Couple of last thoughts on Favre….
Bob Ryan summed up my general feeling about Favre much better than I could hope to:
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/articles/2008/03/09/among_all_time_greats_favre_is_back_in_the_pack/
Tip o’ the hat to KJ for sending me that link…
Sal Paolatonio also did a pretty nice job of it as well:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=paolantonio_sal&id=3281535
The most interesting stat I saw on Favre was not in either article - in my local paper, they posted his lifetime numbers, and his career QB rating is 85. Remember, of course that “average” is 80.
I think we can all agree that QB rating is a flawed measure. However, it is what is currently used to mark how “good” a QB is; therefore, I find it fascinating that a QB with a slightly above average rating for his career (not a 2 or 3 year snippet, but a career), can be considered by some as the greatest QB of all time…
March 9th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
What an awful article by Bob Ryan. If you want to talk about the negative aspects of Favre’s career, and focus on the several poorly thrown interceptions he has thrown at crucial times, that is fine. If you want to discuss how Favre had the talent around him to win the Super Bowl in 1997, 1998, 2003, 2007 and came up short, again, there is a valid argument there. If you want to discuss how the media has treated Favre with Derek Jeter like coverage, I am OK with that as well. There also is an argument about where Favre rates among the All-Time great QBs. Is he definately top 5, probably not, but it would be difficult to argue he isn’t in the discussion
Saying that Favre hurt his team, however, by playing through injuries, in the name of a consecutive starts streak is outright ludicrous and idiotic. Favre competing at 70% helped the team not have to the likes of Craig Nall, Doug Peterson, and a rookie Aaron Rodgers. How can you compare Favre sucking it up for the good of the team, to Lou Gehrig taking one at bat and sitting out the rest of the game to maintain a streak? In fact, I didn’t know that prior to reading the Ryan article, and I lost a lot of respect for Gehrig’s streak. To describe Favre as a guy just looking to set some records, shows a complete ignorance and lack of understanding of his dedication and respect for the game.
I understand that it is important for Journalists to become part of the story instead of just covering a story. Here is hoping that this story dies its just death.
March 10th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
I understand (and agree) with Ryan’s general point: Usually players playing for the sake of a consecutive-games streak end up hurting their team more than helping them. I get that Cal Ripken was brought up to play every day, and I respect the fact that he didn’t pull a Gehrig and get one first-inning AB in just to sit the rest of the game (at least that I’m aware of). But two obvious differences between the likes of Favre and the likes of Gehrig and Ripken. Danny hit the first point, which I obviously happen to agree with - but it also ties into the second point: There are 162 games in a baseball season, but only 16 games in a football season.
In other words, a guy (like Plaxico this year, fwiw - or Brian Westbrook… er, every year) can miss practice during a week to rest/heal - but show up and play Sunday, even at less than 100%, and help his team (tying back to point#1 - especially when consideration is given to the replacement options i.e. this wasn’t a situation where Steve Young was backing up Joe Montana). I truly don’t believe that any of Favre’s bad throws/decisions were due to being less than 100% in trying to extend the games-started streak… I think that, healthy or not, it was the result of a guy who was (a) talented enough to pull that crap off often enough that (b) he had the misguided confidence to believe he could do it *every* time.
But back to the point about helping/hurting a team: Even if you insist that Lenny Sakata at SS for the Orioles is the same as Craig Nall at QB for the Packers (which its not, but I’ll concede the point hypothetically for the moment), 1 game out of 162 is necessarily less important than 1 game out of 16. Now, back to reality, the QB is the single most important player on the football field every Sunday - even if its a Trent Dilfer guy who’s sole job it is to *not* lose the game. The closest thing in baseball is the starting pitcher - but at that, the starter (a) rarely plays the whole game anymore, and (b) plays only 1 in 5 days anyway. In other words, if your star/starting QB can go… he should go.
Nope… as much as I always have and always will respect Bob Ryan and enjoy his work, he’s wrong on this count - and Danny is right: Favre’s desire to play every single one of those 253 games is indeed a *positive* on his resume.
All that said, he’s definitely not top-5… in large part due to the interceptions - but I understand the argument for top-10, cuz you cannot ignore the numbers, the toughness, the leadership, and the results. Perhaps he should’ve done more with the cast around him, but he did win one Super Bowl and appeared in another - and he did set the meaningful counting stat records (yes, including INTs - but let’s please not ignore the TDs and yards and oh… *wins*… the guy could freakin’ toss the rock, people, and it usually meant victory for his squad).
I have Brady, Peyton, Elway, Montana, Unitas and Young ahead of him… definitely. I’d also put Otto Graham and Bart Starr ahead of him, myself - though they were from a much different era, which makes it tough. But he did more individually and for his team than Dan Marino, so I understand if someone has Marino behind Favre. Aikman is another that I could understand just ahead or just behind him (personally, I’d probably put Aikman behind Favre). Ryan suggests that guys like Moon, Fouts, Tarkenton, Staubach and Bradshaw are in the discussion. Not in my book - I don’t see an argument for any of them ahead of Favre, although Moon probably comes closest.
Now Luckman, Baugh, and Albert? I’ll leave it to the historians to place those fellas. To me, I’ve got Favre either just in the top-10 all-time or just out… depending on where you put these last three. I agree with the general consensus that many will rate him too high (at least for the foreseeable future while his retirement is still fresh in our minds) - but hovering around the top-10 all-time at his position ain’t… too… shabby.