Brett Favre : the haters hate
Re: the haters hate
Reply |
That's not true. I'm a Cardinals fan and we just lost our QB (Curt Warner) to retirement. I never want Farve to play for the Cardinals. I'd rather see the Cards take a chance with Leinart. Farve always disappoints. He makes the dumbest decisions and the most assinine interceptions at the most critical times. You can have him.
Re: the haters hate
Reply |
If he were on the Patriots or Titans I'd still cringe. He costs his team in the playoffs every year they go.
Re: the haters hate
Reply |
he carries teams by himself to the playoffs on many occasions. in many playoff games the team is the one that cost the team a win, coming from a hardcore Packer fan. 4th and 26 against the eagles, the jerry rice fumble, the vikings saints game where everyone fumbled and the 12men in the huddle basically knocked them outta field goal range. every yr with the packers we bascially, after Reggie White left, never had a dominating D and relied on Brett to do everything and make every pass
Re: the haters hate
Reply |
He "carries" the team because, like most teams post free agency/salary cap era, the Packers had to pick which side of the ball they were going to accentuate at the expense of the other, and when you have a Favre that choice is easy - Offense. The Ravens picked the D and a don't f'it up offense, so did Tampa. The Colts chose to go the Offense route with a bend but don't break D. So you're NOT GOING TO GET a Favre ready Offense with his hand picked O-line AND a DOMINANT D that you blame for not getting it done.
The D under Donatell from 2000-2003 averaged about 10th in points given up - more than adequate to get something accomplished, especially when you throw in the fact that Favre had the Pack's all time leading rusher in Ahman Green with him from 2000-2006 on the O side of the ball. It stands that the Offense was well238 stocked enough to support Favre and it was subsidized by taking financial resources from the D. It was up to Favre to get it done, and instead the Pack and fans got 6 picks in 2001, 2 picks and bad fumble in 2002, simply a bad pick in 2003 regardless of the 4th and 26 (the 4th and 26 never happens if Sherman put "getting it done" in his own O first and foremost and then further that dumb move by waving off the blitz on 4th and 26), and 4 picks in 2004. The Packers were the second best team in the NFC and didn't make even ONE NFCCG while the Eagles mad5b4e four consecutively. Were the Eagles that much better? We'll never know because of the blizzard of Picks Favre tossed around.
Favre is arguably the best REGULAR SEASON QB of all time - it's hard to argue when the guy has all time wins if nothing else (TD's, yards, completions), the objective is to win and he did that more than anybody. But in the post season, unless he happened to have the second best team in franchise history behind him, he was Joey Harrington-esque when it mattered. That is a stone cold fact. I hold the strong belief that if Dickey in HIS prime had had the '96 team, the Pack likely win it all. If Favre had been benched in '94, like almost happened, and Brunell had become the starter, the Pack very likely win in '96 (if not more between '95 and '97).
Everyone kisses Favre's azz because HE turned the franchise around. Favre had nothing to do with the overall upgrades that occurred. Dickey couldn't help that they had no running game or defense when he was near, or at, the top of the NFL in slinging the ball. The team just happened to get better because of the work Harlan, and Wolf, and Holmgren, and Howard, and White, and Freeman, and Levens, and Jones put in. Basically when Favre had anything less than the #1 O, the #1 D, the #1 Special Teams, a HOF GM, and another HOF caliber guy in Holmgren at the helm he didn't even make the NFCCG until Thompson put together a team that caused Favre to want the di16d0vorce, the same team that ramped up and one a SB without Favre's egocentric azz.
Again, Favre was a great regular season QB, riding his inate talents as far as it took him. But he simply refused to put in the kind of time necessary to become an elite QB in the regular season AND the playoffs, because of which he brought his team down too many times. There is no way that the ONE SB the Packers got a half-generation prior that Brunell or Hasselbeck or Rodgers could have won if the had been in that particular situation could have won as well, and Favre running up PERSONAL stats was worth the pain he put the Packers and fans through at the end in 2008. Personal regular season stats don't do much for me unless my objective is to keep a record book handy and get a charge looking up Favre's name dominating the QB related pages. Those stats only make anything for me when it helps my team win championships.
Some people are afraid of the unknown. I don't know why, and it scares me.
The D under Donatell from 2000-2003 averaged about 10th in points given up - more than adequate to get something accomplished, especially when you throw in the fact that Favre had the Pack's all time leading rusher in Ahman Green with him from 2000-2006 on the O side of the ball. It stands that the Offense was well238 stocked enough to support Favre and it was subsidized by taking financial resources from the D. It was up to Favre to get it done, and instead the Pack and fans got 6 picks in 2001, 2 picks and bad fumble in 2002, simply a bad pick in 2003 regardless of the 4th and 26 (the 4th and 26 never happens if Sherman put "getting it done" in his own O first and foremost and then further that dumb move by waving off the blitz on 4th and 26), and 4 picks in 2004. The Packers were the second best team in the NFC and didn't make even ONE NFCCG while the Eagles mad5b4e four consecutively. Were the Eagles that much better? We'll never know because of the blizzard of Picks Favre tossed around.
Favre is arguably the best REGULAR SEASON QB of all time - it's hard to argue when the guy has all time wins if nothing else (TD's, yards, completions), the objective is to win and he did that more than anybody. But in the post season, unless he happened to have the second best team in franchise history behind him, he was Joey Harrington-esque when it mattered. That is a stone cold fact. I hold the strong belief that if Dickey in HIS prime had had the '96 team, the Pack likely win it all. If Favre had been benched in '94, like almost happened, and Brunell had become the starter, the Pack very likely win in '96 (if not more between '95 and '97).
Everyone kisses Favre's azz because HE turned the franchise around. Favre had nothing to do with the overall upgrades that occurred. Dickey couldn't help that they had no running game or defense when he was near, or at, the top of the NFL in slinging the ball. The team just happened to get better because of the work Harlan, and Wolf, and Holmgren, and Howard, and White, and Freeman, and Levens, and Jones put in. Basically when Favre had anything less than the #1 O, the #1 D, the #1 Special Teams, a HOF GM, and another HOF caliber guy in Holmgren at the helm he didn't even make the NFCCG until Thompson put together a team that caused Favre to want the di16d0vorce, the same team that ramped up and one a SB without Favre's egocentric azz.
Again, Favre was a great regular season QB, riding his inate talents as far as it took him. But he simply refused to put in the kind of time necessary to become an elite QB in the regular season AND the playoffs, because of which he brought his team down too many times. There is no way that the ONE SB the Packers got a half-generation prior that Brunell or Hasselbeck or Rodgers could have won if the had been in that particular situation could have won as well, and Favre running up PERSONAL stats was worth the pain he put the Packers and fans through at the end in 2008. Personal regular season stats don't do much for me unless my objective is to keep a record book handy and get a charge looking up Favre's name dominating the QB related pages. Those stats only make anything for me when it helps my team win championships.
Some people are afraid of the unknown. I don't know why, and it scares me.
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: the haters hate
Reply |
Oh my God, I thought the "Dan Marino" excuse campaign was limited to just Marino.
Favre carries teams by himself - oh no he doesn't; his one Superbowl win was because of Desmond Howard (aided by some poor play by Bledsoe and far worse preparation by Bill Parcells).
4th and 26 against the Eagles - that TIED the game; in the overtime Favre wanted to be the hero, threw one of the greediest passes in playoff history - and it was intercepted.
The Jerry Rice fumble - borderline at best; the fact remains Steve Young was a team player (he didn't give up on Terrell Owens even after TO kept dropping the ball) and executed the winning play.
The Vikings-Saints game - Favre had the winning drive going, but because it wasn't about him he had to change that; his greed-mongering took over, so instead of running for a spot, he threw the ball to make himself the hero, and it was intercepted. He threw a pass that was even greedier than the one vs. the Eagles.
Packers never had a dominating D - There's no such thing as a Superbowl won with a dominating D (or the run) anymore; it's crisp, accurate passing offense that is more the key, and Favre always fails when it matters.
Favre carries teams by himself - oh no he doesn't; his one Superbowl win was because of Desmond Howard (aided by some poor play by Bledsoe and far worse preparation by Bill Parcells).
4th and 26 against the Eagles - that TIED the game; in the overtime Favre wanted to be the hero, threw one of the greediest passes in playoff history - and it was intercepted.
The Jerry Rice fumble - borderline at best; the fact remains Steve Young was a team player (he didn't give up on Terrell Owens even after TO kept dropping the ball) and executed the winning play.
The Vikings-Saints game - Favre had the winning drive going, but because it wasn't about him he had to change that; his greed-mongering took over, so instead of running for a spot, he threw the ball to make himself the hero, and it was intercepted. He threw a pass that was even greedier than the one vs. the Eagles.
Packers never had a dominating D - There's no such thing as a Superbowl won with a dominating D (or the run) anymore; it's crisp, accurate passing offense that is more the key, and Favre always fails when it matters.
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: the haters hate
Reply |
Favre wins games and takes teams to the playoffs
and then chokes in the playoffs.
Re: the haters hate
Reply |
i do not hate brett, infact i am still a fan, but i am also a packer fan and though i will always be a brett fan, i do wanna see the pack kick the vikings ass.
Re: the haters hate
Reply |
Take a look at how putrid 3 out of the 4 quarterbacks played last monday night, even at 40 I'd take Favre as my QB over the likes of Matt Castle or Flacco or Sanchez. Heck even at 40 I bet Farve has more games left in him than Stafford who looks like he'll be too injury prone for the Lions to ever count on him. And then I won't even begin to discuss the likes of Rex Grossman or Jamarcus Russell.
the haters hate