a Viking blog, but not just
Super Bowls won by Brett Favre - OneSuper Bowls won by Minnesota Vikings - Zero.Enough said.
Alex is a smart guy! What an great comparison. Brett Farve did it all himself? I would say the last 6 years he was a bigger liability than he was a positive player. Glad he is done cuz he was done about 3 years ago.
Did Favre do it all himself? Of course not - but he was a large part of it. Take a look at the Packers record for the 10 seasons before he played for the Packers. Then look at it after. Enough said.In Favre's 16 seasons with Green Bay, they had 1 losing season (when half their offense was injured for most of the season). The Packers first season without him? They have a losing season. Hell, even the Jets improved from 4-12 to 9-7 under him. No player in the last 20 years has had the positive impact Favre has had on his teamsYes, his last year wasn't great "anonymous", but look at his last season in Green Bay in 2007 - a 13-3 record, 95 passing rating. Yes, he definately was "done" in 2007. I'm sure you wish your team had a quarterback who was "done" like Favre was in 2007. He is a hell of a better quarterback than the Vikings ever have had.
"No player in the last 20 years has had the positive impact Favre has had on his teams"Peyton Manning? Jerry Rice? Emmitt Smith? I don't know much about NFL history, but those are three that come to mind.
One thing about assessing Favre: I think if you only consider Favre's positive plays, then Favre is the greatest QB ever. So if you think back, subjectively remembering or focusing on all the amazing throws he made, the great wins he pulled out, the great numbers he put up, you'll think of him as the greatest ever.But Favre also made a very high number of negative plays: terrible throws into coverage, interceptions in the end zone, playoff games lost with horrible interceptions. So if you subjectively remember or focus on the negative, he's an overrated media hype.Some of the statistical metrics that transcend our subjective focus have found his numbers mostly lacking for several years. He made a great number of positive plays, maybe more than any QB ever--but he also hurt his team with a lot of bad plays. I recall a lot of red zone interceptions, a lot of interceptions returned for touchdowns, and several playoff losses featuring terrible interceptions.
Alex is an idiot! Look at the Packers record the 10 years before Farve? Did they only bring in the great Brett Farve? You sound like John Madden in his unending love for Farve. The franchise added players and coaches to make it better. He was a piece of their offense. To say the biggest impact in 20 years shows how little you actually know about pro football. Have to quit reading his comments or maybe keep reading them so I feel smarter!
By the way, J'rod nailed the three players I'd point out. Jerry Rice was responsible for three different quarterbacks winning five MVPs. Peyton Manning's teams have averaged 10.5 wins per year with him as starter (I think Favre has a similar average). Emmitt Smith was drafted by a 1-15 team and became the best player on a three-time champion (the first Rushing Leader to win a Super Bowl--and he did it three times).
Manning has had two (at least) losing seasons. Plus look at the number one picks he has with him on offense - Harrison, Wayne, Clark, Addai and now Gonzalez. He has been given more help on offense than arguably any Quasterback in the last 10 years. Hell, give Tavarias Jackson those players and he would probably be a top 10 quarterback.Emmitt didn't help the Cardinals to a wining record in his 2 seasons there. While In Dallas he had 2 Hall of Famers playing with him - Aikman and Irvin. Take those away and the team wouldn't have gone anywhere near as good.Rice - Yes, in my haste I forget about him. His impact is the equal of Favre. Still, look at some of the Hall of Famer he had with him - Joe Montana, Steve Young and Tim Brown.Look at the players who have left playing Green Bay and see their impact - Edgar Bennett, Dorsey Levens, Ahman Green, Robert Brooks, Antonio Freeman, Corey Bradford, Bill Schroeder, Javon Walker. How many of them are hall of famers? 0. How many have had 1,000 yard season after leaving playing with Favre. 1 - Javon Walker, who has now flamed out. The only potential hall of Famer Favre had as a receiver/runner was Sterling Sharpe - yet this was before Favre was in his prime.And yes, Favre may have made some bad decisions at times - but those were more than compensated for. For every game he may have cost Green Bay, he won them many more. Not only that, if it wasn't for Favre putting the team in the position to win the game, he couldn't have "cost" them the games you are referring to. Funny isn't it - it's a team game game when Green Bay wins with Favre so he doesn't deserve all the credit, but when Green Bay loses with Favre he alone is to blame. Remember 2 of those playoff losses. He had put Green Bay in a position to win those games for the Packers, yet the defense failed. 4th and 26 against the Eagles, and Poppinga being unable to fall on a fumble against the Giants. On, and "anonymous", you have made no arguments to support your case, because you lack the intelligence to do so.Learn to write your name and then you can think about criticising other's intelligence. Until then, go learn to count to 11 so you can count your 11 webbed-toes. And be jealous that your team never has had and never will have a player as good as Favre.
joe fischer said...Alex, you seem willing to use "X players helped Manning/Smith/Rice," but unwilling to use the corrolary: "Manning/Smith/Rice helped X players." Again, it's pretty subjective which direction you want to take this line of argument--you can go either way to argue what you already wanted to believe. The "Manning has two losing seasons" argument is pretty lousy, considering he was drafted by a 3-13 team and started as a rookie. If Favre had started as a rookie on a team that went 3-13 the season before, I suspect he'd have one more losing season too. You can also set up this argument to prove which angle you want to believe--if you include .500 seasons, the argument changes a bit.You've also got a subjective argument regarding Favre's mistakes and Packer losses. Certainly it is a team game--but Favre's dreadful heave overtime interception against the Eagles contributed greatly to his team's loss to the Eagles, and another overtime INT contributed greatly to his team's loss to the Giants. They didn't cost the team the game more than previous team errors, but they were costly errors contributing to a team loss. My argument was that we can subjectively choose how we see Favre BECAUSE he made more positive plays than any QB ever--so if you want to ignore, or explain away, or downplay his errors, you're left with the greatest ever.Your "if it wasn't for Favre putting the team in the position to win the game, he couldn't have "cost" them the games you are referring to" also cuts both ways. He has a lot of fourth quarter comebacks that didn't need to be fourth quarter comebacks--if it wasn't for Favre putting the team in the position to lose the game, he couldn't have "saved" the games yada yada yada." Again, your argument is a subjective one that can easily be flipped around.It's absurd to hold Emmitt Smith's last two years against him. A RB's prime of his career is much, much shorter than a QB's. That Emmitt wasn't that good 7-8 years past his prime does nothing to negate the fact that he was arguably the best player in football from 91-95 (by the way, just like anything Favre has done recently doesn't negate the fact that he was arguably the best player in football from 95-97).Basically, I think most of your arguments are subjectively driven--they're generic, unfalsifiable, unprovable arguments that can altered depending on who is making the argument. They're not really proving anything: for somebody arguing Favre's greatness, the arguments are convincing, but for somebody arguing against Favre's greatness, the same arguments can be flipped.
Your arguments are just as subjectively driven as mine - maybe even more so because you are a Vikings fan who has seen the success of Favre and Packers in comparison to how your Vikings have done in the same time.However this is natural as ANY such argument is subjective. If there was a totally objective way of analysing an NFL players greatness, there would be a definitive answer that you or I could point to and we wouldn't be ahving this discussion. The fact that I can make a strong argument based on stats and history points to the possibility that he is as great as I (and others) say. I mean, there is no legitimate way that one could argue that Dante Culpepper has had the greatest impact on their team of any player in the last 20 years. So yes, whether one accepts that Favre is as great as I say will depend on your point of view. But as I said, the fact that the arguments can be made suggest that it is a possibility. Joe Montana was a great player before Rice arrived. Did having Rice help? Of course, but he was a great before Rice came along. Steve Young, Troy Aikman, Michael Irvin, Tim Brown, Marvin Harrison and even possibly Edgerrin James are hall of famers or potential hall of famers. Having great players with them helped them, but they are all recognised as greats in their own right. The same isn't said about Antonio Freeman, Edgar Bennet, Bill Schroeder etc in the same way it isn't said about Mark Duper when one talks about Dan Marino. Favre made his team-mates much better than they were - he turned ordinary/good players into good/very good players. Rice, Emmitt and Manning may have helped their team-mates, but it was just as much of a 2 way street- they were helped in return, because these player were great players too.You say it is unfair to point to Manning's losing rookie season given the colts were 3 and 13 the year before. However the year before Favre came to the Packers, they were only 4 and 12! So I believe it is reasonable to look at Manning's first season with the Colts and point to his failure because when Favre came to the Packers there were in a similar state, yet he was able to lead them to a winning record. On top of that the Packers has only had 3 winning seasons in the last 17 years!Emmitt was a great player - but Barry Sanders was a better player, I would argue even in the years 1991 to 1995 (and someone who I believe was better than Manning, and the equal of Rice). But again, follow your own line of argument - if Emmitt's later years shouldn't be held against him when considering his greatnees, shouldn't that also apply to Favre? On top of that Favre was supposedly way past his prime in 2007, yet look at his season. Nothing Emmitt did in his later years match up to that. As for the arguments about whether Favre cost the team a game orput them in a position to win a game , did Favre set up the victories only to have the defnse put them into a position to lose or did he just outright cost them the game etc. You have your subjective view, I have my subjective view, I don't know if there is much point in rehashing them other than to reiterate that Favre's mistakes were more than outweighed by his production. Did he make more mistakes than some other great players? Possibly. But then again he also did more on the field to help his team than those other great players, so that even subtracting his negatives, he still did more for more his team than Emmitt, Manning and at least as much, maybe more, than Rice. However I am intrigued by your statement "He has a lot of fourth quarter comebacks that didn't need to be fourth quarter comebacks--if it wasn't for Favre putting the team in the position to lose the game, he couldn't have "saved"". If there were "a lot" of these types of games, why didn't you name them? I suspect because you are making a general statement to support your case without actually having evidence to back this up. I could be wrong though.However, let's assume that this is right - that Favre was largely to blame for putting his team in a hole he then had to dig them out of - isn't the flipside to this that Favre should receive most of the credit for those much more numerous games where the Packers won without having to come back from a hole in the fourth quarter?So yes, my arguments are subjective - but so are yours. The fact that mine could legitimatly be made indicate that it is possible that in the last 20 years has had the positive impact Favre has had on his teams is true.
Since my precise argument was that these are subjective arguments that can be used either way, and that the arguments are used to confirm what the arguer already believes and wanted to believe, then yes, I concede my arguments are subjective (though why a Viking fan's arguments are more subjective than a Packer fan's arguments, I don't know).There are objective measures (stats), but even those have caveats (team context, debate about which stats matter).A couple specific notes:"if Emmitt's later years shouldn't be held against him when considering his greatnees, shouldn't that also apply to Favre?"Perhaps you could read my own words closer:"by the way, just like anything Favre has done recently doesn't negate the fact that he was arguably the best player in football from 95-97""If there were "a lot" of these types of games, why didn't you name them? I suspect because you are making a general statement to support your case without actually having evidence to back this up. I could be wrong though."I'm not the first to make this observation: Bill Simmons also pointed it out earlier this season (in relation to Favre's comeback against the terrible Chiefs, a comeback that was necessary because an earlier Favre INT was returned for a touchdown).But I've had the same subjective arguments about Favre for years, and I'm exhausted by it. Let me sum up: Favre made more positive plays than any QB ever (thus most TDs ever), but he also made a great many negative plays (thus most INTs ever), and thus the subjective viewer can make contrary claims about Favre and find evidence for his/her view (and firmly believe his/her view).Would it be easier if I just said "Favre sucks!!! He throws so many interceptions!!!" or "Favre is Amazing!!! He's the best ever!!!"? Or maybe, following the rhetoric of great witticism, something like "Favre is the all-time INT leader. Enough said."
As well as the all time TD leader, passing yardage leader, wins by a QB leader etc. There is argument and counter-argument, yes.Your comments (in support of another) were that Emmitt had a greater impact on his team than Favre and that Favre's "mistakes" impacted upon his greatness. When I pointed out that some of Emmitt's seasons left a lot to be desired you said Emmitt's later years shouldn't be held against him and negate his glory days. As I said, the same applies to Favre - some average seasons don't take away from his greatness."in relation to Favre's comeback against the terrible Chiefs, a comeback that was necessary because an earlier Favre INT was returned for a touchdown"Yes, but quarterbacks do this all the time - the great one's, like Favre, can often overcome this and lead their team to victory.I don't believe that a Viking fan's views are more subjective than a Packer's, though I would suspect that they are more subjecive than say a Raider fan's views, given that Favre played in the same division for 16 years as the Vikings.Yes, I have my views, you have yours. We both can put forwardarguments to support our views, which we have done. I suspect however that neither of us will convince the other!
PV admitted early on that each side can make a case for Favre. That's the point.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Actually J'rod he didn't. His main case was initially that Favre's negatives countered many of his positives. Go read his first 2 comments
Actually Alex, I did. Look at my first comment in this thread.Paragraph one: "So if you think back, subjectively remembering or focusing on all the amazing throws he made, the great wins he pulled out, the great numbers he put up, you'll think of him as the greatest ever."Paragraph two: "So if you subjectively remember or focus on the negative, he's an overrated media hype."And at no point did I contend that the negatives outweigh the positives--my point was more subtle than you've glossed it there. I contended that because Favre made more positive plays than anybody, if you ignore, explain away, or downplay the negatives, you're left with the greatest QB ever.I don't wish to continue an argument, but if you ignore, misunderstand, or willfully misread what I actually write, I feel compelled to correct and clarify.
No where did you acknowledge in your early posts did you acknowledge you believed that Favre could be the player in the last 20 years who has had the most positive impact on his teams. Even though you said some people would argue this, you were dismissive of this. Instead you focused on his negatives:"Some of the statistical metrics that transcend our subjective focus have found his numbers mostly lacking for several years. He made a great number of positive plays, maybe more than any QB ever--but he also hurt his team with a lot of bad plays. I recall a lot of red zone interceptions, a lot of interceptions returned for touchdowns, and several playoff losses featuring terrible interceptions."This was after you said that you can are two sides to the arguement - that while some people may argue for the greatness of his impact, this isn't an accurate reflection of his play, with it's many negatives. Acknowledging there are 2 sides to the argument doesn't necessarily mean you acknowledge the vailidity of both sides. This is especially so when you clearly demonstrate your beliefs one way or the other after acknowledging the 2 sides, like you did.Your wording I quoted above is quite clear - that his negatives negated many of his positives. (and read what I wrote - I didn't say you said that the negatives outweigh the positives, I said that you said the negatives outweigh many of his positives. These mean two different things) This is clearly what you meant when you said "He made a great number of positive plays, maybe more than any QB ever--but he also hurt his team with a lot of bad plays."Here you weren't saying he might or mightn't be the player in the last 20 years who has had the most positive impact on his teams. You were indicating that according to you believed this was not the case. So while you acknowledge there are 2 sides to the argument, you didn't acknowledge the vailidity of both sides.Thus I believe (and you may disagree!) that I was correct when I said "His main case was initially that Favre's negatives countered many of his positives".
J'Rod did not say that I admitted the validity of both sides--he merely said I "admitted" that each side "can" make a case for Favre. No, I never said I accept the validity of both sides--and J'Rod didn't claim I did. And I didn't realize that in order to do so, I would have to "acknowledge [I] believed that Favre could be the player in the last 20 years who has had the most positive impact on his teams." That's a pretty specific claim.Look, I've had so many arguments regarding Favre that I see points and counterpoints steps ahead. "Look, after Favre left, the Packers went from 13-3 to 6-10." "Oh, to counter that, Favre and Rodgers had nearly identical numbers--the change in record was because of the defense." "Ah, to counter that, Favre was 'clutch' in the close games, and Rodgers wasn't 'clutch' in the close games." I get it. Round and round it goes. You think I'm overemphasizing the negative, I think you're too quickly dismissive of the negative. Sometimes I'm willing to play the game. But if I'm going to play the game, I don't want to have to correct misrepresentations of what I've said.And when I write something like:"That Emmitt wasn't that good 7-8 years past his prime does nothing to negate the fact that he was arguably the best player in football from 91-95 (by the way, just like anything Favre has done recently doesn't negate the fact that he was arguably the best player in football from 95-97)."And you respond by with this:"But again, follow your own line of argument - if Emmitt's later years shouldn't be held against him when considering his greatnees, shouldn't that also apply to Favre?"I'm not sure you're really even trying to recognize what I'm saying.
I hope by this point I've made my points clear. We've reached the point of meta-argument, where we're debating what I actually said and meant. Peace.
If I can change the subject a bit, I'd like to throw out another name into the mix (one of several that we could add to the discussion).Dan Marino's per game stats are nearly identical to Brett Favre's per game stats. Like Favre, Marino had only one losing season (though he had a losing record as starter his last season), and three .500 seasons (Favre has two). Marino never won a Super Bowl, but some context is necessary: when Marino got to a Super bowl he faced a 15-1 juggernaut, and when Favre won a Super Bowl, he had a #1 defense backing him up. I would argue Marino had less skill position help than Favre--but even if you don't want to go that far, like Favre, a lot of Marino's receivers had great numbers with him, but never accomplished much without him. He certainly never had a HOF WR or RB to work with.If you're specifically looking for a player in the last 20 years (let's stretch to 25 for Marino's sake) that had the most positive impact on his team, I think a strong argument could be made for Dan Marino.
And if you're interested, in 2007 I wrote a comparison between Marino and Favre that found them pretty even.http://pacifistviking.blogspot.com/2007/09/marino-and-favre.html