Top 7 QB's of all time

[HarveyWallbangers]

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?

1. Agreed, but Starr didn't do anything without Lombardi. How many Hall of Famers did that crew have? How did Starr do without Lombardi? Was Lombardi not the greatest coach in history? How many teams played in the NFL at the time? How much did player movement deplete the corps of the team?
2. Agreed, but we've had a very nice run of success--especially after 25 years of being a laughingstock.

[The Shadow]

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?

1. Agreed, but Starr didn't do anything without Lombardi. How many Hall of Famers did that crew have? How did Starr do without Lombardi? Was Lombardi not the greatest coach in history? How many teams played in the NFL at the time? How much did player movement deplete the corps of the team?
2. Agreed, but we've had a very nice run of success--especially after 25 years of being a laughingstock.

Did Favre win anything without Holmgren?

[Scott Campbell]

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.

Geez. Is that you Lee Remmel?

[Scott Campbell]

These "best ever" arguments tend to be kind of silly, but this thread is turning into quite the history lesson.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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?

1. Really. Guess Trent Dilfer, Mark Rypien, Doug williams, etc. wouldn't seem to back that up.

[HarveyWallbangers]

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?

1. Agreed, but Starr didn't do anything without Lombardi. How many Hall of Famers did that crew have? How did Starr do without Lombardi? Was Lombardi not the greatest coach in history? How many teams played in the NFL at the time? How much did player movement deplete the corps of the team?
2. Agreed, but we've had a very nice run of success--especially after 25 years of being a laughingstock.

Did Favre win anything without Holmgren?

1) The comparison is laughable.
2) Did Starr even have a winning record without Lombardi?

[texaspackerbacker]

Favre unquestionably #1 all time. All the objective evidence supports that idea.

Marino 2, Tarkenton 3, Elway 4, Unitas 5, Otto Graham 6, Starr 7.

What is the logic in choosing the number "7"?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Serious questions for Patler and the other old-timers.

How many years did Starr play under somebody other than Lombardi?
How many starts did Starr make with somebody other than Lombardi?
What was his winning percentage in those games?
How many playoff games did Starr win as QB without Lombardi as coach?

[The Shadow]

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?

1. Agreed, but Starr didn't do anything without Lombardi. How many Hall of Famers did that crew have? How did Starr do without Lombardi? Was Lombardi not the greatest coach in history? How many teams played in the NFL at the time? How much did player movement deplete the corps of the team?
2. Agreed, but we've had a very nice run of success--especially after 25 years of being a laughingstock.

Did Favre win anything without Holmgren?

1) The comparison is laughable.
2) Did Starr even have a winning record without Lombardi?

1. Really? Why, exactly?
You can't claim that Starr's success (many of them!) were all due to Lombardi - and then claim that Favre's single success had nothing to do with Holmgren.
That just doesn't compute.
By the way : why is the notion that Bart Starr could just possible be superior to Brett Favre be so terribly threatening to you?
Is another opinion - one, I may add, based on personal observation of BOTH quarterbacks - so utterly intolerable?
Why is it so important to dance the dogmatic lockstep?

[Bretsky]

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?

1. Agreed, but Starr didn't do anything without Lombardi. How many Hall of Famers did that crew have? How did Starr do without Lombardi? Was Lombardi not the greatest coach in history? How many teams played in the NFL at the time? How much did player movement deplete the corps of the team?
2. Agreed, but we've had a very nice run of success--especially after 25 years of being a laughingstock.

Did Favre win anything without Holmgren?

1) The comparison is laughable.
2) Did Starr even have a winning record without Lombardi?

1. Really? Why, exactly?
You can't claim that Starr's success (many of them!) were all due to Lombardi - and then claim that Favre's single success had nothing to do with Holmgren.
That just doesn't compute.
By the way : why is the notion that Bart Starr could just possible be superior to Brett Favre be so terribly threatening to you?
Is another opinion - one, I may add, based on personal observation of BOTH quarterbacks - so utterly intolerable?
Why is it so important to dance the dogmatic lockstep?

I've dodged this argument; but I think what HW is saying is Favre won with all his coaches. Had a winning record in every season but one.

I honestly have no clue what Starr's record was without Lombardi but now I'm curious.

What was it ?

How many playoff games did he win w/o Vince ?

[texaspackerbacker]

The Packers were 6-7-1. 8-6, and 6-8 in the three Bengtson years--no playoff games, much less wins. The first year after Bengtson--under Devine, Starr only played in four games--his last season.

[Bretsky]

The Packers were 6-7-1. 8-6, and 6-8 in the three Bengtson years--no playoff games, much less wins. The first year after Bengtson--under Devine, Starr only played in four games--his last season.

Thank you for answering my question Tex; I see HW's point

[HarveyWallbangers]

The Packers were 6-7-1. 8-6, and 6-8 in the three Bengtson years--no playoff games, much less wins. The first year after Bengtson--under Devine, Starr only played in four games--his last season.

Thank you for answering my question Tex; I see HW's point

I know the teams before Lombardi were even worse than that, but I wasn't sure what they did immediately after Lombardi left.

Just looked it up: it looks like the Packers went 3-9, 4-8, and 1-10-1 in the 3 years before Lombardi took over (8-27-1).

The Packers went 62-24-4 under Lombardi.

They went 28-48-2 in the three years before and after Lombardi, and Starr was the QB for a majority of that time.

[Bretsky]

The Packers were 6-7-1. 8-6, and 6-8 in the three Bengtson years--no playoff games, much less wins. The first year after Bengtson--under Devine, Starr only played in four games--his last season.

Thank you for answering my question Tex; I see HW's point

I know the teams before Lombardi were even worse than that, but I wasn't sure what they did immediately after Lombardi left.

Just looked it up: it looks like the Packers went 3-9, 4-8, and 1-10-1 in the 3 years before Lombardi took over (8-27-1).

The Packers went 62-24-4 under Lombardi.

They went 28-48-2 in the three years before and after Lombardi, and Starr was the QB for a majority of that time.

Makes sense why the questions were ingnored then

[The Leaper]

You can't claim that Starr's success (many of them!) were all due to Lombardi - and then claim that Favre's single success had nothing to do with Holmgren.

That just doesn't compute.

If you put Holmgren in the same class as Lombardi, only you are the fool.

Holmgren...and for that matter the Packers...would not have won a Super Bowl in the last 15 years without Favre.

Lombardi could've won multiple titles without Starr.