First, Favre's int percentage perception. Favre was tied for 51st for his career. Behind Jeff Blake, Trent Green and Tony Banks. Ironically, the guy at the top of the list, Aaron Rodgers with 1.8. You can cherry pick who ever to make him look good or bad. The fact remains that he is pretty far down the list. The thing about Starr is when they really needed him, he showed up. during 64-66 seasons, Starr had a total 16 INTs in 42 consecutive games. We won 3 championships during that run.

Second, Give or Take? The Saints made a living taking the ball from everybody they played. The fact that the Vikings were not careless with the ball last year, supports my assessment that the Saints took it from them. The Saints were better at taking the ball than the Viking were at keeping it.

Pop quiz, did you see all the highlights of the NO players knocking the ball out? They were not drops, they were strips. They were punching and ripping at the ball every tackle. They tried harder to take it than the Vikings to keep it.

Third, was he for real of was it an Illusion? I saw a lot of INTs that were dropped. San Fran dropped one right before that throw. Balt dropped one that would have stopped the game winning drive. Woodson had one in the endzone called back by a bad PI call in MN. Some passes were thrown up for grabs and the receiver came down with it. Typical triple coverage pop ups. I think it was not the system. He could easily have had double the total he ended up with. I think reality will slap them in the back of the neck this year.

Fouth. Choking hazard, Favres losing efforts in the playoffs, he has a rating under 70 for the last 12 years. Attesting to the choking Zero was referring to.

Everybody has dropped INTs, sometimes you are luckier than others. When they drop game changing INTs are what I was talking about. They seemed to have some lucky bounces. Some were stone hands, hit em in the numbers drops.

We missed a couple against Pitt that would have sealed that game. Woodson in particular going across the middle in underneath coverage a couple of plays before the game winner.

That is they way it goes. Some years you are unlucky and every ball has a weird bounce and goes the wrong way and some years go your way. I think this was one of the going your way years for Favre. Until NO that is.

To me time of int plays a big role and that's why Montana will always be the greatest. The guy kept cutting down on his int's the more important the game and I'm to lazy to check it up but I do believe he's only thrown like 1 int in SB games

Interception percentage perception was just a little alliteration. I know you compared him to the recognizable names, my point was, it was cherry picking and not counting every ones else that was above him. Spinning it to make him look better. That is why I said to take the spin off, he was flat out ranked 51st. He is right on the edge of the top 25%.

For the TO battle, MN played their game and NO played theirs. NO is known for creating TOs. You call them opportunists which is not accurate, they were larcenists. MN lost the TO battle because NO was better at playing their game than MN was at their own. Even if you split that hair, it is far from a fluke because NO always did that.

I did mention the botched hand off in an earlier post. I also mentioned the final Int as being a possible exception. But if you look at the penetration by the D-line, they may be responsible for AP altering his path because a defender shot through the hole he was heading for resulting in a forced fumble. I couldn't get a good look from the views shown so that is questionable, either way. But yes, I did mention that.

As per my response to Zero in the comment about dropped INTS, I was referring to Game Changers. Balt, SF and @GB could easily have been loses because of poor throws at a critical time. Throws that in years past may have been caught. In short, he did get lucky.

As far as Favre choking, He has a history of having low ratings in the playoff losses, as he did in NO. I would not call a 70 rating a clutch performance. His career average would have been enough to win that game. His average for the year would have been enough to win by a couple of scores. If he played as well as Rodgers did in our loss against AZ, he would have watched the final quarter from the bench because they would have had a 3 touchdown lead. A great player steps up at critical times and actually gets better regardless of how the rest of the team plays. Not worse. I am not saying he is responsible for the loss, but he is for playing poorly. Gutsy, but poorly.

Sure, best chance at a playoff run, he is a great QB. But the Vikings have lots of Playoff appearances, they got there the year before Favre signed. They want a Super Bowl win. He has shown an inconsistency that makes a 3 game run in the playoffs unlikely, if you are counting on him. The only time we made it was when it wasn't up to him to get us there.

I was cherry picking the BEST QBS IN THE GAME. Not to make Favre look good. Alluding that I was trying to skew the stats is what I am defending. Was NOT my intention and I'd appreciate it if you stopped alluding to it in that manner, mmk?



It was a fluke in my eyes because when was the last time ANY team put the rock on the ground more than 6 times in a game? And the Vikings did just that. NO averaged 2.4 turnovers by defense last regular season.. the Vikings average 1.1 turnovers by the offense last regular season. You are correct in that the Saints won that battle of the wills.. but it's still flukey. NO forced 4 turnovers 3 times last year.. no game did they force over 4 until that championship game.



I missed that post. But you can't credit the Saints for causing that TO.. just for being opportunistic enough to land on the thing. No matter what the cause.. AP should NOT have dropped it.



Lucky like every other QB that has had an INT or two dropped.. Like every other QB in the league.



Oh, he didn't have a good game that day, I agree. I don't think A-Rod would have had the lead you think he would have if he was QBing the Vikes because AP dropped the ball 3 times, not Favre. But we really can't discuss that too deeply because A-Rod doesn't QB the Vikes. Favre is a great player and anyone saying otherwise is foolish. The best? I don't think so. One of the greatest? Yes. I don't get how people only remember some QBs for the 10 poor passes they throw and not for the almost 40 good to great throws.



So, who would you have suggested the Vikings go after instead of signing Favre last year? Not a single QB that the Vikes had a chance to sign would have brought to the table what Favre did.

Favre plays poorly in the playoffs about half of the time. Makes winning 3 straight really tough.

Consider the era that he playes in. Johnny U, Fran Tarkington, Bart Starr, Rodger Staubach, Dan Marino and Joe Montana were the best compared to their contemporaries. Favre is 14th in QB rating among active QBs behind the likes of Duante Culpepper and Jeff Garcia. Just a tenth of a point above McNabb. I don't see the 14th ranked QB from the 60s or 70s on the list of all time greats.

His unfortunate inability to take the team on his shoulders and cary them across the finish line instead of choking, keeps him out of Great category. Not because he doesn't win, but because he chokes when it was up to him. Favre falls way short with ratings in the 60s for playoff losses in the last 12 years. Starr's QB rating went up when he was in the playoffs, Favre's goes down.

How is Favres playoff record in the last 12 years?

You say rating, then you say records. Put the stat on the other point. Both are 1-1 in the super bowl and Mannings ratings are better in his playoff losses for the last 5 years than Favres. Payton had games in the playoffs losses in the 90s and Favre had 60s. When they need Favre to step up, he didn't and when they need Manning, he did. It depends on your spin.

The point this is side tracking from is, Favre doesn't play well in the losses. Regardless of how Manning plays. Greats don't have bad games every time the season is on the line and it is win or go home.