Join Our Green Bay Packers Interactive Community!

We have been providing fans with the best source of Packers information since 2006!
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
4 Pages<1234>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Online Zero2Cool  
#26 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 12:31:42 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,969
Applause Received: 2,231

Originally Posted by: OlHoss1884 Go to Quoted Post
I will add this to why Favre was not overrated: because for 15 years or so his being in the huddle meant almost no game was out of reach.


And that's how the opponents felt too. I recall several times where opponents would say that they "have to keep their hands on the ball because Brett tosses a few INT's a game". Meaning that Brett would throw it into their hands, but if they weren't alert, they'd miss the opportunity.
"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

UserPostedImage
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#27 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 12:43:04 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

Originally Posted by: OlHoss1884 Go to Quoted Post
I will add this to why Favre was not overrated: because for 15 years or so his being in the huddle meant almost no game was out of reach. He had an amazing ability to make some crazy plays (like that cross field TD pass in Detroit in that playoff game), an impact few individual players can have. Did he lose a lot of games with his antics? Of course he did, but he more than made up for it with the number of victories he pulled out of his a$$ over the years as well.



This is a complete myth.

Favre's success rating in comeback opportunities was well below average.

Average would be between 40 and 50%. Favre was actually in the low 30s.

He more than made up for his comebacks with his record number of chokes.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.

Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#28 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 1:00:12 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

Originally Posted by: porky88 Go to Quoted Post
It's hard to knock Favre for interceptions and then praise Arnie Herber, who threw 106 interceptions and only 81 touchdowns. He also attempted 1,175 career passes. Favre attempted 10,169 passes. Based on the pattern, Herber would have over 900 interceptions by his 10,169th pass attempt. That's nearly 600 more than Favre's 336.

Comparing the eras (and players) is impossible considering the game was far less complex. Some high school sophomores probably can run a faster 40 than many of the players during that era. Rob Gronkowski also would probably play nose tackle and guard. There are a few exceptions (namely Don Hutson), but that’s why they’re exceptions and not the rule.

Another obstacle is the lack of weight training by the players, and the fact many probably were smokers. Regardless, the biggest omission people make in comparing distant eras to today's age is race relations. Herber won championships in the 30s. Jackie Robinson hadn't even broken through the barrier yet. To recap, the players didn’t train, they weren’t as healthy, and prejudices prevented the league from fielding the best players.


Did you miss the part when I said "for his day he was farther above average than Favre was for his"?

Comparing players from different eras is impossible. So I wouldn't do it.

No helmets, no rules against hitting WRs because the were not WRs, they were offensive ends. They had all the protection of a blocker.

QBs had no protection either. Brady would leave the game in a body bag his first snap.

The players of that era had the same handicaps as the ones they were playing against.

You can't even accurately compare Players from the '60 to today. Even Marino played in an era when the average passer rating was 12.5 points lower than it was for Favre. Comparing them head to head gives Favre a huge advantage for when he played.

To sum up, I am saying that Herber was farther above the standard for his day than Favre was for the '1992-2101 seasons. Relative to when he played, Herber was better.

Otherwise, if you compare Favre head to head with any great QB that played in the past, Staubach, Unitas, Montana, Graham, Luckman, Baugh etc, he looks like he was better. But all those other QBs were so much farther above the standard than Favre, he just doesn't compare. Because the rules protected Favre and his WRs, the medical care kept him playing, the equipment protected him, the game itself is different.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.

Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#29 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 1:03:19 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

Originally Posted by: nerdmann Go to Quoted Post
Do you think he laid down for Strahan to get the sack record?


Sandbagged '05, sandbagged '06 and tanked the '07 NFCCG.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.

Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
nerdmann on 6/21/2013(UTC)
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#30 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 1:08:53 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

Originally Posted by: porky88 Go to Quoted Post
I don't think most consider Favre the greatest quarterback in history. I don't see that too much. Brady certainly surpassed him, and I don’t think any football historian ever placed him above Joe Montana. I think people have forgotten how good he was, actually. It's a shame because his best was better than most. There was a span (94-98) when he played the position unbelievably well. You never hear about those years in regards to Favre anymore.

It’s also become a common theme to blame him for every playoff defeat in his era. I’ve watched these games multiple times and that’s simply a false analysis. Yes, bash away at the ‘07 and ‘09 championship games, as those were awful throws, but there were other things go on in most of his playoff losses.

Favre fans are quick to defend him. I know first hand. I criticized quite a bit in ‘06 and took some heat on the old site from some people that would go on to hate the man in ‘09. Still, as quick as Favre fans are emotional in defending him, his critics are also emotional in their critique. Labeling him the most overrated Packer in history, as the NFL Network segment did, is among those examples.


To paraphrase the greatest coach in history, Teams win and QBs play.

I wouldn't blame Favre for any of his losses, but I would hold him accountable for his play.

9 of 10 playoff runs were ended by Favre playing poorly, throwing last second picks or failing to step up and even get a first down with time on the clock, 4 downs and within 1 score.

The only super bowl we won was when the D and ST made sure Favre wasn't needed in the 4th quarter. All he had to do was not choke.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.

Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
nerdmann on 6/21/2013(UTC)
Offline OlHoss1884  
#31 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 2:58:10 PM(UTC)
OlHoss1884

Rank: 5th Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 5/8/2013(UTC)
Location: Waukegan, IL

Applause Given: 60
Applause Received: 167

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister Go to Quoted Post
This is a complete myth.

Favre's success rating in comeback opportunities was well below average.

Average would be between 40 and 50%. Favre was actually in the low 30s.

He more than made up for his comebacks with his record number of chokes.


The myth is that you find statistical significance in that. How far behind? What kind of comebacks? What kind of defensive effort? The factis that for most of his career he had a mediocre supporting cast at best, and when it was good, they were a Super Bowl team. My statement stands...as a single player he had as much or more impact on his team's ability to win a game than anyone during his era and I include Elway and Marino in that statement.

I am by no means in the Favre camp with the piss poor childish way he handled his exit from GB, but neither am I a basher of his skills because I dislike his maturity. Te question becomes how many more games were won or lost BECAUSE he was the QB instead of someone of average ability? No doubt some embarrassing losses, but many more amazing wins. And I guarantee you Mike Holmgren would tell you the same thing.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" --Albert Einstein
thanks Post received 1 applause.
texaspackerbacker on 6/21/2013(UTC)
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#32 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 3:28:12 PM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 482
Applause Received: 294

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
I don't think anyone is minimizing how good of a player Brett Favre was. Rather, more so just saying he was good, but he also played more games than most and threw more than most, which is an efficient way to get "all time total" records.

Being extremely durable doesn't mean you were the greatest quarterback in the NFL. It means you were extremely durable and for that, the Packers were immensely lucky.

One gripe against Brett Favre is the post season play. Gun slinging is exciting, but it's not how you should play "win or go home" games and we fans know exactly why.


I thought you basically read EVERY post in every thread, Z2C. There's a WHOLE LOT of minimizin' goin' on hahahaha. All it takes is the words "Brett Favre", and every damn troll and shithead that ever posted piles on with the idiocy.

Duh, he played more games in order to set his records for yardage and touchdowns. That is a large part of what makes him the GREATEST QB/THE GREATEST PLAYER in NFL history.

To the guy who said Bart Starr, Tom Brady, and Joe Montana were "better QBs", did I not say, Favre probably wasn't the "best" player - Aaron Rodgers is better right now than Favre was at his best. However, NOBODY ever had a career like Favre - NOBODY. To illustrate the point, Walter Payton and Emmett Smith were undoubtedly the Greatest RBs of all time, but Gayle Sayers and O.J. Simpson were Better RBs. Durability and Longevity have A LOT to do with it.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline DoddPower  
#33 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 3:32:50 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,097
Applause Received: 530

Originally Posted by: OlHoss1884 Go to Quoted Post
The myth is that you find statistical significance in that. How far behind? What kind of comebacks? What kind of defensive effort? The factis that for most of his career he had a mediocre supporting cast at best, and when it was good, they were a Super Bowl team. My statement stands...as a single player he had as much or more impact on his team's ability to win a game than anyone during his era and I include Elway and Marino in that statement.

I am by no means in the Favre camp with the piss poor childish way he handled his exit from GB, but neither am I a basher of his skills because I dislike his maturity. Te question becomes how many more games were won or lost BECAUSE he was the QB instead of someone of average ability? No doubt some embarrassing losses, but many more amazing wins. And I guarantee you Mike Holmgren would tell you the same thing.



To be fair though, that's the way the "4th quarter comeback" stats are, and they are the same for all the players. They don't account for other things. They can't. It would be impossible to consider all the factors of each game and every situation. Statistics in sports and in life are way over rated, and there are many cliche's about that. Such as "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." We used to joke when I was in academia that you could ask three different statisticians the same questions and get at least 5 different answers based on the data. However, some type of metric is evaluated and applied to all QB's. I personally think 4th quarter comebacks is one of the most over rated and useless metrics that exists in the NFL, but it is what it is.

thanks Post received 1 applause.
porky88 on 6/21/2013(UTC)
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#34 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 4:32:18 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

Originally Posted by: OlHoss1884 Go to Quoted Post
The myth is that you find statistical significance in that. How far behind? What kind of comebacks? What kind of defensive effort? The factis that for most of his career he had a mediocre supporting cast at best, and when it was good, they were a Super Bowl team. My statement stands...as a single player he had as much or more impact on his team's ability to win a game than anyone during his era and I include Elway and Marino in that statement.

I am by no means in the Favre camp with the piss poor childish way he handled his exit from GB, but neither am I a basher of his skills because I dislike his maturity. Te question becomes how many more games were won or lost BECAUSE he was the QB instead of someone of average ability? No doubt some embarrassing losses, but many more amazing wins. And I guarantee you Mike Holmgren would tell you the same thing.



You started with at the end of the game with the ball in his hands, Favre won the game WAY more often than he lost it.

Prove it.

No hype, no opinion, no anecdotal evidence. Just proof.

Stats don't agree with you and it is the stats that are wrong is a not a defense.

Marino was a great QB. Elway is as hyped as and just as over rated. Maybe even more than Favre.

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.

Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#35 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 4:45:29 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

Originally Posted by: doddpower Go to Quoted Post
To be fair though, that's the way the "4th quarter comeback" stats are, and they are the same for all the players. They don't account for other things. They can't. It would be impossible to consider all the factors of each game and every situation. Statistics in sports and in life are way over rated, and there are many cliche's about that. Such as "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." We used to joke when I was in academia that you could ask three different statisticians the same questions and get at least 5 different answers based on the data. However, some type of metric is evaluated and applied to all QB's. I personally think 4th quarter comebacks is one of the most over rated and useless metrics that exists in the NFL, but it is what it is.



It isn't what the stats say. It is what they mean.

That is why good actuaries make $250K a year and statisticians are academics.

I agree that 4th quarter comebacks is worse than useless as a stat. Specially without a ratio.

The best example is the over rated mediocre Eli Manning.

He had an amazing 6 comeback wins in 2011. Unfortunately, that is a bad thing.

They had a 9-7 record that year. They were playing from behind 13 times and lost 6. So they won less than 50% of the time. Which is about average. They were just so bad, they kept losing the lead in the 4th quarter so many times that being average at comebacks gave them 6 in one year.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.

Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#36 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 4:52:47 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
I thought you basically read EVERY post in every thread, Z2C. There's a WHOLE LOT of minimizin' goin' on hahahaha. All it takes is the words "Brett Favre", and every damn troll and shithead that ever posted piles on with the idiocy.

Duh, he played more games in order to set his records for yardage and touchdowns. That is a large part of what makes him the GREATEST QB/THE GREATEST PLAYER in NFL history.

To the guy who said Bart Starr, Tom Brady, and Joe Montana were "better QBs", did I not say, Favre probably wasn't the "best" player - Aaron Rodgers is better right now than Favre was at his best. However, NOBODY ever had a career like Favre - NOBODY. To illustrate the point, Walter Payton and Emmett Smith were undoubtedly the Greatest RBs of all time, but Gayle Sayers and O.J. Simpson were Better RBs. Durability and Longevity have A LOT to do with it.



Emmitt was the 250th best back all time.

He played much longer than he should have just to get a record.

He had the best O-line in football. He ran into the line and fell down for a 4.2 YPC average. Exactly like Ryan Grant.

Being average longer than anyone else doesn't make them great.

Barry Sanders and Jim Brown were the greatest. Bo Jackson and Terrell Davis would have been if they had more than a couple years.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.

Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Offline DoddPower  
#37 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 6:34:35 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,097
Applause Received: 530

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister Go to Quoted Post
It isn't what the stats say. It is what they mean.

That is why good actuaries make $250K a year and statisticians are academics.


That's a matter of semantics. Whether you want to state what statistics "say" or "mean," it's the same difference to me. The point is that statistics almost never tell the entire picture. They are a tool for those that are educated with background knowledge of the situation and have empirical experience to make inferences based on observed probability. Most of the time, pointing to raw numbers as absolute proof of anything is reaching unless the same numbers have been found in controlled randomly assigned situations many times by many independent entities. Even then, the "facts" may not hold up if a single minor component is changed among endless random variability and biases. Beyond that, it's just taking numbers and trying to fit them into a narrative or an opinion. Sure, the inferences made MAY be right sometimes, but they're very likely to be incredibly wrong many times, as well.

As I said, statistics and numbers are just an inference tool, but in the case of the NFL, very rarely, if ever, do they "prove" anything at all, imo.
Offline porky88  
#38 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 7:30:06 PM(UTC)
porky88

Rank: Pro Bowl

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2012Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2013Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2014

Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 195
Applause Received: 409

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister Go to Quoted Post
Did you miss the part when I said "for his day he was farther above average than Favre was for his"?

Comparing players from different eras is impossible. So I wouldn't do it.

No helmets, no rules against hitting WRs because the were not WRs, they were offensive ends. They had all the protection of a blocker.

QBs had no protection either. Brady would leave the game in a body bag his first snap.

The players of that era had the same handicaps as the ones they were playing against.

You can't even accurately compare Players from the '60 to today. Even Marino played in an era when the average passer rating was 12.5 points lower than it was for Favre. Comparing them head to head gives Favre a huge advantage for when he played.

To sum up, I am saying that Herber was farther above the standard for his day than Favre was for the '1992-2101 seasons. Relative to when he played, Herber was better.

Otherwise, if you compare Favre head to head with any great QB that played in the past, Staubach, Unitas, Montana, Graham, Luckman, Baugh etc, he looks like he was better. But all those other QBs were so much farther above the standard than Favre, he just doesn't compare. Because the rules protected Favre and his WRs, the medical care kept him playing, the equipment protected him, the game itself is different.

I understand your premise. Herber was a better quarterback for his era than Favre was in his era. That’s a comparison, though. You may not mean to compare the two, but that’s doing it. It’s a flawed way of judging players, too. You’re clearly referencing some form of higher knowledge of stats. Regardless, your stats cannot account for every single variable. For example, it‘s easier to dominate in an average league than to dominate in a greater league. In addition, you seem to have views of your own. We all have our opinions, but stats should always be objective. I’m not sure that’s the case here.

Quote:
The only super bowl we won was when the D and ST made sure Favre wasn't needed in the 4th quarter. All he had to do was not choke.

I’ve actually heard this argument a lot since ‘09. It’s a nitpick if there ever was one. So the ’96 team was so dominating that they didn’t need Favre in the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl. Never mind the fact that Favre was a big reason why they were winning in the 4th quarter.

All he did was account for three touchdowns, including two perfect throws to Andre Rison and Antonio Freeman. Other than that, you know, he didn’t do much of anything.

I do believe many people, including myself, share your frustration with the Favre apologists. However, there’s also the other side of the spectrum. The NFL Network segment and Herber > Favre represent that side, in my opinion.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
DoddPower on 6/21/2013(UTC)
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#39 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 7:52:21 PM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 482
Applause Received: 294

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister Go to Quoted Post
Emmitt was the 250th best back all time.

He played much longer than he should have just to get a record.

He had the best O-line in football. He ran into the line and fell down for a 4.2 YPC average. Exactly like Ryan Grant.

Being average longer than anyone else doesn't make them great.

Barry Sanders and Jim Brown were the greatest. Bo Jackson and Terrell Davis would have been if they had more than a couple years.


Do you have a clue about the difference between "best" and "greatest"? Do you have a clue about ANYTHING?

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#40 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 9:02:40 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

Originally Posted by: doddpower Go to Quoted Post
That's a matter of semantics. Whether you want to state what statistics "say" or "mean," it's the same difference to me. The point is that statistics almost never tell the entire picture. They are a tool for those that are educated with background knowledge of the situation and have empirical experience to make inferences based on observed probability. Most of the time, pointing to raw numbers as absolute proof of anything is reaching unless the same numbers have been found in controlled randomly assigned situations many times by many independent entities. Even then, the "facts" may not hold up if a single minor component is changed among endless random variability and biases. Beyond that, it's just taking numbers and trying to fit them into a narrative or an opinion. Sure, the inferences made MAY be right sometimes, but they're very likely to be incredibly wrong many times, as well.

As I said, statistics and numbers are just an inference tool, but in the case of the NFL, very rarely, if ever, do they "prove" anything at all, imo.


If you don't know what stats mean, you wouldn't know the difference.

There is a huge difference to me.

For example, a QB throws for 400 passing yards in a game. That says lots of passing yards. You would think that means the team that put up those yards was great.

What does that really mean?

It means they were either in a shoot out and have a 50% chance to win or were getting blown out and had no chance to win. Teams putting up 400+ yards a game actually lose about 75% of the time.

If you run a correlation of passing yards to wins, on a scale of 0-100, with 100 being a direct 1 to 1 correlation, passing yards would be a negative 1.4, or essentially no correlation.

That is the difference between knowing what they say and what the mean.

So would you say a QB throwing for 5000 yards in a season was great? I wouldn't.

I would look for a stat that correlated to wins. Like Passer rating. Which was about a 90 correlation.

A stat that when you are leading, you are winning.

Now the stat itself isn't important. But doing the things that increase your passer rating have a direct impact on wins. Throw lots of TDs, don't turn the ball over, get few incompletions and get a lot of yards per attempt. So that means an efficient QB is going to win more games than one who throws for a lot of yards.

Which is why ratios mean so much. Comebacks don't mean anything without a per attempt.

6 comebacks says a lot but means little until you find out that it was out of 13 tries.

34 career comebacks sounds like a lot until you find out that it was out of 100 attempts. More than twice as many attempts as the next guy with 38 comebacks.

Was he really good at comebacks? Or did he make up for sucking by sheer volume?
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.

Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Offline OlHoss1884  
#41 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 9:15:02 PM(UTC)
OlHoss1884

Rank: 5th Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 5/8/2013(UTC)
Location: Waukegan, IL

Applause Given: 60
Applause Received: 167

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister Go to Quoted Post

34 career comebacks sounds like a lot until you find out that it was out of 100 attempts. More than twice as many attempts as the next guy with 38 comebacks.


By your own logic, if they trail 42-10 at the start of the 4th quarter, and lose 42-41, that's a failure to come back despite putting up 31 in the quarter. THAT's why I said you statistics are meaningless. I've watched a lot of football since I started paying attention to it and specifically a lot of Packer games dating back to the days when John Hadl was thought to be an upgrade, and never saw anyone who could pull a victory out of nowhere like that. His own coach would have said the same things I have, and announcer after announcer DID say it.

It's not hard to find statistics to support your case, especially when they are really vague. Like look at the Packers record before his tenure and immediately after, when he didn't have an experienced A-Rod to take his place, and the team record is pretty abysmal. Is that all to his credit? Of course not, so I am not cherry picking it as a vague stat to support my opinion, and unlike you, I don't allow a (clear, in your case) dislike for Favre to color my judgment about his play, despite the fact that I like and respect him no more than you do.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" --Albert Einstein
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#42 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 9:30:37 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
Do you have a clue about the difference between "best" and "greatest"? Do you have a clue about ANYTHING?



Then Shrug I guess that I must not be very smart.

Sarcasm

Does an average player only need to play longer than anyone to be great?

Because Vinny Teseverde and Steve DeBerg played for 21 years and I never heard anyone mistake them for great QBs.

Are Testeverde and Moon top 10 QBs because they are top 10 in completions, TDs and yards?

Bledsoe is top 10 in a couple of those aslo.

That is a pretty rare group to be in. Top 10 greatest QBs all time. Specially for Testeverde and Bledsoe. Since they were really below average QBs. Moon is only a little above average.

I think everyones top 10 greatest QBs all time is going have to be adjusted to include these great players.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.

Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#43 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 9:52:57 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

Originally Posted by: OlHoss1884 Go to Quoted Post
By your own logic, if they trail 42-10 at the start of the 4th quarter, and lose 42-41, that's a failure to come back despite putting up 31 in the quarter. THAT's why I said you statistics are meaningless. I've watched a lot of football since I started paying attention to it and specifically a lot of Packer games dating back to the days when John Hadl was thought to be an upgrade, and never saw anyone who could pull a victory out of nowhere like that. His own coach would have said the same things I have, and announcer after announcer DID say it.

It's not hard to find statistics to support your case, especially when they are really vague. Like look at the Packers record before his tenure and immediately after, when he didn't have an experienced A-Rod to take his place, and the team record is pretty abysmal. Is that all to his credit? Of course not, so I am not cherry picking it as a vague stat to support my opinion, and unlike you, I don't allow a (clear, in your case) dislike for Favre to color my judgment about his play, despite the fact that I like and respect him no more than you do.



I don't find stats. I find out why.

Huge difference.

They are not vague or obscure cherry picked stats. Favre failed 69 times in come backs opportunities and was successful 30 times. You said that he was clutch. Brady is successful over 70 % of the time. Eli, who is mediocre is about 45% successful.

If you say Favre pulled out more wins than he choked away, fine. Support your argument.

Prove it.

You will have to forgive me for being a cynic, but I can't accept an eye test. I can't accept public opinion or a guess based on media hype. I also can't accept hypothetical arguments or conjecture about what someone's opinion might have been. Specially when his coach would have said "It was a bitch to get him to stay in control in the clutch."
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.

Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
dfosterf on 6/21/2013(UTC)
Offline dfosterf  
#44 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 9:53:26 PM(UTC)
dfosterf

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

United States
Joined: 8/19/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 208
Applause Received: 430

Originally Posted by: dhazer Go to Quoted Post
I will say for most under rated I would have to go with"You may beat our Pack but you won't lick our Dickey" Lynn Dickey was a good qb and he was all we had back in the 80's.



Over rated is a hard one so i will just throw this out there and say the wr corp the past few years. People keep saying they are the best in the league we can go 6 deep blah blah blah. But seriously were they that great I don't think so.


It's "corps", dumbass, you know how I hate that. I applauded you for the Lynn Dickey pick, not the wr corps thing. Teams run out of db's long before we run out of quality wide receivers/ TE's It's an UNDERRATED advantage. Way off-base on that one, imo.

You're probably still bitter 'cause we didn't draft your boy Crabdouche. Flapper



UserPostedImage
damn skippy I'm an owner. I currently own a full .00001924537805515393 % of the Green Bay Packers.



Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#45 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 10:19:48 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

Originally Posted by: porky88 Go to Quoted Post
I understand your premise. Herber was a better quarterback for his era than Favre was in his era. That’s a comparison, though. You may not mean to compare the two, but that’s doing it. It’s a flawed way of judging players, too. You’re clearly referencing some form of higher knowledge of stats. Regardless, your stats cannot account for every single variable. For example, it‘s easier to dominate in an average league than to dominate in a greater league. In addition, you seem to have views of your own. We all have our opinions, but stats should always be objective. I’m not sure that’s the case here.


I’ve actually heard this argument a lot since ‘09. It’s a nitpick if there ever was one. So the ’96 team was so dominating that they didn’t need Favre in the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl. Never mind the fact that Favre was a big reason why they were winning in the 4th quarter.

All he did was account for three touchdowns, including two perfect throws to Andre Rison and Antonio Freeman. Other than that, you know, he didn’t do much of anything.

I do believe many people, including myself, share your frustration with the Favre apologists. However, there’s also the other side of the spectrum. The NFL Network segment and Herber > Favre represent that side, in my opinion.


Fine,

Then nobody can ever make a greatest all time list. Because the NFL is NEVER the same from decade to decade.

We can never compare QBs ever. That is evil and wrong.

The NFL Montana played in is significantly different from when Staubach played. Marino played in a different NFL than Brady played in. Then you can't say Favre was greatest ever. Because QBs now are putting up more than he put up per year on a regular basis.

The point was that Favre didn't have to step up with the ball in his hand and score or lose. Which was his big weakness in the post season. Which set him way behind Starr who was the greatest post season QB ever.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.

Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Offline dfosterf  
#46 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 10:43:51 PM(UTC)
dfosterf

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

United States
Joined: 8/19/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 208
Applause Received: 430

... Favre is not even close to being the most overrated or underrated Packer, by any reasonably objective opinion. His name shouldn't have even been brought up in the conversation, imo.

Objectivity is a rare commodity when Packer fans decide to interject Favre in any conversation.



UserPostedImage
damn skippy I'm an owner. I currently own a full .00001924537805515393 % of the Green Bay Packers.



Offline DoddPower  
#47 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 11:38:44 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,097
Applause Received: 530

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister Go to Quoted Post
If you don't know what stats mean, you wouldn't know the difference.


Not surprisingly, you completely missed the point of my post to fit your argument in some way. I'm well aware of what statistics mean. I did statistical analysis professionally for 4 years, although I don't really miss doing that as my 8-6 (who actually gets to work a 9-5 anyway? Damn public sector). I don't consider any difference between what statistics "say" and "mean" because it's one and the same to me, and any other intelligent inference maker. That's precisely why I mentioned needing to have "background knowledge of the situation" and "empirical experience." One must have a thorough understanding of the circumstances that brought about any statistic because that's important in explaining the context, relevance, and limitations of the inferences made. Stating that something is statically significant or that certain factors are correlated is great, but such a finding should always be explained in order to establish what it really means meaning. Without that, the raw numbers mean little to me, which was my point from the beginning. I assumed such was rhetorical, but obviously not. I didn't think I needed to spell everything out. I suppose some will take stats at face value without thinking of the context in which they were derived, but I think the majority know there is a much bigger story behind the numbers. I really don't make much a distinction there because I consider it a linear process. Understand what the statistics say and then understand what they mean and their limitations. Stopping short of that is just poor analysis.

This is very important when using statistics to support NFL arguments. One could point out that player A has/had better numbers in category X, Y, and Z, which he or she then uses as a justification that player A is/was better than player B. That almost always involves taking a big leap because doing so generalizes so many other influencing factors behind those stats that can never be truly resolved. It's just another example of the limitations of statistics, especially in sports. They're obviously a strong basis for arguments, but they are anything but definitive most of the time, and other things need to be considered. As a result, judgments are always going to be somewhat subjective. It's just the way it is, but it needs to be acknowledged when making such judgments. Of course, sports media doesn't need to acknowledge anything because their only goal is to draw viewers, ratings, etc. Objectivity or fairness isn't their concern at all. Those things don't pay the bills, so I can't blame them, I suppose. It always comes back to what pays.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
porky88 on 6/22/2013(UTC)
Offline OlHoss1884  
#48 Posted : Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:14:44 AM(UTC)
OlHoss1884

Rank: 5th Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 5/8/2013(UTC)
Location: Waukegan, IL

Applause Given: 60
Applause Received: 167

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister Go to Quoted Post

You will have to forgive me for being a cynic, but I can't accept an eye test.


Here's the crux of it. I agree that an eye test is not even as scientific as what you are doing, but there is a reason for the term "lies, damned lies and statistics". It's because used in a vague way, they can be incredibly misleading, yet they still carry the weight of authority so people assume they are true. Here's an example, though not really applicable here but it illustrates the problem with statistics and how they are presented if vague.

Taste test....80% say no difference between A and B. 11% say A, 9% say B. Commercial? "91% say A as good or better than B"

True, but misleading. In Brady's 70% 4th quarter comeback success, what was the average margin of deficit? How many of those comebacks were spurred by defensive turnovers? I am not saying Favre was a better QB than Brady, nor better at comebacks, but knowing the team he had around him for most of his career, that Favre had a percentage just over half as good as Brady's in this regard is probably more significant. Brady has had a Super Bowl contending team around him every year and nearly for every snap he's ever taken. Not true of Favre. Both clearly made the people around them a lot better but on the whole Favre had less talent to work with, tougher division opponents and for a few years even inferior coaches.



"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" --Albert Einstein
Offline DoddPower  
#49 Posted : Saturday, June 22, 2013 12:30:31 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,097
Applause Received: 530

Originally Posted by: OlHoss1884 Go to Quoted Post
Here's the crux of it. I agree that an eye test is not even as scientific as what you are doing, but there is a reason for the term "lies, damned lies and statistics". It's because used in a vague way, they can be incredibly misleading, yet they still carry the weight of authority so people assume they are true. Here's an example, though not really applicable here but it illustrates the problem with statistics and how they are presented if vague.

Taste test....80% say no difference between A and B. 11% say A, 9% say B. Commercial? "91% say A as good or better than B"

True, but misleading. In Brady's 70% 4th quarter comeback success, what was the average margin of deficit? How many of those comebacks were spurred by defensive turnovers? I am not saying Favre was a better QB than Brady, nor better at comebacks, but knowing the team he had around him for most of his career, that Favre had a percentage just over half as good as Brady's in this regard is probably more significant. Brady has had a Super Bowl contending team around him every year and nearly for every snap he's ever taken. Not true of Favre. Both clearly made the people around them a lot better but on the whole Favre had less talent to work with, tougher division opponents and for a few years even inferior coaches.






I just wish Favre had the luxury of offense lines the likes that Tom Brady has had. Or even better, Aaron Rodgers. As long as our defense was just average, there would be no way to stop Aaron Rodgers if he had a great offensive line. Too bad it doesn't appear like that's ever going to happen. Some of the protection Tom Brady has had, or even P. Manning in Denver last season is just . . . well amazing. At least as a Packer fan.
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#50 Posted : Saturday, June 22, 2013 1:24:06 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

Originally Posted by: OlHoss1884 Go to Quoted Post
My statement stands...as a single player he had as much or more impact on his team's ability to win a game than anyone during his era and I include Elway and Marino in that statement.



Favre was almost as likely to turn the ball over as score when the game was not on the line.

When it was on the line, he was more likely to fail than he was to succeed. Look up every post season game and see how well he played.

In 9 of 10 playoff runs, Favre personally choked, played poorly or with time on the clock, the ball in his hands and within a score, He failed to generate a first down.

'93 playoff game against Dallas, 2 picks and a fumble lost.

'95 in the middle of a great NFC Championship game where the Packers were matching the Cowboys blow for blow, he was driving to take the lead back in the 4th quarter. He threw a bad pass into the chest of a DB who set up a score by the Cowboys. Giving them a 2 score lead. After which a suddenly ineffective Favre failed to complete a pass, then never got the ball back.

'98 playoff game against the 49er had a 79.7 rating with 57% completions and threw 2 picks in a 3 point loss.

'01 The 6 interception game vs the Rams, Favre threw 3 pick 6s and another one returned to inside the 5. Essentially giving the Rams the margin of victory by handing them 28 points.

'02 Packers first home playoff loss to the Falcons as Favre turned the game over in the second half with a pick and a lost fumble. He had 47.6% completions and a 54.4 rating

'03 The 4th and 26 game, Favre couldn't move the ball in spite of over 200 yards by the running backs, 7 sacks by the D and 2 forced turnovers. One more yard and the ball never goes back to McNabb. Ending in an OT pick.

'04 he threw 4 picks to the 8-8 MN Vikings and 54.4 rating

'07 Lame duck in the Giants game after a whole game of looking like an old man in the cold. 70.7 rating, 2 picks and 54.3% completions..

The '96 Super Bowl was pretty much 2 passes to WRs that ran about 80 yards after the catchs and then Favre getting nothing down field to his WRs after about 20 minutes into the game. He wasn't needed to step up because of the D and ST, so they won.

The '97 Super Bowl, Favre got the ball back with time and failed to complete a pass. I wouldn't say he lost the game, played poorly or anything other than he didn't step up like Starr would have.

His come from behind wins are way over stated. He had the most opportunities by a long shot. If he were just average at comebacks, he would easily lead the league. But since he was only about 30% successful, he actually blew more chances than he won. By a wide margin.

If he played in the '70s people wouldn't be excusing and glossing over Favres post season failures.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.

Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
earthquake on 6/22/2013(UTC)
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages<1234>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Tweeter

Recent Topics
23m / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / stevegb

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / civic

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

27-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

27-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nyrpack

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / rabidgopher04

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann