Tweet
Originally posted by Tyrone Bigguns
Originally posted by The Shadow
Originally posted by Tyrone Bigguns
Originally posted by The Shadow
Originally posted by Tyrone Bigguns
Originally posted by Noodle
I love this kind of stuff.
But TB, please, more love for Starr. Here are some things you're not thinking about.
As others have said, the game has changed big time since Starr played, both in rules and in strategy. In 1978, the NFL Rules Committee allowed linemen to use their hands and extend their arms in pass blocking. They also prohibited DBs from hitting WRs more than 10 yds down the field (it's 5 now). This change in rules, in turn, husbanded the birth of the WCO and its emphasis on short, low risk passes.
You see, back in Starr's day, QBs threw deep. I mean WAY deep. In 1966, Starr averaged a whopping 9 yards per attempt. Favre has never hit 8. So Starr's accuracy numbers are going to be lower, as will his raw yardage numbers given that teams passed far less frequently.
Finally, you say that Starr was surrounded by HoF talent -- fair enough, but then Starr had to play against a lot of HoF talent. Also, Starr did ok even with non-HoFers, like Super Max. And while Holmgren is no Lombardi, he's also considered one of the best offensive minds of his era, so it's not like Favre had crap coaches.
We should thank the heavens that our favorite team has been blessed with all-time greats like Starr and Favre. I'm thinking they don't have debates like this over at the Bear forums.
But TB, please, more love for Starr. Here are some things you're not thinking about.
As others have said, the game has changed big time since Starr played, both in rules and in strategy. In 1978, the NFL Rules Committee allowed linemen to use their hands and extend their arms in pass blocking. They also prohibited DBs from hitting WRs more than 10 yds down the field (it's 5 now). This change in rules, in turn, husbanded the birth of the WCO and its emphasis on short, low risk passes.
You see, back in Starr's day, QBs threw deep. I mean WAY deep. In 1966, Starr averaged a whopping 9 yards per attempt. Favre has never hit 8. So Starr's accuracy numbers are going to be lower, as will his raw yardage numbers given that teams passed far less frequently.
Finally, you say that Starr was surrounded by HoF talent -- fair enough, but then Starr had to play against a lot of HoF talent. Also, Starr did ok even with non-HoFers, like Super Max. And while Holmgren is no Lombardi, he's also considered one of the best offensive minds of his era, so it's not like Favre had crap coaches.
We should thank the heavens that our favorite team has been blessed with all-time greats like Starr and Favre. I'm thinking they don't have debates like this over at the Bear forums.
Coaches: Brett didn't get to have consistency during his best years. 3 coaches in what, 3 years..or did RR coach 2...i try to block the RR years out.
YPA: Valid point..but, my point is that we barely threw. Starr isn't in the top 10 for attempts cept for 3 years outta 15. Favre 14 outta 17 and led the league 3 times, second 3 times. Favre has only been outta the top 5 once. Starr was in the top 5 once..and there were less teams.
HOF: Please, no team had the quality that the packers had. Certainly not in our division. Game is won on the line...Pack line will have not one HOF in all the years favre has played...not even a player that should be considered.
Pre central the teams were poor to mediocre in our divison..63 bears were good. 64/65 Colts good. NO OTHER TEAM WON 9 games.
Central: mediocrity is your name..cept for the vikes in 69. End of his career the vikes and Lions were good (well, one season for them). No point in discussing 71.
My biggest point is that under Lombardi ran to set up the pass. He ran the ball almost double the passes.
Favre threw the ball to set up the run..cept for a couple of ahman years..and even then we still threw the ball equal.
Look, Starr is HOF. But, to include in him top 10 is ridiculous. Or to say he is better than Favre...not a chance.
How nice to be young and unfettered by legitimate discernment. Sigh....
2. How nice to be old unfettered by logic and facts. 3. Anecdotal evidence is so much better. 4. Neurons barely firing, rheumy eyes, and distant memories. Sigh...
1. Too young.
2. In Orwell's '1984', protagonist Winston Smith was tortured into disavowing the evidence of what his own senses and life experiences suggested. Three fingers held in front of his face became four, four became five.
Not there yet, bucko. Starr was the superior quarterback.
3. 'Anecdotal'? That suggests some type of oral history passed down to me.
Sorry : I followed the entire careers of both players.
I know you desperately want the distinction of having 'seen the best', and I understand the fervor with which you insist the truth must be a truth you desire.
But sometimes you've got to open up a bit to primary sources......
4. But so peaceful!
.................................................. ................................................
OR, we can play it your way.
Nick Barnett is a better linebacker than Ray Nitschke
And any other player you like MUST be far superior to any player you didn't see.
That 'logic' can engender so many worthwhile claims.
Bill Clinton was a better president than Abe Lincoln, for example.
2. Exactly. The whole world for the most part is telling you Favre is better. Yet you can't see it. Senses and life experience don't make you right.
Are you trying to say that just about every writer/judge of QBs is in league to convince us that Favre was better because they are evil? Perhaps they are right and you are wrong.
My mom use to say that if you believe the sky is red and everyone else tells you it is blue, then it is best to believe it is blue. EVERYONE IS TELLING YOU THE SKY IS BLUE.
3. You need to bone up on the english language.
"based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence."
How many times do i have to say i have no interest in having seen the best...let alone calling favre that. I still put montana ahead of him.
4. Well, ignorance is bliss.
5. Nitschke..c'mon that is absurd. When barnett actually is all pro or even considered for the HOF then you can make such a stupid argument. I sure wouldn't make that one.
6. As for Prez..that is a subjective determination with no facts associated with it.
If you are trying to prove your points at least make the analogies comparable.
1. I assumed that your strident insistence on Favre over Starr, and your disregard for personal observation of events more than 3 years ago, surely would be coming from a young person.
2. So, I am then to doubt my own eyes and go along with the crowd? Again, the immaturity level of joining popular, popular bandwagons over objective evaluation points to, shall we say, a 'very youthful outlook'?
3. Ummm... English needs to be capitalized here, professor.
4. Sometimes. apparently.
5. Why not? It lines up rather well with the pattern of your reasoning.
6. Good Lord! I suspect you actually do consider Slick Willie in the team photo with Honest Abe!!!!
Come on, Ty - why are you so threatened by a Packer fan - who followed both - to have an objective opinion outside the confines of popular lockstep thinking?
Comment