So, Favre the Best QB of all time?

[weeds]

I don't think that #4 is the best QB of all time. His stats put him in the conversation though - and like it or not, stats are a big part of this kind of conversation - which is all pure speculation on all of our part anyhow.

I'm one of those 'show me the rings' kinda guys but even that logic is flawed because when you take into account the players that surround an individual QB has EVERYTHING to do with their success. On the flip side of that coin, is the argument that the players are remembered as being integral in a QB's success because the team won. The Pack in the 60's, Steelers in the 70's, 9'ers in the 80's ... Nobody really in the 90's ...

Hard call on who would be the greatest QB, much less the 10 best ... the only real measuring stick is ... say it with me ... 'show me the rings'... so... here I go...

Bart Starr - 5 Championships in 7 years is STILL the standard!

The way the game is played has changed so much that comparing different QB's by today's standards is virtually impossible - would Montana be as successful if he played today? Would #4 still be in the league if not for Mike Holmgren? These time-space continuum posts really tax me this time of the day.

 

[JeffQuery]

Favre has screwed the pooch too many times to be the best.

Dan is the man. Never had a good enough defense as a team to get a ring, though.

Yeah..but why bring your wife into it, sask_cheesehead?

That's a little off topic, dont ya' think?

 

[bad93ex]

So with the rings standard I guess that makes Marino not even in the conversation.

 

[PackersRS]

Nobody really in the 90's ...

Cowboys? At least in the ealry 90's... I think in today's standarts, with the Salary Cap and the Free Agency, the Cowboys were a 90's dynasty and the Patriots were a 2000's dynasty...

 

[Techno]

hands down favre. consecutive starts alone prove it. He has fought through inuries, and family problems, and bad teams, but none of them could hold him down. (exept once where his team was worse than the lions.)

 

[Skol guy]

Arguements for many I would think so hard to gage

 

[robdog]

Hard to say he is the best all time when he holds the record for INTs.

Just my 2 cents...

 

[Green_Bay_Packers]

Hard to say he is the best all time when he holds the record for INTs.

Just my 2 cents...

Yeah but playing so long you are bound to break the record for INTs

George Blanda held it before him played for Oakland and a few other teams I think and was in the nfl from 1949 till 1975, He is in the hall of fame, You cant be a bad QB to play that long, same goes to Favre he has played a lot of football but he still could be the best ever.

 

[PackersRS]

Yeah but playing so long you are bound to break the record for INTs

George Blanda held it before him played for Oakland and a few other teams I think and was in the nfl from 1949 till 1975, He is in the hall of fame, You cant be a bad QB to play that long, same goes to Favre he has played a lot of football but he still could be the best ever.

He didn't say Brett Favre was a bad qb. Nobody in their sane minds would say that. He said that because he also have the record int, he's not the best EVER.

About playing too long, you could use that argument to sustain the record wins, yards, and TDs. It surely is the main point in his record attempts and completions.

And about playing so long, there's also another consideration one must do: No qb played so well at this age. Not even close, actually.

I trully believe that had Brett Favre been motivated every year of his career, he could've been the best ever. But I think after the Holmgren era, he was too pampered...

 

[realoatesman]

So who are we saying is in the running for greatest QB ever? Favre, Marino, Aikman, Montana, Elway, Young, Manning, Brady, possibly Starr, or Tarkenton? Anyone else?

And then what are the criteria to be judged? What is most important in what order? Championships, W-L, Stats? Possibly MVP's?

 

[PackersRS]

So who are we saying is in the running for greatest QB ever? Favre, Marino, Aikman, Montana, Elway, Young, Manning, Brady, possibly Starr, or Tarkenton? Anyone else?

And then what are the criteria to be judged? What is most important in what order? Championships, W-L, Stats? Possibly MVP's?

I'm not trying to stabilish any criteria, or any reason. Just if you think that, in your criteria, Favre is the best all time...

But if you wanna know my take:

Championships are the first criteria
SB MVPs are the second
League MVPs the third
Regular Season wins the fourth
Records the fifth
Stats the sixth

But the difference between each tier is almost minimal.
So I would put:
1) Montana
2) Starr
3) Johhny U
4) Graham
5) Favre
6) Elway
7) Staubach
8) Marino
9) Bradshaw
10)Young

Well, that is my top 10... And I'm not inlcuding either Brady or Manning, which when it's all said and done may very well be #1 and #2... If I had to, right now would put Brady just behind Otto Graham, and Manning just behind Favre...

Here's a good read about the subject:
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.co...definitive_list:_Top_10_NFL_quarterbacks.html

 

[Green_Bay_Packers]

Thanks for posting that link, its a great read.

 

[Quientus]

One of the reason why *I* don't consider Bart Starr as great as Favre is simply because of the development the NFL has taken in terms of overall competitiveness when looking across the number of teams in competition ...

At that time there were what ? 22 Teams ? And lets face it ... in those early days, the professional football wasn't as "big" as college ball was back then ...

That's not in any way meant to diminish what Bart Starr accomplished during this career, nor how good the Packers at that time were.

But in terms of "determining" "Greatness", I would say given the overall competitiveness of the NFL from that time to now, - I would say that what Favre has done, more than merits him (Favre) being considered "Greater" than Starr - But in the end, it's really hard to compare those two, because the game itself has changed enormously from the 30's till now ...

Not to mention that "greatness" and how we, as fans view it, will *ALWAYS* be biased because we will eventually always "favour" those we prefer ...


My personaly top 3 "Great" quarterbacks would be :

Peyton Manning
Brett Favre and
Dan Marino ...


I don't consider Tom Brady in the same league as those above, because when it comes to Brady, more than anything, I personally, see Brady being successfull mainly because of his coach and the system in which he plays ... - Brady, while being a good leader, just isn't in the same league as those I've mentioned above ...

Peyton Manning, Brett Favre and Dan Marino are (and for Marino were) all GREAT leaders, who actually, despite "less" talent around them *still* are (were) able to perform at a very high level ... - really "shouldering" their respective teams, where as Brady just doesn't have the same abillity ...

More than anything, I consider Brady's success to be more because of Belichick and Belichicks ability to coach, muster a team than anything ...

Brady is still a great quarterback, but he just isn't as "great" as those 3 I mentioned above, in my opinion ...

 

[Skol guy]

Tom brady has more bling-bling than all three QB's combined so I don't follow and Brady is no where near done. Bart Starr played in a differant era so to say he couldn't of been a great QB today is not being fair to him. When I think of great Packer QB's Bart Starr is a legend and for some of you young guys who never had the privelidge of watching him play as I did your giving him a blind grade

 

[PackersRS]

Tom brady has more bling-bling than all three QB's combined so I don't follow and Brady is no where near done. Bart Starr played in a differant era so to say he couldn't of been a great QB today is not being fair to him. When I think of great Packer QB's Bart Starr is a legend and for some of you young guys who never had the privelidge of watching him play as I did your giving him a blind grade

5 times led the league in QB rating, only surpassed by Steve Young. Best post season performance of any QB in any era. Played 2 SB and earned SB MVP in both of them. Won 5 NFL Championships. The guy is the epitome of a clutch player. The only reason I put Montana above him is that Montana played in a worse team and won almost as much as Starr. Actually, he has one more SB MVP. (And is a Fighting Irish ).

I understand that Favre had a worse team (except in 96-98 ) than Starr did, and the eras were different. But the gap between Starr's accomplishments and Favre's is just too big for Favre to be considered better than Starr. Starr has all the titles, with all the performances.

 

[bad93ex]

In Bart Starr's day an offensive lineman would average about 230~240 lbs a far cry from today and none of them could run a sub 5 second forty. He was great in the league of yesteryear but to compare him to today's league just can't be done.

Then again Bart Starr is a huge guy himself with hands the size of frying pans and prolly could dish in today's league. Also having come out of the SEC he knows how to play good football.

 

[Skol guy]

5 times led the league in QB rating, only surpassed by Steve Young. Best post season performance of any QB in any era. Played 2 SB and earned SB MVP in both of them. Won 5 NFL Championships. The guy is the epitome of a clutch player. The only reason I put Montana above him is that Montana played in a worse team and won almost as much as Starr. Actually, he has one more SB MVP. (And is a Fighting Irish ).

I understand that Favre had a worse team (except in 96-98 ) than Starr did, and the eras were different. But the gap between Starr's accomplishments and Favre's is just too big for Favre to be considered better than Starr. Starr has all the titles, with all the performances.

Have to agree, the strength and conditioning available to pro Athletes is space age compared to the yesteryear athletes of the past. So really athletes have relvolved because of alot of things besides talent if you really think about it. No comparison as a nobody HS athlete like I was we had coffee cans filled with cement with a metal bar between them as part of our weight room and this was in the early 70's. Now my old school has a state of the art weight room and has produced 2 NFL players in the past 10 years.

 

[PackersRS]

In Bart Starr's day an offensive lineman would average about 230~240 lbs a far cry from today and none of them could run a sub 5 second forty. He was great in the league of yesteryear but to compare him to today's league just can't be done.

Then again Bart Starr is a huge guy himself with hands the size of frying pans and prolly could dish in today's league. Also having come out of the SEC he knows how to play good football.

Have to agree, the strength and conditioning available to pro Athletes is space age compared to the yesteryear athletes of the past. So really athletes have relvolved because of alot of things besides talent if you really think about it. No comparison as a nobody HS athlete like I was we had coffee cans filled with cement with a metal bar between them as part of our weight room and this was in the early 70's. Now my old school has a state of the art weight room and has produced 2 NFL players in the past 10 years.

Okay, so imagine if the past players had the conditioning the players of today have? See what I mean? A great player is a great player, independent of what era. Don Huston is the best Wr of all time, because what he did with less games took almost 50 years to be broken, and he still has records that have not been broken. And he has the titles.

Saying that a former player couldn't do in today's game is BS. Because if he was in today's game, he would've been a better player...

 

[Skol guy]

side note I was agreeing with you PackersRS guy and not bad93x if anybody wonders. Bart Starr was Mr Frozen Tundra to me. Favre as great as he is will never be the first guy I think of when I think of the pack. Bart Starr was tough as nails

 

[PackersRS]

side note I was agreeing with you PackersRS guy and not bad93x if anybody wonders. Bart Starr was Mr Frozen Tundra to me. Favre as great as he is will never be the first guy I think of when I think of the pack. Bart Starr was tough as nails

I know, I used your post to respond to Bad93x, as an intro to what I had to say. But it sounded confuse, I know...

 

[Skol guy]

Look at the nutrition knowledge and available nutrients of the modern era to help in building your frame so the modern day man has great advantages. Sports science and medicine as well since many old time greats have trouble walking around because of bad surgerys. The Average life time of an 1970's running back was 4.4 years so the knowledge of the doctors has got players back on the field either quicker or at least with less pain. Back in the day them boys played through the pain.

 

[bad93ex]

Look at the nutrition knowledge and available nutrients of the modern era to help in building your frame so the modern day man has great advantages. Sports science and medicine as well since many old time greats have trouble walking around because of bad surgerys. The Average life time of an 1970's running back was 4.4 years so the knowledge of the doctors has got players back on the field either quicker or at least with less pain. Back in the day them boys played through the pain.

People still leave the game to this day broken and used up. We have come a long way with the surgeries that are available to get them back especially with torn ACL's but at the end of their career they are hobbled.

 

[Skol guy]

I remember jack Youngblood played SB 14 with a broken leg. Now that is a tough SOB and the league was filled with guys like Conrad Dobler trying to bite your nose off and jam his fingers in your eye. The Vikings of old did not allow heaters on the sidelines for themselves as Bud grant did not allow. So really some guys were just born to be football players in any era and those boys were tough!

 

[doughsellz]

The QBs of yesteryear also called their own plays. Starr called every play of that final Ice Bowl drive. Don't think Montana did the same to win SBXXIII. Could he have done the same? Probably, but would he have still been Joe Cool in the process? That's a level of pressure modern QBs don't have to deal with. Those giants among men had to command the repsect of those 10 other men, look them in the eyes in the huddle every time & inspire confidence with every playcall.

In regard to what should count most among a QBs achievements I'd have to say wins is definitely at the top, not necessarily championship wins either. Jim McMahon, Doug Williams, Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer & Brad Johnson can all say they won it all, but aren't even in the building as far as this debate is concerned. Oh yeah. Jeff Hostetler.

 

[Raptorman]

I can't believe in this day and age on a Packer forum that Starr's name was not even mentioned until the third page. It tells me that most of you were born in the 70's and beyond. The modern day QB's look flashy, they have lots of yards, TD's, and nice stats. But not one of them has come close to what Starr did. Look who Starr was throwing the ball to.(Taking nothing away from them) Carroll Dale, never had more then 49 catches in a year. Average 2.5 catches per game with the Packers. Compare that to Montana's Rice, 5.1 receptions per game while in SF. Now, just think of what Starr could have done with someone like Rice, Moss or T.O.

Starr is by far at the top. Had he been in the NFL his entire career, Otto Graham would be there. (Graham has 7 championships to his name BTW, only 3 while in the NFL the other 4 are when the Browns were in the AAFC.)