Favre

Spooge

Guru
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
450
Location
Montana
Yet again a core of elite aff a leets proved that speed and color don't
make for the best recievers. Brett Farve made many good throws to
his dark stars and they caught some, missed some, dropped some and let
one get taken away (long return, set up a touch down or field goal for
the other team.) Not one of his " weapons" displayed any
frustration for flubbing the passes. Typical caste type reaction,
they alomost appeared offended cause Favre didn't catch it for them
too. It was refreashing to see Favre chewing out one reciever on
the sidelines after he had a ball literally taken out of his
hands.
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
388
Location
North Carolina
It is painful to watch a future Hall of Famer surrounded by a much inferior cast. Green Bay is lousy in virtually all facets of the game -- I've rarely seen more dropped passes, butterfinger fumbles, missed tackles, and blown coverages as the Packers displayed against Carolina. You can see the frustration in Favre's face as he watches the Packers' defense embarass themselves play after play.
 

White Shogun

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
6,285
I made the mistake of tuning in to Colin Cowturd's show on ESPN Radio this morning. I have to stop doing that; my blood pressure sky rockets every time he opens his mouth. At any rate, he was up to his usual BS, praising Vick (and McNabb) while badmouthing Brett Favre. He continued his old schtick that Favre should retire, he is costing his team wins, blah blah blah. So I thought it would be interesting to run an actual stats comparison of Favre v Vick, and Culpepper, just for fun.

First, let's look at Favre's first five years in the NFL, compared to Vick's first five:

Favre = 63 games, 2,149 ATT, 1,342 COMP, 14,825 YDS, 108 TDS, 66 INT; RUSH YDS 797, TDS 7

Vick = 47 games, 1,032 ATT, 556 COMP, 7,114 YDS, 40 TDS, 28 INT; RUSH YDS 2,456, TDS 14

Favre played in 16 more games over 5 years, or one whole season more than Vick, because of his durability.

Favre's completion percentage was 62.4%, or 7.6% higher than Vicks. Favre's INT % was .03 per attempt, while Vick's is .027 per attempt, almost as high yet despite throwing the ball less than half as often as Favre.

Favre gained 15,622 yards combined passing & rushing; Vick has gained 9,570 combined. Put another way, Favre gained 247.9 yds per game, Vick 203.6.

Favre earned 1.8 TD per game; Vick 1.14.

Now, let's look at Favre's LAST five years, since Vick has been in the league:

GAMES 68
ATT 2,231 COMP 1,410 or 63%, YDS 16,069
TDS 130, INT 77
RUSH YDS 217, TDS 1

So, in the LAST five years of his now washed-up career, Favre has outgained Vick 16,286 total yards to 9,570; he has 131 TDS versus 54 TDS combined for Vick; and his INT per attempt is .034, which is the only stat in which he is actually worse than Vick, but again, this is in more than twice as many attempts.

Now, let's take a look at Culpepper's last five years. How many times have you heard someone say Culpepper should retire?

GAMES 61
ATT 2,050 COMP 1,329, or 64.8%, same as Favre's, YDS 15,680
TDS 100, INT 68
RUSH YDS 1,927, TDS 22

TOTAL YDS 17,607, TOTAL TDS 122, INT % .033

So in his last five years, the starting QB of the Minnesota Vikings, with Randy Moss and crew, threw for more yards, but less TDs and the same INT % as Favre.

If you throw in fumbles, Culpepper turned the ball over more than both Favre and Vick, despite all the negative publicity that Favre receives for throwing INTs.

But Favre should retire, right? He is not what he used to be, I'll grant you that, but he is still as good as Vick and Culpepper, easily.

Even at the end of his career.
 

Spooge

Guru
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
450
Location
Montana
I don't know why everyone keeps saying Favre is at the end of his
usfulness. He is still very productive (he would have pulled the
game out last night if not for Driver) and no amount of athleticism
makes up for his experiance and abliltiy to read and react to
defenses. If and when Favre retires it will be his choice, not
becuse he can't play anymore. Now if Brett should choose to leave
his current sh itty team, there are many organizations that he improve
on the spot. Old school quarterbacks (and Brett is a throw back)
played far past their prime and remained productive. Oh, but
thats when there were more white supporting players back then
(recievers that knew how to come back to a quarterback on a busted
play, etc.)
 

whiteCB

Master
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
2,282
Farve has got at least 3 good seasons left in him. Every year for the past 3 years its benn the same story. The media says Farve should hang it up then he leads his team to the playoffs and throws for over 3,000 and over 20 TDs. Kepp in mind Farve is playing in the NFC North the worst division in football and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he makes the playoffs. And white shogun why are you listening to that ESPN B.S. morning show. Those idiots have no idea of what they are talking about and just love giving Vick BJs.
 

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South
It was sad seeing Favre not have anyone who he could depend on to catch the ball. Even John Madden commented on it. It is clear that he is frustrated at this lack of talent. I don't blame him either. Green Bay seems to be doing nothing to better the situation either.
 

White Shogun

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
6,285
And white shogun why are you listening to that ESPN B.S. morning show. Those idiots have no idea of what they are talking about and just love giving Vick BJs.

Call it "show prep." Gives me plenty of material to post about on the boards here.
smiley36.gif
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,247
Location
Michigan
What really matters is the fantasy football value of a player. Favre is fourth in the Caste Football league, Culpepper is 43rd and Vick 55th overall. HA!
 

White Shogun

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
6,285
ESPN writer Greg Garber has an article describing the current demise of the Packers, who haven't faced a losing season going back 13 years to Mike Holgrem's arrival in Green Bay. Which, why coincidentally enough, was the Favre's sophomore year in the NFL.

Even with a future Hall of Famer like Favre quarterbacking the franchise, Garber still finds a way to credit Mike Holgrem with the Packer's winning records throughout his tenure with the team.

To his credit though, he writes that the Packer's present dilemna is less about Favre and more about his starting cast. He even throws a disparaging remark or two Donald Driver's way, saying that the receiver has let Favre down.

For the full article, see:

Favre article
 

Kaptain

Master
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
3,346
Location
Minnesota
I heard Joe Theismann say that the Packer's new coach should have forced Favre to retire or leave the team. Kornhieser, to his credit, argued with Theismann and defended Farve.
Later I heard several other ESPN talking heads say that if Favre doesn't perform in the first couple of games that he should be replaced by Rogers.
BTW, not one word about Steve McNair being forced to retire only unwavering praise because the Ravens finally got a "real quarterback".

Gimme a freakin break! When was the last time McNair, Vick, Culpepper, McNabb, Brooks, Ron Mexico actually had a good year? It's been at least two years since any of those guys did anything yet they are all the unquestioned starters for life. None of those guys come close to Brett Favre's greatness.
smiley7.gif
Edited by: Kaptain Poop
 

White Shogun

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
6,285
Don Wassall said:
Brett announced today that he's playing in 2007. I know Favre has his detractors among CF supporters, but I think it's great news. Now the media can leave Brett alone and double their efforts to egg Roger Clemens into retiring.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2752040

I knew Favre was a good quarterback, but I wasn't aware just 'how good' he really is. Dan Patrick was discussing Favre on ESPN radio today, and noted the following facts about Brett Favre (I don't recall the exact numbers):

Favre is within a few touchdown of breaking Dan Marino's all-time touchdown record.

Favre is within 3900 yards of breaking Dan Marino's all-time passing yardage record.

Favre is within a few games of breaking John Elway's all-time victories record.

Favre has the most consecutive starts by a quarterback in NFL history.

Favre will also likely break George Blanda's all-time record for interceptions, too.

Most pundits say that to be considered among the greatest quarterbacks of all time, a quarterback must have won a Super Bowl. I'd say that a case could be made that Brett Favre is THE greatest quarterback to ever play the game, particularly in the event that he breaks the aforementioned records held by Marino and Elway. Unlike Marino, Favre did win a Super Bowl, and lost another.

Your thoughts?
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
538
Location
Wisconsin
Favre is certainly one of the best of all time. All these calls for retirement are ridiculous. If the Green Bay receiving corp wasn't so awful he'd be putting up huge numbers.

I think the Packers are on the right track in terms of recovering from the 2005 nightmare, so why not stay on another year and maybe have another playoff run?

Also, back-up Aaron Rogers is not ready, to say the least.
 

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South
I'm glad Favre is coming back. He'll shut the mouths of the critics for a while. Anytime someone says he should retire, I always bring up McNair and how he's in the same boat but nobody wants a "magnificent leader" like him to retire. I can't wait to see Brett play again. Here's to the man from Kiln!

Southern Mississippi Golden Eagle QB 1987-1990
01_FAVRE_AT_USM_1.jpg


favre2.jpg


favre1.jpg
 

Deadlift

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
5,240
Location
North Carolina
Brett Favre is still relevant in Green Bay!! Two Super Bowl appearances, one victory and one defeat.

And, to think, the MSM was super-eager to "erase him".. :biggrin:
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
30,319
Location
Pennsylvania
Rodgers never came close to getting injured all season, yet still sat out Week 17. My guess is that after this, more teams with a bye will play their starters in meaningless final games of the season, at least through the first two or three quarters. Keeping a player fresh for the playoffs is better than sitting him because of the slight chance of injury.
 
Top