T1B

damm, boy do I miss brett favre, Mcnabb has a noodle arm, and he always throws behind, he isnt brett favre, thats for sure,

Hes an average quarterback, watching brett favre in the 09 season was like watching a fine tuned legend at work, a real field general, now I see the pecking order of QB's in this league, and miss brett all the more after watching Mcnabb these past 3 weeks, again, Donovan is good, but he'll never be a brett favre.

SO, the next game is against the KC chiefs, thats a win for sure.

bradhusker wrote:damm, boy do I miss brett favre

That makes one of us.

Goober McTuber wrote:

bradhusker wrote:damm, boy do I miss brett favre

That makes one of us.

dont lie goober, you fuckin miss him too, everytime one of those wrangler jeans commercials comes on, and brett steps outta that ford pickup, with the black lab, and starts throwing the football around?

you miss the fuck outta that all american legendary hero,
lets face reality here, to the members of this board, the guy is a living legendary hero.
plain and simple.

the gunslinger, we are all better men for having seen him throw a football like a guided laser beam for all those years.

thanks brett.

Third best Green Bay quarterback of all time.

Goober McTuber wrote:Third best Green Bay quarterback of all time.

Nice try goob, but, when you say stupid retarded shit like that, it looks real bad on you. AND, I can back up what I am saying with facts.

For starters, Brett is number one in overall statistics. AND, you can argue, brett didnt have anywhere near the talented team that BART starr had. Those green bay teams from the 1960's were rock solid on defense, and were the best in the NFL. SO, Starr had a better team, YET, couldnt put up numbers like brett favre.
And, dont give me this crap about Qb's not being able to pass for yardage like that because the game was mostly running back then, BULLSHIT, in 1968, Joe Namath put up 4000 yards in a single season, ya dumbass.

POINT BEING, its like the emmitt smith vs. barry sanders arguement, emmittt had a much better team, YET, barry was able to put up better numbers inspite of the fact that defenses keyed on barry!!

see my point?

The point I see is on the top of your fucking head. Bart Starr's team almost never lost games they should have won. Can't say the same for Favre.

Oh, and Emmitt Smith > Barry Sanders.

There's no bigger indictment of a coaching staff than having a nice lead evaporate two games in a row in the second half. Basically both the Bucs & Lions made adjustments at half time and the Leslie Frazer had no answers. That doesn't bode well for the Vikings this season, nor does their below average offensive oline. Last place in the NFC North seems a certainty.

Unless Paul goes 'cause then they always win.

Stay home, Paul.

l to r -- Mgo, Tub o' Cholesterol

Goober McTuber wrote:The point I see is on the top of your fucking head. Bart Starr's team almost never lost games they should have won. Can't say the same for Favre.

Oh, and Emmitt Smith > Barry Sanders.

GOD, can you really be this stupid? YOU just made my point for me dumbass. I just told you that Bart starr had a better team around him you idiot you. And then you repeat what I just said?
fuckin shit, dont you listen? SO, since we have established that Bart starr played on better overall football teams, YET, didnt have the arm strength or accuracy of Favre, I WIN, and you lose.

Its the exact same arguement with terry bradshaw and Dan marino. Dan Marino has ZERO super bowl rings, and terry bradshaw has 4 rings, YET, anyone with half a brain will tell you thaqt terry isnt half the QB dan was, not even half as good. BUT, because terry was on much much superior football teams, he was able to get himself 4 rings.

I know that your tiny little brain and dick cant wrap itself around the wisdom I am throwing at you, BUT dont fret, I was just born smarter than you.

Its simple logic that I just threw out at you, yet your miniscule dick and brain cant see the forrest for the fuckin trees.

bradhusker wrote: emmittt had a much better team, YET, barry was able to put up better numbers

In what category? Certainly not yardage or touchdowns. Sanders isn't even close.

oh, and i can promise every man woman and child , that the vikes will indeed beat the chiefs this sunday.

mvscal wrote:

bradhusker wrote: emmittt had a much better team, YET, barry was able to put up better numbers

In what category? Certainly not yardage or touchdowns. Sanders isn't even close.

excuse me? try again, emmitt played 5 more seasons than barry, so, if you do the numbers, and this is HUGE, YARDS PER GAME for a career, its not close, barry averaged more yards per game than emmittt, which also means that if barry got to play another 5 seasons, it wouldnt have been close.

next, average yards per carry, again, not close, barry beats emmitt here also, and this is HUGE, because barry had defenses KEYING on him alone, YET, he was still able to average more yards every time he touched the football.

Emmitt had the luxury of a complex GREAT team around him, a better O line, A better QB and pro bowl receivers, so, as a result, emmitt didnt have defenses just keying on him alone.

And despite this, barry averaged more total yards per game for an entire career than emmitt, the only reason emmitt had more final rushing yards is because he played 5 more seasons.

can your brain understand that? sure emmitt finished with more yards, because he played more seasons than barry, HOWEVER, the statistic which is easily more telling is the one I just posted,
Yards per game for a career, and, avg. yards per carry for a career, emmitt falls way short, because he wasnt nearly as good as barry.

by the way, if you are serious when you say that emmitt was better than barry? folks on this board will have you baker acted for total loos of all your marbles.

bradhusker wrote:SO, Starr had a better team, YET, couldnt put up numbers like brett favre.

Correct. His numbers were better than Farve's...at least the numbers that matter. Five NFL titles, 9-1 postseason record, 104.8 postseason passer rating and he's #8 all time in yards per attempt (Farve isn't in the top 20).

Sure the 60s Packers were one of the top NFL dynasty teams and Starr was the unquestioned leader of that team and was nails in the clutch.

mvscal wrote:

bradhusker wrote:SO, Starr had a better team, YET, couldnt put up numbers like brett favre.

Correct. His numbers were better than Farve's...at least the numbers that matter. Five NFL titles, 9-1 postseason record, 104.8 postseason passer rating and he's #8 all time in yards per attempt (Farve isn't in the top 20).

Sure the 60s Packers were one of the top NFL dynasty teams and Starr was the unquestioned leader of that team and was nails in the clutch.

Nice try, BUT, again you are wrong, NFL scouts will tell you that starr benefitted from being on superior football teams, just like terry bradshaw, HOWEVER, those same NFL scouts and coaches will all tell you to a man, that they would take Favre and Marino any day of the week over starr and bradshaw, and, twice on sundays.

STARR had a noodle for an arm, in no way could he throw lasers like Favre, ALSO, Starr was a pussy, getting injured like a lil girl, not being able to play week in and week out for 20 years like Favre. OH, and this is HUGE, Starr played against smaller weaker and slower defensive backs and linemen.

LET ME REPEAT THAT FACT, in case you failed to understand it, FAVRE had to play football against bigger, stronger and faster defenses than Bart starr could ever dream of playing against.

WOULD you like some comparison? put it this way, during the 1960's when starr played QB? many defensive players were smaller weaker and slower than venus and serena williams of today!!
DID YOU HEAR THAT? women athletes of today, bigger and stronger than the athletes Starr faced!

Bart starr had the great fortune to play QB against smaller and slower defenses than what FAVRE had to face for 20 years!
OH, I almost forgot, In the 2009 NFL season, at the age of 40, when bart starr could no longer walk even, Brett FAVRE had a quarterback rating of 107.8!!! Bart starr NEVER, I repeat, NEVER put up a statistical season like that, despite the fact that he had the advantage of facing smaller slower and weaker defenses than FAVRE.

wow, I just bent you over and stuck it in ya, how'd it feel to be punk'd and destroyed?

WOW, I just totally made you look like a complete fool in here.

Bart starr, despite playing against smaller and slower and weaker defenses than brett favre, NEVER and I repeat NEVER had a passer rating of 107.8 like brett favre did in 2009.

AND, what makes it even more amazing is the fact that brett had to accomplish this against defenses light years faster and stronger and bigger than anything bart starr could ever have dreamed of playing against.

The beasts that play defense in the NFL during favre's 20 years were physically stronger faster and meaner and overall could crush ANY defensive guy from the 1960's

The guys today lift heavier weights run light years faster and are way way bigger. SO the mere fact that Favre never missed a game for 20 years against that kind of speed and strength?
GAME OVER, I just destroyed you.

The mere fact that at age 40, when bart starr was crippled already and retired, Brett favre put up a passer rating of 107.8? Which may I say, bart starr couldnt do against smaller and slower defenses?

Hows it feel to be handed your sodomized ass?

brad wrote:WOULD you like some comparison? put it this way, during the 1960's when starr played QB? many defensive players were smaller weaker and slower than venus and serena williams of today!!
DID YOU HEAR THAT? women athletes of today, bigger and stronger than the athletes Starr faced!

This is true.

It's also true that Favre himself was bigger and bulkier than Starr.

Starr: 6'1", 197
Favre: 6'2", 222

So doesn't that negate your "Brent played against bigger dudes" argument? :wink:


Btw, just for fun - what positions do you imagine Venus and Serena would play?

And what kind of tree would you be?

poptart wrote:

brad wrote:WOULD you like some comparison? put it this way, during the 1960's when starr played QB? many defensive players were smaller weaker and slower than venus and serena williams of today!!
DID YOU HEAR THAT? women athletes of today, bigger and stronger than the athletes Starr faced!

This is true.

It's also true that Favre himself was bigger and bulkier than Starr.

Starr: 6'1", 197
Favre: 6'2", 222

So doesn't that negate your "Brent played against bigger dudes" argument? :wink:


Btw, just for fun - what positions do you imagine Venus and Serena would play?

And what kind of tree would you be?

ok, NO, it doesnt negate anything, the difference in size between the two is hardly gargantuan, 1 inch, plus 23 more pounds? come on dude, REALLY? is that all youve got? When the speed is light years faster, and the game is light years more violent? Not to mention the strength and conditioning,

dude, venus would play a split end, she is thinner, but serena is a beefy chick with a dick, she could be a linebacker.

BUT seriously, bart starr never EVER could imagine even playing at age 40 against the size and speed and strength of todays game, by the time starr hit the age of 40, he was a crippled old man.
FAVRE at 40 was the top rated QB in the fuckin game that year, 107.8, only favre and brees were rated so high in 09.
Brees was a young man in his prime, so its to be expected, but FAVRE at 40? putting up a passer rating of 107.8?? ASTONISHING! NEVER BEFORE EQUALED, and, we may never see a 40 yr old QB do that again.

by the time marino and montanna and elway were 40, they were crippled, their ratings at age 40, if they were still able to walk, were no where near favre's/

Favre stands alone as truly being the iron man of football. not only is he a super bowl champion, BUT, he also shatterred all of marino's career records, and played the game at age 40, at a level that most guys cant play at when they are in their prime at 25.

I guess I'd be a mighty oak tree, if you must know, but, being a tree is so dull and boring, I'd rather come back as jennifer anistons fuck toy.

mvscal wrote:

bradhusker wrote:SO, Starr had a better team, YET, couldnt put up numbers like brett favre.

Correct. His numbers were better than Farve's...at least the numbers that matter. Five NFL titles, 9-1 postseason record, 104.8 postseason passer rating and he's #8 all time in yards per attempt (Farve isn't in the top 20).

Brett singlehandedly took three different teams out of the playoffs in consecutive years. Unfortunately, they were his own teams. (GB in 2007, NYJ in 2008, MINN in 2009).

Goober McTuber wrote:

mvscal wrote:

bradhusker wrote:SO, Starr had a better team, YET, couldnt put up numbers like brett favre.

Correct. His numbers were better than Farve's...at least the numbers that matter. Five NFL titles, 9-1 postseason record, 104.8 postseason passer rating and he's #8 all time in yards per attempt (Farve isn't in the top 20).

Brett singlehandedly took three different teams out of the playoffs in consecutive years. Unfortunately, they were his own teams. (GB in 2007, NYJ in 2008, MINN in 2009).

SORRY GOOB, but, as usual, you are WRONG AGAIN!!

against the saints in the 09 NFC championship game, BEFORE Brett threw that interception? I guess your dumb memory fails you?
With little time remaining, the vikings were ALREADY IN FEILD GOAL RANGE! GAME OVER, BUT, the worst head coach in history allows the vikes to go onto the field with 12 men, WHICH takes us out of field goal range.

I guess you forgot that fact huh? huh stupid? Do you think any team with any decent coach, would allow there to be 12 men on the field with the SUPER BOWL on the line? I dont think so moron.

SO, after that monumental blunder, suddenly, brett's int . takes on a more somber tone, BECAUSE the team was already in a position to ice the game.

I put the blame squarely on childress for that all time blunder. ANY team already in FG range with little time left? thats a no brainer, you go on the field with 8 men if you have to make sure you dont get called for 12 men on the field of play.

The super bowl was on the line, and the saints were completely powerless against a guy named Longwell in a dome, checkmate.

BUT, a clueless idiot named childress had no control with the super bowl on the line, and somehow, 12 men were on the field.

guess you forgot that / u moron.

He still threw the interception, Cletus. You see, Bart Starr never made that kind of mistake in big games. Besides, even if the Vikings had won that game, they would have choked in the Super Bowl. They’re the Vikings.

I see you ignored the other two seasons Brett pissed away.

Goober McTuber wrote:He still threw the interception, Cletus. You see, Bart Starr never made that kind of mistake in big games. Besides, even if the Vikings had won that game, they would have choked in the Super Bowl. They’re the Vikings.

I see you ignored the other two seasons Brett pissed away.

Nice try cloitious, did u say "choked away" the super bowl? You do remember dwight freeney being injured? Favre would have had all day to slice up INDY, and, even if Peyton could drive up and down the field, it wouldnt have helped them, because adrian peterson would have been run ALL DAY on them, meaning we would have controlled the clock, with peterson putting up 200 yds rushing alone.

NO sir, the blame lands ENTIRELY on childress for that BLUNDER, NO WAY, do you allow 12 men on field to take you OUT of FG range with the super bowl on the line. it was GAME OVER at that point, so the media loves to blame favre, and give childress a pass, thats because most of the media is brain dead liberals anyway.

AND I love how you totally missed my factual points about how Bart starrr played against much weaker and slower defenses than Favre.

IN FACT, the mere fact that starr couldnt play for 20 years without missing a game, despite playing against slower and weaker and smaller defenses? THATS HUGE.

AND it really shows who the tougher QB was by a longshot. The sophisticated and lightenning fast defenses that FAVRE played against are light years from what Starr faced.
AND, at the age of 40, Favre put up a passer rating of 107.8? are u freakin kiddin me??? thats a cartoon number for a 40 year old to do that!!! At 40, bart starr was lucky to be standing upright.

shows you the huge difference in who the real man was here. starr is like a lil girl compared with favre.

Five NFL titles. EOS. EAD.

Goober McTuber wrote:Five NFL titles. EOS. EAD.

sorry goober, that doesnt cut it with an intellectual like me, why? I'll tell you.

Terry Bradshaw, 4 NFL titles, yet, every NFL expert will tell you that Dan Marino was better than terry, 0 titles, so was steve young, 1 title, so was Peyton, 1 title, so was favre, 1 title.

SEE the point moron? Dont come in here all bragging about NFL titles and try to make ur point, That would only work with a dummy, WITH ME? I make you look like a clown, a foolish clown.

When you KNOW football, really understand the sport in all its unbridled glory, THEN and only then are you able to fully understand who the top quarterbacks are.

Jim plunkett won 2 super bowls!!! wow, too bad he isnt a blip on the radar of all time greats. Not even in the top 20.

See, the difference between me and you goober is that I have a functioning brain, so that when you tell me that Bart starr has 5 NFL titles, and then say to me that he is better than Dan Marino or Brett Favre, I LAUGH AND SPIT ON YOUR STUPIDITY.
When you proudly put up those 5 Nfl titles in discussions with your loser retarded friends, I am sure they are impressed.
BUT, when you try the same shit with a Football brain like me, YOU come away being made a joke of.

Every NFL expert I know of, TO A MAN, will explain to you that Dan Marino with his zero NFL titles was in fact a better QB than bart starr with his 5 titles. its really quite simple. Because they know that if Marino had teams with great defenses like that, Marino would be able to brag about having titles as well.

BUT, Marino's teams were laughable on defense, hence, he never won a title, BUT, is he a superior QB to bart starr? without a doubt.

class dismissed, goober? your expelled.

It's not just the titles Starr won, Cletus. It the title opportunities that Favre singlehandedly pissed away. Capiche?

Goober McTuber wrote:It's not just the titles Starr won, Cletus. It the title opportunities that Favre singlehandedly pissed away. Capiche?

Ur still missing the point goob, Favre is still a super bowl champion, AND, I contend, that if he had the superior teams that starr had, he wouldnt have had to take the the bull by the horns and be so aggressive. Starr could sit back and let his defense control the game, and the NFL's best o line and running attack take over.

Point being, given a better overall team with a sick defense, and who knows, maybe favre would have added a few more titles.

same thing with Marino, give him a sick defense, and he might have won several titles.

Farve did have a superior team the year he won. He was just a shitty postseason QB. Favre's postseason passer rating is 86.5. Now think back to all of his postseason meltdowns. 6 picks against the Rams. 4 against the Vikings. Game killing picks against the Giants and Saints. Blown out at home against the Falcons. Those fuck ups aren't on a "lack of support." They're on him. HE fucked up.

Bart Starr's postseason passer rating is 104.8. Now think back to all his postseason meltdowns. Oh, wait. There weren't any. He has the highest postseason winning percentage in history and is the only QB to win five NFL championships. Nobody stepped up his game in the postseason like Starr did.

mvscal wrote:Farve did have a superior team the year he won. He was just a shitty postseason QB. Favre's postseason passer rating is 86.5. Now think back to all of his postseason meltdowns. 6 picks against the Rams. 4 against the Vikings. Game killing picks against the Giants and Saints. Blown out at home against the Falcons. Those fuck ups aren't on a "lack of support." They're on him. HE fucked up.

Bart Starr's postseason passer rating is 104.8. Now think back to all his postseason meltdowns. Oh, wait. There weren't any. He has the highest postseason winning percentage in history and is the only QB to win five NFL championships. Nobody stepped up his game in the postseason like Starr did.

mvscal? are you just dumb, or retarded? or BOTH?

corrrect me if I am wrong here, did you say postseason? Brett Favre had 3 Td's in the super bowl, 2 passing and 1 on the ground. NOW, without the three scores by Brett favre, the green bay packers would have lost that super bowl to the patriots.

Now, again, you think that when a quarterback has 3 td's in a super bowl game, thats not clutch?

In the biggest game of anyone's life, the SUPER BOWL. Favre steps up with 3 Td's, and you think he didnt perform in the postseason? You flaming idiotic fool you.

ALSO, the reason the green bay packers make the super bowl at all, is because of one word, FAVRE.
Those packers teams of the 60's were so great on defense and running the football, they make the super bowl with or without bart starr.

try again stupid.

bradhusker wrote:

mvscal wrote:Farve did have a superior team the year he won. He was just a shitty postseason QB. Favre's postseason passer rating is 86.5. Now think back to all of his postseason meltdowns. 6 picks against the Rams. 4 against the Vikings. Game killing picks against the Giants and Saints. Blown out at home against the Falcons. Those fuck ups aren't on a "lack of support." They're on him. HE fucked up.

Bart Starr's postseason passer rating is 104.8. Now think back to all his postseason meltdowns. Oh, wait. There weren't any. He has the highest postseason winning percentage in history and is the only QB to win five NFL championships. Nobody stepped up his game in the postseason like Starr did.

mvscal? are you just dumb, or retarded? or BOTH?

corrrect me if I am wrong here, did you say postseason? Brett Favre had 3 Td's in the super bowl, 2 passing and 1 on the ground. NOW, without the three scores by Brett favre, the green bay packers would have lost that super bowl to the patriots.

Desmond Howard thinks you're an idiot.

Goober McTuber wrote:

bradhusker wrote:

mvscal wrote:Farve did have a superior team the year he won. He was just a shitty postseason QB. Favre's postseason passer rating is 86.5. Now think back to all of his postseason meltdowns. 6 picks against the Rams. 4 against the Vikings. Game killing picks against the Giants and Saints. Blown out at home against the Falcons. Those fuck ups aren't on a "lack of support." They're on him. HE fucked up.

Bart Starr's postseason passer rating is 104.8. Now think back to all his postseason meltdowns. Oh, wait. There weren't any. He has the highest postseason winning percentage in history and is the only QB to win five NFL championships. Nobody stepped up his game in the postseason like Starr did.

mvscal? are you just dumb, or retarded? or BOTH?

corrrect me if I am wrong here, did you say postseason? Brett Favre had 3 Td's in the super bowl, 2 passing and 1 on the ground. NOW, without the three scores by Brett favre, the green bay packers would have lost that super bowl to the patriots.

Desmond Howard thinks you're an idiot.

OH, HI goob!! I KNEW I could count on another stupid remark by you. SEE, what you failed to understand? without howard's return, the packers still win the game. BUT, without Favre's 3 td's??
The packers LOSE the super bowl.
YA got it now? are you with me here? if not, I can spoon feed you the hard cock/ er FACTS.

bradhusker wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

bradhusker wrote:mvscal? are you just dumb, or retarded? or BOTH?

corrrect me if I am wrong here, did you say postseason? Brett Favre had 3 Td's in the super bowl, 2 passing and 1 on the ground. NOW, without the three scores by Brett favre, the green bay packers would have lost that super bowl to the patriots.

Desmond Howard thinks you're an idiot.

OH, HI goob!! I KNEW I could count on another stupid remark by you. SEE, what you failed to understand? without howard's return, the packers still win the game.

The Patriots had just cut the lead to 27-21 when Howard ran the kickoff back for a TD. Runner up for MVP probably would have been Reggie White.

corrrect me if I am wrong here, did you say postseason? Brett Favre had 3 Td's in the super bowl, 2 passing and 1 on the ground. NOW, without the three scores by Brett favre, the green bay packers would have lost that super bowl to the patriots.

[/quote]

Desmond Howard thinks you're an idiot.[/quote]
OH, HI goob!! I KNEW I could count on another stupid remark by you. SEE, what you failed to understand? without howard's return, the packers still win the game. [/quote]

The Patriots had just cut the lead to 27-21 when Howard ran the kickoff back for a TD. Runner up for MVP probably would have been Reggie White.[/quote]

AGAIN, you are STILL losing the arguement here, what is it you FAIL to understand?
I said, take away Howard's return, and the packers STILL WIN the game. HOWEVER, take away Favre's 3 Td's, and the packers LOSE the game.
RESULT, Favre more valuable player. damm, even a 3 yr old chimp realizes this, but not goob.

you is one dumb mofo.

In the biggest game of anyone's life, the SUPER BOWL. Favre steps up with 3 Td's, and you think he didnt perform in the postseason?

No, Favre didn't perform in the postseason, not when objectively looking at his entire body of work. All the back-breaking picks and porous passer rating are evidence of that.

Favre did win a Super Bowl, and nobody can take that away, but the point remains he could've and should've been in position to win more than one, but he was such a colossal fuck up in the postseason more often than not.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

In the biggest game of anyone's life, the SUPER BOWL. Favre steps up with 3 Td's, and you think he didnt perform in the postseason?

No, Favre didn't perform in the postseason, not when objectively looking at his entire body of work. All the back-breaking picks and porous passer rating are evidence of that.

Favre did win a Super Bowl, and nobody can take that away, but the point remains he could've and should've been in position to win more than one, but he was such a colossal fuck up in the postseason more often than not.

Im gonna disagree with you on this, and heres why.

Favre, after the first super bowl, saw his team really go down in quality. In fact, the packers defense got worse and worse in the early 2000's, basically, the reason why the packers even got to the playoffs year after year was on the back of FAVRE.

Its the same thing with Dan Marino, the reason the dolphins made the playoffs year after year was on the back of Dan marino. BUT, to go all the way to the super bowl and to win the super bowl, you NEED the entire package, Including a great defense. thus, zero super bowls for dan.

The reason Tom Brady wins those three super bowls is because in the early 2000's, new england had one of the best and fastest defenses in the NFL.
Terry bradshaw's passer rating is NO WHERE near as good as Favre's, yet, he has 4 super bowl rings.
WHY? because he had an entire great team around him. Including the greatest defense of all time.

Did you here what I said about terry being a shitty QB with the lowest passer rating of all time?
The pittsburgh steelers would have got to the super bowl without terry, The green bay packers dont make the playoffs without brett favre. The miami dolphins dont make the playoffs without dan marino.


Im not sure you understand football like I understand football, inside and out. The packers defense the last 7 years Favre was on the team, was average at best, and some years below average.
Do you understand this fact?
Sure Favre threw picks in the post season, BUT, he also threw a lot of TD's as well, in fact, he is second all time in td's in the postseason. DID YOU KNOW THAT?

And you are wrong about Favre shoulda won more superbowls, HE didnt have the defenses to go all the way like Brady did, or Terry did. THAT IS A FACT.
YOU dont win multiple super bowls without a mean defense.

SEE, you are failing to see the big picture here, In Favre's super bowl win, he had 3 TD's, meaning that in the post season, HE DELIVERED, BIG TIME, and, Green Bay had a mean defense that year.

Fast forward to the 2000's, Favre is still taking the team to the post season on his broad shoulders and passing prowess, HOWEVER, green bay's defense is merely average. YOU dont win super bowls with an average defense, or hadnt you got that memo?

examples,
2000, baltimore ravens, sick ass defense,
2001 new england patriots, great defense
2002, tampa bay,,, sick ass defense
2003 new england, great defense
2004 new england great defense
2005 pittsburgh great defense
2006 indianapolis great defense
2007 NY giants, great defense
2008 pittsburgh great defense
2009 new orleans great defense
2010 green bay great defense

to be clear, these super bowl champs shared one thing in common, their defenses ranked at the top each year.

so, to rebutt your assertion that favre shoulda won more super bowls, I beg to differ, because the record shows that green bay from 2000 to 2007 saw their once great defense in serious decline. In effect, their defense became average to poor, and that DOES NOT equate to super bowls.
Marino, as great a QB as he was, could not overcome a bad defense, and, IN order to win super bowls, generally the rule of thumb is, "have a great defense".

SO, I must call you out on blaming Favre, when a quarterback is more likely to throw picks when he must carry a team with a poor defense.
Defense wins championships, that is a rule in football which has stood the test of time. There can be an exception to this rule every now and then, HOWEVER, its an iron clad rule for sure.
any questions?

bradhusker wrote:corrrect me if I am wrong here, did you say postseason?

Yes and Bart Starr has the highest postseason winning percentage and more NFL championships than any starting QB in league history not to mention being a two time Superbowl MVP.

Starr is the best postseason QB...period. Farve doesn't even crack the top ten maybe not even the top twenty.

brad wrote:2006 indianapolis great defense

2009 new orleans great defense

Wrong and wrong.

In fact, both of those defenses were well below NFL average.

Indy was 21st in yds allowed and 23rd in pts allowed.
NO was 25th in yds allowed and 20th in pts allowed.


What both of those teams had was an outstanding QB who didn't piss down his leg in postseason.

Get it? :wink:

poptart wrote:

brad wrote:2006 indianapolis great defense

2009 new orleans great defense

Wrong and wrong.

In fact, both of those defenses were well below NFL average.

Indy was 21st in yds allowed and 23rd in pts allowed.
NO was 25th in yds allowed and 20th in pts allowed.


What both of those teams had was an outstanding QB who didn't piss down his leg in postseason.

Get it? :wink:

sorry poptart, you cherry picked a couple of categories, but a defense is much more than that, and new orleans led in defensive scoring, which is HUGE, and in takeaways, which again is HUGE.
hows that feel to be punked?

mvscal wrote:

bradhusker wrote:corrrect me if I am wrong here, did you say postseason?

Yes and Bart Starr has the highest postseason winning percentage and more NFL championships than any starting QB in league history not to mention being a two time Superbowl MVP.

Starr is the best postseason QB...period. Farve doesn't even crack the top ten maybe not even the top twenty.

AGAIN, YOUR BRAIN is failing to understand basic knowledge of pro football.

Dan marino is ten times better at the quarterback position than bart starr. HOWEVER, in the postseason, a quarterback must have a defense and a running game if he is to be succe
ssful. Dan had neither, I am amazed that you cant understand this simple logic.
Terry bradshaw and bart starr would have zero titles and have been shitty postseason QB's without the teams they were on. IN FACT, a QB as shitty as bradshaw doesnt even make the playoffs if he was on the shitty dolphins teams with shitty defenses.