pipe dream

[scionce]

Is Brett a Bad Bet for the Jets?

By ALLEN BARRA

August 12, 2008; Page D7

Arriving in New York last Friday, Brett Favre sounded as if he had taken a page from Bull Durham's Nuke LaLoosh. "I'm here for one reason," he told reporters. "I'm here to help the Jets win."

It would have been refreshing if at least one of the worshipful media folk at the press conference had replied, "Well, actually, Brett, you're here because after months of vacillating on your retirement and putting the Packers through hell -- and forcing them into using a valuable draft pick on an extra quarterback because they didn't know whether you'd be playing for them this season -- you tried to bully them into either making you the starter or trading you to a team of your choice. Like a prima donna, you put your own desires ahead of the welfare of the organization to which you professed loyalty. Now you've been dumped on one of the NFL's most desperate franchises because no one else wanted you."

Associated Press

Brett Favre

Instead, we're getting gush from a New York media that really ought to know better. Here's the Daily News's Mike Lupica on August 8: "The Jets became a viable franchise [by signing Favre], made you finally notice and talk about them and care about them." As if talking and caring translates into winning football games. And here's CBS's Phil Simms, former New York Giants quarterback and Super Bowl winner: "This is bigger than when Joe Montana left the Forty-Niners to go to Kansas City in 1993."

It would be if Brett Favre were as good as Joe Montana. Mr. Montana won four Super Bowls and was arguably the greatest quarterback in football history; Mr. Favre has won just one Super Bowl and is probably the most overrated, or at the very least overhyped, quarterback in the modern NFL.

Let's strip the Brett-to-the-Jets deal of the illusions the media has wrapped it in. What we have is a 4-12 team that has signed a 38-year-old quarterback who, though he made something of a comeback last season, hasn't otherwise finished in the top five of the league's passers since 2001. (In 2006 he was ranked 25th; in 2005, 31st.).

From 2005 to 2007, Mr. Favre has thrown 66 touchdown passes and 62 interceptions. If any other NFL quarterback had put up those numbers, his job would be on the line; instead, the New York Jets have chosen to delay the inevitable process of breaking in a new young quarterback -- and in fact have released Chad Pennington, who, according to Kerry Byrne of the Web site Cold Hard Football Facts, is "maybe the most underrated quarterback in the NFL."

Brett Favre is one of the most exciting pro quarterbacks ever -- "gun slinger" is the description most often associated with his go-for-broke style of passing. For the most part, the style has been successful: He has guided the Packers to the postseason 11 times in 16 seasons, and he is the NFL's all-time leader in passing attempts, completions, yards and touchdowns. There is no argument that he is a future Hall of Famer.

But there is also considerable evidence that he is nowhere near, as his admirers claim, the greatest passer ever to play the game or that he even ranks in the top 25. Mr. Favre's trademark has always been productivity over quality. He's been remarkably durable with the daring to throw the ball more than any other passer, but he hasn't always thrown it better. He has never, for instance, led the NFL in the league's passer-rating system, which measures effectiveness with various statistics. (In comparison, Joe Montana led the league twice; Mr. Montana's successor at San Francisco, Steve Young, was first six times, and Peyton Manning three times.)

Mr. Favre has probably been excused by fans for not winning a passer-rating title because its formula is so complex most fans don't understand it. However, in the single most important passing stat, yards per attempt (YPA), he has also never led the league and finished as high as second only once (in 1995 with a 7.7 average). Pittsburgh's Ben Roethlisberger currently leads the league in active players at over 8.1 yards per throw.

It's true that Mr. Favre holds the all-time record for TD passes (442), but what isn't as well known is that he also holds the record for most interceptions (288). Perhaps the best way of understanding Mr. Favre's effectiveness is to compare him to baseball pitcher Nolan Ryan, who holds the all-time record for strikeouts but also for walks. Everyone concedes that Mr. Ryan was a legitimate Hall of Famer, but with a lifetime winning percentage of .526, no one argues that he was the best ever or even among his own contemporaries.

Nor, it must be admitted, has Mr. Favre been a particularly good big game performer. His career postseason is a mediocre 12-10, including an embarrassing 23-20 loss to the underdog New York Giants in the NFC conference championship this past January. On his own home field Mr. Favre was outdueled by the previously unheralded Eli Manning. In fact, as a postseason passer Mr. Favre has never approached the record of the Packers' Bart Starr, who won five NFL championships from 1961 to 1967.

Football historian T.J. Troup feels that Mr. Favre's place among the all-time greats is difficult to assess: "In the modern NFL, the rules favor passing over defense, so statistics alone can't tell the story. Put it this way: Favre has won three MVP awards, but except maybe in 1995, he has never really been the best and not as good as many passers from 'the dead ball era,' like Otto Graham, Johnny Unitas, Bart Starr and Roger Staubach were in theirs."

However good Mr. Favre was, though, is beside the point to the 2008 New York Jets, who may have bet their future on a Hail Mary pass.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121850350943631871.html

[NJ]

Is Brett a Bad Bet for the Jets?

By ALLEN BARRA

August 12, 2008; Page D7

Arriving in New York last Friday, Brett Favre sounded as if he had taken a page from Bull Durham's Nuke LaLoosh. "I'm here for one reason," he told reporters. "I'm here to help the Jets win."

It would have been refreshing if at least one of the worshipful media folk at the press conference had replied, "Well, actually, Brett, you're here because after months of vacillating on your retirement and putting the Packers through hell -- and forcing them into using a valuable draft pick on an extra quarterback because they didn't know whether you'd be playing for them this season -- you tried to bully them into either making you the starter or trading you to a team of your choice. Like a prima donna, you put your own desires ahead of the welfare of the organization to which you professed loyalty. Now you've been dumped on one of the NFL's most desperate franchises because no one else wanted you."

Associated Press

Brett Favre

Instead, we're getting gush from a New York media that really ought to know better. Here's the Daily News's Mike Lupica on August 8: "The Jets became a viable franchise [by signing Favre], made you finally notice and talk about them and care about them." As if talking and caring translates into winning football games. And here's CBS's Phil Simms, former New York Giants quarterback and Super Bowl winner: "This is bigger than when Joe Montana left the Forty-Niners to go to Kansas City in 1993."

It would be if Brett Favre were as good as Joe Montana. Mr. Montana won four Super Bowls and was arguably the greatest quarterback in football history; Mr. Favre has won just one Super Bowl and is probably the most overrated, or at the very least overhyped, quarterback in the modern NFL.

Let's strip the Brett-to-the-Jets deal of the illusions the media has wrapped it in. What we have is a 4-12 team that has signed a 38-year-old quarterback who, though he made something of a comeback last season, hasn't otherwise finished in the top five of the league's passers since 2001. (In 2006 he was ranked 25th; in 2005, 31st.).

From 2005 to 2007, Mr. Favre has thrown 66 touchdown passes and 62 interceptions. If any other NFL quarterback had put up those numbers, his job would be on the line; instead, the New York Jets have chosen to delay the inevitable process of breaking in a new young quarterback -- and in fact have released Chad Pennington, who, according to Kerry Byrne of the Web site Cold Hard Football Facts, is "maybe the most underrated quarterback in the NFL."

Brett Favre is one of the most exciting pro quarterbacks ever -- "gun slinger" is the description most often associated with his go-for-broke style of passing. For the most part, the style has been successful: He has guided the Packers to the postseason 11 times in 16 seasons, and he is the NFL's all-time leader in passing attempts, completions, yards and touchdowns. There is no argument that he is a future Hall of Famer.

But there is also considerable evidence that he is nowhere near, as his admirers claim, the greatest passer ever to play the game or that he even ranks in the top 25. Mr. Favre's trademark has always been productivity over quality. He's been remarkably durable with the daring to throw the ball more than any other passer, but he hasn't always thrown it better. He has never, for instance, led the NFL in the league's passer-rating system, which measures effectiveness with various statistics. (In comparison, Joe Montana led the league twice; Mr. Montana's successor at San Francisco, Steve Young, was first six times, and Peyton Manning three times.)

Mr. Favre has probably been excused by fans for not winning a passer-rating title because its formula is so complex most fans don't understand it. However, in the single most important passing stat, yards per attempt (YPA), he has also never led the league and finished as high as second only once (in 1995 with a 7.7 average). Pittsburgh's Ben Roethlisberger currently leads the league in active players at over 8.1 yards per throw.

It's true that Mr. Favre holds the all-time record for TD passes (442), but what isn't as well known is that he also holds the record for most interceptions (288). Perhaps the best way of understanding Mr. Favre's effectiveness is to compare him to baseball pitcher Nolan Ryan, who holds the all-time record for strikeouts but also for walks. Everyone concedes that Mr. Ryan was a legitimate Hall of Famer, but with a lifetime winning percentage of .526, no one argues that he was the best ever or even among his own contemporaries.

Nor, it must be admitted, has Mr. Favre been a particularly good big game performer. His career postseason is a mediocre 12-10, including an embarrassing 23-20 loss to the underdog New York Giants in the NFC conference championship this past January. On his own home field Mr. Favre was outdueled by the previously unheralded Eli Manning. In fact, as a postseason passer Mr. Favre has never approached the record of the Packers' Bart Starr, who won five NFL championships from 1961 to 1967.

Football historian T.J. Troup feels that Mr. Favre's place among the all-time greats is difficult to assess: "In the modern NFL, the rules favor passing over defense, so statistics alone can't tell the story. Put it this way: Favre has won three MVP awards, but except maybe in 1995, he has never really been the best and not as good as many passers from 'the dead ball era,' like Otto Graham, Johnny Unitas, Bart Starr and Roger Staubach were in theirs."

However good Mr. Favre was, though, is beside the point to the 2008 New York Jets, who may have bet their future on a Hail Mary pass.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121850350943631871.html

And now some dildonis who writes books on Wyatt Erp is getting a check for his moronic view on the "trade".

Getting rid of Chad Pennington and employing Brett Favre is a bad thing.... hmm..... no... I dont think theres any way that could be bad. If Favre does nothing else that's good - at least he brought us out of chadiocrity.

[Favorite_Toon]

I truly believe people are crazy in this worl or at least have to always complain about something.. we traded for Brett favre! and we got rid of chad... hows the hell is that bad? I just dont get it? people are fcking nuts in this world..

[SoFlaJets]

all these scribes are in a state of shock now because they are forced to have to write about the punchline to a bad joke they've used for years...the Jets

[crashingjet]

A couple of my favorite snipets...

"What we have is a 4-12 team that has signed a 38-year-old quarterback who, though he made something of a comeback last season, hasn't otherwise finished in the top five of the league's passers since 2001. (In 2006 he was ranked 25th; in 2005, 31st.)."

"From 2005 to 2007, Mr. Favre has thrown 66 touchdown passes and 62 interceptions"

"Mr. Favre has won just one Super Bowl and is probably the most overrated, or at the very least overhyped, quarterback in the modern NFL."

[SoFlaJets]

A couple of my favorite snipets...

"What we have is a 4-12 team that has signed a 38-year-old quarterback who, though he made something of a comeback last season, hasn't otherwise finished in the top five of the league's passers since 2001. (In 2006 he was ranked 25th; in 2005, 31st.)."

"From 2005 to 2007, Mr. Favre has thrown 66 touchdown passes and 62 interceptions"

"Mr. Favre has won just one Super Bowl and is probably the most overrated, or at the very least overhyped, quarterback in the modern NFL."

it must suck to be you right about now....

[GodWearsAGrayHoodie]

A couple of my favorite snipets...

"What we have is a 4-12 team that has signed a 38-year-old quarterback who, though he made something of a comeback last season, hasn't otherwise finished in the top five of the league's passers since 2001. (In 2006 he was ranked 25th; in 2005, 31st.)."

"From 2005 to 2007, Mr. Favre has thrown 66 touchdown passes and 62 interceptions"

"Mr. Favre has won just one Super Bowl and is probably the most overrated, or at the very least overhyped, quarterback in the modern NFL."

Those are good but my favorite is by far....

"Now you've been dumped on one of the NFL's most desperate franchises because no one else wanted you"

[BroadwayJ667]

how quickly everyone forgets that the packers were rebuilding in 2005 and 2006.

[crashingjet]

Those are good but my favorite is by far....

"Now you've been dumped on one of the NFL's most desperate franchises because no one else wanted you"

Hmmm. How'd I miss that Gem

[PackerJetFan]

It pisses me off when fools like that have a massive platform. The guy knows absolutely nothing about football or Favre, but there are millions of people reading this nonsense, possibly thinking he actually has a point:

It would have been refreshing if at least one of the worshipful media folk at the press conference had replied, "Well, actually, Brett, you're here because after months of vacillating on your retirement and putting the Packers through hell -- and forcing them into using a valuable draft pick on an extra quarterback because they didn't know whether you'd be playing for them this season -- you tried to bully them into either making you the starter or trading you to a team of your choice. Like a prima donna, you put your own desires ahead of the welfare of the organization to which you professed loyalty. Now you've been dumped on one of the NFL's most desperate franchises because no one else wanted you."

1) Unless the Packers are full of crap about drafting BPA, they would have taken Brohm anyway. Nobody forced them to draft him. They could have signed a vet to be the backup.

2) After the Packers made it clear he wasn't going to start there, why should he have put the team ahead of his own interests. (If you believe Favre) The Packers told him "Playing here isn't an option." So what's he supposed to do? Stay retired just so the Packers aren't put in an uncomfortable situation?

3) Saying "no one else wanted you" is incorrect, but why worry about facts.

It would be if Brett Favre were as good as Joe Montana. Mr. Montana won four Super Bowls and was arguably the greatest quarterback in football history; Mr. Favre has won just one Super Bowl and is probably the most overrated, or at the very least overhyped, quarterback in the modern NFL.

It's nice that he provides, ya know, some data to back this up. It's also nice of him to leave out the fact that Favre has never played with a Hall of Famer on offense, while Montana had one of the best supporting casts in history. And that Montana played pre-salary cap when it was easy to keep a great team together. Not to take anything away from him, but it's insane to say "OMG Favre only won one Super Bowl so he's overrated!" Look at what he was working with for most of the last decade. It wasn't Jerry Rice, John Taylor, Brent Jones, Roger Craig, Tom Rathman and a ridiculous OL....

Let's strip the Brett-to-the-Jets deal of the illusions the media has wrapped it in. What we have is a 4-12 team that has signed a 38-year-old quarterback who, though he made something of a comeback last season, hasn't otherwise finished in the top five of the league's passers since 2001. (In 2006 he was ranked 25th; in 2005, 31st.).

A 4-12 team who signed a slew of new players in addition to the 38 year old QB and added Gholston to the defense. And even if he hasn't finished in the top 5 of league's passers, that's using the ridiculous QB rating stat. He's been runner up in the MVP voting twice. Not that that's the be-all-end-all either, but I'd take that as a gauge before I'd use passer rating.

From 2005 to 2007, Mr. Favre has thrown 66 touchdown passes and 62 interceptions. If any other NFL quarterback had put up those numbers, his job would be on the line; instead, the New York Jets have chosen to delay the inevitable process of breaking in a new young quarterback -- and in fact have released Chad Pennington, who, according to Kerry Byrne of the Web site Cold Hard Football Facts, is "maybe the most underrated quarterback in the NFL."

So you've got one bad year when he got off to a good start before every player on the offense got hurt (They used like 7 starting RBs that year, including Rashard freaking Lee), one great year, and one mediocre year. But based on his career as a whole, it's pretty clear which of those seasons was a complete outlier.

And if Kerry Byrne said Chad Pennington is the most underrated QB in the NFL it MUST be true! Great support for the argument there. Never mind that in the last 3 years, Pennington has 29 TD passes and 28 picks. Worse numbers than Favre's, even with that one disaster of a season that isn't likely to be repeated.

And the delay in breaking in a young QB assumes that the QB of the Future is on the roster. The best bet for that would be a guy with 5 TDs and 10 INTs in his career. Yeah it was stupid to go get Brett Favre.

But there is also considerable evidence that he is nowhere near, as his admirers claim, the greatest passer ever to play the game or that he even ranks in the top 25. Mr. Favre's trademark has always been productivity over quality. He's been remarkably durable with the daring to throw the ball more than any other passer, but he hasn't always thrown it better. He has never, for instance, led the NFL in the league's passer-rating system, which measures effectiveness with various statistics. (In comparison, Joe Montana led the league twice; Mr. Montana's successor at San Francisco, Steve Young, was first six times, and Peyton Manning three times.)

Now he's not a Top-25 QB of all-time? What the hell? I'd love to see this joker's list.

The NFL's passer rating system is insane. And using Peyton Manning in support of your argument might not be the best idea (I'll get to that in a minute). But as long as we're considering it to be such an important stat, let's look at a few years:

In 1995, Favre was runner up to JIM FREAKING HARBAUGH! Favre's 38 Touchdowns, 13 INTs, 4400 yards, and 63% completion percentage lost out to Harbaugh's 17 Touchdowns, 5 INTs, 2500 yards and 63% completion percentage. Clearly Harbaugh was the more effective passer.

In 1996, Favre was runner up to Steve Young. His 39 TDs and 13 INTs were pretty clearly inferior to Young throwing a whopping 14 Touchdowns and 6 INTs.

In 1997, Favre finished behind Young and Chris Chandler. 35 Touchdowns, 16 Picks and another MVP were no match for 19 TDs and 6 picks, or Chandler's 20 TDs, 7 picks and 2700 yards passing. Chandler was so good that he QB'ed his team to a 7-7 record that year.

Mr. Favre has probably been excused by fans for not winning a passer-rating title because its formula is so complex most fans don't understand it. However, in the single most important passing stat, yards per attempt (YPA), he has also never led the league and finished as high as second only once (in 1995 with a 7.7 average). Pittsburgh's Ben Roethlisberger currently leads the league in active players at over 8.1 yards per throw.

And Ben Roethlisberger is pretty clearly the best quarterback in the league. Except that, uh oh, over three years (before last year when he was great) he had 52 TDs and 43 Interceptions, which means his job should have been on the line according to a few paragraphs ago. Last year, Favre finished behind Matt Schaub in that stat. Yup, it's a clear-cut indicator of how good a QB is.

Also, how arrogant is the first sentence in this paragraph? Pehaps our resident genius would like to explain the system without looking it up and then tell us how it was derived. Why are we subtracting 30 points from the completion percentage before multiplying by .05? Why do we subtract 3 yards off YPA? What the hell does it even mean?

Did I miss when a passer-rating title became important? Favre had 16 Touchdowns in the first five games of 1996, more than Young had the entire season. And a better TD/INT ratio to boot. But Young was pretty clearly more effective. That system is stupid. And only stupid people make too much out of it.

It's true that Mr. Favre holds the all-time record for TD passes (442), but what isn't as well known is that he also holds the record for most interceptions (288). Perhaps the best way of understanding Mr. Favre's effectiveness is to compare him to baseball pitcher Nolan Ryan, who holds the all-time record for strikeouts but also for walks. Everyone concedes that Mr. Ryan was a legitimate Hall of Famer, but with a lifetime winning percentage of .526, no one argues that he was the best ever or even among his own contemporaries.

Favre's also won more games than anyone in history and has a winning percentage far greater than .526. If you don't think Favre is better than some of his contemporaries, I'd love to hear the argument. I'm sure it's just as air-tight as the one he's making here.

We've resorted to using different sports. Amazing.

Nor, it must be admitted, has Mr. Favre been a particularly good big game performer. His career postseason is a mediocre 12-10, including an embarrassing 23-20 loss to the underdog New York Giants in the NFC conference championship this past January. On his own home field Mr. Favre was outdueled by the previously unheralded Eli Manning. In fact, as a postseason passer Mr. Favre has never approached the record of the Packers' Bart Starr, who won five NFL championships from 1961 to 1967.

Well if 12-10 is medicore, I guess we have to consider Peyton Manning's 7-7 record downright piss-poor, especially considering he's played with multiple hall of famers on offense for almost his entire career (Faulk, James, Harrison). He's 3-7 outside of that Super Bowl year, where he was just brilliant in throwing 3 touchdowns and 7 picks.

If the loss to the Giants was embarrassing, I guess Tom Brady has some mud on his face as well. And this joker better not even think of calling Romo a quality QB. The Giants were better than everyone thought, and Favre wasn't really as bad as everyone said he was in that game. His numbers compared favorably to every other QB that played that day. The difference was that the Giants and Pats had a running game, and the Packers had 28 yards on the ground. That's not going to work in January.

And I'm sick of hearing about Starr's 5 titles. Again, I don't want to take anything away from him, but for two of those titles, he won ONE PLAYOFF GAME each year. For two of those titles, he won two playoff games each year. Not to say he would've lost if they played more games, but you can't compare the championship-deciding format back then to what it is now. More games = more chances to lose. And again, you can't compare the supporting casts. Those Packers teams were hall-of-famer laden.

Football historian T.J. Troup feels that Mr. Favre's place among the all-time greats is difficult to assess: "In the modern NFL, the rules favor passing over defense, so statistics alone can't tell the story. Put it this way: Favre has won three MVP awards, but except maybe in 1995, he has never really been the best and not as good as many passers from 'the dead ball era,' like Otto Graham, Johnny Unitas, Bart Starr and Roger Staubach were in theirs."

He wasn't the best in 1996? Credibility? Fluuuuuuuushed. I'd love to hear who was better that year (or in 95, since that year only gets a "maybe"). Does this joker even realize who Favre was throwing to that year? His top receiver went out for the year in Week 8. His next best receiver missed a couple games and played with a cast on his arm the rest of the year. There were games where the Packers started Terry Mickens and Don Beebe at WR. Freeman/Rison/Beebe/Mickens isn't going to make anyone shudder. His left tackle was a journeyman who was plugged in mid-season. And yet Favre had 39 touchdowns and 13 picks. But yeah, he wasn't the best.

I'm not going to deal with trying to compare him to some of the greats from the past, but for every advantage modern players have with the rules, I'm guessing we could come up with a lot of things that hinder the QBs. Faster defenses, I assume more blitzing, etc.

What an absolute joke of an article.

[SoFlaJets]

you know what it is PackerJetFan? Every year at this time of the year we Jets fans have the privilege of reading all the national sports press go on and on about how great New England is, and what a genius their coach is, how Indy is so great and how the Jets will suck again...they are pissed off that the spotlight is on our team now...to them we say suck it a-holes

[greeniemeanie]

It pisses me off when fools like that have a massive platform. The guy knows absolutely nothing about football or Favre, but there are millions of people reading this nonsense, possibly thinking he actually has a point:

1) Unless the Packers are full of crap about drafting BPA, they would have taken Brohm anyway. Nobody forced them to draft him. They could have signed a vet to be the backup.

2) After the Packers made it clear he wasn't going to start there, why should he have put the team ahead of his own interests. (If you believe Favre) The Packers told him "Playing here isn't an option." So what's he supposed to do? Stay retired just so the Packers aren't put in an uncomfortable situation?

3) Saying "no one else wanted you" is incorrect, but why worry about facts.

It's nice that he provides, ya know, some data to back this up. It's also nice of him to leave out the fact that Favre has never played with a Hall of Famer on offense, while Montana had one of the best supporting casts in history. And that Montana played pre-salary cap when it was easy to keep a great team together. Not to take anything away from him, but it's insane to say "OMG Favre only won one Super Bowl so he's overrated!" Look at what he was working with for most of the last decade. It wasn't Jerry Rice, John Taylor, Brent Jones, Roger Craig, Tom Rathman and a ridiculous OL....

A 4-12 team who signed a slew of new players in addition to the 38 year old QB and added Gholston to the defense. And even if he hasn't finished in the top 5 of league's passers, that's using the ridiculous QB rating stat. He's been runner up in the MVP voting twice. Not that that's the be-all-end-all either, but I'd take that as a gauge before I'd use passer rating.

So you've got one bad year when he got off to a good start before every player on the offense got hurt (They used like 7 starting RBs that year, including Rashard freaking Lee), one great year, and one mediocre year. But based on his career as a whole, it's pretty clear which of those seasons was a complete outlier.

And if Kerry Byrne said Chad Pennington is the most underrated QB in the NFL it MUST be true! Great support for the argument there. Never mind that in the last 3 years, Pennington has 29 TD passes and 28 picks. Worse numbers than Favre's, even with that one disaster of a season that isn't likely to be repeated.

And the delay in breaking in a young QB assumes that the QB of the Future is on the roster. The best bet for that would be a guy with 5 TDs and 10 INTs in his career. Yeah it was stupid to go get Brett Favre.

Now he's not a Top-25 QB of all-time? What the hell? I'd love to see this joker's list.

The NFL's passer rating system is insane. And using Peyton Manning in support of your argument might not be the best idea (I'll get to that in a minute). But as long as we're considering it to be such an important stat, let's look at a few years:

In 1995, Favre was runner up to JIM FREAKING HARBAUGH! Favre's 38 Touchdowns, 13 INTs, 4400 yards, and 63% completion percentage lost out to Harbaugh's 17 Touchdowns, 5 INTs, 2500 yards and 63% completion percentage. Clearly Harbaugh was the more effective passer.

In 1996, Favre was runner up to Steve Young. His 39 TDs and 13 INTs were pretty clearly inferior to Young throwing a whopping 14 Touchdowns and 6 INTs.

In 1997, Favre finished behind Young and Chris Chandler. 35 Touchdowns, 16 Picks and another MVP were no match for 19 TDs and 6 picks, or Chandler's 20 TDs, 7 picks and 2700 yards passing. Chandler was so good that he QB'ed his team to a 7-7 record that year.

And Ben Roethlisberger is pretty clearly the best quarterback in the league. Except that, uh oh, over three years (before last year when he was great) he had 52 TDs and 43 Interceptions, which means his job should have been on the line according to a few paragraphs ago. Last year, Favre finished behind Matt Schaub in that stat. Yup, it's a clear-cut indicator of how good a QB is.

Also, how arrogant is the first sentence in this paragraph? Pehaps our resident genius would like to explain the system without looking it up and then tell us how it was derived. Why are we subtracting 30 points from the completion percentage before multiplying by .05? Why do we subtract 3 yards off YPA? What the hell does it even mean?

Did I miss when a passer-rating title became important? Favre had 16 Touchdowns in the first five games of 1996, more than Young had the entire season. And a better TD/INT ratio to boot. But Young was pretty clearly more effective. That system is stupid. And only stupid people make too much out of it.

Favre's also won more games than anyone in history and has a winning percentage far greater than .526. If you don't think Favre is better than some of his contemporaries, I'd love to hear the argument. I'm sure it's just as air-tight as the one he's making here.

We've resorted to using different sports. Amazing.

Well if 12-10 is medicore, I guess we have to consider Peyton Manning's 7-7 record downright piss-poor, especially considering he's played with multiple hall of famers on offense for almost his entire career (Faulk, James, Harrison). He's 3-7 outside of that Super Bowl year, where he was just brilliant in throwing 3 touchdowns and 7 picks.

If the loss to the Giants was embarrassing, I guess Tom Brady has some mud on his face as well. And this joker better not even think of calling Romo a quality QB. The Giants were better than everyone thought, and Favre wasn't really as bad as everyone said he was in that game. His numbers compared favorably to every other QB that played that day. The difference was that the Giants and Pats had a running game, and the Packers had 28 yards on the ground. That's not going to work in January.

And I'm sick of hearing about Starr's 5 titles. Again, I don't want to take anything away from him, but for two of those titles, he won ONE PLAYOFF GAME each year. For two of those titles, he won two playoff games each year. Not to say he would've lost if they played more games, but you can't compare the championship-deciding format back then to what it is now. More games = more chances to lose. And again, you can't compare the supporting casts. Those Packers teams were hall-of-famer laden.

He wasn't the best in 1996? Credibility? Fluuuuuuuushed. I'd love to hear who was better that year (or in 95, since that year only gets a "maybe"). Does this joker even realize who Favre was throwing to that year? His top receiver went out for the year in Week 8. His next best receiver missed a couple games and played with a cast on his arm the rest of the year. There were games where the Packers started Terry Mickens and Don Beebe at WR. Freeman/Rison/Beebe/Mickens isn't going to make anyone shudder. His left tackle was a journeyman who was plugged in mid-season. And yet Favre had 39 touchdowns and 13 picks. But yeah, he wasn't the best.

I'm not going to deal with trying to compare him to some of the greats from the past, but for every advantage modern players have with the rules, I'm guessing we could come up with a lot of things that hinder the QBs. Faster defenses, I assume more blitzing, etc.

What an absolute joke of an article.

Wow! Just Wow! You state a very clear argument. I think that while the media is going way overboard with this whole Favre thing, it is for a reason. Brett and the Jets is a very compelling story. You have to ask yourself why is it so compelling?

The reason there is a story is because simply put, Brett is a future HALL OF FAMER. I can't wait for the season to start so ridiculous articles like this one get put to rest.

[gangreenman]

It pisses me off when fools like that have a massive platform. The guy knows absolutely nothing about football or Favre, but there are millions of people reading this nonsense, possibly thinking he actually has a point:

1) Unless the Packers are full of crap about drafting BPA, they would have taken Brohm anyway. Nobody forced them to draft him. They could have signed a vet to be the backup.

2) After the Packers made it clear he wasn't going to start there, why should he have put the team ahead of his own interests. (If you believe Favre) The Packers told him "Playing here isn't an option." So what's he supposed to do? Stay retired just so the Packers aren't put in an uncomfortable situation?

3) Saying "no one else wanted you" is incorrect, but why worry about facts.

It's nice that he provides, ya know, some data to back this up. It's also nice of him to leave out the fact that Favre has never played with a Hall of Famer on offense, while Montana had one of the best supporting casts in history. And that Montana played pre-salary cap when it was easy to keep a great team together. Not to take anything away from him, but it's insane to say "OMG Favre only won one Super Bowl so he's overrated!" Look at what he was working with for most of the last decade. It wasn't Jerry Rice, John Taylor, Brent Jones, Roger Craig, Tom Rathman and a ridiculous OL....

A 4-12 team who signed a slew of new players in addition to the 38 year old QB and added Gholston to the defense. And even if he hasn't finished in the top 5 of league's passers, that's using the ridiculous QB rating stat. He's been runner up in the MVP voting twice. Not that that's the be-all-end-all either, but I'd take that as a gauge before I'd use passer rating.

So you've got one bad year when he got off to a good start before every player on the offense got hurt (They used like 7 starting RBs that year, including Rashard freaking Lee), one great year, and one mediocre year. But based on his career as a whole, it's pretty clear which of those seasons was a complete outlier.

And if Kerry Byrne said Chad Pennington is the most underrated QB in the NFL it MUST be true! Great support for the argument there. Never mind that in the last 3 years, Pennington has 29 TD passes and 28 picks. Worse numbers than Favre's, even with that one disaster of a season that isn't likely to be repeated.

And the delay in breaking in a young QB assumes that the QB of the Future is on the roster. The best bet for that would be a guy with 5 TDs and 10 INTs in his career. Yeah it was stupid to go get Brett Favre.

Now he's not a Top-25 QB of all-time? What the hell? I'd love to see this joker's list.

The NFL's passer rating system is insane. And using Peyton Manning in support of your argument might not be the best idea (I'll get to that in a minute). But as long as we're considering it to be such an important stat, let's look at a few years:

In 1995, Favre was runner up to JIM FREAKING HARBAUGH! Favre's 38 Touchdowns, 13 INTs, 4400 yards, and 63% completion percentage lost out to Harbaugh's 17 Touchdowns, 5 INTs, 2500 yards and 63% completion percentage. Clearly Harbaugh was the more effective passer.

In 1996, Favre was runner up to Steve Young. His 39 TDs and 13 INTs were pretty clearly inferior to Young throwing a whopping 14 Touchdowns and 6 INTs.

In 1997, Favre finished behind Young and Chris Chandler. 35 Touchdowns, 16 Picks and another MVP were no match for 19 TDs and 6 picks, or Chandler's 20 TDs, 7 picks and 2700 yards passing. Chandler was so good that he QB'ed his team to a 7-7 record that year.

And Ben Roethlisberger is pretty clearly the best quarterback in the league. Except that, uh oh, over three years (before last year when he was great) he had 52 TDs and 43 Interceptions, which means his job should have been on the line according to a few paragraphs ago. Last year, Favre finished behind Matt Schaub in that stat. Yup, it's a clear-cut indicator of how good a QB is.

Also, how arrogant is the first sentence in this paragraph? Pehaps our resident genius would like to explain the system without looking it up and then tell us how it was derived. Why are we subtracting 30 points from the completion percentage before multiplying by .05? Why do we subtract 3 yards off YPA? What the hell does it even mean?

Did I miss when a passer-rating title became important? Favre had 16 Touchdowns in the first five games of 1996, more than Young had the entire season. And a better TD/INT ratio to boot. But Young was pretty clearly more effective. That system is stupid. And only stupid people make too much out of it.

Favre's also won more games than anyone in history and has a winning percentage far greater than .526. If you don't think Favre is better than some of his contemporaries, I'd love to hear the argument. I'm sure it's just as air-tight as the one he's making here.

We've resorted to using different sports. Amazing.

Well if 12-10 is medicore, I guess we have to consider Peyton Manning's 7-7 record downright piss-poor, especially considering he's played with multiple hall of famers on offense for almost his entire career (Faulk, James, Harrison). He's 3-7 outside of that Super Bowl year, where he was just brilliant in throwing 3 touchdowns and 7 picks.

If the loss to the Giants was embarrassing, I guess Tom Brady has some mud on his face as well. And this joker better not even think of calling Romo a quality QB. The Giants were better than everyone thought, and Favre wasn't really as bad as everyone said he was in that game. His numbers compared favorably to every other QB that played that day. The difference was that the Giants and Pats had a running game, and the Packers had 28 yards on the ground. That's not going to work in January.

And I'm sick of hearing about Starr's 5 titles. Again, I don't want to take anything away from him, but for two of those titles, he won ONE PLAYOFF GAME each year. For two of those titles, he won two playoff games each year. Not to say he would've lost if they played more games, but you can't compare the championship-deciding format back then to what it is now. More games = more chances to lose. And again, you can't compare the supporting casts. Those Packers teams were hall-of-famer laden.

He wasn't the best in 1996? Credibility? Fluuuuuuuushed. I'd love to hear who was better that year (or in 95, since that year only gets a "maybe"). Does this joker even realize who Favre was throwing to that year? His top receiver went out for the year in Week 8. His next best receiver missed a couple games and played with a cast on his arm the rest of the year. There were games where the Packers started Terry Mickens and Don Beebe at WR. Freeman/Rison/Beebe/Mickens isn't going to make anyone shudder. His left tackle was a journeyman who was plugged in mid-season. And yet Favre had 39 touchdowns and 13 picks. But yeah, he wasn't the best.

I'm not going to deal with trying to compare him to some of the greats from the past, but for every advantage modern players have with the rules, I'm guessing we could come up with a lot of things that hinder the QBs. Faster defenses, I assume more blitzing, etc.

What an absolute joke of an article.

GREAT POST PackerJet!!!

POTWN!!

That article was complete bogus for a ridiculous amount of reasons. First off, the Jets of '08 are a MUCH different team then the Jets of '07... With all the offseason additions, its almost impossible to compare the two teams.

2nd, Favre only won one SB, so that makes him overrated? Umm....Hello, Chad has won ZERO SB's, in fact he's also won ZERO AFCCGs, furthermore, he's won ZERO Divisional Round games. Lets see which is better, a 38 year old future HOF QB who has won 1 SB and made 3 and had one of the best years of his career last season, or a 32 year old QB, that has never made a pro bowl, has had two rotator cuff injuries on his throwing arm, and had the worst year of his career last year? Man, thats a tough one...Real tough.

[drago]

damn dude. That was a great post Packerjetfan...great post.

[johnny green balls]

2 things.

(1) saying he didn't beat eli and the giants is ridiculous. giants proved they are gamers. I guess tom brady sucks, too and if an opportunity to get him came up it would be foolish to grab him.

(2) betting our future on a hail mary?? If the jets suck this year as this article suggests we will, we lose a whopping 4TH ROUNDER!!! big freaking deal! and if we end up giving more well than, the whole article is incorrect.

brilliant low risk trade IMHO. Chad isn't getting younger and he's not the future either. Nor is Clemens. this article is bunk for this reason: if the trade doesn't work out, we lose little. If we end up giving up a lot (2nd or 1st rounder) that means the trade worked out!

[GM]

Why the hell does the Wall Street journal have a sports writer?

That is like getting stock tips from SI or Cosmo.

[PackerJetFan]

I just cleaned it that post a little and forwarded it to Mr. Barra. I'm SURE I'll get a response. The MSM cracks me up.

I asked him to please humor me with his list of the top 25 Qbs of all-time. If Favre's not on there, I'd absolutely LOVE to see who is.

Edit: Of course, the email address posted at the end of his article doesn't work.

I also think it's hilarious that Barra once defended Peyton Manning's playoff record by saying:

Four times--in 1999 against the Tennessee Titans, 2003 against the New England Patriots, 2004 against the Patriots, and last year against the Pittsburgh Steelers--the Colts have lost in the playoffs to a team that went on to the Super Bowl. Two of those losses were by just three points. Did the Colts choke, or simply lose to better teams?

Well half of Favre's playoff losses (93 (SB Champs), 95 (SB Champs), 97 (SB Champs), 01 (SB appearance), and 07 (SB Champs)) have come against a team that would go on to the Super Bowl, and 4 of the 10 losses have been to the eventual champion. I guess that 12-10 record isn't so bad after all....

[CobraVerde]

It pisses me off when fools like that have a massive platform. The guy knows absolutely nothing about football or Favre, but there are millions of people reading this nonsense, possibly thinking he actually has a point:

1) Unless the Packers are full of crap about drafting BPA, they would have taken Brohm anyway. Nobody forced them to draft him. They could have signed a vet to be the backup.

2) After the Packers made it clear he wasn't going to start there, why should he have put the team ahead of his own interests. (If you believe Favre) The Packers told him "Playing here isn't an option." So what's he supposed to do? Stay retired just so the Packers aren't put in an uncomfortable situation?

3) Saying "no one else wanted you" is incorrect, but why worry about facts.

It's nice that he provides, ya know, some data to back this up. It's also nice of him to leave out the fact that Favre has never played with a Hall of Famer on offense, while Montana had one of the best supporting casts in history. And that Montana played pre-salary cap when it was easy to keep a great team together. Not to take anything away from him, but it's insane to say "OMG Favre only won one Super Bowl so he's overrated!" Look at what he was working with for most of the last decade. It wasn't Jerry Rice, John Taylor, Brent Jones, Roger Craig, Tom Rathman and a ridiculous OL....

A 4-12 team who signed a slew of new players in addition to the 38 year old QB and added Gholston to the defense. And even if he hasn't finished in the top 5 of league's passers, that's using the ridiculous QB rating stat. He's been runner up in the MVP voting twice. Not that that's the be-all-end-all either, but I'd take that as a gauge before I'd use passer rating.

So you've got one bad year when he got off to a good start before every player on the offense got hurt (They used like 7 starting RBs that year, including Rashard freaking Lee), one great year, and one mediocre year. But based on his career as a whole, it's pretty clear which of those seasons was a complete outlier.

And if Kerry Byrne said Chad Pennington is the most underrated QB in the NFL it MUST be true! Great support for the argument there. Never mind that in the last 3 years, Pennington has 29 TD passes and 28 picks. Worse numbers than Favre's, even with that one disaster of a season that isn't likely to be repeated.

And the delay in breaking in a young QB assumes that the QB of the Future is on the roster. The best bet for that would be a guy with 5 TDs and 10 INTs in his career. Yeah it was stupid to go get Brett Favre.

Now he's not a Top-25 QB of all-time? What the hell? I'd love to see this joker's list.

The NFL's passer rating system is insane. And using Peyton Manning in support of your argument might not be the best idea (I'll get to that in a minute). But as long as we're considering it to be such an important stat, let's look at a few years:

In 1995, Favre was runner up to JIM FREAKING HARBAUGH! Favre's 38 Touchdowns, 13 INTs, 4400 yards, and 63% completion percentage lost out to Harbaugh's 17 Touchdowns, 5 INTs, 2500 yards and 63% completion percentage. Clearly Harbaugh was the more effective passer.

In 1996, Favre was runner up to Steve Young. His 39 TDs and 13 INTs were pretty clearly inferior to Young throwing a whopping 14 Touchdowns and 6 INTs.

In 1997, Favre finished behind Young and Chris Chandler. 35 Touchdowns, 16 Picks and another MVP were no match for 19 TDs and 6 picks, or Chandler's 20 TDs, 7 picks and 2700 yards passing. Chandler was so good that he QB'ed his team to a 7-7 record that year.

And Ben Roethlisberger is pretty clearly the best quarterback in the league. Except that, uh oh, over three years (before last year when he was great) he had 52 TDs and 43 Interceptions, which means his job should have been on the line according to a few paragraphs ago. Last year, Favre finished behind Matt Schaub in that stat. Yup, it's a clear-cut indicator of how good a QB is.

Also, how arrogant is the first sentence in this paragraph? Pehaps our resident genius would like to explain the system without looking it up and then tell us how it was derived. Why are we subtracting 30 points from the completion percentage before multiplying by .05? Why do we subtract 3 yards off YPA? What the hell does it even mean?

Did I miss when a passer-rating title became important? Favre had 16 Touchdowns in the first five games of 1996, more than Young had the entire season. And a better TD/INT ratio to boot. But Young was pretty clearly more effective. That system is stupid. And only stupid people make too much out of it.

Favre's also won more games than anyone in history and has a winning percentage far greater than .526. If you don't think Favre is better than some of his contemporaries, I'd love to hear the argument. I'm sure it's just as air-tight as the one he's making here.

We've resorted to using different sports. Amazing.

Well if 12-10 is medicore, I guess we have to consider Peyton Manning's 7-7 record downright piss-poor, especially considering he's played with multiple hall of famers on offense for almost his entire career (Faulk, James, Harrison). He's 3-7 outside of that Super Bowl year, where he was just brilliant in throwing 3 touchdowns and 7 picks.

If the loss to the Giants was embarrassing, I guess Tom Brady has some mud on his face as well. And this joker better not even think of calling Romo a quality QB. The Giants were better than everyone thought, and Favre wasn't really as bad as everyone said he was in that game. His numbers compared favorably to every other QB that played that day. The difference was that the Giants and Pats had a running game, and the Packers had 28 yards on the ground. That's not going to work in January.

And I'm sick of hearing about Starr's 5 titles. Again, I don't want to take anything away from him, but for two of those titles, he won ONE PLAYOFF GAME each year. For two of those titles, he won two playoff games each year. Not to say he would've lost if they played more games, but you can't compare the championship-deciding format back then to what it is now. More games = more chances to lose. And again, you can't compare the supporting casts. Those Packers teams were hall-of-famer laden.

He wasn't the best in 1996? Credibility? Fluuuuuuuushed. I'd love to hear who was better that year (or in 95, since that year only gets a "maybe"). Does this joker even realize who Favre was throwing to that year? His top receiver went out for the year in Week 8. His next best receiver missed a couple games and played with a cast on his arm the rest of the year. There were games where the Packers started Terry Mickens and Don Beebe at WR. Freeman/Rison/Beebe/Mickens isn't going to make anyone shudder. His left tackle was a journeyman who was plugged in mid-season. And yet Favre had 39 touchdowns and 13 picks. But yeah, he wasn't the best.

I'm not going to deal with trying to compare him to some of the greats from the past, but for every advantage modern players have with the rules, I'm guessing we could come up with a lot of things that hinder the QBs. Faster defenses, I assume more blitzing, etc.

What an absolute joke of an article.

ditto.

[Gainzo]

2 things.

(1) saying he didn't beat eli and the giants is ridiculous. giants proved they are gamers. I guess tom brady sucks, too and if an opportunity to get him came up it would be foolish to grab him.

(2) betting our future on a hail mary?? If the jets suck this year as this article suggests we will, we lose a whopping 4TH ROUNDER!!! big freaking deal! and if we end up giving more well than, the whole article is incorrect.

brilliant low risk trade IMHO. Chad isn't getting younger and he's not the future either. Nor is Clemens. this article is bunk for this reason: if the trade doesn't work out, we lose little. If we end up giving up a lot (2nd or 1st rounder) that means the trade worked out!

That sums it up nicely.

On another note: Packer/Favre fans take anything bad said about their hero as a personal insult. Thats a little scary

[Garb]

you know what it is PackerJetFan? Every year at this time of the year we Jets fans have the privilege of reading all the national sports press go on and on about how great New England is, and what a genius their coach is, how Indy is so great and how the Jets will suck again...they are pissed off that the spotlight is on our team now...to them we say suck it a-holes

Incorrect. As a Pats fan, I LOVE that the spotlight isn't on my team. It's a nice change, no distractions, get down to business. You can have the spotlight. Trust me, it 'aint what it's cracked out to be. You'll see.

[Favorite_Toon]

It pisses me off when fools like that have a massive platform. The guy knows absolutely nothing about football or Favre, but there are millions of people reading this nonsense, possibly thinking he actually has a point:

1) Unless the Packers are full of crap about drafting BPA, they would have taken Brohm anyway. Nobody forced them to draft him. They could have signed a vet to be the backup.

2) After the Packers made it clear he wasn't going to start there, why should he have put the team ahead of his own interests. (If you believe Favre) The Packers told him "Playing here isn't an option." So what's he supposed to do? Stay retired just so the Packers aren't put in an uncomfortable situation?

3) Saying "no one else wanted you" is incorrect, but why worry about facts.

It's nice that he provides, ya know, some data to back this up. It's also nice of him to leave out the fact that Favre has never played with a Hall of Famer on offense, while Montana had one of the best supporting casts in history. And that Montana played pre-salary cap when it was easy to keep a great team together. Not to take anything away from him, but it's insane to say "OMG Favre only won one Super Bowl so he's overrated!" Look at what he was working with for most of the last decade. It wasn't Jerry Rice, John Taylor, Brent Jones, Roger Craig, Tom Rathman and a ridiculous OL....

A 4-12 team who signed a slew of new players in addition to the 38 year old QB and added Gholston to the defense. And even if he hasn't finished in the top 5 of league's passers, that's using the ridiculous QB rating stat. He's been runner up in the MVP voting twice. Not that that's the be-all-end-all either, but I'd take that as a gauge before I'd use passer rating.

So you've got one bad year when he got off to a good start before every player on the offense got hurt (They used like 7 starting RBs that year, including Rashard freaking Lee), one great year, and one mediocre year. But based on his career as a whole, it's pretty clear which of those seasons was a complete outlier.

And if Kerry Byrne said Chad Pennington is the most underrated QB in the NFL it MUST be true! Great support for the argument there. Never mind that in the last 3 years, Pennington has 29 TD passes and 28 picks. Worse numbers than Favre's, even with that one disaster of a season that isn't likely to be repeated.

And the delay in breaking in a young QB assumes that the QB of the Future is on the roster. The best bet for that would be a guy with 5 TDs and 10 INTs in his career. Yeah it was stupid to go get Brett Favre.

Now he's not a Top-25 QB of all-time? What the hell? I'd love to see this joker's list.

The NFL's passer rating system is insane. And using Peyton Manning in support of your argument might not be the best idea (I'll get to that in a minute). But as long as we're considering it to be such an important stat, let's look at a few years:

In 1995, Favre was runner up to JIM FREAKING HARBAUGH! Favre's 38 Touchdowns, 13 INTs, 4400 yards, and 63% completion percentage lost out to Harbaugh's 17 Touchdowns, 5 INTs, 2500 yards and 63% completion percentage. Clearly Harbaugh was the more effective passer.

In 1996, Favre was runner up to Steve Young. His 39 TDs and 13 INTs were pretty clearly inferior to Young throwing a whopping 14 Touchdowns and 6 INTs.

In 1997, Favre finished behind Young and Chris Chandler. 35 Touchdowns, 16 Picks and another MVP were no match for 19 TDs and 6 picks, or Chandler's 20 TDs, 7 picks and 2700 yards passing. Chandler was so good that he QB'ed his team to a 7-7 record that year.

And Ben Roethlisberger is pretty clearly the best quarterback in the league. Except that, uh oh, over three years (before last year when he was great) he had 52 TDs and 43 Interceptions, which means his job should have been on the line according to a few paragraphs ago. Last year, Favre finished behind Matt Schaub in that stat. Yup, it's a clear-cut indicator of how good a QB is.

Also, how arrogant is the first sentence in this paragraph? Pehaps our resident genius would like to explain the system without looking it up and then tell us how it was derived. Why are we subtracting 30 points from the completion percentage before multiplying by .05? Why do we subtract 3 yards off YPA? What the hell does it even mean?

Did I miss when a passer-rating title became important? Favre had 16 Touchdowns in the first five games of 1996, more than Young had the entire season. And a better TD/INT ratio to boot. But Young was pretty clearly more effective. That system is stupid. And only stupid people make too much out of it.

Favre's also won more games than anyone in history and has a winning percentage far greater than .526. If you don't think Favre is better than some of his contemporaries, I'd love to hear the argument. I'm sure it's just as air-tight as the one he's making here.

We've resorted to using different sports. Amazing.

Well if 12-10 is medicore, I guess we have to consider Peyton Manning's 7-7 record downright piss-poor, especially considering he's played with multiple hall of famers on offense for almost his entire career (Faulk, James, Harrison). He's 3-7 outside of that Super Bowl year, where he was just brilliant in throwing 3 touchdowns and 7 picks.

If the loss to the Giants was embarrassing, I guess Tom Brady has some mud on his face as well. And this joker better not even think of calling Romo a quality QB. The Giants were better than everyone thought, and Favre wasn't really as bad as everyone said he was in that game. His numbers compared favorably to every other QB that played that day. The difference was that the Giants and Pats had a running game, and the Packers had 28 yards on the ground. That's not going to work in January.

And I'm sick of hearing about Starr's 5 titles. Again, I don't want to take anything away from him, but for two of those titles, he won ONE PLAYOFF GAME each year. For two of those titles, he won two playoff games each year. Not to say he would've lost if they played more games, but you can't compare the championship-deciding format back then to what it is now. More games = more chances to lose. And again, you can't compare the supporting casts. Those Packers teams were hall-of-famer laden.

He wasn't the best in 1996? Credibility? Fluuuuuuuushed. I'd love to hear who was better that year (or in 95, since that year only gets a "maybe"). Does this joker even realize who Favre was throwing to that year? His top receiver went out for the year in Week 8. His next best receiver missed a couple games and played with a cast on his arm the rest of the year. There were games where the Packers started Terry Mickens and Don Beebe at WR. Freeman/Rison/Beebe/Mickens isn't going to make anyone shudder. His left tackle was a journeyman who was plugged in mid-season. And yet Favre had 39 touchdowns and 13 picks. But yeah, he wasn't the best.

I'm not going to deal with trying to compare him to some of the greats from the past, but for every advantage modern players have with the rules, I'm guessing we could come up with a lot of things that hinder the QBs. Faster defenses, I assume more blitzing, etc.

What an absolute joke of an article.

POTWN