the AFL did.

And Len Dawson looked really sharp in that game. Very accurate passer. I wouldn't say he's top 10, but I would love to know what others here who actually remember seeing him play thought of him.[/quote] I never saw him play , but have always been a fan of his . He is from the same small town in Ohio that my family is from , Alliance . My uncle dated Lenny's little sister in high school .He also played ,,,18 years ?

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

I didn't know that Favre is the ONLY 3 time MVP in history (just saw it on ESPN), and he did it in consecutive seasons.

Also, how in the world did a guy with these stats make the Hall (other than 1 game)????
[url=http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/N/NamaJo00.htm]Joe Namath Statistics - Pro-Football-Reference.com[/url]

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

favre is the best ive ever seen. he was a great leader, extremely durable, and more than willing to carry the team on his back, plus he was a hell of a passer.

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;430056]I didn't know that Favre is the ONLY 3 time MVP in history (just saw it on ESPN), and he did it in consecutive seasons.

Also, how in the world did a guy with these stats make the Hall (other than 1 game)????
[url=http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/N/NamaJo00.htm]Joe Namath Statistics - Pro-Football-Reference.com[/url][/QUOTE]

'66 and '67 were good.... He got in the same way Desmond Howard won the SB MVP back in '97. His moment was short lived, but made a difference, and it was remembered so well, that it stayed fresh in the voter's minds. Thanks for the stats. Namath of course was before my time and I have always heard he was good, but not great. After that I have a hard time calling him good. His stats reveal reliability, but thats about it. It also raises the question of if a SB win really makes a difference in HOF votes. If Chris Carter wins the SB with the Dolphins his final year, does he get in before Monk? (my vote says NO and NEVER for Carter, but I cant vote)

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

[quote=jsarno;429737]You can tell you don't pay attention to the posts, because you would realize that you have spelt [B]defense[/B] wrong several times.

So I guess the Skins defense sucked this past year cause we let up 50 some odd points to the Pats right? I guess we should strip the Giants of their SB win cause they let up 45 to the Cowboys, 41 to the Vikings, and 38 to the patriots?
I guess the previous 17 or 18 games for the Broncos mean nothing, but the one game vs the best team they had to face means everything to you. Didn't realize you'd be judged SOLELY on 1 game and not the 18 or so that lead up to it.
That is a crazy statement to say that Elway didn't blow games. Until you prove that statement, I will consider it blind love for Elway. EVERY QB has lost games, and Elway did too.
I already pointed out that Favre threw 145 go ahead tds to Elway's only 103. AND I pointed out that Favre played better in the playoffs. What more do you need? You don't get 42 more go ahead TDs by choking buddy.
You can't ignore EVERYTHING and just point out super bowls (something that is a TEAM issue, not individual). That's the ONLY thing Elway has him in. You can ignore all the stats, MVPs, all pros all you want, but it doesn't make Elway better.
By your logic, Trent Dilfer was better than Dan Marino since Dilfer has a championship, and Marino does not. You seem like a logical poster, so I emplore you to open your mind and see this objectively.[/quote] I decided to take your advice and look at the stats . Yes Favre has better #'s td -int . During the time GB and Denver were playoff teams , I compared the stats of BF and JE . From1994-99 Td/int ratio, < 93 Favre td 19 - int 24 > Favre threw 178/ 92 , Elway1993-98 Td/Int , 140/69 . In the playoffs , Favre 12-10 win loss , Elway 14-8 , win loss .Playoff TD/Int Favre 39/28 , Elway 27/21. Not much difference . Favre was sacked 439 times in 8700 attempts , Elway sacked 516 tmes in only 7200 attemps . While I agree a qb should not be in the HOF because of a SB win , as you stated it is a team sport . I also think that a players stats will look better the more talented the team . After Staubach retired in 79 , the cowpukes won 5 playoff game in ten years , Bradshaw retired in 82 , Steelers won 2 playoff games in ten years , Elway retired 98 , ten years 1 playoff win for Denver .
As far as Denvers running game during the 80's , Winder played 9 years , 5,000 , 3.6 yds per carry < 3.1 > in the playoffs . As for my logic , you are assuming that I used the SB to judge Qb's . Had I believed that , I would have put Brady , Aikman , Griese and Plunkett on the list , not Marino . I just hope 10 years from now JC is talked about because we have added to our trophy case .

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

#1..

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

[quote=Stuck in TX;430083]'66 and '67 were good.... He got in the same way Desmond Howard won the SB MVP back in '97. His moment was short lived, but made a difference, and it was remembered so well, that it stayed fresh in the voter's minds. Thanks for the stats. Namath of course was before my time and I have always heard he was good, but not great. After that I have a hard time calling him good. His stats reveal reliability, but thats about it. It also raises the question of if a SB win really makes a difference in HOF votes. If Chris Carter wins the SB with the Dolphins his final year, does he get in before Monk? (my vote says NO and NEVER for Carter, but I cant vote)[/quote]I think there is a difference between Howard winning the SB MVP for a one game performance, and Joe Namath making the pro football Hall of Fame.Namath is defensible because at the time he was put in, his numbers were borderline HOF quality for the era. I think SB III helped him get in right away. If Namath was still on the outside looking in today, he would NEVER get into the HOF. He's just already there, so it's a non issue.

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;429784]Young and Favre above Montana? Young #1 overall? Yikes.[/quote]Well, I don't see, objectively, how Montana could go above Young. They did play in the same system, and Montana had the unianimously better coach to play for, and Young's numbers totally abuse Montana's. Yeah, there's a small era adjustment in there to be accounted for, but it's not even close. I know Jsarno didn't, but I had Montana above Favre.

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

[url=http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/Y/YounSt00.htm]Steve Young Statistics - Pro-Football-Reference.com[/url]

Only Peyton Manning has even comparable anythings to this guy, and Manning's playing in the most passing dominant NFL in history.

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;430395]Well, I don't see, objectively, how Montana could go above Young. They did play in the same system, and Montana had the unianimously better coach to play for, and Young's numbers totally abuse Montana's. Yeah, there's a small era adjustment in there to be accounted for, but it's not even close. I know Jsarno didn't, but I had Montana above Favre.[/quote]
Montana gets the nod over Young because of his Performance's in the post-season . Joe had the comebacks < lil sob almost pulled out the 83 championship game vs Skins > , fair or not many will remember Young for some of the games in which he did not pull out the miracle win . Not saying that is fair , most happen to remember the comebacks . I would say that the defense's in the 80's , Bears , NYG , Skins and Eagles were better and more consistant than the F/A depleted Defense's of the 90's . Montana did not have as many HOF's on offence the first two SB teams as both he and Young had in the late 80's & 90's .Both HOF's , If I had to pick one with 80 yds to go / 2 minutes on the clock , I take " Joe Cool". The same reason most would choose Vinatarie over Vanderjacht to make a game winning kick with 1 second left . I'am sure this is a hot topic in the bay area every football season .

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

Sal Paolantonio has a great take on this:

[URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=paolantonio_sal&id=3281535"]ESPN - Overhyped: Favre didn't deliver in second half of career - NFL[/URL]

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

"Favre's passer rating in his last 12 postseason games was a pedestrian 77.8. In his last five wild-card games, he went 2-3 with more interceptions (nine) than touchdown passes (seven). In his last three divisional playoff games, he went 1-2 with seven TDs and seven interceptions. That's a 3-5 record with 14 touchdown passes and 16 picks."
"...In his last nine playoff games, Favre threw 18 interceptions.

Ouch

Greatest of all time?
No

Re: Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?
 

i know this thread isnt about who i think is #1, but i realy belive that fran tarkenton is because he played from 1961-1978 and he racked up 47000 yards passing, 342 tds, and 266 ints, and basically invented scrambling