Report: Rex Ryan Didn’t Want Favre

[Patler]

But Starr and most other QBs who won multiple SBs had stability at the HC spot. Favre had mediocre HCs after Holgrem left for Seattle. Favre didn't help himself with stupid INTs but he was the type of player who needed a HC who is good with QBs and his play didn't improve until TT brought in MM. Rhodes and Shermy were not the type of coaches a player like Brett needed to bring out the best in him!

Well, throw out the one year under Rhodes, and Favre had just two head coaches over 13 years of his career. That's not too bad.

I agree that many young players need a firm hand as a coach, but should a 10 year vet need the same firm hand? Did Bart Starr require a strong willed HC to continue to bring out the best in him after his career blossomed? Did Unitas or Montana need that? Do Peyton Manning and Tom Brady require the coaches to control them?

By the time Sherman got there, Favre should not have needed controlling. He should have evolved beyond that as a QB.

You have really hit on one of my biggest disappointments in Favre, that even in the late stages of his career he seemed to require a coach that controlled him. For all his ability, his knowledge and recollection, his ability to read defenses, he never became the full extension of the coach on the field because he still needed the coach to control him. Most of the great QBs that I can think of matured out of that as they gained success, and the HC could rely on them to do the right thing at the right time in the way the coach wanted it done. Many Packer fans give Favre a pass for never reaching the highest level of that development stage. I think that prevents him from being considered in the small handful for the very best of all time.

[Gunakor]

Favre single handedly resurrected a franchise gone bad.

I don't mean to nitpick, but it must be noted that Reggie White and Mike Holmgren had as much to do with the ressurection of this franchise as Favre had. In fact, all things considered, I'd say Reggie had more to do with the ressurection than Favre had. Favre had the biggest hand in keeping it that way for nearly 2 decades, but it was the Reggie White signing that made Green Bay an attractive place for vet FA's like Sean Jones and Keith Jackson and Eugene Robinson. Having those veteran players had every bit as much to do with our playoff success and our SB runs in the mid 90's as the HOF'ers Reggie and Brett, if not moreso. And I don't think many of those players would have come here had Reggie not been plucked out of FA to begin with. So if you were to ask me who brought this franchise out of mediocrity and made them title contenders once again, I'd say it's hands down Reggie White.

[Fritz]

Waldo, I believe this was my first "Patlerization".....ah, I remember it fondly now. I was a couple of years ago, when I was a newbie, and I opined that Starr was better than Favre because he didn't throw as many interceptions.

It was Patler, I am pretty sure, who did the research and pointed out to me that (at that time) Starr's interceptions-to-attempts ratio was worse than Favre's...

Fritz;

Something about that doesn't ring quite true. While it is correct that if you look at just interception ratios, Favre might be "more accurate" than Starr was (haven't checked recently), you really have to look at the differences in the game. Starr was considered to be exceptionally accurate in his time. Three times he lead the league in lowest percentage of interceptions. No one would ever accuse Favre of being one of the most accurate in the league while he played.

When Starr played, the controlled passing game of the "West Coast Offense" was not there yet. More importantly, DBs could hit, mug and stay in contact with the receiver until the ball was thrown, not just for 5 yards as today. Pass rushers had many more advantages than today, not the least of which were use of the head slap and being able to hit the QB long after the ball was thrown.

Personally, I would take Starr over Favre just for the fact that Starr never did the dumb thing to take your opportunity away.

It was in that post that I was expressing my opinion that Starr was a better quarterback than Favre, in my opinion. You did not argue that point at the time; you simply corrected my (mistaken) claim that Starr didn't throw as many interceptions as Favre, in terms of ratio.

I still do think, as I did then, that I'd rather have Starr quarterbacking than Favre. Favre could make something out of nothing, but could and did sometimes throw the ball right into the opposing defense's hands. How oftenm did you hear opposing players say that in preparation for Favre, they had to be ready because every game, Favre was going to sling at least one or two right into the defensive back's or linebacker's hands?

Favre was a wonderful quarterback, really wonderful. Given a choice though between the two, I like Starr better.

[Freak Out]

Florio can go fuck himself.

Who cares that Ryan didn't want him? Nobody wanted him and Favre knew it.

Just play some golf and enjoy it Favre.

[cpk1994]

Favre single handedly resurrected a franchise gone bad.

I don't mean to nitpick, but it must be noted that Reggie White and Mike Holmgren had as much to do with the ressurection of this franchise as Favre had. In fact, all things considered, I'd say Reggie had more to do with the ressurection than Favre had. Favre had the biggest hand in keeping it that way for nearly 2 decades, but it was the Reggie White signing that made Green Bay an attractive place for vet FA's like Sean Jones and Keith Jackson and Eugene Robinson. Having those veteran players had every bit as much to do with our playoff success and our SB runs in the mid 90's as the HOF'ers Reggie and Brett, if not moreso. And I don't think many of those players would have come here had Reggie not been plucked out of FA to begin with. So if you were to ask me who brought this franchise out of mediocrity and made them title contenders once again, I'd say it's hands down Reggie White.

But some say that without Favre, GB doesn't get Reggie.

[Patler]

Waldo, I believe this was my first "Patlerization".....ah, I remember it fondly now. I was a couple of years ago, when I was a newbie, and I opined that Starr was better than Favre because he didn't throw as many interceptions.

It was Patler, I am pretty sure, who did the research and pointed out to me that (at that time) Starr's interceptions-to-attempts ratio was worse than Favre's...

Fritz;

Something about that doesn't ring quite true. While it is correct that if you look at just interception ratios, Favre might be "more accurate" than Starr was (haven't checked recently), you really have to look at the differences in the game. Starr was considered to be exceptionally accurate in his time. Three times he lead the league in lowest percentage of interceptions. No one would ever accuse Favre of being one of the most accurate in the league while he played.

When Starr played, the controlled passing game of the "West Coast Offense" was not there yet. More importantly, DBs could hit, mug and stay in contact with the receiver until the ball was thrown, not just for 5 yards as today. Pass rushers had many more advantages than today, not the least of which were use of the head slap and being able to hit the QB long after the ball was thrown.

Personally, I would take Starr over Favre just for the fact that Starr never did the dumb thing to take your opportunity away.

It was in that post that I was expressing my opinion that Starr was a better quarterback than Favre, in my opinion. You did not argue that point at the time; you simply corrected my (mistaken) claim that Starr didn't throw as many interceptions as Favre, in terms of ratio.

I still do think, as I did then, that I'd rather have Starr quarterbacking than Favre. Favre could make something out of nothing, but could and did sometimes throw the ball right into the opposing defense's hands. How oftenm did you hear opposing players say that in preparation for Favre, they had to be ready because every game, Favre was going to sling at least one or two right into the defensive back's or linebacker's hands?

Favre was a wonderful quarterback, really wonderful. Given a choice though between the two, I like Starr better.

Oh, could be. I sometimes am inclined to get a bit nit-picky.

I thought you were suggesting that I argued Favre to be my preferred quarterback. I think I have been fairly consistent in arguing that I prefer Bart Starr. As you said, Favre could make something out of nothing. Unfortunately, too often in his later career, during the playoffs he made nothing out of something.

If I had free choice of a QB, not just a Packer QB, I might just take Joe Montana. Also could make something out of nothing, but also didn't make as many killer mistakes as Favre in the playoffs.

[Gunakor]

Favre single handedly resurrected a franchise gone bad.

I don't mean to nitpick, but it must be noted that Reggie White and Mike Holmgren had as much to do with the ressurection of this franchise as Favre had. In fact, all things considered, I'd say Reggie had more to do with the ressurection than Favre had. Favre had the biggest hand in keeping it that way for nearly 2 decades, but it was the Reggie White signing that made Green Bay an attractive place for vet FA's like Sean Jones and Keith Jackson and Eugene Robinson. Having those veteran players had every bit as much to do with our playoff success and our SB runs in the mid 90's as the HOF'ers Reggie and Brett, if not moreso. And I don't think many of those players would have come here had Reggie not been plucked out of FA to begin with. So if you were to ask me who brought this franchise out of mediocrity and made them title contenders once again, I'd say it's hands down Reggie White.

But some say that without Favre, GB doesn't get Reggie.

They should check thier facts, it was God who told Reggie to come to Green Bay. Favre was still a raw, undisciplined, sandlot QB when Reggie was signed. Not nearly a big enough figure just yet to lure the biggest FA in the history of FA to our small town. But God, on the other hand...

[Patler]

Favre single handedly resurrected a franchise gone bad.

I don't mean to nitpick, but it must be noted that Reggie White and Mike Holmgren had as much to do with the ressurection of this franchise as Favre had. In fact, all things considered, I'd say Reggie had more to do with the ressurection than Favre had. Favre had the biggest hand in keeping it that way for nearly 2 decades, but it was the Reggie White signing that made Green Bay an attractive place for vet FA's like Sean Jones and Keith Jackson and Eugene Robinson. Having those veteran players had every bit as much to do with our playoff success and our SB runs in the mid 90's as the HOF'ers Reggie and Brett, if not moreso. And I don't think many of those players would have come here had Reggie not been plucked out of FA to begin with. So if you were to ask me who brought this franchise out of mediocrity and made them title contenders once again, I'd say it's hands down Reggie White.

But some say that without Favre, GB doesn't get Reggie.

... and without Wolf, they don't get Favre.

[hoosier]

Favre single handedly resurrected a franchise gone bad.

I don't mean to nitpick, but it must be noted that Reggie White and Mike Holmgren had as much to do with the ressurection of this franchise as Favre had. In fact, all things considered, I'd say Reggie had more to do with the ressurection than Favre had. Favre had the biggest hand in keeping it that way for nearly 2 decades, but it was the Reggie White signing that made Green Bay an attractive place for vet FA's like Sean Jones and Keith Jackson and Eugene Robinson. Having those veteran players had every bit as much to do with our playoff success and our SB runs in the mid 90's as the HOF'ers Reggie and Brett, if not moreso. And I don't think many of those players would have come here had Reggie not been plucked out of FA to begin with. So if you were to ask me who brought this franchise out of mediocrity and made them title contenders once again, I'd say it's hands down Reggie White.

But some say that without Favre, GB doesn't get Reggie.

But without Anthony Smith the Packers don't get Favre, so Anthony Smith is the real answer. Who is Anthony Smith?

[Zool]

But without Anthony Smith the Packers don't get Favre, so Anthony Smith is the real answer. Who is Anthony Smith?

The guy the Falcons took with the Favre pick 19th overall.

Notable picks later in the 1st that same year:

20 - Dale Carter
22 - Alonzo Spellman
26 - Robert Porcher
27 - John Fina


Early in the 2nd
31 - Carl Pickens
36 - Jimmy Smith
37 - Darren Woodson
38 - Levon Kirkland

[Fritz]

Waldo, I believe this was my first "Patlerization".....ah, I remember it fondly now. I was a couple of years ago, when I was a newbie, and I opined that Starr was better than Favre because he didn't throw as many interceptions.

It was Patler, I am pretty sure, who did the research and pointed out to me that (at that time) Starr's interceptions-to-attempts ratio was worse than Favre's...

Fritz;

Something about that doesn't ring quite true. While it is correct that if you look at just interception ratios, Favre might be "more accurate" than Starr was (haven't checked recently), you really have to look at the differences in the game. Starr was considered to be exceptionally accurate in his time. Three times he lead the league in lowest percentage of interceptions. No one would ever accuse Favre of being one of the most accurate in the league while he played.

When Starr played, the controlled passing game of the "West Coast Offense" was not there yet. More importantly, DBs could hit, mug and stay in contact with the receiver until the ball was thrown, not just for 5 yards as today. Pass rushers had many more advantages than today, not the least of which were use of the head slap and being able to hit the QB long after the ball was thrown.

Personally, I would take Starr over Favre just for the fact that Starr never did the dumb thing to take your opportunity away.

It was in that post that I was expressing my opinion that Starr was a better quarterback than Favre, in my opinion. You did not argue that point at the time; you simply corrected my (mistaken) claim that Starr didn't throw as many interceptions as Favre, in terms of ratio.

I still do think, as I did then, that I'd rather have Starr quarterbacking than Favre. Favre could make something out of nothing, but could and did sometimes throw the ball right into the opposing defense's hands. How oftenm did you hear opposing players say that in preparation for Favre, they had to be ready because every game, Favre was going to sling at least one or two right into the defensive back's or linebacker's hands?

Favre was a wonderful quarterback, really wonderful. Given a choice though between the two, I like Starr better.

Oh, could be. I sometimes am inclined to get a bit nit-picky.

I thought you were suggesting that I argued Favre to be my preferred quarterback. I think I have been fairly consistent in arguing that I prefer Bart Starr. As you said, Favre could make something out of nothing. Unfortunately, too often in his later career, during the playoffs he made nothing out of something.

If I had free choice of a QB, not just a Packer QB, I might just take Joe Montana. Also could make something out of nothing, but also didn't make as many killer mistakes as Favre in the playoffs.

Nope. Just proudly recounting the first time I was Patlerized!

[Tarlam!]

... and without Wolf, they don't get Favre.

Just trading for a player is a little different than earning 3 consecutive MVPs. Wolf also drafted some bums, so Favre was a coin flip, too IMO.

Reggie hit Favre in a Milwaukee game so hard, he wondered if #4 was out for the game. Favre brushed himself off, laughed out loud and complimented Reggie.

It was that moment that Reggie thought the kid was for real. Favre was the difference and is why he chose the Packers.

The resurrection was on well before Reggie got there.

[Patler]

... and without Wolf, they don't get Favre.

Just trading for a player is a little different than earning 3 consecutive MVPs. Wolf also drafted some bums, so Favre was a coin flip, too IMO.

Reggie hit Favre in a Milwaukee game so hard, he wondered if #4 was out for the game. Favre brushed himself off, laughed out loud and complimented Reggie.

It was that moment that Reggie thought the kid was for real. Favre was the difference and is why he chose the Packers.

The resurrection was on well before Reggie got there.

Well, if White wouldn't have come except for Favre, Favre wouldn't even have been here except for Wolf. So who was responsible for resurrecting the franchise? The answer - Don Majkowski!

First, Don Majkowski did rejuvenate the franchise a lot. Exciting player. Pro-Bowler, lead the league in attempts, completions and yardage. Made lots of plays on his own. A fan favorite at the time. Had almosy a cult following of starts. The Majik Man! BUT tended to get injured, in part due to his all-out style of play.

Wolf liked Majkowski, but didn't feel he could be relied on due to injuries, so he went after Favre.

White because of Favre, Favre because of Wolf, Wolf got Favre because of Majkowski, Majkowski started a resurgence of interest in the Packers and lead to Favre, who lead to White.

Yup, all because of Don Majkowski!

[Waldo]

I totally agree about Majik. The Packers were on the upswing prior to Wolf, Favre, Reggie, all of them. Majik had an aura of excitement, Majik to Sterling put the Packers back on the map, and were really the first ones to give fans a buzz. The Majik led Packers is when I first really got interested in the Packers.

It really took me a while to accept that Brett was in fact better than Majik, it took a few MVP's to convince me, and I really am not all that convinced. If Majik had Brett's heath, that guy could have been a force. When heathy, man he could play, his reckless abandon was every bit as fun as Favre to watch.

[Patler]

I totally agree about Majik. The Packers were on the upswing prior to Wolf, Favre, Reggie, all of them. Majik had an aura of excitement, Majik to Sterling put the Packers back on the map, and were really the first ones to give fans a buzz. The Majik led Packers is when I first really got interested in the Packers.

It really took me a while to accept that Brett was in fact better than Majik, it took a few MVP's to convince me, and I really am not all that convinced. If Majik had Brett's heath, that guy could have been a force. When heathy, man he could play, his reckless abandon was every bit as fun as Favre to watch.

Ya, I know what you mean. It was hard letting Majik go and accepting Favre. We knew what Majik could do. He made the Packers an exciting team. As I said in another post, he was Favre before Favre, but not as healthy.

What Majik meant to the franchise is shown by the fact that he was elected to the Packer HOF in spite of playing in less than 70 games as a Packer, and starting less than 50. He brought excitement back to Lambeau Field.