Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Farve smells blood in the water again like he did when he won his first Superbowl with the Packers. I don't think the Saints will be able to handle AD, Farve, and the Purple People Eaters.
The thing I don't like about Farve, is that he only has so many records, because he played so long.
Granted, he is a good Quaterback, but is he the best QB of all time, far from it. When he won, he was linked up with good all around teams. I've seen other QB's win with far less weapons than he had/has.
I know some Vikings fans, who believe that the only reason their team is in the playoffs this year, is Farve. They seem to forget that they were in the play offs last year, without him.
Personally, I think you give Manning, Brady, Rivers, or a few others the team that Farve has there, and they'd be winning more games then Farve does.
All that said, he is a hall of fame QB. I just don't think he deserves the hype he seems to get.
Actually, Favre didnt have a ton of weapons when he played at Green Bay. He never really had a top of the league receiver like Brady does with Moss or Manning did with Harrison and now Wayne. He never had a running game that was all that solid either.
I've made the opposite argument you have for years. I think Favre would of won more games than Brady has with the New England teams he has had over the last decade. I think he would be doing just as well as Manning has at Indy.
Favre has been the guy that has won games despite not having an all-star lineup. Not the opposite as you are arguing.
Actually, Favre didnt have a ton of weapons when he played at Green Bay. He never really had a top of the league receiver like Brady does with Moss or Manning did with Harrison and now Wayne. He never had a running game that was all that solid either.
I've made the opposite argument you have for years. I think Favre would of won more games than Brady has with the New England teams he has had over the last decade. I think he would be doing just as well as Manning has at Indy.
Favre has been the guy that has won games despite not having an all-star lineup. Not the opposite as you are arguing.
Favre had above average WRs, and several decent to good RBs imo. Wayne and Harrison would not be elite WRs if they did not having Manning throwing to them. And I totally disagree that Favre would have had Mannings level of success in Indy. I don't see how you could possibly come to that conclusion. I submit those GB teams in the 90s were better overall then the Indy teams of the last 5 years, especially the super bowl year; The Packers led the NFL in points scored as well as fewest points scored against that year.
Favres #s are good, but Mannings are better. If we wanted to make it interesting we could throw out Mannings rookie year which wasn't great, and we could eliminate Favres ridiculous soft schedule this year, but lets not do that. Even leaving those two outliers in there, it is pretty obvious that Manning is a class above Favre. And as far as I know, Manning has done this without being addicted to pain killers.
Favre had above average WRs, and several decent to good RBs imo. Wayne and Harrison would not be elite WRs if they did not having Manning throwing to them.
He had several above average receivers; however, he has never had a superstar receiver like Jerry Rice, Randy Moss, or Marvin Harrison. You could make an argument about any receiver not being as good without a good quarterback. Donald Driver is probably the best receiver Favre ever had and he is not a long ball receiver. He had Freeman and Sharpe for a fraction of his career but he has never had a solid, long ball receiver for a long period of his career like other greats.
Green Bay has had running backs that were there simply to complement the passing game. Dorsey Levens and Ahman Green were as good as it got and they both had their faults. Until this year, he never had any at the level that Manning has had in Indianapolis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orangeish
And I totally disagree that Favre would have had Mannings level of success in Indy. I don't see how you could possibly come to that conclusion. I submit those GB teams in the 90s were better overall then the Indy teams of the last 5 years, especially the super bowl year; The Packers led the NFL in points scored as well as fewest points scored against that year.
We will have to agree to disagree. I think if Favre had Marvin Harrison, Edgerrin James, Joseph Addai, Dallas Clark and the other weapons Manning has had over the years, he would of experienced similar success to Manning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orangeish
Favres #s are good, but Mannings are better. If we wanted to make it interesting we could throw out Mannings rookie year which wasn't great, and we could eliminate Favres ridiculous soft schedule this year, but lets not do that. Even leaving those two outliers in there, it is pretty obvious that Manning is a class above Favre. And as far as I know, Manning has done this without being addicted to pain killers.
Of course Mannings numbers are better, he has played on a team built to rack up huge numbers in the passing game week after week.
I'm not sure what the pain killers have to do with this. Favre's problem with pain killers was only a few months out of an 18 year career.
It's hilarious that so many people can't stand Brett Favre. Except for the ones who happen to root for whatever team's uniform he's wearing. Say whatever you want to about the man's behavior...but put him out there on the field with a decent team around him, and he knows how to win. And he's even more dangerous in the playoffs...as he just proved once again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not saying you're wrong, but who really knows....
