Who cares if they were one of the best teams in history. This same "best" team in history still had closer games IN EVERY SINGLE OTHER GAME THAT SEASON. Man it is impossible for you just to admit when you are clearly wrong. Elway COMPLETELY screwed the pooch in both the SF and WSH superbowls.
I'm not getting how you've concluded that Young was better than Favre from 1994-1998. Don't mean to offend but you sound like an idiot with that claim. At the very best you could argue that he was a close second. Aikman was NOT more productive during this time or any time in his career. Again you sound foolish. Troy didn't even win more games during that time span but he did win more SBs during Favre's era. He had the better teams though. BY FAR. That doensn't make him the better QB and its a freakin' joke if you even try to argue this in any way whatsoever. I agree with you that Marino was better in a prime for prime comparison with Favre. Marino's peak is better than anyone of all time, including Brady and Manning. The reason I say this is because Manning and Brady had their best seasons in the era in which the rules prevented defensive backs from harrassing WRs. You could molest WRs in Marino's prime, yet he still put up gaudy numbers. Like I said, Marino had a higher ceiling than Favre but Brett was better for much longer. Take Brett's top 8 seasons and match them up against Marino's and you'll see that Favre was better.
Really? You're clueless. Try going to a game once. You'll see that balls are often thrown before receivers make a turn in their routes. And you keep hammering on Grant being wide open. He was open about the time Brett was throwing the ball. Nice accomplishment for Elway to get to 5 super bowls but those first 3 aren't that impressive really, considering there were always 3 or 4 teams in the NFL who were better than the Broncos. Those teams just happened to be in the NFC, and they pummeled Denver each time and Elway usually stunk the joint up. That means something to me when rating him. That and his sub-80 QB rating for his career. What was it....a career completion % of 57? Great QB. Just not as great as many people think IMO. Really? Its as easy as that, huh? Nobody could have turned Tampa around in those days. Stupid comment. Everything Joe did, Steve did it better. Plus Steve was more mobile and a much better athlete. There's a reason why Joe didn't like Steve, and its not because their personalities clashed.
nyjunc doesn't have to leave No he doesn't have to leave- I am enjoying his posts. They reflect the nature of a large contingent of the san francisco/cowboy/east coast NFC lovin media that would have just as soon ignored someone in the boondocks of GB or Tampa or Carolina. NYJUNC is stuck on the critical hype- Favre is a gun slinger and irresponsible jerk crap- that those aforementioned hacks recycle over and over. Example of disrespect, in a Charlie Casserly article, he states that 4 of the 6 TDs thrown against ARIZ were blown coverages or defenders falling down. SO WHAT- maybe they fell or blew because they bit too damn hard on the play action, or because its Brett Favre and not Chad Pennington (oops sorry about that). nyjunc might think differently if he was in the huddle on Thursday night and looked captain fearless in the eyes, or was in the locker room, or on the practice field or talked to D Keller or L Washington and banked on there input. We are insulated from the true stature of Brett Favre because we don't tune out the negative audio tapes or buy into the living legend completely. It will be some time down the road when that crap washes away. It is probably best that this medium did not exist in 1968 bec nyjunc would have have gone crazy. You see, Joe Willie threw about 10 INTs in his first 5 games (3 of which were returned for TDs in a game against Buffalo). After that he settled down and the running game took over. At the end of the season he had thrown 15 TDs and 17INTs. Thats how the 68 jets won- they predominantly ran the ball and passed efficiently- resulting in long drives and defended the Raiders and the Colts well enough. But I think that Namath's bravado was a bit of a factor (And I love Joe for that). Sound familiar? Relax, take a breath. I personally think the INT has become a hyper-sensitive issue. (2007 NFC Championship Game notwithstanding. Personally, I think Driver broke the route on that one). Pass to move the chains but dammit stretch the field once in a while when the matchup is right. Hell, Bradshaw threw 1 more TD in his career than INTs- was he rewarded? Long Drives and Scoring on the Opening Drive (very critical this week) are more a Favre trademark than stupid interceptions. Leadership is more of a Favre Trait than Stupid Interceptions. Red Zone Accuracy and Scoring is more of a Favre trait than stupid interceptions. Winning is more of a Favre trait than stupid interceptions. Catch my drift? Did anyone hear Favre in the post game NFL show take credit for hitting the goal post? As accurate as he was all night, I for one believe him.
Very true. Elway was awful in both of those games. He also played really badly in the second half of the Giant superbowl.
Great Post. Look nyjunc, I watched that game and I've watched that game a bunch of times because I have it on tape and it is one of my all-time favorite superbowls. There is no question that Favre was the much better quarterback that day. His O-line sucked in the game (he was under pressure constantly) and he still made a lot of great throws and kept his team in the game until the last drive. Elway had a dominant running game and still was rather mediocre at best. He also made the most critical mistake of the game when GB fumbled and he had his team deep in Packer territory up by 7 and in position to put his team up by two scores, he threw a terrible interception in the endzone that got GB back in the game. Also, Elway in general, is a VERY overrated "all-time great" quarterback. He was probably as physically talented as anyone to ever play the game (his combination of mobility and arm strength is probably unmatched in NFL history), however, his accuracy was always suspect and his passing stats PALE in comparison with many of the other "all-time great" quarterbacks. Both Marino and Favre's numbers DESTROY Elway's. Elway won 2 superbowls because he had as dominating a running game for a three year stretch as any quarterback has ever had. I would take Montana, Marino, and Favre over Elway in half a second. (you can throw Brady and Peyton Manning in there, although they haven't played long enough yet) And seriously, just look at their stats. Elway did nothing in that game.
I probably agree with you about taking Marino over Favre (although I think it's really close) becaue I think that Marino in his prime was probably the best passer in the history of the sport. I would probably take Montana , Marino, Brady, and Manning over him (obviously Brady and Manning have to play longer but they both will probably surpass Favre in my eyes). But I don't see how anyone woud take Elway over him. Elway is so overrated, it's not even funny.
Organizations win Championships, players (usually QBs) win MVPs. A lot of chatter about who would you take to be your QB if you had a five year plan. Kind of a circle around who is the best all time). I would not take Montana (would need all the 49ers to make that work), don't want Brady bec would need Moss or Branch (hate those guys) Manning is interesting, but would have to play indoors. In an era when QB rating is premium Young leads all active and inactive QBs. Period. I might lean toward him.... BUT I'll take either Favre or Marino and ANY 10 OTHER GUYS in any kind of weather.
I love the guys who are biased calling people who don't agree w/ them biased:rofl: Again I appreciated what he did in the NE game then this turned into a Brett slobber fest again forgetting his mediocrity the forst 9 weeks. That SF team led the NFL in scoring(it was 27.6 not 26.7), they lost 2 games all hyear by a combined FOUR points, they had the greatest QB in the history of the game, the greatest WR, they beat their two NFC playoff opponents 41-13 and 30-3. Does it matter that they "only" won a game by 42 in the reg season and beat Denver by 55? The fact that Elway got his teams to 3 SBs in the 80s was a great achievment. The NFC was the dominant conference back then just like the last decade the AFC has been the dominat conf- did we see Favre take his GB team to SBs in that time period? Elwy screwed the pooch in the Den and Wash SBs but Brett was great in his 2 SBs? Elway has a SB MVP, does Brett? You calim TD was the reason they beat GB in that SB and I agree BUT Desmond Howard was the reason GB beat NE in their SB win and favre's INT in SB XXXII led to a Den TD and they lost by a TD PLUS Favre had the ball in his hands w/ over a minute at the Denver 35 yd line and he didn't lead them to the tying score. Take your own advice and admit you are wrong, all the evidence is against you. I understand that but on he has to have some sense of whether the guy is open, that is why a QB reads a Defense. Brett didn't give Grant time, he threw to a covered WR instead. The one thing he couldn't do in thta situation was throw an INT and that's exactly what he did. From about '98-last year the AFC was the better conference and had 3-4 teams better than the best NFC teams, how many SBs did Favre lead his teams to in that span? Oh god, yep he did everything better EXCEPT win! Was Young physically more gifted? of course but that doesn't mean anything. TB did stink but so did SF when Joe became the QB, so did NE when Brady stepped on the field. If Young was truly great he would have AT LEAST made a difference and he didn't. In 1991 Steve took over for Joe Montana and took over a dynasty, he led them to a 5-5 record, Steve Bono stepped in and led them to a 5-1 record. He was awful against Dal and GB in postseason costing his teams games getting badly outplayed by Aikman and Favre and if not for the Johnson-Jones divorece he likely never would have won a SB. Steve Young was a GREAT fantasy QB but when it mattered he was nothing more than average. How come GB didn't listen to "Captain Fearless" in the tile game? People act like the Jets never beat NE, it was just 2 short years ago in NE that they beat the TOM BRADY led Pats so spare me the "Captain Fearless" nonsense. Namath is one of the most overrated players in the history of the game. I'm sure Joe's bravado helped but at the teams have to go and play. Did Favre's bravado help in SB XXXII? did it help in last uyear's title game? did it help the last decade w/ bad playoff loss after bad playodd loss? Bravado and Captain Fearless sound nice when they win but when you don't win enough big games it becomes overblown. Brady would need Moss or Branch? How did he win 1 SB w/ol Branch, a 2nd where Branch was a role player and 3 w/o Moss? Rating can be quite meaningless. Marc Bulger, Daunte Culpepper and CHAD PENNINGTON are 5,6 and 7 all time in passer taing and AHEAD of Brett Favre so I guess that means you think those players are better than Favre? I understand him, I am objective something none of you guys are b/c you love Favre. I like Favre but I can admit when he doesn't play well. It's not always b/c of Favre his team wins and everyone else's fault when they lose.
Namath was not overrated by any means. He got injured and was never able to have a normal career, but then that is just more of your bias showing. He had the tools to become the greatest QB that ever played the game.
Ok. Aikman and Brady you can make arguments for, simply because they have more rings. If your going to base greatest ever, or top 5 of all time, purely off how many rings they produced, then OK. I'll give you those two had better careers. But Peyton manning? Not only is Favre's stats comparable to Manning, Favre has been to more super bowls then Manning, and they both only carry one ring. At best, you can say they are on a equal level as they both have longevity streaks (mannings is #2 for QB's all time behind #4) and years and years and YEARS of winning, playoff appearances, etc. I never understood why everyone kept saying Peyton was better then Favre, because their production on the field has always been virtually identical. Favre just has happened to do it longer then Manning to this point, and at 39, there is doubt that Manning will be able to do it as long as #4. Plus, I've never liked tom brady. Mostly because he has always gotten all this praise (sort of like manning did in the super bowl, when the team won DESPITE him) when it was clear the team around him was winning the games. He had to be a manger type, just don't make that stupid pass, becuase you can't make up for it. Last year was suppose to be the year that showed everyone that Brady is not a game manager, but a winner. To me, it just showed the best collection of WR talent ever known to football, and it showed a coach who will not let off the petal for a full 60 minutes, even if your up by 40. Prior to that year, Brady never had more then 28 TD passes in a season. Still, I digress: If were looking at success only means rings: Brady and Aikman clearly are better. Manning is not. You just cannot make a logical argument that Manning is BETTER then Favre throughout both's career's. In fact, the sole reason I give Favre the nod at this point is because he has been to one more superbowl, and has 3 MVP's, which I think is 1 or 2 more then Peyton (can't remember if manning had a 2nd, someone remind me). Marino? Sorry. Favre has better numbers across the board: And he won the big one. Most would never take Marino over Favre, because favre simply played better then marino over a longer period of time, and was able to get the packers a ring, while Marino could not.
He was injured and the derailed his caeer BUT durability is part of it. Durability is the biggest reason Favre is great. He did have all the tools but unfortunately b/c of injuries he only had a small window.
LOL This guy can counter any argument with rationalizations. Not a lot of facts to back it up. Amusing stuff. Glad all football fans don't think this way.
Well... the Favre arguement is just a waste of time. Favre fans and Favre hater's will never agree. So I'll put this to rest. Those who like Favre, it was a kickass ride. Those who hate Favre, I'm sorry you never got to feel the joy this man brought us. Sure there were ups and downs but the ups far outweighed the downs. Brett Favre brought his fans a 167-96 record (still counting) and a .635 win % which is one of the best of all time.
I have been a Favre fan for a long time now. What his critics seem to miss is he plays the game with an infectious enthusiasm which inspires his teammates. The negatives all go into the mix - he is who he is. But I'd rather watch him playing Qb than several of the others offered here as "better" Qb's. Perhaps Elway is the exception since I loved his arm and his physical approach to playing the position. Those two guys are my favorite Qb's of the last twenty five years or so, but then I used to prefer Stabler to Staubach and Bradshaw, too.
whatever you say, ask any OBJECTIVE fans and they'll agree w/ me. One sentence you use passer rating as the judge but if that's the case how can favre be near the top when he's not even top 10 in passer rating? You guys have a million excuses.
