PDA

View Full Version : Favre is the ultimate iron man



HarveyWallbangers
11-28-2007, 03:23 PM
It's good to see the fawning again--after media bashing he took the last couple of years.


Favre is the ultimate iron man
By Mark Kriegel, FOXSports.com

It is commonly supposed that Cal Ripken set the standard for all would-be Iron Men in American sports.

I'd like to propose a new standard-bearer: Brett Favre.

I mean no disrespect to Ripken, whose streak of 2,632 consecutive games played across 17 seasons will never be broken. I understand that baseball and football are very different games and not easily compared. But let's be serious: the relative perils of football and baseball don't merit much of a comparison. If the Iron Man is one who can free his mind of pain and monotony, if the ideal embodies the virtues of endurance and courage and plain, pigheaded will, then Favre is that guy.

Ripken was a shortstop, and later, when his reflexes slowed, a third baseman. Favre remains what he has always been — a quarterback, the most vulnerable position in what is arguably the most dangerous sport. It's not too much to say that each snap could be his last. Still, he's been an NFL quarterback for 17 seasons now. Thursday night's contest between Green Bay and Dallas — the NFC's most compelling matchup — will mark Favre's 251st consecutive regular-season game, 271 if you count playoff games. It will also be his 249th consecutive start, second only to Jim Marshall, the Vikings' defensive end, who played from 1960 to 1979.

Marshall's record — 270 consecutive starts — should be regarded with nothing but awe. But Marshall was a big man, a lineman and a hitter; Favre, for lack of a better word, is a hittee. The quarterback, unlike any position in any sport, is a target. Game plans are designed to disable him. You see the products of such preparation each Sunday: quarterbacks leaving the field concussed or hobbling, one step closer to orthopedic ruin.

On Jan. 9, 1969, Joe Namath delivered his famous Super Bowl "guarantee." Less well known, but no less prescient, was his concluding remark that evening. "The name of the game," he said, "is kill the quarterback."

Football has changed. The strategic geometries are more sophisticated. Players are bigger, stronger and faster. The game is more violent than ever. But the good quarterback is still the guy willing to take the blind-side hit. What's true for boxers is true for quarterbacks, too; the hit you don't see is the one that takes you out. Yet the good quarterback — by which I mean psychologically robust — accepts both the pain and the probability of devastating injury. He deals with it.

This dealing with it, I would argue, led Joe Namath to regard drink as an analgesic. Certainly, it led Favre to Vicodin, and a 46-day stint in a rehabilitation clinic after the first of his three MVP seasons. The following autumn, when asked what caused his addiction, Favre told Playboy: "You want to play. You don't want to give the other quarterback a shot at your job. I also have a streak going. I have played 80-some games in a row, the most in the league. The record is 118 and I plan on breaking it."

That interview was published 10 years ago, November, 1997. Tony Romo, who has quickly become famous as the Cowboys quarterback, was a junior at Burlington High School in Wisconsin and a big Brett Favre fan. Thursday will mark Romo's 22nd consecutive start. He's 27. When Favre was 27 he told a reporter: "I feel like I'm 40 ... I hope my body can keep up with me."

By then, he'd probably suffered half a dozen concussions. "It doesn't hurt," he told Playboy. "You just don't know who you are for a minute." He'd taken 13 Vicodin to get through the ESPYs. He had survived, among other maladies: five surgeries, turf toe, an arthritic condition in his hip, a separated shoulder, bone chips in his left ankle, fractured vertebrae and the removal of 30 inches of intestine after a car wreck in college.

The game wouldn't get any easier, nor would his personal life. But he played through the departure of his favorite linemen. He played though the Packers' inevitable rebuilding. He played through the death of his father. He played after his wife, Deanna, was diagnosed with breast cancer, now in apparent remission after a lumpectomy and chemotherapy.

And against every expectation, Favre seems to have improved with age. Now in his 17th season (the 16th of his streak), he is playing as well as ever. Through 11 games, he's thrown for 3,356 yards while completing 68.5 percent of his passes. He has 22 touchdown passes against only eight interceptions. Consider those numbers in relation to Ripken's solid, if unspectacular, 17th season: 17 homers, .270 batting average, 84 RBI.

"With football I found my calling," Favre once said. "It's a good game for someone who will go out and knock himself silly to get a win."

Back in 1992, in only his seventh start, Favre suffered a separated shoulder after Reggie White famously bodyslammed him. The blow was a deliberate attempt to knock the starter out of the game.

"That's his job," Favre would recall.

Some months later, Favre would be recruiting White to sign as a free agent with Green Bay. Favre always understood that kill-the-quarterback ethos. He accepted it, maybe even embraced it.

Still, life might've been a little easier if he could've played shortstop.

The Leaper
11-28-2007, 03:45 PM
This is the way any great legend would want to go out...at the top of their game after they've proved the critics wrong for the final time.

Favre will have no regrets when he finally does hang them up.

pacfan
11-28-2007, 04:00 PM
"It doesn't hurt," he told Playboy. "You just don't know who you are for a minute."

I remember when Favre was knocked out against the Giants, took the next play off, then ran back to the huddle, sent Pederson to the sideline, on 4th down, and threw a TD pass to Javon.

Just adding to the legend....

jramsey495
11-28-2007, 05:01 PM
i've mentioned this once before, but if he plays next season, which seems likely at this point, without missing a start he'll finish next season at 269, 1 shy of the record. that will get interesting in terms of discussing 2009...

the_idle_threat
11-28-2007, 05:05 PM
Favre has a long way to go before he catches Ripken ... :whist:

The Leaper
11-28-2007, 07:39 PM
Deion Sanders mentioned the same notion tonight on Total Access. He said Favre's record was far and away more impressive than Ripken's.

Fosco33
11-28-2007, 08:00 PM
With Ripken and Favre at 17 seasons (and 10:1 for MLB:NFL games) - both are impressive but Favre has the edge.

If Marshall started in all the playoff games for the Vikes in the 60's/70's (of which there were about 20), he'd be at 290 (including playoffs) or 19 ahead of Favre at this point.

That would mean Favre could break that stretch next year.... just some other record to create and bestow upon 'the greatest'.

Merlin
11-29-2007, 10:09 AM
"Thursday night's contest between Green Bay and Dallas — the NFC's most compelling matchup — will mark Favre's 251st consecutive regular-season game, 271 if you count playoff games. It will also be his 249th consecutive start, second only to Jim Marshall, the Vikings' defensive end, who played from 1960 to 1979. "

Does this say that it is both his 251st and 249th consecutive start? If you include playoffs it's 271. Where did the 249 come from? If someone can tell me if I am reading this wrong I would appreciate it!

MJZiggy
11-29-2007, 10:18 AM
I think he's trying to make a distinction between his consecutive games and consecutive starts. The only problem is that I don't recall him not starting in the game after Majkowski went down, so I don't know where he gets that 249 from. AFAIK it should be 250.

oregonpackfan
11-29-2007, 10:24 AM
Favre's consecutive streak is all the more impressive when you look at the QB situation for the other 31 NFL teams. A number of them have had quarterbacks miss several or more games. We Packer fans automatically assume that Favre will start. I'm afraid many of us take his durability for granted.

The Leaper
11-29-2007, 11:01 AM
I think he's trying to make a distinction between his consecutive games and consecutive starts. The only problem is that I don't recall him not starting in the game after Majkowski went down, so I don't know where he gets that 249 from. AFAIK it should be 250.

Favre played mop up duty in the game BEFORE Majik went down to injury...I believe it was against Tampa. That is where he completed his first NFL pass to himself.

Then he came in after Majik's injury against Cincinnati.

Those two games were not starts for Favre, but he played in both. That is why his consecutive game streak is 2 more than his consecutive start streak.

hoosier
11-29-2007, 12:14 PM
I've always felt that iron-man streak are the least impressive of all records in pro sports, the one record that doesn't reflect any talent whatsoever. Ripken exemplifies this: he was a slightly better than average hitter who accumulated impressive lifetime totals through sheer perseverance. Nothing wrong with that, but nothing to get all starry eyed about either. Overall, his reputation vastly exceeds his real accomplishments, IMO--way overrated. Favre is different, of course, in that he has talent as well. And football is different from baseball in that injuries are so frequent.

HarveyWallbangers
11-29-2007, 12:21 PM
Ripken was better than a "slightly better than average" batter--especially for his position. You have to remember that he played much of his career before the live ball and expansion era and he played all of his career before the steriods era. His numbers were the best among shortstops for the 80s. He averaged close to 100 runs, 28 homers, and 95 RBIs from 1982-1991. Those were fantastic numbers back then. You can't just look at his numbers compared to the guys of today and conclude he was slightly better than average. He had a span in which he led all shortstops nine times in an 11 year period.

I do agree though that he was overrated because of the streak--especially at the end of his career.

He was also a very good defensive shortstop.


At 6 ft 4 in, 225 lb (1.93 m, 102 kg), Ripken was a departure from the prototypical shortstop of the time — small, fleet-of-foot players who played a defensively difficult position but often did not post the home run and batting average totals that an outfielder might. Power hitting shortstops such as Alex Rodriguez and Miguel Tejada are often seen to be part of Ripken's legacy.

Nonetheless, Ripken demonstrated the ability to play excellent defense at shortstop, and as a result remained a fixture there for well over a decade, leading the league in assists several times, winning the Gold Glove twice, and, in 1990, setting the MLB record for best fielding percentage in a season at his position. Though not a flashy fielder, Ripken displayed excellent fundamentals, and studied batters and even his own pitching staff so he could position himself to compensate for his lack of physical speed, even calling pitches at times. Ripken's legacy as a fielder is reflected by his place near the top of almost every defensive statistical category — he holds at least one all-time record (for either season, career, or most seasons leading the league) in assists, putouts, fielding percentage, double plays, and fewest errors.

oregonpackfan
11-29-2007, 12:24 PM
I've always felt that iron-man streak are the least impressive of all records in pro sports, the one record that doesn't reflect any talent whatsoever. Ripken exemplifies this: he was a slightly better than average hitter who accumulated impressive lifetime totals through sheer perseverance. Nothing wrong with that, but nothing to get all starry eyed about either. Overall, his reputation vastly exceeds his real accomplishments, IMO--way overrated. Favre is different, of course, in that he has talent as well. And football is different from baseball in that injuries are so frequent.

I respectfully disagree.

In maintaining the ironman status, the athlete both needs to know how to keep himself in playing shape as well as know how to avoid injuries. Surely, some injuries cannot be avoided no matter what preventative measures the athlete uses.

I also think the ironman shows quite a bit of mental toughness. Surely, there are times where the athlete has to "Play through the Pain" as well as overcome mental fatigue.

lod01
11-29-2007, 12:52 PM
"It doesn't hurt," he told Playboy. "You just don't know who you are for a minute."

I remember when Favre was knocked out against the Giants, took the next play off, then ran back to the huddle, sent Pederson to the sideline, on 4th down, and threw a TD pass to Javon.

Just adding to the legend....

Oh yeah. That one was sweet. :lol:

The Leaper
11-29-2007, 01:04 PM
I've always felt that iron-man streak are the least impressive of all records in pro sports, the one record that doesn't reflect any talent whatsoever.

You don't think it takes a lot of talent...both physically and mentally...to remain in the starting lineup of a profession sports team for 15+ straight years? In actuality, longevity is a better sign of a player's true natural talent than most other stats. Great seasons can be a factor of circumstances...great careers are a factor of talent.


Ripken exemplifies this: he was a slightly better than average hitter who accumulated impressive lifetime totals through sheer perseverance. Nothing wrong with that, but nothing to get all starry eyed about either.

Ripken was an excellent baseball player. You must not have watched him that closely...or simply can't understand the greatly inflated numbers of today's steroid era compared to the game from 20+ years ago.

His offensive numbers weren't amazing, but they were steady and reliable....a .280 batting average, 20+ homers, 90+ RBI for the bulk of his career. He hit nearly as many homers in his career as Dave Winfield or Andre Dawson...who are both viewed as great power hitters. Ripken hit 180 more homers than Robin Yount, and 115 more than George Brett...who are among his infield contemporaries. Infielders didn't hit homers like Ripken did very often prior to the mid 90s.

His defense was also very good. In 1990, he played in 161 games as a shortstop and commited THREE errors. Take a minute and let that sink in. The ridiculous thing was that he didn't win a gold glove that year. His career fielding percentage is better than Derek Jeter.

hoosier
11-30-2007, 04:13 PM
I've always felt that iron-man streak are the least impressive of all records in pro sports, the one record that doesn't reflect any talent whatsoever. Ripken exemplifies this: he was a slightly better than average hitter who accumulated impressive lifetime totals through sheer perseverance. Nothing wrong with that, but nothing to get all starry eyed about either. Overall, his reputation vastly exceeds his real accomplishments, IMO--way overrated. Favre is different, of course, in that he has talent as well. And football is different from baseball in that injuries are so frequent.

I respectfully disagree.

In maintaining the ironman status, the athlete both needs to know how to keep himself in playing shape as well as know how to avoid injuries. Surely, some injuries cannot be avoided no matter what preventative measures the athlete uses.

I also think the ironman shows quite a bit of mental toughness. Surely, there are times where the athlete has to "Play through the Pain" as well as overcome mental fatigue.

I was trying to distinguish between talent and the durability/discipline thing. Having a body and a regimen that enables you to avoid injury or recover quickly isn't, IMO, a talent in the same way that being able to hit, throw, or run remarkably well is. Ripken exemplified durability and discipline, but I really think his hitting talent was overblown because of his remarkable durability. Yes, he was one of the better offensive shortstops of his generation, along with Yount and Trammell, but that's in part because in his generation SS wasn't envisioned as a power-hitter's position. For a couple of years he was among the best offensive players in the AL, but he also had a fair number of mediocre offensive seaons.