Brett Favre and the Interception Myth

[Monsters_of_Rock]

Hypothetical scenario... put Marino in San Francisco and Montana in Miami. Marino would still have better stats than Montana, San Francisco would still have won all those Super Bowls, and Miami would still not have won any since the days of Larry Csonka.

You neverr know, two completley different QB's in 2 different systems, Sure i think marino wins championships on those niner teams, don't know if he wins 4 though. Marino was the better pure passer, montana was the better field general. Montana wanted to win, marino openly admitted that'd he'd throw it every down if it was up to him, that's the big difference between the two, and i'm a dolphin fan, Marino was a great leader but not in montanas league, he became too much of a primadonna after his record breaking 84' season and all the chicks were going nuts about him, dude was like a rock star, montana just went about his business and smoked marino in the super bowl. the guy is definitley a top 5 QB. he also took the chiefs to the conference championship way past his prime so he wasent just a good QB on a great team, he was a difference maker.

That was a pretty good Chiefs team for a few years even before they got Montana, but yeah he did take them one round deeper into the playoffs than they had been before so I'll give him props for that. I think Montana is a top 15 QB, maybe borderline top 10, but to rank him in the top 5 is just insane in my opinion. Question to everybody out there who thinks Montana had a better career than Favre... how good was Montana at age 40? Favre is different from the rest of the great QBs in this way... nobody else has ever been this good for this long. Most of the other great ones were washed up by their mid to late 30's.

[dtmfs]

You are now officially stupid as fuck:

Interviewer: Q: Where does Favre fit in the conversation of the all-time great quarterbacks?
Madden: A: That’s always a tough one. There were different times, different eras. It would be Top 10. It’s hard to say one guy is the top quarterback. I always put Joe Montana there.

Please shut the fuck up about shit you know nothing about.

Oh Shit!

[dtmfs]

Question to everybody out there who thinks Montana had a better career than Favre... how good was Montana at age 40? Favre is different from the rest of the great QBs in this way... nobody else has ever been this good for this long. Most of the other great ones were washed up by their mid to late 30's.

Favre has been extremley lucky healthwise, he's been banged up but nowhere near what montana, marino, elway, and unitas etc went through.


montana had a serious back injury
marino tore his achilles not to mention dozens of knee surgeries
elway was often hurt nd out numerous games, those things add up.
unitas had bad knees and arthritis and all of them played in a tougher era than favre. had they ben able to play without those injuries who knows how well they play at 40.

[Monsters_of_Rock]

Nope, the greatest statistical QBs are simply the ones that threw the most. Look at Favre's passer rating...average. He's got tons of TDs and yards because A) his team passed all the time, and B) he's been around forever. How many important games can you remember Joe Montana throwing away?

I challenge you to find an NFL expert that would rank Favre ahead of Montana. Seriously.

I guess you don't consider John Madden to be an NFL expert.

You are now officially stupid as fuck:

Interviewer: Q: Where does Favre fit in the conversation of the all-time great quarterbacks?
Madden: A: That’s always a tough one. There were different times, different eras. It would be Top 10. It’s hard to say one guy is the top quarterback. I always put Joe Montana there.

Please shut the fuck up about shit you know nothing about.

Assuming that that quote is real and you didn't just make it up... then please explain to me why the fuck do so many crybabies whine about Madden giving Favre too much praise? Because that quote contradicts the "Madden gives Favre too much praise" theory in a big way.

*If anything, it creates a new theory that "Madden gives Montana too much praise".

What it all boils down to is that there are a lot of people out there who get their panties in a bunch any time that anybody has anything positive to say about Brett Favre. The fact of the matter is that he's a future 1st ballot Hall of Famer, and like all other 1st ballot Hall of Famers he's going to get a lot of praise. Fucking deal with it and stop the crying already.

* - Just in case you didn't get it, that part was sarcasm... so don't start crying about it.

[bane]

You are now officially stupid as fuck:

Interviewer: Q: Where does Favre fit in the conversation of the all-time great quarterbacks?
Madden: A: That’s always a tough one. There were different times, different eras. It would be Top 10. It’s hard to say one guy is the top quarterback. I always put Joe Montana there.

Please shut the fuck up about shit you know nothing about.

If ever there was a post that should have been signed with OWNED, it's that one.

[Punk]

I have no problem admitting he's a first ballot HOFer...I have no problem admitting he's a top 10 all time QB. I have no problem admitting that, as a Steelers fan, he's one of the last guys I wanted to face in the last 2 minutes a few weeks ago.

My entire argument has been that he's certainly not the greatest of all time. Among the greatest? Absolutely. I would rather have Montana, Young, Brady, Manning, Unitas, and Elway, and that's just off the top of my head.

And yeah, the quote is real. I believe it was in the middle of last year when he was with the Jets.

[Monsters_of_Rock]

Question to everybody out there who thinks Montana had a better career than Favre... how good was Montana at age 40? Favre is different from the rest of the great QBs in this way... nobody else has ever been this good for this long. Most of the other great ones were washed up by their mid to late 30's.

Favre has been extremley lucky healthwise, he's been banged up but nowhere near what montana, marino, elway, and unitas etc went through.


montana had a serious back injury
marino tore his achilles not to mention dozens of knee surgeries
elway was often hurt nd out numerous games, those things add up.
unitas had bad knees and arthritis and all of them played in a tougher era than favre. had they ben able to play without those injuries who knows how well they play at 40.

That's a fair point about injuries, although Unitas is the only one of the four you named that played in a tougher era than Favre. Montana, Marino, and Elway were all active QBs in the NFL during part of Favre's career.

I think that you could make the case that if not for a career-ending injury and the fact that he played baseball Bo Jackson could have been the greatest RB of all-time, but you can't base things on ifs and buts. Taking all things for what they are, Brett Favre has had the best overall career of any QB in NFL history.

Sure, some of Montana's/Marino's/Elway's individual seasons may have been better than some of Favre's individual seasons and I can honestly say that one of Tom Brady's seasons was far superior to any of Favre's seasons... but if we're talking the whole package, entire career from start to finish, there isn't anybody I could rank ahead of Favre (although I suspect that will change if Manning continues on at his current pace for another 6 to 8 years).

[dtmfs]

although Unitas is the only one of the four you named that played in a tougher era than Favre. Montana, Marino, and Elway were all active QBs in the NFL during part of Favre's career.

The league didn't get so sissified about QB's until the 90's, Marino, montana and elway all played in a tougher league in the 80's, their primes were in the 80's and the rules were alot different, those dudes got hit late all the time, now you so much as breath on a qb a milisecond after the ball is thrown you get a flag.

[Monsters_of_Rock]

I have no problem admitting he's a first ballot HOFer...I have no problem admitting he's a top 10 all time QB. I have no problem admitting that, as a Steelers fan, he's one of the last guys I wanted to face in the last 2 minutes a few weeks ago.

My entire argument has been that he's certainly not the greatest of all time. Among the greatest? Absolutely. I would rather have Montana, Young, Brady, Manning, Unitas, and Elway, and that's just off the top of my head.

And yeah, the quote is real. I believe it was in the middle of last year when he was with the Jets.

If you were to erase Brady and Montana from that list I would say it's not a completely unreasonable statement. I think that Young, Manning, and Elway are all certainly right up there with Favre. The difference between them is really so minimal that I wouldn't argue with them being ranked in any order. Unitas is so hard to judge based on the fact that he played in a different era and we don't really know how he would do in the modern era, but because he was so much better than anybody else from his era I won't argue against him.

But Montana and especially Brady are just so vastly overrated. If I've said it once I've said it a million times, they belong on the list of QBs who played for the best teams rather than the list of best QBs. QBs don't win championships, teams do. Put any above average QB on those great 49ers/Patriots teams and you get the same results. Put Montana/Brady on average teams and they're not nearly as effective as Favre/Elway/Marino were on some of those average Packers/Broncos/Dolphins teams.

[Monsters_of_Rock]

although Unitas is the only one of the four you named that played in a tougher era than Favre. Montana, Marino, and Elway were all active QBs in the NFL during part of Favre's career.

The league didn't get so sissified about QB's until the 90's, Marino, montana and elway all played in a tougher league in the 80's, their primes were in the 80's and the rules were alot different, those dudes got hit late all the time, now you so much as breath on a qb a milisecond after the ball is thrown you get a flag.

Not true, the league started to get sissified about QBs in 1978. That's when most of the major rule changes took place to give every advantage possible to the offense. I have a vast library of NFL game telecasts dating back to Super Bowl III, so I can look back on these things to get a historical perspective. Comparing games from the 70's to games from the 80's, it's a huge difference. Comparing games from the 80's to games from the 90's, not so much. But even if you don't believe me and choose to insist that the 80's were so much tougher than the 90's, you do realize that all three of those QBs played well into the 90's don't you?

[SkyDog112046]

But Montana and especially Brady are just so vastly overrated. If I've said it once I've said it a million times, they belong on the list of QBs who played for the best teams rather than the list of best QBs. QBs don't win championships, teams do. Put any above average QB on those great 49ers/Patriots teams and you get the same results. Put Montana/Brady on average teams and they're not nearly as effective as Favre/Elway/Marino were on some of those average Packers/Broncos/Dolphins teams.

Even though we've broached this subject many times before and the outcome is the same every time where everyone proves that these guys were better than Favre, we'll do it again.

Montana and Brady made those teams around them great. That is what great QBs do. Montana won his first Superbowl without much of a supporting cast and no Jerry Rice. Go back and look at that roster, it wasn't the loaded 49'ers from 4 or 5 years later, it was 2-3 good players on each side of the ball and then a bunch of average players. And the reason a lot of those guys that came later were great is because Montana made them that way. Do you think Rice's career would have been the same if he spent his first few seasons catching passes from Mike Pagel, Tommy Kramer, or Gary Danielson? (all starting QBs at that time)


Brady took over an 0-2 team with a reject running back and a core of receivers not much better than what you would find on a Division II college team and won a Superbowl. The defense did have some great players but also had several guys that were just spare parts. But I guess any QB could have taken that team to the Superbowl and won it, as Drew Bledsoe had several times. Oh yeah, Bledsoe was producing losing seasons with that roster and was 0-2 that year when Brady took over. The fact is that Brady never had a decent core of receivers until after he won 3 Superbowls, and once he got the good receivers he set a bunch of records. And through it all he just kept winning games because he was able to adapt his game to the personnel assembled around him.

The true measure of a great QB is being able to adapt to the players around them and keep winning no matter what and never be the reason why their team loses. Which is where guys like Bledsoe and Favre fall down. Sure they put up lots of numbers. They are great when protected by All-Pro linemen, handing off to HOF calibre RBs and throwing to All-Pro receivers and TEs but when the team around them isn't that great they can't adapt and end up throwing as many INTs as TDs. And there is no way that anyone can say that Favre hasn't directly cost his team games. We could go on for days about big games that he is directly responsible for losing because he threw passes that he shouldn't that turned into INTs that led directly to winning scores for his opponent. That's why while he is considered one of the top QBs of all time he will never be considered one of the all time greats. He blew too many games to be in the top 5 no matter how gaudy his stats are.

[thejuggernaut]

But Montana and especially Brady are just so vastly overrated. If I've said it once I've said it a million times, they belong on the list of QBs who played for the best teams rather than the list of best QBs. QBs don't win championships, teams do. Put any above average QB on those great 49ers/Patriots teams and you get the same results. Put Montana/Brady on average teams and they're not nearly as effective as Favre/Elway/Marino were on some of those average Packers/Broncos/Dolphins teams.

Even though we've broached this subject many times before and the outcome is the same every time where everyone proves that these guys were better than Favre, we'll do it again.

Montana and Brady made those teams around them great. That is what great QBs do. Montana won his first Superbowl without much of a supporting cast and no Jerry Rice. Go back and look at that roster, it wasn't the loaded 49'ers from 4 or 5 years later, it was 2-3 good players on each side of the ball and then a bunch of average players. And the reason a lot of those guys that came later were great is because Montana made them that way. Do you think Rice's career would have been the same if he spent his first few seasons catching passes from Mike Pagel, Tommy Kramer, or Gary Danielson? (all starting QBs at that time)


Brady took over an 0-2 team with a reject running back and a core of receivers not much better than what you would find on a Division II college team and won a Superbowl. The defense did have some great players but also had several guys that were just spare parts. But I guess any QB could have taken that team to the Superbowl and won it, as Drew Bledsoe had several times. Oh yeah, Bledsoe was producing losing seasons with that roster and was 0-2 that year when Brady took over. The fact is that Brady never had a decent core of receivers until after he won 3 Superbowls, and once he got the good receivers he set a bunch of records. And through it all he just kept winning games because he was able to adapt his game to the personnel assembled around him.

The true measure of a great QB is being able to adapt to the players around them and keep winning no matter what and never be the reason why their team loses. Which is where guys like Bledsoe and Favre fall down. Sure they put up lots of numbers. They are great when protected by All-Pro linemen, handing off to HOF calibre RBs and throwing to All-Pro receivers and TEs but when the team around them isn't that great they can't adapt and end up throwing as many INTs as TDs. And there is no way that anyone can say that Favre hasn't directly cost his team games. We could go on for days about big games that he is directly responsible for losing because he threw passes that he shouldn't that turned into INTs that led directly to winning scores for his opponent. That's why while he is considered one of the top QBs of all time he will never be considered one of the all time greats. He blew too many games to be in the top 5 no matter how gaudy his stats are.

Settle the fuck down. The pats had a 24th ranked D that year. That's a great team.

[Monsters_of_Rock]

Even though we've broached this subject many times before and the outcome is the same every time where everyone proves that these guys were better than Favre, we'll do it again.

Montana and Brady made those teams around them great. That is what great QBs do. Montana won his first Superbowl without much of a supporting cast and no Jerry Rice. Go back and look at that roster, it wasn't the loaded 49'ers from 4 or 5 years later, it was 2-3 good players on each side of the ball and then a bunch of average players. And the reason a lot of those guys that came later were great is because Montana made them that way. Do you think Rice's career would have been the same if he spent his first few seasons catching passes from Mike Pagel, Tommy Kramer, or Gary Danielson? (all starting QBs at that time)


Brady took over an 0-2 team with a reject running back and a core of receivers not much better than what you would find on a Division II college team and won a Superbowl. The defense did have some great players but also had several guys that were just spare parts. But I guess any QB could have taken that team to the Superbowl and won it, as Drew Bledsoe had several times. Oh yeah, Bledsoe was producing losing seasons with that roster and was 0-2 that year when Brady took over. The fact is that Brady never had a decent core of receivers until after he won 3 Superbowls, and once he got the good receivers he set a bunch of records. And through it all he just kept winning games because he was able to adapt his game to the personnel assembled around him.

The true measure of a great QB is being able to adapt to the players around them and keep winning no matter what and never be the reason why their team loses. Which is where guys like Bledsoe and Favre fall down. Sure they put up lots of numbers. They are great when protected by All-Pro linemen, handing off to HOF calibre RBs and throwing to All-Pro receivers and TEs but when the team around them isn't that great they can't adapt and end up throwing as many INTs as TDs. And there is no way that anyone can say that Favre hasn't directly cost his team games. We could go on for days about big games that he is directly responsible for losing because he threw passes that he shouldn't that turned into INTs that led directly to winning scores for his opponent. That's why while he is considered one of the top QBs of all time he will never be considered one of the all time greats. He blew too many games to be in the top 5 no matter how gaudy his stats are.

Now you're giving Montana and Brady all the credit for what Bill Walsh and Bill Belichek did. Those guys were good, but not all that you and others here are making them out to be. They were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. Favre, Elway, and Marino did so much more with so much less. No way Montana wins any Super Bowls if he spends his entire career in Miami. No way Brady wins any Super Bowls if he spends his entire career in San Diego. I said it before and I'll say it again, now pay attention this time...

PUT ANY ABOVE AVERAGE QB ON THOSE GREAT 49ERS/PATRIOTS TEAMS AND THE RESULT WOULD BE THE SAME. PUT MONTANA/BRADY ON ANY OF THOSE AVERAGE TO SLIGHTLY BETTER THAN AVERAGE PACKERS/BRONCOS/DOLPHINS TEAMS AND THEY'D BE LESS EFFECTIVE THAN FAVRE/ELWAY/MARINO.

[SkyDog112046]

PUT ANY ABOVE AVERAGE QB ON THOSE GREAT 49ERS/PATRIOTS TEAMS AND THE RESULT WOULD BE THE SAME. PUT MONTANA/BRADY ON ANY OF THOSE AVERAGE TO SLIGHTLY BETTER THAN AVERAGE PACKERS/BRONCOS/DOLPHINS TEAMS AND THEY'D BE LESS EFFECTIVE THAN FAVRE/ELWAY/MARINO.

Elway goes in the grouping with Montana and Brady because he was a QB that elevated his team far above it's level. But don't forget he didn't win championships with the below average team, he won by handing off to an All-Pro RB on a stacked team coached by an offensive guru.

You seem to downplay the effect that a QB's style has on their team and the team's success. Brady and Montana would have won with the 96 Packers and would certainly have not lost to NY in the 2007 NFC Championship game. And conversely Favre would not have won with the 81 49ers or the 2001 Patriots.

[Monsters_of_Rock]

PUT ANY ABOVE AVERAGE QB ON THOSE GREAT 49ERS/PATRIOTS TEAMS AND THE RESULT WOULD BE THE SAME. PUT MONTANA/BRADY ON ANY OF THOSE AVERAGE TO SLIGHTLY BETTER THAN AVERAGE PACKERS/BRONCOS/DOLPHINS TEAMS AND THEY'D BE LESS EFFECTIVE THAN FAVRE/ELWAY/MARINO.

Elway goes in the grouping with Montana and Brady because he was a QB that elevated his team far above it's level. But don't forget he didn't win championships with the below average team, he won by handing off to an All-Pro RB on a stacked team coached by an offensive guru.

You seem to downplay the effect that a QB's style has on their team and the team's success. Brady and Montana would have won with the 96 Packers and would certainly have not lost to NY in the 2007 NFC Championship game. And conversely Favre would not have won with the 81 49ers or the 2001 Patriots.

Brady or Montana could have won with the '96 Packers, I'll give you that one. But put them on the '07 Packers and they don't even get to the championship game, nevermind win it.

Put Favre on the '81 49ers or '01 Patriots and they still win Super Bowls, but I'll do you one better than that... put Favre on the '90 49ers or '07 Patriots and they win one more that they didn't win with Montana/Brady.