Top 7 QB's of all time

[The Shadow]

2. Absurd claim. History supports Starr's excellence in big games.
In point of fact, the only time Favre ever got the ultimate job done was when Ron Wolf surrounded him with clearly the most talented team in the league.

I know the nursing home only gives you so much time a day on the computer so I will make it brief. Dont want your eyes to start hurting.

Weren't the Packers the most talented team in the league for a large part of the 60s? Did Starr have a bunch of slouches he was picking up for? Did opponents score immediately after Starr threw a TD?

I didnt exist so I really dont know but if you remember I will be thankful and seriously impressed that you can remember stuff from when you where 50.

Don't make me stop the car, Mad.
Yes, they were a talented team for much of the 60's.
But so were the Packers in 97. They also had talent the years we blew it to Atlanta, blew it to Philly, blew it to the Giants.
Getting your team to the top - success - greatly factors into 'greatness'.

[The Leaper]

1. I suspect you are perhaps are a bit young to have viewed the Ice Bowl performance?

I guess you are perhaps a bit old to recall many of Favre's moments. Yes, Starr came up big in big games. However, he had a ridiculous amount of talent around him and never had to work hard to get to the big games. Starr never faced the physical abuse that Favre endured in his career behind mediocre OLs.

2. Absurd claim. History supports Starr's excellence in big games.

In point of fact, the only time Favre ever got the ultimate job done was when Ron Wolf surrounded him with clearly the most talented team in the league.

So it is your opinion then that the Packers would've won 5 titles in the last 15 years with Starr in place of Favre?

Funny, Bart Starr only won when Lombardi clearly put the most talented team in LEAGUE FUCKING HISTORY, not just one or two years, around him.

Yeah, Bart had a real tough road there. Gee, which HOF caliber person do I hand off to? Gee, which HOF caliber OL player do I run behind?

People like you conveniently forget how BAD Starr was before Lombardi came to town and surrounded him with a ridiculous amount of talent.

[The Shadow]

1. I suspect you are perhaps are a bit young to have viewed the Ice Bowl performance?

I guess you are perhaps a bit old to recall many of Favre's moments. Yes, Starr came up big in big games. However, he had a ridiculous amount of talent around him and never had to work hard to get to the big games. Starr never faced the physical abuse that Favre endured in his career behind mediocre OLs.

2. Absurd claim. History supports Starr's excellence in big games.

In point of fact, the only time Favre ever got the ultimate job done was when Ron Wolf surrounded him with clearly the most talented team in the league.

So it is your opinion then that the Packers would've won 5 titles in the last 15 years with Starr in place of Favre?

Funny, Bart Starr only won when Lombardi clearly put the most talented team in LEAGUE FUCKING HISTORY, not just one or two years, around him.

Yeah, Bart had a real tough road there. Gee, which HOF caliber person do I hand off to? Gee, which HOF caliber OL player do I run behind?

People like you conveniently forget how BAD Starr was before Lombardi came to town and surrounded him with a ridiculous amount of talent.

That is an entirely different category. Who would make THAT team?

[Chester Marcol]

The ole talent level around him argument. Still isn't old, eh? So, per that argument, we were good enough to get to the playoffs all those times, but didn't have talent. We were good enough to get to the championship game at home, but didn't have talent. And then the same argument leads to Favre making the people around him better. He sure made one Giants DB a hero.

I think greatness, in part, can be defined by how you perform when the pressure is on. The playoffs are obviously the best example but the Dallas game is a regular season example of not stepping up when the stakes are high. I'm sorry but after that interception against the Giants, I think that was the perfect play to end his career on. I'm sick of "that's Favre being Favre" with his throw to the tightest covered receiver on the field. That's selfishness or that's not being very good in a big moment. The Eagles playoff loss and this last one sting the most(besides the SB loss) because we had teams that were good enough to compete and win the Super Bowl and Favre had every opportunity to lead his team to victory. Interceptions cost us everytime.

[Patler]

A bit of history from personal observation for those too young to have watched the Packers in the 60s:

1. The Packers of the early 1960s were truly an outstanding team on which Bart Starr played somewhat of a supporting role.

2. The team begin to age around 1965, 1966. While the defense remained strong, the offense transitioned from one that relied on Hornung and Taylor to one that relied on Bart Starr.

3. The "three-peat" was an amazing accomplishment not so much for being 3 in a row as it was for being achieved by an aging team that was nowhere near as good as it had been.

4. During the first two of the "three peat" Jim Taylor was nowhere near the back that he had been, struggling to get 700 yards rushing each season with just over a 3 yard per carry average. Hornung was hurt, played sporadically and lost his starting position to Elijah Pitts. By the season of the third of the three championships, Hornung had retired, Taylor was trying to play in New Orleans and Bart Starr was supported by the likes of Donny Anderson, Ben Wilson and Chuck Mercein. Hardly Hall of Famers.

5. Bart Starr was the MVP of Super Bowls I and II because he earned it. Perhaps especially Super Bowl II. As I mentioned Hornung had retired, Taylor had moved on to New Orleans. The Packers leading rusher that year, Jim Grabowski, was lost to injury midway through the season. Elijah Pitts, their second most experienced and second best back was also injured. Donny Anderson started coming into his own, but really more as a receiver than as a runner. Ben Wilson and Chuck Mercein were brought in to fill the void as best they could.

6. Super Bowl I was played without Boyd Dowler, thus Max McGee became the hero after being a complete non factor during the season. He rarely played.


All in all, the backs Favre had in SBXXXI, Bennett, Levens and Henderson were every bit as good, if not better than the backs Starr had in SBI and SBII. Chmura and Jackson were far better receiving tight ends than was Marv Fleming. With Dowler out in Super Bowl I, the receiver's Favre had compared quite favorably. The defense supporting Favre in SBXXXI was as good as anything Starr had from about '65 on.

This idea that Starr played with a completely dominating team throughout the '60s is wrong. Early they did dominate, but as they aged injuries started to play a significant factor, and the replacements were not nearly as good. At the time of the mid and late '60s, Starr was acknowledged as the key element of the offense.

[Charles Woodson]

The Eagles playoff loss and this last one sting the most(besides the SB loss) because we had teams that were good enough to compete and win the Super Bowl and Favre had every opportunity to lead his team to victory. Interceptions cost us everytime.

Im gana pretend like you know what the fuck your talking about with the '03 Packers. Hmm lets take a look at the game shall we? Favre was over 50% completion percentage, 180yds, 2 TD and 1 Int.
But anytime when Robert Ferguson is your leading reciver theres a problem

Now yes we should have won the game... But should the
defense given up 4th and 26?

Mcnabb ran all over us, 11 rushes for 107 yds. Damn was that Bretts fault too?
how about late in the 2nd quarter when we went for it on the 1 and didnt get it? kick the field goal and we woulda won...
Mcnabb killed us, both times they scored the TD's they drove all through our Defense
Another time Brett had a 40 yd pass that got us to the 7 and we came away with 3 pts.

Yes, the Int hurt but there were bigger things that lead to the losing of the game.[/b]

[The Leaper]

This idea that Starr played with a completely dominating team throughout the '60s is wrong. Early they did dominate, but as they aged injuries started to play a significant factor, and the replacements were not nearly as good. At the time of the mid and late '60s, Starr was acknowledged as the key element of the offense.

The stats tell the truth.

1961 & 1962: Starr averaged just under 21 pass attempts a game.

1965 & 1966: Starr averaged just under 18 pass attempts a game.

How can he attempt 3 fewer passes a game on average, yet be the key element of the offense...as you suggest...compared to 3-4 years before when he was not? Starr's greatest number of attempts per game, which I think is an adequate statistic to measure how much a QB is relied on in the offense, came in 1961-1964...not later on, as you suggest.

As a way of comparison to guys in his era...for those who will argue that you can't compare Favre to Starr...Unitas averaged 25 pass attempts per game during his career as a full-time starter.

That is a startling comparison...Starr averaged 16 pass attempts a game in his career, Unitas averaged 25 pass attempts.

I don't think there is any way that you can honestly claim that Starr was more important to his team than a guy like Unitas. And Favre, like Unitas, carried the offensive load for his team throughout his career on good and bad teams alike...entirely unlike Starr, who was brilliant during the good years, but miserable in the lean ones.

[Chester Marcol]

The Eagles playoff loss and this last one sting the most(besides the SB loss) because we had teams that were good enough to compete and win the Super Bowl and Favre had every opportunity to lead his team to victory. Interceptions cost us everytime.

Im gana pretend like you know what the fuck your talking about with the '03 Packers. Hmm lets take a look at the game shall we? Favre was over 50% completion percentage, 180yds, 2 TD and 1 Int.
But anytime when Robert Ferguson is your leading reciver theres a problem

Now yes we should have won the game... But should the
defense given up 4th and 26?

Mcnabb ran all over us, 11 rushes for 107 yds. Damn was that Bretts fault too?
how about late in the 2nd quarter when we went for it on the 1 and didnt get it? kick the field goal and we woulda won...
Mcnabb killed us, both times they scored the TD's they drove all through our Defense
Another time Brett had a 40 yd pass that got us to the 7 and we came away with 3 pts.

Yes, the Int hurt but there were bigger things that lead to the losing of the game.[/b]

Bigger things that led to losing that game? My memory, aided by the drive chart aka what the fuck I'm talking about, tells me that we were tied in OT with the ball on our own 42 yard line. That's prime field position in OT. We dodged our bullets and yet here we sit 0 to 0, sudden death, on our own 42. A piss away from field goal distance. The great ones elevate their play and find ways to will their team to win. How can that INT not be the biggest factor in us losing when it resulted in the Eagles scoring?

When people talk about Favre with the great ones like Jordan and Woods, the major difference between them and Favre is, Jordan and Woods hit the winning shots. Repeatedly. That's all I'm saying to those that talk about the greatest QB's. That's part of my criteria.

If you want, go ahead and keep blaming others for Favre's lack of playoff success. The fact is, the team made it to the playoffs so they couldn't have been that bad. The Broncos team that beat us in the SB were heavy underdogs for a reason. They just wanted it more and nothing personifies that any more than the spin Elway took. There was a QB who was part of willing that team on to victory. If you watch Favre in the Giants loss, it looked like he wanted to be anywhere but on that field at times.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The Eagles playoff loss and this last one sting the most(besides the SB loss) because we had teams that were good enough to compete and win the Super Bowl and Favre had every opportunity to lead his team to victory. Interceptions cost us everytime.

Im gana pretend like you know what the fuck your talking about with the '03 Packers. Hmm lets take a look at the game shall we? Favre was over 50% completion percentage, 180yds, 2 TD and 1 Int.
But anytime when Robert Ferguson is your leading reciver theres a problem

Now yes we should have won the game... But should the
defense given up 4th and 26?

Mcnabb ran all over us, 11 rushes for 107 yds. Damn was that Bretts fault too?
how about late in the 2nd quarter when we went for it on the 1 and didnt get it? kick the field goal and we woulda won...
Mcnabb killed us, both times they scored the TD's they drove all through our Defense
Another time Brett had a 40 yd pass that got us to the 7 and we came away with 3 pts.

Yes, the Int hurt but there were bigger things that lead to the losing of the game.[/b]

Bigger things that led to losing that game? My memory, aided by the drive chart aka what the fuck I'm talking about, tells me that we were tied in OT with the ball on our own 42 yard line. That's prime field position in OT. We dodged our bullets and yet here we sit 0 to 0, sudden death, on our own 42. A piss away from field goal distance. The great ones elevate their play and find ways to will their team to win. How can that INT not be the biggest factor in us losing when it resulted in the Eagles scoring?

When people talk about Favre with the great ones like Jordan and Woods, the major difference between them and Favre is, Jordan and Woods hit the winning shots. Repeatedly. That's all I'm saying to those that talk about the greatest QB's. That's part of my criteria.

If you want, go ahead and keep blaming others for Favre's lack of playoff success. The fact is, the team made it to the playoffs so they couldn't have been that bad. The Broncos team that beat us in the SB were heavy underdogs for a reason. They just wanted it more and nothing personifies that any more than the spin Elway took. There was a QB who was part of willing that team on to victory. If you watch Favre in the Giants loss, it looked like he wanted to be anywhere but on that field at times.

Comparing Favre to Woods or Jordan is just dumb..on YOUR PART.

Unless Favre can complete a pass to himself he relies on others to pass black, run correct routes, and a catch the ball.

From what i've seen in bball and golf...you don't rely on anybody once the ball leaves your hand/club.

[The Shadow]

The ole talent level around him argument. Still isn't old, eh? So, per that argument, we were good enough to get to the playoffs all those times, but didn't have talent. We were good enough to get to the championship game at home, but didn't have talent. And then the same argument leads to Favre making the people around him better. He sure made one Giants DB a hero.

I think greatness, in part, can be defined by how you perform when the pressure is on. The playoffs are obviously the best example but the Dallas game is a regular season example of not stepping up when the stakes are high. I'm sorry but after that interception against the Giants, I think that was the perfect play to end his career on. I'm sick of "that's Favre being Favre" with his throw to the tightest covered receiver on the field. That's selfishness or that's not being very good in a big moment. The Eagles playoff loss and this last one sting the most(besides the SB loss) because we had teams that were good enough to compete and win the Super Bowl and Favre had every opportunity to lead his team to victory. Interceptions cost us everytime.

A voice of reason. It is too often drowned out by emotion.

[The Shadow]

A bit of history from personal observation for those too young to have watched the Packers in the 60s:

1. The Packers of the early 1960s were truly an outstanding team on which Bart Starr played somewhat of a supporting role.

2. The team begin to age around 1965, 1966. While the defense remained strong, the offense transitioned from one that relied on Hornung and Taylor to one that relied on Bart Starr.

3. The "three-peat" was an amazing accomplishment not so much for being 3 in a row as it was for being achieved by an aging team that was nowhere near as good as it had been.

4. During the first two of the "three peat" Jim Taylor was nowhere near the back that he had been, struggling to get 700 yards rushing each season with just over a 3 yard per carry average. Hornung was hurt, played sporadically and lost his starting position to Elijah Pitts. By the season of the third of the three championships, Hornung had retired, Taylor was trying to play in New Orleans and Bart Starr was supported by the likes of Donny Anderson, Ben Wilson and Chuck Mercein. Hardly Hall of Famers.

5. Bart Starr was the MVP of Super Bowls I and II because he earned it. Perhaps especially Super Bowl II. As I mentioned Hornung had retired, Taylor had moved on to New Orleans. The Packers leading rusher that year, Jim Grabowski, was lost to injury midway through the season. Elijah Pitts, their second most experienced and second best back was also injured. Donny Anderson started coming into his own, but really more as a receiver than as a runner. Ben Wilson and Chuck Mercein were brought in to fill the void as best they could.

6. Super Bowl I was played without Boyd Dowler, thus Max McGee became the hero after being a complete non factor during the season. He rarely played.


All in all, the backs Favre had in SBXXXI, Bennett, Levens and Henderson were every bit as good, if not better than the backs Starr had in SBI and SBII. Chmura and Jackson were far better receiving tight ends than was Marv Fleming. With Dowler out in Super Bowl I, the receiver's Favre had compared quite favorably. The defense supporting Favre in SBXXXI was as good as anything Starr had from about '65 on.

This idea that Starr played with a completely dominating team throughout the '60s is wrong. Early they did dominate, but as they aged injuries started to play a significant factor, and the replacements were not nearly as good. At the time of the mid and late '60s, Starr was acknowledged as the key element of the offense.

Another balanced perspective.
Another poster doomed to be pursued by torchbearing Packer Nation villagers wearing lederhosen.

[Chester Marcol]

The Eagles playoff loss and this last one sting the most(besides the SB loss) because we had teams that were good enough to compete and win the Super Bowl and Favre had every opportunity to lead his team to victory. Interceptions cost us everytime.

Im gana pretend like you know what the fuck your talking about with the '03 Packers. Hmm lets take a look at the game shall we? Favre was over 50% completion percentage, 180yds, 2 TD and 1 Int.
But anytime when Robert Ferguson is your leading reciver theres a problem

Now yes we should have won the game... But should the
defense given up 4th and 26?

Mcnabb ran all over us, 11 rushes for 107 yds. Damn was that Bretts fault too?
how about late in the 2nd quarter when we went for it on the 1 and didnt get it? kick the field goal and we woulda won...
Mcnabb killed us, both times they scored the TD's they drove all through our Defense
Another time Brett had a 40 yd pass that got us to the 7 and we came away with 3 pts.

Yes, the Int hurt but there were bigger things that lead to the losing of the game.[/b]

Bigger things that led to losing that game? My memory, aided by the drive chart aka what the fuck I'm talking about, tells me that we were tied in OT with the ball on our own 42 yard line. That's prime field position in OT. We dodged our bullets and yet here we sit 0 to 0, sudden death, on our own 42. A piss away from field goal distance. The great ones elevate their play and find ways to will their team to win. How can that INT not be the biggest factor in us losing when it resulted in the Eagles scoring?

When people talk about Favre with the great ones like Jordan and Woods, the major difference between them and Favre is, Jordan and Woods hit the winning shots. Repeatedly. That's all I'm saying to those that talk about the greatest QB's. That's part of my criteria.

If you want, go ahead and keep blaming others for Favre's lack of playoff success. The fact is, the team made it to the playoffs so they couldn't have been that bad. The Broncos team that beat us in the SB were heavy underdogs for a reason. They just wanted it more and nothing personifies that any more than the spin Elway took. There was a QB who was part of willing that team on to victory. If you watch Favre in the Giants loss, it looked like he wanted to be anywhere but on that field at times.

Comparing Favre to Woods or Jordan is just dumb..on YOUR PART.

Unless Favre can complete a pass to himself he relies on others to pass black, run correct routes, and a catch the ball.

From what i've seen in bball and golf...you don't rely on anybody once the ball leaves your hand/club.

I'll give you that. However, on the picture that was taken just as Favre released the interception pass against the Giants(which was posted in a thread here) he had more open options. In that respect, it has nothing to do with anyone else but Favre. And that problem plagued him throughout his career and has been complained about here.

[Patler]

Leaper;

Looking at attempts per game in isolation is fairly meaning less. Let's look at what carried the offense of the Packers in the '60s:

In 1961, '62 & '63 the Packers averaged 168 yards rushing per game and 172 yards passing per game.

In 1965, '66 & 67 they averaged 120 yards per game rushing and 168 yards per game passing.

Rushing dropped 50 yards per game, passing decreased 4 yards per game. They changed from a team that achieved success offensively primarily by the success of Taylor, Hornung and Tom Moore running the ball to a team that achieved success offensively primarily by Starr. They got passing yards in '61-'63 on the tails of the running game with Taylor and others averaging 5+ yards/carry each season. In 65-67 they got passing yards on the skill of Bart Starr and a running game with most principal ball carriers averaging well under 4 yards/carry.

The team changed significantly from 1960-1964 to 1965-1967. In the early years, you didn't even think much about the passing game. In the later years most every significant play on offense was from Starr. The running game was very ho-hum

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The Eagles playoff loss and this last one sting the most(besides the SB loss) because we had teams that were good enough to compete and win the Super Bowl and Favre had every opportunity to lead his team to victory. Interceptions cost us everytime.

Im gana pretend like you know what the fuck your talking about with the '03 Packers. Hmm lets take a look at the game shall we? Favre was over 50% completion percentage, 180yds, 2 TD and 1 Int.
But anytime when Robert Ferguson is your leading reciver theres a problem

Now yes we should have won the game... But should the
defense given up 4th and 26?

Mcnabb ran all over us, 11 rushes for 107 yds. Damn was that Bretts fault too?
how about late in the 2nd quarter when we went for it on the 1 and didnt get it? kick the field goal and we woulda won...
Mcnabb killed us, both times they scored the TD's they drove all through our Defense
Another time Brett had a 40 yd pass that got us to the 7 and we came away with 3 pts.

Yes, the Int hurt but there were bigger things that lead to the losing of the game.[/b]

Bigger things that led to losing that game? My memory, aided by the drive chart aka what the fuck I'm talking about, tells me that we were tied in OT with the ball on our own 42 yard line. That's prime field position in OT. We dodged our bullets and yet here we sit 0 to 0, sudden death, on our own 42. A piss away from field goal distance. The great ones elevate their play and find ways to will their team to win. How can that INT not be the biggest factor in us losing when it resulted in the Eagles scoring?

When people talk about Favre with the great ones like Jordan and Woods, the major difference between them and Favre is, Jordan and Woods hit the winning shots. Repeatedly. That's all I'm saying to those that talk about the greatest QB's. That's part of my criteria.

If you want, go ahead and keep blaming others for Favre's lack of playoff success. The fact is, the team made it to the playoffs so they couldn't have been that bad. The Broncos team that beat us in the SB were heavy underdogs for a reason. They just wanted it more and nothing personifies that any more than the spin Elway took. There was a QB who was part of willing that team on to victory. If you watch Favre in the Giants loss, it looked like he wanted to be anywhere but on that field at times.

Comparing Favre to Woods or Jordan is just dumb..on YOUR PART.

Unless Favre can complete a pass to himself he relies on others to pass black, run correct routes, and a catch the ball.

From what i've seen in bball and golf...you don't rely on anybody once the ball leaves your hand/club.

I'll give you that. However, on the picture that was taken just as Favre released the interception pass against the Giants(which was posted in a thread here) he had more open options. In that respect, it has nothing to do with anyone else but Favre. And that problem plagued him throughout his career and has been complained about here.

The issue of that throw wasn't the choice..it was a bad throw. Even jordan missed the basket 50% of the time, wasn't a 100% free throw shooter, and Tiger certainly doesn't hole in one/birdie every hole.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Leaper;

Looking at attempts per game in isolation is fairly meaning less. Let's look at what carried the offense of the Packers in the '60s:

In 1961, '62 & '63 the Packers averaged 168 yards rushing per game and 172 yards passing per game.

In 1965, '66 & 67 they averaged 120 yards per game rushing and 168 yards per game passing.

Rushing dropped 50 yards per game, passing decreased 4 yards per game. They changed from a team that achieved success offensively primarily by the success of Taylor, Hornung and Tom Moore running the ball to a team that achieved success offensively primarily by Starr. They got passing yards in '61-'63 on the tails of the running game with Taylor and others averaging 5+ yards/carry each season. In 65-67 they got passing yards on the skill of Bart Starr and a running game with most principal ball carriers averaging well under 4 yards/carry.

The team changed significantly from 1960-1964 to 1965-1967. In the early years, you didn't even think much about the passing game. In the later years most every significant play on offense was from Starr. The running game was very ho-hum

Patler,

He still had a great line, and most importantly had continuity in regards to coaching.

Vince...or Shermie, Walrus, RR, MM....i think at this point only one of those coaches can even be mentioned in the same paragraph as Vince..and he left right in Brett's prime.