Good post about Favre's INT record

[Guiness]

Saw this over on the Sportsline chat board - ya, I know, a real needle in a haystack search looking for a good post there!

It is really tiring seeing uninformed people post about Favre's interception record. It is a product of the length of his career and the dramatic expansion of the passing game in the modern era. He 'broke' the record held by George Blanda. However, Blanda set the record with about half as many attempts. When you look at INTs per 100 attempts, Favre is at 3.31 vs. Blanda's 6.91. HUGE difference.

Where do some of the other greats stack up? Unitas 4.88, Tarkenton 4.11, Namath 5.85, Bradshaw 5.38, Marino 3.02, Elway 3.12 and Aikman 2.99.

A Green Bay Packer beat writer wrote a good column about it earlier this season. http://www.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs...230693/0/PKR04

I knew Bradshaw was not a great QB for many of his years, and IMO was just along for the ride on those teams, but that's a pretty bad number an HOF guy!

[hoosier]

I agree it's deceptive to compare just total picks. Favre's setting the record is of course as much a reflection of the centrality of the passing attack today as it is about his tendency to make dumb throws. On the other hand, I'm not sure interception percentages provide a fair measure for comparing QBs from different generations either, since the nature of the passing game has changed so much: Bradshaw's 5+% pick rate is a reflection of the fact that most of his throws were high risk, high gain downfield throws, whereas today's passing games are high percentage, low risk, short passes.

So how does Favre's 3.3 pick rate compare percentagewise to the top QBs of his generation(s)? Marino 3.0, Elway 3.1, PManning 2.8, Brady 2.4, McNabb 2.1, Roethligsberger 3.8, Palmer 3.1, Bulger 3.0, Hasselbeck 2.7.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Agreed. You'd also need to compare their completion %, TD rates, wins, durability, longevity. Everything needs to be taken into account. I think passer rating can be overrated. Sure, it can tell you generally if a guy is playing well or not, but there are other factors on why one guy might have a 90 passer rating and another guy has a 93 passer rating. Passer rating really does do the old players a disservice. It was a different game back then.

[denverYooper]

I know who would be on top were we to look at the "incredible jaw-dropping throws" percentage.

[Guiness]

I know who would be on top were we to look at the "incredible jaw-dropping throws" percentage.

Rex?

Hoosier - you're right, of course. WCO makes for nice TD/INT numbers, whereas in the previous era, they went vertical much more often. And pass interference wasn't called as much, so CB's could get away with a lot more.

[GoPackGo]

I'd like to see intercepted passes that hit WR's in the hands get credited to WR's. How many times has Favre picked up a bull$hit INT after hitting his reciever in the hands only to have the pass tipped up in the air and intercepted.

[Lurker64]

I'd like to see intercepted passes that hit WR's in the hands get credited to WR's. How many times has Favre picked up a bull$hit INT after hitting his reciever in the hands only to have the pass tipped up in the air and intercepted.

It would be interesting to get an account of both all of Favre's touchdowns and all of Favre's interceptions. Somebody has to be putting this together, right?

[pbmax]

Don't forget the rules changes that favored offense (especially passing and the QB) starting in 1978. Players that are compared before and after that era need to have that factored when looking at their stats.

Just like a thousand yard rusher was really something in the era of 12 and 14 games, stats between eras need some context.