Top 7 QB's of all time

[The Leaper]

2. Correct. Under Starr's guidance, they did not simply contend - they WON!

No, under Lombardi's guidance, they won.

Under Starr's guidance without Lombardi, the Packers were extemely mediocre.

[The Leaper]

I loved watching Favre, and watching Starr was probably never as exciting. BUT, I have to admit that I never worried about Starr making a bonehead play, or just throwing a ball up for grabs. It just didn't happen. He was a very patient player who could go for the juggler when the time was right.

That's great. He could get away with it in the Lombardi years because he had such a tremendous amount of talent around him. When he did not have the talent around him very early and near the end of his career, Starr looked like crap.

Again...Bart Starr could never have led the Packers to the Super Bowl win in 1996. That offense wasn't overly talented to begin with, and as injuries mounted, Starr would not have possessed the raw skill to make that offense a juggernaut like Favre did. Favre's unique ability to make plays out of absolutely nothing was ridiculous in his prime. He amazed us LAST YEAR...even I forget at times just how ridiculously good he was from 1995-1997. IMO, that was the best 3 year stretch any QB in NFL history has put together.

Unfortunately, Favre did not have great offensive talent around him in his prime...and the defense was very good, but very old and disintegrated quickly after SB 32.

[The Shadow]

1. I wasn't around in the 1960s, but I've done plenty of reading and watching films from that era. To hear old farts blabber on and on and on and on and on and on and on about Starr...

2.The Packers were ALWAYS playoff contenders with Favre (4-12???)under center...the same cannot be said for Starr. That is the bottom line, even if some choose to ignore it.

1. There is really no substitute for primary sources in these matters.
2. Correct. Under Starr's guidance, they did not simply contend - they WON!

Shadow;

I don't know how many of us on here actually watched Starr. I of course did, as apparently you did too.

I loved watching Favre, and watching Starr was probably never as exciting. BUT, I have to admit that I never worried about Starr making a bonehead play, or just throwing a ball up for grabs. It just didn't happen. He was a very patient player who could go for the juggler when the time was right.

I think when fans have only seen one great player at a position on their team, they tend to discount all others. When you have seen more than one you tend to compare more objectively, But I will admit that I have a hard time appreciating players I never saw, and probably prejudically think of the ones I have seen as being better. I think that clouds many fans' appreciation of Starr. They never saw what he did, they have seen only plays here and there. If you listen to the Packer players from that era, they all recognize Starr as the key to their success for many reasons.

Of course; agree completely.
At the same time, I really do understand the somewhat fanatical fervor that many of the younger posters have regarding Brett. Starr's terrific success record has them sputtering - and coming up with amusing reasons why it is insignificant compared to the greatnes of #4. We have also been treated to every reason under the sun why Brett's meltdowns have ALWAYS been someone else's fault - otherwise, he would have won more championships (in fact, he would have won every game!).
Lombardi, talent, the era, blah, blah, blah, are the sole reasons, according to them, for Starr's success. Of yeah : "He was a fine leader" (game manager?). What a concession!
Why Favre's undeniably more modest success rate? Favre's receivers are often portayed as the culprits in his decisions/interceptions, but sometimes it's the coach, the blocking, the refs, the hotdog vendor, his pregame body language, etc. It's never upon his own shoulders.
Loved Favre, great quarterback - but I watched the both.
Favre had loads more athletic ability - but Bart Starr was the superior quarterback.

[Patler]

Again...Bart Starr could never have led the Packers to the Super Bowl win in 1996. That offense wasn't overly talented to begin with, and as injuries mounted, Starr would not have possessed the raw skill to make that offense a juggernaut like Favre did.

I really don't want to try and compare Favre to Starr, but I can assure you this. Starr would have been a great QB in Holmgren's offense. Starr was exactly what Holmgren wanted Favre to be, patient and smart. Starr would have done fine leading the Packers in 1996. One of the reasons the Packers won that game was because Favre played much like Starr always did. He took chances when the opportunity was right, not recklessly

Just my opinion from having witnessed the entire careers of both.

[Patler]

When he did not have the talent around him very early and near the end of his career, Starr looked like crap.
.

I'm not quite sure where you get that idea. Before Lombardi, Starr was just a young QB learning how to play in a fairly dysfunctional organization at that time. How good was Favre in Atlanta? How good would he have been if forced to stay there for two or three more years? Part of the problem early in Starr's career is that he was splitting time with Babe Parilli and Lamar McHan. Even Lombardi admitted that it took him a year and a half to recognize how good Starr was. He thought of him as "soft" because he had a mild, quiet demeanor. It was only after Starr confronted Lombardi and refused to back down on the field that Lombardi realized he was wrong.

People forget that Favre's strak was jeopardized early in his career, and the coaches had pretty much agreed to bench him in favor of Brunnell at one point. The difference was that the packers really had no experienced option at that time. In 1958, '59 and '60 they did, so Starr played less.

After 1967? - Starr had a fine year in 1968, but missed a few games do to injury. Same in 1969, but again injuries caused Don Horn to play as much as Starr did. When he was playing those two years he was at the top of the league's QBs (63% completions, 24 TDs, 14 interceptions) He sure did not look like "crap" in 1968 and 1969.

1970 was a down year for Starr, but by that time the offense was totally rebuilt with players not nearly as good, not unlike what we saw in 2004. Favre had his own problems in similar situations. The defense in 1970 gave up almost 10 points more per game than it did as recently as just four year earlier in 1966. Starr didn't have the defensive support through his entire career that you seem to think he did.

Starr only played 3 games in 1971 as his last hurrah.

So just how is it that he looked like crap after Lombardi???? He was a very old QB for his era at that time, but still played very well in 1968 and 1969. 1970 was certainly not a good performance, but not outrageously horrible either.

[The Leaper]

Before Lombardi, Starr was just a young QB learning how to play in a fairly dysfunctional organization at that time. How good was Favre in Atlanta?

He wasn't even given a chance in Atlanta. You know that Patler.

I know how good Favre was the minute he replaced Majik...or do I need to go out and find the tape of Favre LAZER BEAMING a throw to Kitrick Taylor for a comeback win? That was his first REAL game action. He made a throw Starr could never have imagined making.

I don't see that stuff happening in Starr's early years.

[The Leaper]

People forget that Favre's strak was jeopardized early in his career, and the coaches had pretty much agreed to bench him in favor of Brunnell at one point.

Was the team still winning?

[Patler]

People forget that Favre's strak was jeopardized early in his career, and the coaches had pretty much agreed to bench him in favor of Brunnell at one point.

Was the team still winning?

Was the team winning in 1960 when Starr was "on the bubble" for starting?

[Patler]

Before Lombardi, Starr was just a young QB learning how to play in a fairly dysfunctional organization at that time. How good was Favre in Atlanta?

He wasn't even given a chance in Atlanta. You know that Patler.

I know how good Favre was the minute he replaced Majik...or do I need to go out and find the tape of Favre LAZER BEAMING a throw to Kitrick Taylor for a comeback win? That was his first REAL game action. He made a throw Starr could never have imagined making.

I don't see that stuff happening in Starr's early years.

And Starr wasn't given a chance in 1956 either, after all, Tobin Rote was an all-pro that year. For the next few seasons, Babe Parilli was supposed to be the guy. He was a 1st round pick and Starr a 17th. Who do you think was given the opportunities????

Lombardi came in '59 without knowing Starr, and traded a high draft pick for Lamar McHan. He played Starr when McHan was hurt at the end of the year, and Starr went 4-1. McHan had been 3-4. In 1960, Lombardi went back to his hand-picked QB early, and in spite of the team winning, went to Starr in the middle of 1960. Starr was a pro bowl player in 1961 and thereafter.

All Starr needed was the commitment from the coach.

[Chester Marcol]

He made a throw Starr could never have imagined making.

Are we talking about Favre's last throw of his career?

It's not a question of what Favre COULD do, it's the undeniable thing that Favre could NOT do that has me question his place on the "greatest" list. If he would have drove us back down the field against Denver and won that Super Bowl, that would have been totally on him and that drive would have cemented him among the greatest. Shit. You would never tell the story about Joe Montana's comeback SB winning drive again without an "oh yeah?" and then the story of Favre's comeback drive against Denver. The debate would be Montana or Favre should be ahead of the other. Not whether Favre should be ahead of Steve Young. Whoopee. Unfortunately for a Packer fan, how the Denver Super Bowl ended would be eirily similar to every one of our playoff exits for the rest of Favre's career.

I just don't buy the crap about not having talent around him(especially when we're in the playoffs) that seems to make it OK for Favre to throw an INT in some of our most important games where we had a legitimate chance to get to and win a Super Bowl. Especially when you see the video or photos of other backs or receivers who are standing wide open just as dumb founded as us fans as to why Favre didn't throw them the ball. Heaven forbid we methodically work our way down the field and not pad our highlight real.

[HarveyWallbangers]

He made a throw Starr could never have imagined making.

Are we talking about Favre's last throw of his career?

It's not a question of what Favre COULD do, it's the undeniable thing that Favre could NOT do that has me question his place on the "greatest" list. If he would have drove us back down the field against Denver and won that Super Bowl, that would have been totally on him and that drive would have cemented him among the greatest. Shit. You would never tell the story about Joe Montana's comeback SB winning drive again without an "oh yeah?" and then the story of Favre's comeback drive against Denver. The debate would be Montana or Favre should be ahead of the other. Not whether Favre should be ahead of Steve Young. Whoopee. Unfortunately for a Packer fan, how the Denver Super Bowl ended would be eirily similar to every one of our playoff exits for the rest of Favre's career.

I just don't buy the crap about not having talent around him(especially when we're in the playoffs) that seems to make it OK for Favre to throw an INT in some of our most important games where we had a legitimate chance to get to and win a Super Bowl. Especially when you see the video or photos of other backs or receivers who are standing wide open just as dumb founded as us fans as to why Favre didn't throw them the ball. Heaven forbid we methodically work our way down the field and not pad our highlight real.

We've rehashed the throw in OT. Subsequent photos showed that the original photo was an inaccurate portrayal. Besides, the main question on that throw was: who was Favre's primary target and was he open? If it was Driver, then I'd say yes. That was a bad throw, so to continue to make it out to be a boneheaded decision just shows ignorance or bias.

Now, to the subject at hand. Montana failed in his career. So did Elway. Tom Brady has failed. Peyton Manning and Brett Favre have failed. The difference with playing on a great team is that people remember the times you were successful and forget the times you failed. When people look back at Brady, they'll think of his clutch play and will likely not remember several stinker games he's had recently or will probably continue to have in the future.

Choosing between Starr and Favre is tough and probably not fair to either guy. Different rules, different competition, different system, different teammates and coaches. Different in so many ways. Both were great QBs.

Favre took average teams and made them very competitive. He did this in an era that was much more difficult to make a team a consistently competitive (more teams, FA, etc.). The couple of years he had a great team around him, he took them to the Super Bowl. He has all of the records. The most wins. The consecutive starts. On the other hand, he made more bad plays and more great plays than Starr. Maybe because he had to.

Starr led great teams to championships. That should be commended. It's not a knock. He was the ultimate game manager. On the other hand, Starr did very little with poor teams. He couldn't will average teams to competitiveness. Maybe a year or two, but not over the majority of his career.

To me, Starr would be the type of guy you'd want to play if you had a great team around him. Favre would be the type of guy you'd want otherwise.

The one thing that sticks out to me though is this: the main reason for any success the Packers have had over the last 16 years was Brett Favre. The main reason the 60s Packers had success was Vince Lombardi. Like I said before, saying that means Starr can't win because it implies he wasn't the most important reason for the success, but that's the way I feel.

[The Leaper]

And Starr wasn't given a chance in 1956 either, after all, Tobin Rote was an all-pro that year. For the next few seasons, Babe Parilli was supposed to be the guy. He was a 1st round pick and Starr a 17th. Who do you think was given the opportunities????

Please Patler. You should know far better than this what Starr's opportunities were. I'm 32, and I know a hell of a lot more.

In 1956 (rookie year) you are correct that Starr saw limited action...but he did play in 9 games and attempted 44 passes. Considerably more than Favre's 5 attempts, which were all hail mary's if I remember correctly.

In 1957 (2nd year), Starr attempted 215 passes in 12 games. He was given plenty of chance that year...and he was very mediocre. He had more attempts that year than he had in 1967, where you claim he was the key player for the offense.

In 1958, Starr was downright putrid and was benched. He played in 12 games that year and had 157 attempts, completing less than 50% of them and having 12 of them intercepted...a 7.6% INT ratio. Yep, he was always the beacon of good decision making.

Because of the disaster that was 1958, Starr saw less action in 1959 and 1960, but still put up well over 100 attempts both years. In none of those first 5 seasons did Starr throw more TDs than INTs or throw for more than 1500 yards.

So tell me again how Starr proved his brilliance in his first 5 years...or how he did not get a chance when he heaved well over 700 passes in that time.

[The Leaper]

It's not a question of what Favre COULD do, it's the undeniable thing that Favre could NOT do that has me question his place on the "greatest" list. If he would have drove us back down the field against Denver and won that Super Bowl, that would have been totally on him and that drive would have cemented him among the greatest.

You must've missed the rest of the game Chester. Favre was brilliant in that game...but the defense was woefully inept and couldn't stop Terrell Davis.

FYI, even had we scored a TD on that last drive, it only would've tied the game.

Pinning the loss in SB 32 on Favre shows no common sense whatsoever.

[The Leaper]

To me, Starr would be the type of guy you'd want to play if you had a great team around him. Favre would be the type of guy you'd want otherwise.

I agree.

And the point is that if both Favre and Starr have a great team around them, both are very likely to win...although I would certainly admit that Starr probably has a slightly greater chance. However, Favre never played on a team with 6-8 HOF caliber players around him...I'm sure he could've won 5 titles with that kind of talent around him, probably more.

With a less than great team around them, Favre clearly is superior to Starr by a longshot.

The bottom line is that Vince Lombardi was the guy responsible for the 1960s dynasty. He was the single force present in the success, and was the reason for its rise and decline.

The bottom line is that Brett Favre was the guy responsible for the current dynasty. He was the single force present throughout the success, despite numerous coaches and GMs.

[The Shadow]

To me, Starr would be the type of guy you'd want to play if you had a great team around him. Favre would be the type of guy you'd want otherwise.

I agree.

And the point is that if both Favre and Starr have a great team around them, both are very likely to win...although I would certainly admit that Starr probably has a slightly greater chance. However, Favre never played on a team with 6-8 HOF caliber players around him...I'm sure he could've won 5 titles with that kind of talent around him, probably more.

With a less than great team around them, Favre clearly is superior to Starr by a longshot.

1. The bottom line is that Vince Lombardi was the guy responsible for the 1960s dynasty. He was the single force present in the success, and was the reason for its rise and decline.

2.The bottom line is that Brett Favre was the guy responsible for the current dynasty. He was the single force present throughout the success, despite numerous coaches and GMs.

1. All the coaching in the world means little if the guy at the controls can't make it happen.
2. Dynasty? I thought we won a single championship. If Starr's many success' came solely from Lombardi, why would it not be true that Favre's single championship came courtesy of Holmgren?