Congrats to Brett favre - Page 5 - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**tussinelde** · 10-15-2007, 06:58 PM

I really don't want to get into this, but how do you correctly prorate stats?

The older a guy gets, his production will fall off. I don't know how anyone can accurately predict that. All you can do is an average.

Plus there are so many other factors that can't be correctly factored in. This is why these arguments are annoying.

All I know is that all Bear/Vike/Lion fans would easliy take Brett over the dozens of QBs that they've gone through over the past 17 years.

**w3QHxwNb** · 10-15-2007, 07:00 PM

well said Left Click

**Ornamiviant** · 10-15-2007, 07:03 PM

I really don't want to get into this, but how do you correctly prorate stats?

The older a guy gets, his production will fall off. I don't know how anyone can accurately predict that. All you can do is an average.

Plus there are so many other factors that can't be correctly factored in. This is why these arguments are annoying.

All I know is that all Bear/Vike/Lion fans would easliy take Brett over the dozens of QBs that they've gone through over the past 17 years.

Open that statement up to the whole league. How many teams in the NFL wouldn't take Brett outside of NE and Indy? Maybe Cincy? Who else?

Despite all the INTs and what not, Favre has consistently more often than not given the Packers the abiltiy to win almost every game he has played for them. Not too many other QBs in the league right now can say that aside from Peyton Manning and Tom Brady.

**BigBobdd** · 10-15-2007, 07:09 PM

Open that statement up to the whole league. How many teams in the NFL wouldn't take Brett outside of NE and Indy? Maybe Cincy? Who else?

Despite all the INTs and what not, Favre has consistently more often than not given the Packers the abiltiy to win almost every game he has played for them. Not too many other QBs in the league right now can say that aside from Peyton Manning and Tom Brady.

You packers homers are killing me. Let the comedy continue..please

**FjFHQLJQ** · 10-15-2007, 07:20 PM

You packers homers are killing me. Let the comedy continue..please

Thats why every thread on this board lights up when the topic is trading him or getting him out of GB?

**Heessduernbub** · 10-15-2007, 07:22 PM

Thats why every thread on this board lights up when the topic is trading him or getting him out of GB?

Keep it coming mate

**Eromereorybig** · 10-15-2007, 07:22 PM

You packers homers are killing me. Let the comedy continue..please

Hey bud, it's hard not to be even a little biased.

Tell me, other than Manning the elder and Brady, who else based on pure ability alone (not potential or future developement) right now would you put under your center?

Like I mentioned the only one I can kind of think of right now is Carson Palmer. Maybe, maybe, maybe Matt Hasslebeck (sp?) a former Favre backup? Some might be able to make an argument for Big Ben and Romo. Actually maybe Romo over Carson.

**HonestSean** · 10-15-2007, 07:23 PM

I really don't want to get into this, but how do you correctly prorate stats?

The older a guy gets, his production will fall off. I don't know how anyone can accurately predict that. All you can do is an average.

Plus there are so many other factors that can't be correctly factored in. This is why these arguments are annoying.

All I know is that all Bear/Vike/Lion fans would easliy take Brett over the dozens of QBs that they've gone through over the past 17 years.

Your limiting it to 17 years. He's probably the best QB in the division ever. Hes definitely better than any NFC North QB since Tarkenton, and theres not many that argue that Fran was better (he is underrated in all time discussions). Bart Starr is the next name that comes up, and then Sid Luckman. Apologies to Lions fans, I cant throw you a bone.

**Bemapayople** · 10-15-2007, 07:28 PM

Hey bud, it's hard not to be even a little biased.

Tell me, other than Manning the elder and Brady, who else based on pure ability alone (not potential or future developement) right now would you put under your center?

Like I mentioned the only one I can kind of think of right now is Carson Palmer. Maybe, maybe, maybe Matt Hasslebeck (sp?) a former Favre backup? Some might be able to make an argument for Big Ben and Romo. Actually maybe Romo over Carson.

Ok now you have stipulated it a bit more I see your point. In either case, right now not factoring in future development I would take (and presuming all are in good health):

Regardless of team:
Brady
Manning
Romo
Hasselback
Carson Palmer

On the right team:
McNabb
Rothlesburger
Drew Brees

I don't deny how good favre is (was) but I don't feel like he's a top 5, and is maybe a top 10 qb today...

**TeLMgNva** · 10-15-2007, 07:31 PM

Ok now you have stipulated it a bit more I see your point. In either case, right now not factoring in future development I would take (and presuming all are in good health):

Regardless of team:
Brady
Manning
Romo
Hasselback
Carson Palmer

On the right team:
McNabb
Rothlesburger
Drew Brees

I don't deny how good favre is (was) but I don't feel like he's a top 5, and is maybe a top 10 qb today...

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion and everyone else is perfectly entitled to agree or disagree.

**occalmnab** · 10-15-2007, 07:32 PM

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion and everyone else is perfectly entitled to agree or disagree.

yep, i believe in that

**tsovimnpb** · 10-15-2007, 07:32 PM

Ok now you have stipulated it a bit more I see your point. In either case, right now not factoring in future development I would take (and presuming all are in good health):

Regardless of team:
Brady
Manning
Romo
Hasselback
Carson Palmer

On the right team:
McNabb
Rothlesburger
Drew Brees

I don't deny how good favre is (was) but I don't feel like he's a top 5, and is maybe a top 10 qb today...

That maybe true, but you can't deny that when Favre steps on the field, the Packers have the chance to win against anyone. Can you truly say that about Romo, Hasselbeck and Palmer? Maybe I'm just spoiled with having Favre for so long, but I can't say that about those three guys. Manning and Brady, without a doubt.

**engacenus** · 10-15-2007, 07:33 PM

That maybe true, but you can't deny that when Favre steps on the field, the Packers have the chance to win against anyone. Can you truly say that about Romo, Hasselbeck and Palmer? Maybe I'm just spoiled with having Favre for so long, but I can't say that about those three guys. Manning and Brady, without a doubt.

well there's the difference betwen you and I because I don't feel that. I think the Packers wins these days are stipulated by how many mistakes Favre doesn't make and how that defense plays.

Back in his glory days? Sure.

**ëàìèíàò** · 10-15-2007, 07:35 PM

Ok now you have stipulated it a bit more I see your point. In either case, right now not factoring in future development I would take (and presuming all are in good health):

Regardless of team:
Brady
Manning
Romo
Hasselback
Carson Palmer

On the right team:
McNabb
Rothlesburger
Drew Brees

I don't deny how good favre is (was) but I don't feel like he's a top 5, and is maybe a top 10 qb today...

That's the aboslute most key statement in your post. That to me narrows it even further to just Manning and Brady. Has Romo been hurt at all for more than a game or so?

**Jjfotqse** · 10-15-2007, 07:37 PM

well there's the difference betwen you and I because I don't feel that. I think the Packers wins these days are stipulated by how many mistakes Favre doesn't make and how that defense plays.

Back in his glory days? Sure.

He's been making the same damn mistakes his whole career. That's an irrelevant statement. The only years he seemed to significantly cut down on mistakes were the Super Bowl years.

**WFSdZuP3** · 10-15-2007, 07:41 PM

Ok now you have stipulated it a bit more I see your point. In either case, right now not factoring in future development I would take (and presuming all are in good health):

Regardless of team:
Brady
Manning
Romo
Hasselback
Carson Palmer

On the right team:
McNabb
Rothlesburger
Drew Brees

I don't deny how good favre is (was) but I don't feel like he's a top 5, and is maybe a top 10 qb today...

Hasselback?????? Regardless of team??? Really ??????????

**Fgunehjf** · 10-15-2007, 07:42 PM

That maybe true, but you can't deny that when Favre steps on the field, the Packers have the chance to win against anyone. Can you truly say that about Romo, Hasselbeck and Palmer? Maybe I'm just spoiled with having Favre for so long, but I can't say that about those three guys. Manning and Brady, without a doubt.

If Palmers O-line was better I would put him up there with Manning and Brady. His defense is terrible too.

**Fgunehjf** · 10-15-2007, 07:43 PM

. The only years he seemed to significantly cut down on mistakes were the Super Bowl years.

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. Thus it's not irrelevant.

**chinesemedicine** · 10-15-2007, 07:47 PM

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. Thus it's not irrelevant.

Did you see the host of superstars that guy had around him during those two seasons? I'm pretty sure those guys helped save his bacon a few times. The Super Bowl years didn't see a different Brett Favre, he has played the same the whole time. So, yes it is irrelevant.

**abossakon** · 10-15-2007, 07:47 PM

Actually, it was a running play since there were no receivers running patterns. Favre faked the handoff to roll out and hopefully get a first down. He's done it before.

So it should not have been called a sack, which is the most useless stat in football anyways.

but why did no other packer know what was going on?

10-15-2007, 06:58 PM	#81
tussinelde Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 311 Senior Member	I really don't want to get into this, but how do you correctly prorate stats? The older a guy gets, his production will fall off. I don't know how anyone can accurately predict that. All you can do is an average. Plus there are so many other factors that can't be correctly factored in. This is why these arguments are annoying. All I know is that all Bear/Vike/Lion fans would easliy take Brett over the dozens of QBs that they've gone through over the past 17 years. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2007, 07:00 PM	#82
w3QHxwNb Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 530 Senior Member	well said Left Click Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2007, 07:03 PM	#83
Ornamiviant Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 594 Senior Member	I really don't want to get into this, but how do you correctly prorate stats? The older a guy gets, his production will fall off. I don't know how anyone can accurately predict that. All you can do is an average. Plus there are so many other factors that can't be correctly factored in. This is why these arguments are annoying. All I know is that all Bear/Vike/Lion fans would easliy take Brett over the dozens of QBs that they've gone through over the past 17 years. Open that statement up to the whole league. How many teams in the NFL wouldn't take Brett outside of NE and Indy? Maybe Cincy? Who else? Despite all the INTs and what not, Favre has consistently more often than not given the Packers the abiltiy to win almost every game he has played for them. Not too many other QBs in the league right now can say that aside from Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2007, 07:09 PM	#84
BigBobdd Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 328 Senior Member	Open that statement up to the whole league. How many teams in the NFL wouldn't take Brett outside of NE and Indy? Maybe Cincy? Who else? Despite all the INTs and what not, Favre has consistently more often than not given the Packers the abiltiy to win almost every game he has played for them. Not too many other QBs in the league right now can say that aside from Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. You packers homers are killing me. Let the comedy continue..please Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2007, 07:20 PM	#85
FjFHQLJQ Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 485 Senior Member	You packers homers are killing me. Let the comedy continue..please Thats why every thread on this board lights up when the topic is trading him or getting him out of GB? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2007, 07:22 PM	#86
Heessduernbub Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 410 Senior Member	Thats why every thread on this board lights up when the topic is trading him or getting him out of GB? Keep it coming mate Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2007, 07:22 PM	#87
Eromereorybig Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 469 Senior Member	You packers homers are killing me. Let the comedy continue..please Hey bud, it's hard not to be even a little biased. Tell me, other than Manning the elder and Brady, who else based on pure ability alone (not potential or future developement) right now would you put under your center? Like I mentioned the only one I can kind of think of right now is Carson Palmer. Maybe, maybe, maybe Matt Hasslebeck (sp?) a former Favre backup? Some might be able to make an argument for Big Ben and Romo. Actually maybe Romo over Carson. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2007, 07:23 PM	#88
HonestSean Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 431 Senior Member	I really don't want to get into this, but how do you correctly prorate stats? The older a guy gets, his production will fall off. I don't know how anyone can accurately predict that. All you can do is an average. Plus there are so many other factors that can't be correctly factored in. This is why these arguments are annoying. All I know is that all Bear/Vike/Lion fans would easliy take Brett over the dozens of QBs that they've gone through over the past 17 years. Your limiting it to 17 years. He's probably the best QB in the division ever. Hes definitely better than any NFC North QB since Tarkenton, and theres not many that argue that Fran was better (he is underrated in all time discussions). Bart Starr is the next name that comes up, and then Sid Luckman. Apologies to Lions fans, I cant throw you a bone. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2007, 07:28 PM	#89
Bemapayople Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 305 Senior Member	Hey bud, it's hard not to be even a little biased. Tell me, other than Manning the elder and Brady, who else based on pure ability alone (not potential or future developement) right now would you put under your center? Like I mentioned the only one I can kind of think of right now is Carson Palmer. Maybe, maybe, maybe Matt Hasslebeck (sp?) a former Favre backup? Some might be able to make an argument for Big Ben and Romo. Actually maybe Romo over Carson. Ok now you have stipulated it a bit more I see your point. In either case, right now not factoring in future development I would take (and presuming all are in good health): Regardless of team: Brady Manning Romo Hasselback Carson Palmer On the right team: McNabb Rothlesburger Drew Brees I don't deny how good favre is (was) but I don't feel like he's a top 5, and is maybe a top 10 qb today... Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2007, 07:31 PM	#90
TeLMgNva Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 580 Senior Member	Ok now you have stipulated it a bit more I see your point. In either case, right now not factoring in future development I would take (and presuming all are in good health): Regardless of team: Brady Manning Romo Hasselback Carson Palmer On the right team: McNabb Rothlesburger Drew Brees I don't deny how good favre is (was) but I don't feel like he's a top 5, and is maybe a top 10 qb today... You're perfectly entitled to your opinion and everyone else is perfectly entitled to agree or disagree. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2007, 07:32 PM	#91
occalmnab Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 441 Senior Member	You're perfectly entitled to your opinion and everyone else is perfectly entitled to agree or disagree. yep, i believe in that Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2007, 07:32 PM	#92
tsovimnpb Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 529 Senior Member	Ok now you have stipulated it a bit more I see your point. In either case, right now not factoring in future development I would take (and presuming all are in good health): Regardless of team: Brady Manning Romo Hasselback Carson Palmer On the right team: McNabb Rothlesburger Drew Brees I don't deny how good favre is (was) but I don't feel like he's a top 5, and is maybe a top 10 qb today... That maybe true, but you can't deny that when Favre steps on the field, the Packers have the chance to win against anyone. Can you truly say that about Romo, Hasselbeck and Palmer? Maybe I'm just spoiled with having Favre for so long, but I can't say that about those three guys. Manning and Brady, without a doubt. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2007, 07:33 PM	#93
engacenus Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 494 Senior Member	That maybe true, but you can't deny that when Favre steps on the field, the Packers have the chance to win against anyone. Can you truly say that about Romo, Hasselbeck and Palmer? Maybe I'm just spoiled with having Favre for so long, but I can't say that about those three guys. Manning and Brady, without a doubt. well there's the difference betwen you and I because I don't feel that. I think the Packers wins these days are stipulated by how many mistakes Favre doesn't make and how that defense plays. Back in his glory days? Sure. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2007, 07:35 PM	#94
ëàìèíàò Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 427 Senior Member	Ok now you have stipulated it a bit more I see your point. In either case, right now not factoring in future development I would take (and presuming all are in good health): Regardless of team: Brady Manning Romo Hasselback Carson Palmer On the right team: McNabb Rothlesburger Drew Brees I don't deny how good favre is (was) but I don't feel like he's a top 5, and is maybe a top 10 qb today... That's the aboslute most key statement in your post. That to me narrows it even further to just Manning and Brady. Has Romo been hurt at all for more than a game or so? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2007, 07:37 PM	#95
Jjfotqse Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 332 Senior Member	well there's the difference betwen you and I because I don't feel that. I think the Packers wins these days are stipulated by how many mistakes Favre doesn't make and how that defense plays. Back in his glory days? Sure. He's been making the same damn mistakes his whole career. That's an irrelevant statement. The only years he seemed to significantly cut down on mistakes were the Super Bowl years. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 13 (0 members and 13 guests)

10-15-2007, 07:41 PM	#96
WFSdZuP3 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 428 Senior Member	Ok now you have stipulated it a bit more I see your point. In either case, right now not factoring in future development I would take (and presuming all are in good health): Regardless of team: Brady Manning Romo Hasselback Carson Palmer On the right team: McNabb Rothlesburger Drew Brees I don't deny how good favre is (was) but I don't feel like he's a top 5, and is maybe a top 10 qb today... Hasselback?????? Regardless of team??? Really ?????????? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2007, 07:42 PM	#97
Fgunehjf Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 416 Senior Member	That maybe true, but you can't deny that when Favre steps on the field, the Packers have the chance to win against anyone. Can you truly say that about Romo, Hasselbeck and Palmer? Maybe I'm just spoiled with having Favre for so long, but I can't say that about those three guys. Manning and Brady, without a doubt. If Palmers O-line was better I would put him up there with Manning and Brady. His defense is terrible too. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2007, 07:43 PM	#98
Fgunehjf Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 416 Senior Member	. The only years he seemed to significantly cut down on mistakes were the Super Bowl years. And that's exactly what I'm talking about. Thus it's not irrelevant. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2007, 07:47 PM	#99
chinesemedicine Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 506 Senior Member	And that's exactly what I'm talking about. Thus it's not irrelevant. Did you see the host of superstars that guy had around him during those two seasons? I'm pretty sure those guys helped save his bacon a few times. The Super Bowl years didn't see a different Brett Favre, he has played the same the whole time. So, yes it is irrelevant. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2007, 07:47 PM	#100
abossakon Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 540 Senior Member	Actually, it was a running play since there were no receivers running patterns. Favre faked the handoff to roll out and hopefully get a first down. He's done it before. So it should not have been called a sack, which is the most useless stat in football anyways. but why did no other packer know what was going on? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote