Report: Rex Ryan Didn’t Want Favre

[Partial]

I would be curious as to what they are throughout his career, and what other QBs numbers are whom play in the cold (IE. Chicago, NY, Buffalo, etc)

[Patler]

I would be curious as to what they are throughout his career, and what other QBs numbers are whom play in the cold (IE. Chicago, NY, Buffalo, etc)

Just go to nfl.com, pick the players besides Favre that you want to consider, and look at the game logs for the seasons you are interested in. They come up in a nice chart for the whole season, game by game.

Share your results with us. Could be a good discussion.

[texaspackerbacker]

Imagine, this could have been OUR problem--coaxing Favre to answer the call one more time --age 40, $13 million, sore shoulder, and all--or go with Brohm or Flynn--because Aaron Rodgers would have been long gone.

Be Careful what you wish for ........

Or maybe we would have brought in Jeff George (see today's Yahoo news).

[The Shadow]

Re: Nope

I wonder if Favre did try to unretire *again* the chances of Goodell just telling him to cut this out an not sign the retirement papers. He pretty much has to sign them by the league rules, but Goodell is a trailblazer. After last year, Favre's waffle house and annual fade down the stretch might hurt the NFL brand more than Favre's legacy and good early season would help it.

annual fade? Don't you think thats a bit harsh and just straight up wrong? He was hurt last year. Two years ago, he played quite well taking his team to the championship game.

It will probably be a long time before we sniff a championship game again, so show some respect for the greatest player in franchise history.

Young 'uns.

Starr, Hutson > Favre.

I would beg to differ depending on your criteria. Let me first state that I am without a doubt, the biggest Bart Starr fan on the planet. No classier individual has EVER been born than Mr Starr. Also, he was without a doubt, the most intelligent QB to ever play the game.

That said, he played on teams full of all-pros. He played for the greatest coach who ever walked the sidelines.

Favre played for one good coach, then played for an idiot and then for a guy who is and was learning on the job. He had less than stellar players around him more often than not.

Favre took a franchise that was DEAD. It had NO HEART or SOUL. Any honest Packer fan would admit that it was downright EMBARRASSING being a Packer fan in the 70's and 80's. Favre gave us PRIDE. He made Sunday's fun again. We always thought there was a chance with #04. Just because there are a lot of ungrateful clowns who dis-respect and take for granted what he did, does'nt make his impact any less.

Hutson played in game that was totally different from what the NFL evolved into in the 60's. It's tough to measure the effects of the old timers and compare them to what we have now.

Um, you seem to forget that the ONLY time Favre ever won a championship is when Ron Wolf surrounded him with easily the best talent in the NFL. The next year, with virtually the same talent, an inferior Broncos team won.
The truly great quarterbacks harness the talent around them to get the most from their teams.

[RashanGary]

Favre = overrated.


Big numbers over long career (moon/marino). Same number of rings as Dilfer and Brad Johnson.

[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...

[Lurker64]

Favre = overrated.


Big numbers over long career (moon/marino). Same number of rings as Dilfer and Brad Johnson.

Sure was fun to watch though, during his prime (and even in 2007). You have to give him that.

[The Shadow]

Favre = overrated.


Big numbers over long career (moon/marino). Same number of rings as Dilfer and Brad Johnson.

Sure was fun to watch though, during his prime (and even in 2007). You have to give him that.

I much prefer nice old boring championships.

[RashanGary]

Favre = overrated.


Big numbers over long career (moon/marino). Same number of rings as Dilfer and Brad Johnson.

Sure was fun to watch though, during his prime (and even in 2007). You have to give him that.

I much prefer nice old boring championships.

I really only remember the last 17 years or so really well (Favre era) and I haven't seen many of those in GB over the last couple decades. I'd be happy as hell to win some good, old fashioned, boring championships. Hopefully Rodgers brings some consistent (not game losing INT) football.

[cpk1994]

Favre = overrated.


Big numbers over long career (moon/marino). Same number of rings as Dilfer and Brad Johnson.

Sure was fun to watch though, during his prime (and even in 2007). You have to give him that.

I much prefer nice old boring championships.

Bart Starr was very adept at getting those. It comes down to championships. Starr is > Favre in that one and is why he goes down as the greatest player of all time for the Packers IMO.

[Pugger]

Yes, Hudson played in a different era, but that gentleman changed the game forever with his play. He held onto scores of individual records that were only broken after many decades and after they added more games to each season. Plus he won a few championships of his own. These reasons are why I think Hudson was the greatest player to ever play for the Pack.

[bobblehead]

I would be curious as to what they are throughout his career, and what other QBs numbers are whom play in the cold (IE. Chicago, NY, Buffalo, etc)

Just go to nfl.com, pick the players besides Favre that you want to consider, and look at the game logs for the seasons you are interested in. They come up in a nice chart for the whole season, game by game.

Share your results with us. Could be a good discussion.

Can we start with ARod?

[bobblehead]

Favre = overrated.


Big numbers over long career (moon/marino). Same number of rings as Dilfer and Brad Johnson.

Sure was fun to watch though, during his prime (and even in 2007). You have to give him that.

Yea, in 2007 he was awesome for most of the season. '08 was the first time I DIDN'T want him to retire....and of course he did.

[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.

[The Shadow]

[quote="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.[/quote]

After having had the opportunity to watch both, I agree.