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.
9 Pages«<34567>»
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
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: 206
Applause Received: 428

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: 206
Applause Received: 428

... 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: 2,087
Applause Received: 528

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: 2,087
Applause Received: 528

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
9 Pages«<34567>»
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
15m / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

22m / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

48m / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Tezzy

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / porky88

22-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / packman82

22-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

22-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / macbob

21-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

21-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool