Brett Favre=Mr. Overrated (Now officially back)

[KSUowls]

Quote: Originally Posted by metallicatz

I guess to that I would say....you don't win without outscoring your opponents right? The Steelers weren't a top running team last season for that SB win, much to the dismay of many of us in Steelers Country.

lol I think you know what I meant. They weren't a top rushing team, but they still had the #1 defense.

Quote:

When the Packers won the SB in the 1996 season they had the #1 defense in the league and finished #4 in rushing. The next year when they lost to the broncos in the SBthey had the #7 defense in the league, but dropped to #20 in rushing. The year after that (1998) they had the #4 ranked defense when they finished 11-5, back up to #4 in rushing.

You're right about those years because no QB can win it all by himself. A great QB can win a bunch of games, but it takes at least a pretty good team to win a superbowl.

Quote:

Despite what many would say, Favre had a strong supporting cast when he was winning. He wasn't taking the team on his back and doing it himself.

He had a strong supporting cast for a few years, but has spent the majority of his career with an average team. In his first 5 seasons Green Bay averaged a rankings of 20 and 7 in rushing and defense (those stats go through the superbowl season 1996). Conversely in Big Ben's teams have been #12 and #4.

The other 12 years of Favre's career his teams averaged 18th in rushing and 14th in defense.

[KSUowls]

Quote: Originally Posted by steelcurtain311

Ummm, Ben's had a good number of games where he HAS had to do this. That's why he's so good, because he can do it all. He's there to win games, and he does it right. He tries to manage the offense. If that means he hands it off to win, that's what he does. If that means he has to torch the other team for 3-4 TD's, that's what he does. There isn't anything he can't do as a QB. He's done the statistical fantasy QB stuff, and he's done the winning games stuff. There's no better balance at the QB position in the league than Ben Roethlisberger.

I have no intention of knocking what Ben can do or has done, but you can't compare him through 5 seasons of having dominating teams (especially on the defensive side of the ball) to a guy who has spent 17 years in the league being his teams main source of offense while having average defenses.

[Fox1994]

^18th in rushing and 14th in defense aren't stupendous, but it's not like they're terrible. Those are just average averages... They certainly say something toward Favre's ability to win games, but I think one question that hasn't been thoroughly effectively addressed in this thread is his tendency to turn the ball over.

All I'm saying is that regardless of his playmaking ability or what have you, I need some sort of reason as to why he turns the ball over so much. Can we get a real explanation as opposed to just writing it off as "he's a gun-slinger" or "that's what he does"?

People don't say he's overrated because of his 169-100 record as a starter or because of his 464 touchdowns or his 65127 passing yards. Whenever someone says he's overrated, it's because of the 310 interceptions.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Quote: Originally Posted by metallicatz

So now that Favre isn't playing for the Vikes you're back on board with him? Seriously, all one has to do is type "Favre" into the search engine here and explore the more popular Favre threads over the last year to see you bashing him along with everyone else, from his character right on down to his play. Not trying to call you out. I respect you as a poster. I'm just curious because you've been one of the Packers fans who hasn't apologized for Favre over the last year with his various antics and you've criticized his play as well as his behavior. All is forgiven as long as he doesn't play for the Vikes?

Glad you edited your post because a nice, lengthy post for this one lol. Anyway....

I can't apologize to someone who was all about just themselves. I, along with plenty of other Packer Fans as im sure you know, were upset and a little surprised when he initially announced his retirement because after the year that he had, I thought for sure that he was coming back. But when he said he was done, after all the emotional stuff, I was ready to move on and to see Aaron Rodgers finally get his chance to show what he was about, after sitting behind one of the greatest QBs of All Time.

Then when he announced he was coming back, it kind've of caught me off guard because I thought once he said he was done that he was done, so once it was reported that he wanted to come back I was like "Ok.....so what do we do about Rodgers?". And then once I heard that he said he wanted to be traded after being told that we moved on, I wasn't upset at that. What I was upset at was the fact that he wanted to be traded to a division rival just so he can get payback against one man.

And that's where I started to lost a little bit of respect for him because I felt and still feel that he was coming back for the wrong reason. I mean come on, you're trying to get payback against a guy because he didn't go out and get the Coach you wanted? Or because he didn't get the WR you wanted? Or because he wasn't at your doorstep every Offseason begging you to come back? Or because we started to get tired of your annual "Will he or Won't he" mess and decided that we were ready to move on, just like you said you were at that Press Conference, even though we asked if you needed more time to rethink your decision on this but told us that you weren't going to change your mind and that you were done?

Me defending him has nothing to do with him deciding not to go to the Vikings. I'd defend him just like i'm doing right now if he signed with the Cowboys but he would also get the same amount of criticism from me just like anybody else on my team would get. For what he has done off the field for the last 7 years(Retirement talk every year), I'd criticize him for that because I grew tired of it after a while, along with everyone else. Now when it came to what he has done ON the field, I would tell it like it is but I would never go as far as to say: He was overrated, he was a Choker, or say that he cost us games when it wasn't even true.(QB gets ALL the credit/blame when the team wins/loses)

Oh and to answer the question, I forgave Favre for all the crazy **** that he used to put us Packer Fans through while he was here, but I probably won't forgive him for what he was trying to do and why he was trying to do it(sign with Vikings to get payback against TT).

[KSUowls]

Quote: Originally Posted by Fox1994

^18th in rushing and 14th in defense aren't stupendous, but it's not like they're terrible. Those are just average averages... They certainly say something toward Favre's ability to win games, but I think one question that hasn't been thoroughly effectively addressed in this thread is his tendency to turn the ball over. All I'm saying is that regardless of his playmaking ability or what have you, I need some sort of reason as to why he turns the ball over so much. Can we get a real explanation as opposed to just writing it off as "he's a gun-slinger" or "that's what he does"? People don't say he's overrated because of his 169-100 record as a starter or because of his 464 touchdowns or his 65127 passing yards. Whenever someone says he's overrated, it's because of the 310 interceptions.

You're right the teams weren't terrible. Some were really good, some really bad, and the rest were middle of the pack. Throughout all of that though he finished .500 or worse just twice.

I can address the interceptions specifically. Obviously his style of play was going to result in a lot of passes in coverage, but the biggest reason was probably that he just had so many pass attempts.

Favre averaged an interception every 30 attempts.
Now lets compare that to 2 other guys who you never hear people talk about their turnover problems.
Johny Elway - 1 every 32 attempts
Dan Marino - 1 every 33 attempts

The fumbles are another matter and I don't know how they compare to others. Guess he should have held onto the ball tighter.

[steelcurtain311]

Quote: Originally Posted by KSUowls

I have no intention of knocking what Ben can do or has done, but you can't compare him through 5 seasons of having dominating teams (especially on the defensive side of the ball) to a guy who has spent 17 years in the league being his teams main source of offense while having average defenses.

Brett monopolizes the offense, that is his problem. People claim he "carried" so many teams, simply because he wouldn't hand the ball off. Nobody has to throw the ball as often as he did, I don't care how good or not good your RB is. So he gets this myth about him that he carried offenses, simply because he threw a lot.

People were trying to say this same crap about him a few years ago when he had his last great season in GB. Blah blah, Brett has no running game around him, he's carrying the offense. Meanwhile he had Ryan Grant, who when he finally started handing the ball off to, became a solid RB for that season.

You can't say the guy has no running game when he never attempted to have one to begin with.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Quote: Originally Posted by Fox1994

All I'm saying is that regardless of his playmaking ability or what have you, I need some sort of reason as to why he turns the ball over so much. Can we get a real explanation as opposed to just writing it off as "he's a gun-slinger" or "that's what he does"? People don't say he's overrated because of his 169-100 record as a starter or because of his 464 touchdowns or his 65127 passing yards. Whenever someone says he's overrated, it's because of the 310 interceptions.

I don't know if I can give you a "real explanation" or a reason in your eyes that'll justify him having the high number of INTS, but im not going to try and do that but i'll see if I can answer the question.

Early in his career, in his first 1 1/2 seasons, he was trying to feel his way into a new Offense(WCO)since what he was running in Atlanta was completely different. Back then(1992)the WCO wasn't just something where you could get it down pat real quick(I could be wrong but maybe SPTO and BKrich could explain this in more detail than I could)so Mike Holmgren knew at the time that there would be a slight learning curve on it but that Wolf and he were going to give Favre the opportunities, even if he was out there f'ing up LOL. But they also knew that once Favre would get in a comfort zone with this Offense, that it could be something special.

Favre's first 2 years in that Offense he had numbers of 18 TDs and 13 INTs in '92 and in '93 he had 19 TDs and 24 INTs. He didn't throw no more than 20 INTs for 5 years and no less than 33 TDs for 5 years. And in that timespan between 93 and 98, he'd already have 3 MVPs, and 2 Super Bowl Appearances including 1 Super Bowl. I guess what im trying to say is that him and Holmgren went hand in hand and were both HUGE vital pieces to us being among one of the top teams in the NFL at the time, along with the Cowboys and 49ers for a short time.

And I think once Holmgren left, that's when you could tell that this wasn't the same Favre from the previous 5-6 years because that Favre would rarely try to force passes at the rate that he was doing when Holmgren left. I also think that Favre knew that if he ever tried those things under Holmgren as much as he was doing with other coaches, Holmgren would've pulled him out the game in a heartbeat, so there was also that "fear factor" in his mind that was like, "Ok, if I **** this up right, Mike is going to tear me apart and yank my butt out this game." You could also tell that this was apparent because under Holmgren, he only had one season over 20 INTs when that was in his first full year as a starter, whereas once he left, he had 3 seasons of over 20 INTs and never threw more than 32 TDs the rest of his career.

So yea, I wasn't trying to write him off or give him a pass for the TOs because they're unacceptable to begin with, but hopefully you can kind've understand the story behind the whole "Gunslinger" act he had LOL.


Oh and for the people that want to say that he "choked" or couldn't get the job done when the games mattered:

Favre's numbers in the playoffs: 438-721, 5311 Yds, 39 TDs and 28 INTs with 6 of them against the Rams and 4 of the against the Vikings, with a playoff record of 12-10. 6 of those 10 losses were against @ Dallas(then again, who could go into Dallas in the 90s and steal a playoff win other than MAYBE the 49ers) @ San Fran(lost on a last second catch that jumpstarted the man you know today as Terrell Owen's career, even though it shouldn't have got to that point) @ St Louis(home of the GSOT who could score at WILL on ANYBODY at the time)

So in a nutshell, im still waiting on these games that he lost for us. Was it his fault that no Defense other than the Patriots and Bucs could slow down the GSOT? Or his fault that Nick Barnett would rather cover a TE instead of dropping back into coverage to prevent 4th and 26 from happening? His fault that Instant Replay wasn't implemented yet when TO made that catch? His fault that those Dallas Cowboys teams were so talented that nobody really had an answer to stop them? No but the difference is in those playoff losses, he played a significant role in why we didn't get the job done but he never LOST any games for us.

[KSUowls]

Quote: Originally Posted by steelcurtain311

Brett monopolizes the offense, that is his problem. People claim he "carried" so many teams, simply because he wouldn't hand the ball off. Nobody has to throw the ball as often as he did, I don't care how good or not good your RB is. So he gets this myth about him that he carried offenses, simply because he threw a lot. People were trying to say this same crap about him a few years ago when he had his last great season in GB. Blah blah, Brett has no running game around him, he's carrying the offense. Meanwhile he had Ryan Grant, who when he finally started handing the ball off to, became a solid RB for that season. You can't say the guy has no running game when he never attempted to have one to begin with.

1. The quarterback is not the offensive coordinator.

2. Ryan Grant was a rookie during Favre's last season in GB, so he couldn't have handed it off to him before then. (if your argument is that Grant didn't touch the ball enough, well that was a coaches decision. It wasn't until week 8 that the coaches started putting him in the game)

3. Your argument loses much of its validity because it was proven that when Green Bay had good healthy running backs they used them. The problem was the good players they had were normally hurt.

4. Even if he had handed the ball off more the defense was still middle of the pack.

I guess you probably think Marino was a ball hog too. Since I don't know what your answer is, and to save you from a possible hypocrisy, Marino had I think one 1,000 yard rusher in his career.

For the sake of argument though lets say Favre was a ball hog who refused to hand the ball off as you would claim. You can't argue with the results.

Oh yeah...fun fact of the day. Joe Montana averaged about 28 pass attempts per game on those great 49er teams. Brett Favre has averaged 34 pass attempts per game. 6 more pass attempts per game on vastly inferior teams.