Where does Favre rank among greats? FOX on MSN

[Merlin]

It's nice to know that you realize your perception is limited. #2 behind the NFL's biggest cry baby. The one who without arguably the best offensive line, best WR's, TE and a good RB would be NOTHING. The Bears proved that in the Super Bowl. Manning is a crybaby whiner who was awarded the MVP because the media is a bunch of snot nosed dorks who have no clue what it takes to be a real QB in the NFL.

"Oh shit I caused a fumble, I am the closest one to recovering it. It isn't my fault, think I will run away."

"Oh shit I have pressure, better hit the safety valve before I get injured and ruin my quest to break all records because it's all about me"

"No, my WR's won't be in the hall. I made them and that idiot kicker."

Limited is right...

[VegasPackFan]

Tarkenton's total career is more impressive?

Get a friggin clue, man!

I guess anyone can be a writer these days.

[3irty1]

It's way too soon for Manning to stack up to Favre. I hope we get so see how he fairs someday without being surrounded by weapons especially a 1st ballot HOF WR. Manning has definately changed the game with all the voodoo no huddle crap though. The truth is that until last year Manning was widely considered a choker. Manning has also had the privallage of playing with a very good line and a very diciplined team under Dungy.

Favre has never played with a HOFer on offense. While maybe not the number one quarterback ever, he is definately the most charismatic. He makes his team play at a much higher level.

[vince]

I'm with 4and12.

When you're talking about who's better, by definition, you're comparing them against each other, not against their relative competition. Being the best in one's era doesn't define the greatest ever - even if that person was the greatest in that era by far.

The facts prove that Brett Favre is the greatest quarterback that has ever lived - so far. He is such by ALL meaningful measurements of quarterbacking ability and contribution.

Passing and leadership ability are the only two measures of quarterbacking greatness that matter. Leadership is tougher to measure, but there are good ways to do it. There are also good ways to measure passing ability.

By the time Brett's done, he will own every meaningful passing mark there is. You can say that he also has the strongest arm, the quickest release, or the greatest accuracy, but those measurements in isolation are meanigless. You need them all. Brett has them all to a greater extent than any quarterback ever, and his objective performance statistics bear that out.

But he has more than that. Leadership matters too. Wins and winning percentage are the best ways to measure a quarterback's ability to lead the team toward the goal over time.

The facts show that noone has won more games than Brett Favre, and since he came into the game back in 1992, no team has a higher winning percentage than the Green Bay Packers. Those are undeniable facts.

Super Bowls are too much of an isolated team measurement to be accurate. If Super Bowls were an accurate measurement of quarterbacking greatness, then Trent Dilfer would not have won a Super Bowl and Dan Marino would have. It really isn't any more complicated than that.

There is noone in the league that has earned the respect of his teammates, peers and coaches like Brett Favre. There is no other quarterback in the history of the game who has toughed it out and laced up his shoes for the team as consistently as Brett Favre - no one else is within FIVE AND A HALF YEARS. That too, is leadership embodied.

Noone has passed for as many touchdowns (after Sunday), noone else has led his team to as many wins, and noone else has demonstrated leadership by example by strapping 'em up week in and week out to the extent that Brett Favre has. In fact, the facts prove that it's not even close.

The rest is nothing but fluff and bullshit.

[pbmax]

The facts also prove Favre's INTs look abysmal compared to some of the other QBs in this list. Going by career totals can only be part of the story.

I agree with you that career longetivity is important, because if you are truly playing at an elite level, then you give your team a decided advantage. This may be the case that Favre makes the best.

Tarkenton to me looks like Pete Maravich. He just seemed to play a different game than others at his position when he played. And he did it BEFORE the rule changes for OLine pass blocking and 5 yard bump zones. So his numbers look staggering even before Marino and Favre, like Howe before Gretzky or Ruth before Aaron.

Takenton gives me pause because my memory of him is wild scrambles that often would result in significant yardage loss. The team success seems to me to indicate this wasn't catastrophic, but it seems to me he could put the O in a hole quickly. Maybe Rastak can provide some context.

The facts prove that Brett Favre is the greatest quarterback that has ever lived - so far. He is such by ALL meaningful measurements of quarterbacking ability and contribution.

[pbmax]

Leadership is so vague that it is impossible to measure. I am sure it matters, and his playing streak is a huge example to the rest of the team. But it isn't universal. Just ask Gabe Wilkins how much he took from Favre when he sat himself down in the SB against Denver.

Wins and winning percentage are almost as misleading as Super Bowl wins or appearances. The QB cannot control the quality of his roster. No matter how hard he tries in the off season.

If the QB were the definitive variable in winning, then can I conclude that Favre was horrible to mediocre for the last two years? That's foolishness.

His record is a result of his pass options (improved this year), OLine (improved pass blocking this year), coaching (same, though I am tempted to conclude improved since I don't need to listen to Jags), GM (same guy, but improved D and ST) and opponent defense.

Favre is the same, still great or near great player. His team has improved. You cannot conclude that Favre is the sole difference here.

For the same reason, career winning percentage or even wins, is still only part of the picture.

Passing and leadership ability are the only two measures of quarterbacking greatness that matter. Leadership is tougher to measure, but there are good ways to do it. There are also good ways to measure passing ability....

But he has more than that. Leadership matters too. Wins and winning percentage are the best ways to measure a quarterback's ability to lead the team toward the goal over time....

Super Bowls are too much of an isolated team measurement to be accurate. If Super Bowls were an accurate measurement of quarterbacking greatness, then Trent Dilfer would not have won a Super Bowl and Dan Marino would have. It really isn't any more complicated than that.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The facts also prove Favre's INTs look abysmal compared to some of the other QBs in this list.

Not really. That's what the media will have you believe, but it's not true.

I won't compare him to Manning and Brady yet--because those guys haven't hit the downside of their career. Montana and Young had better interception rates.

Marino and Elway had a slightly better interception rates. Fouts, Tarkenton, Unita, Namath, Bradshaw, and even Starr had a much worse interception rate.

When you consider that Favre's TD rate is much higher than anybody besides Marino, I'll take the interception rate. It's historical low compared to most of the greats. Marino's stats are slighly better--except completion percentage (which Favre is much better in, probably because of the system). However, passer rating doesn't take into account escapability (which Favre was much better in) and other things.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Wins and winning percentage are almost as misleading as Super Bowl wins or appearances. The QB cannot control the quality of his roster. No matter how hard he tries in the off season.

No, but over the course of a 15 year career, things will even out. It's a fantastic record to have. Favre has probably had mostly average talent around him (outside of a 1995-1997), so it's significant.

[Maxie the Taxi]

When you're talking about who's better, by definition, you're comparing them against each other, not against their relative competition. Being the best in one's era doesn't define the greatest ever - even if that person was the greatest in that era by far.

I disagree. If, by "definition," we're comparing one individual's measureables against another's, then "by definition" all we have to do is consult the record book. End of discussion. Mark McGwire is clearly better than Babe Ruth. Warren Spahn is clearly better than Roger Clemmons. Joe Dimaggio is clearly a more consistently better hitter than any player in the modern age.

However, if "by definition" we're comparing one individual's "greatness" with another's I think it's perfectly fair to consider the aspects of greatness within the context of their own eras. Greatness in an athlete, by my definition, doesn't merely revolve the size of a bicep or club head speed.

Is it possible to compare Bobby Jones, Byron Nelson, Ben Hogan and Gene Sarazen with Tiger Woods merely by consulting the record books? In your opinion, yes. In mine, no. To me it's like comparing the Indy race cars of today with the cars of 75 years ago. Clearly, the cars of today are faster and more powerful. Are the drivers of today clearly greater than yesterday's.

[esoxx]

The facts also prove Favre's INTs look abysmal compared to some of the other QBs in this list.

Not really. That's what the media will have you believe, but it's not true.

I won't compare him to Manning and Brady yet--because those guys haven't hit the downside of their career. Montana and Young had better interception rates.

Marino and Elway had a slightly better interception rates. Fouts, Tarkenton, Unita, Namath, Bradshaw, and even Starr had a much worse interception rate.

When you consider that Favre's TD rate is much higher than anybody besides Marino, I'll take the interception rate. It's historical low compared to most of the greats. Marino's stats are slighly better--except completion percentage (which Favre is much better in, probably because of the system). However, passer rating doesn't take into account escapability (which Favre was much better in) and other things.

[The Shadow]

But the Lombardi Packers were so much better than the rest of the league that Starr's job was relatively easy. Favre gets the edge over Starr because he had to carry the Packers on his back in a way that Starr didn't.

Man, this guy doesn't have a clue. I watched every game in the Lombardi era and wins didn't come "easy." There wasn't parity then in the NFL like there is now, but the Packers weren't head and shoulders above the League either. There were many fine, talented teams with many Hall of Fame players, the Baltimore Colts with Johnny Unitis being just one. The difference between the Dallas Cowboys under Landry and the Packers was marginal. The Bears. The Browns. The Giants. They were all talented. There were many games when Starr carried the old Packers. He's got MVP awards to prove it.

Maxie ; You are so correct!
Starr never gets the credit he deserves.

[pbmax]

Harvey, you are right on the rates. Although I would mention that many of the other INT rates were compiled before rules changesin '78.

But vince said any meaningful measurement showed Favre to be the best. INTs or INT rate don't meet his test. This by way of saying you can't simply state that statistics declare Favre to be the best

The facts also prove Favre's INTs look abysmal compared to some of the other QBs in this list.

Not really. That's what the media will have you believe, but it's not true.

I won't compare him to Manning and Brady yet--because those guys haven't hit the downside of their career. Montana and Young had better interception rates.

Marino and Elway had a slightly better interception rates. Fouts, Tarkenton, Unita, Namath, Bradshaw, and even Starr had a much worse interception rate.

When you consider that Favre's TD rate is much higher than anybody besides Marino, I'll take the interception rate. It's historical low compared to most of the greats. Marino's stats are slighly better--except completion percentage (which Favre is much better in, probably because of the system). However, passer rating doesn't take into account escapability (which Favre was much better in) and other things.