Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?

Even if they had help they would have thrown the ball a high % of the time. It was their and his downfall. They were not balanced.

I'd put that on Shula more than anything. I've always wondered why they never got him the help they needed. By the time they did it was too late.

I agree, but those Dolphin teams were not devoid of talent. I would not consider them less talented as some of the early Denver (Elway) teams. They were fairly equal in talent but Elway kept geting them in the SB and of course getting their arse's handed to them in the SB. Dan Fouts had high passing numbers as well and again their offense threw first, ran hardly ever. IMO high stats do not tell the whole story, you need to combine great stats with occasionaly winning something.

I watched the Chiefs 23-7 win over the Vikings in SB IV last month and I gotta say I think because of all the hoopla of Namath and the Jets the year before people tend to forget what KC Chiefs of the AFL did.

And Len Dawson looked really sharp in that game. Very accurate passer. I wouldn't say he's top 10, but I would love to know what others here who actually remember seeing him play thought of him.

Me and you have had this discussion before, so I mostly know where you stand, but I do have to ask this question to you. Why, on your list, is Favre higher than Montana? I am just wondering if you are weighing more on stats vs. championships? Or better players for one and not the other (ie. Montana to Rice vs. Favre to Freeman, Driver, Sharp, or whoever...)

No problem skins8688...I've always enjoyed our debates. No matter what side of the fence we're on, we always seem to be informative and respectful...I'll discuss any issue with you.

Just for the record, it was VERY tough for me to rank Favre over Montana, I almost put Farve as 2a, and Montana as 2b, but you can't do a tie, so I chose Favre for his intangibles. I do weigh stuff like the amazing starting streak of 253 games. Montana played only 2 seasons of 16 regular season games, Favre had 15. So no matter what, you could count on your best player taking the field every Sunday, while with Montana, you couldn't. Montana had 4 seasons in which he played 11 or fewer games.
When it comes to turnovers, Montana was very cautious and gets high praise from me on that, however, Favre's TD to INT ratio was +145, and Montana's was +134. Not a whole lot different, but Favre has him by 11. Montana never had a 4000 yard season, and only threw for 30 or more tds 1 time (31 in 87). Not that he needs to top those marks, but they are factors in my mind. Stats are means to compare players, when you pick a fantasy team, do you go for Albert Pujols or Kevin Youkilis? What makes a player better than another? It's their production of course. I do weigh super bowls, but not nearly as much as others here. To me, there is no TEAM game in the world more TEAM oriented than football. 1 person, even QB, can never ever be the sole difference. That in mind, if a guy goes 4 times, or 2 times to the super bowl, that won't be a factor in my decision. Also, to me, if you factor in the 2 super bowls a guy wins, you need to factor in the 3 he lost in (ala John Elway and the fact that when he did win, it was because he rode an RB that had arguably the best back to back seasons ever). So if you can say he got them there, and assume it was him, then you need to assume he lost those games as well. I weigh playoff appearance play, and more importantly regular season performances more than super bowls. Like I have stated before, if you judge someone on their super bowls, then trent dilfer should be ranked higher than Marino, and that is lunacy. You can't have it work for one argument, then dismiss it in another.
About weighing the players around them (Rice vs Freeman etc), that is a small factor, but I also feel certain players make other players better. Would Rice have been the massive stud he was if he didn't have two hall of fame qb's to throw to him? I would say he wouldn't have been as good. Freeman / Driver and even Sharpe were made better by Favre's play. Rice and Taylor were made better by Montana's play. We as fans seem to think that the QB position is like the Michael Jordan of football, and it's not. Jordan COULD do things himself, and had a much easier team sport. If someone sucked, he could neutralize it. If Montana or Favre had a horrible tackle, it would be hard for them to perform, and that's just one of 11 on only offense. Sure QB is important, but you can't be the only good player on your team, or you will lose, and that has nothing to do with the QB.
(btw- Montana played in 15 seasons, so to compare numbers is fairly easy)
I also almost gave Montana the nod for his passer rating, which might be the single most important stat to me in ranking players. No matter what, that stat is the most universal throughout qb's.
I will try to come up with a formula as to how I rank players...you raise an interesting question, because everyone ranks differently in their own mind, so I'll work on trying to get a numerical system on paper.

I hope this long essay gave you the info you were looking for...sorry for it's length.

anyone watching his press conference?

I don't really understand his reasoning, he is just kinda rambling and saying that he was too hard on himself and not having fun. I don't really get it.

Seems like he is tired of football, not physically but mentally. he says he is just tired.

Everyone has talked about Favre's int's, and sure, I understand they are a factor, but Favre took chances, and sometimes they bit him, and most of the time, he was suuccessful. In that respect, I'd rather have a guy that throws for 50 tds and 20 ints than a guy that throws for 20 tds and 10 ints. To me, the TD to INT ratio is more important. So here is how all the guys we have mentioned (and some that we didn't) stack up:

Please note, I double checked the stats on these to make sure, I apparently am a little dislexic (sp?) and was quoting Favre at +145 when he is +154. My bad...these are the accurate readings:

1- Marino - +168
2- Favre - +154
3- Manning - +153
4- Montana - +134
5- Young - +125
6- Brady - +111
7- Tarkenton - +76
8- Elway - +74
9- Jurgensen - +66
10- Esiason - +63
11- Kelly - +62
11- Krieg - +62
13- Moon - +58
14- Staubach - +44
15- Simms - +42
16- Graham - +39
17- Unitas - +37
17- Kosar - +37
19- Aikman - +24
20- Theismann - +22
21- Fouts - +12
22- Bradshaw - +2
23- Tittle - -6
24- Baugh - -16
25- Blanda - -41
26- Namath - -47

Kinda funny that the ones that take the most chances are the ones that succeed. Look at Aikman, widely recognized for his accuracy, and he's sitting at only a plus 24.

Bradshaw is the perfect example of why chamionships should not be calculated in the "best ever" catagory. Otherwise he's be at the top, and quite frankly, he's no where near it.

No problem skins8688...I've always enjoyed our debates. No matter what side of the fence we're on, we always seem to be informative and respectful...I'll discuss any issue with you.

Just for the record, it was VERY tough for me to rank Favre over Montana, I almost put Farve as 2a, and Montana as 2b, but you can't do a tie, so I chose Favre for his intangibles. I do weigh stuff like the amazing starting streak of 253 games. Montana played only 2 seasons of 16 regular season games, Favre had 15. So no matter what, you could count on your best player taking the field every Sunday, while with Montana, you couldn't. Montana had 4 seasons in which he played 11 or fewer games.
When it comes to turnovers, Montana was very cautious and gets high praise from me on that, however, Favre's TD to INT ratio was +145, and Montana's was +134. Not a whole lot different, but Favre has him by 11. Montana never had a 4000 yard season, and only threw for 30 or more tds 1 time (31 in 87). Not that he needs to top those marks, but they are factors in my mind. Stats are means to compare players, when you pick a fantasy team, do you go for Albert Pujols or Kevin Youkilis? What makes a player better than another? It's their production of course. I do weigh super bowls, but not nearly as much as others here. To me, there is no TEAM game in the world more TEAM oriented than football. 1 person, even QB, can never ever be the sole difference. That in mind, if a guy goes 4 times, or 2 times to the super bowl, that won't be a factor in my decision. Also, to me, if you factor in the 2 super bowls a guy wins, you need to factor in the 3 he lost in (ala John Elway and the fact that when he did win, it was because he rode an RB that had arguably the best back to back seasons ever). So if you can say he got them there, and assume it was him, then you need to assume he lost those games as well. I weigh playoff appearance play, and more importantly regular season performances more than super bowls. Like I have stated before, if you judge someone on their super bowls, then trent dilfer should be ranked higher than Marino, and that is lunacy. You can't have it work for one argument, then dismiss it in another.
About weighing the players around them (Rice vs Freeman etc), that is a small factor, but I also feel certain players make other players better. Would Rice have been the massive stud he was if he didn't have two hall of fame qb's to throw to him? I would say he wouldn't have been as good. Freeman / Driver and even Sharpe were made better by Favre's play. Rice and Taylor were made better by Montana's play. We as fans seem to think that the QB position is like the Michael Jordan of football, and it's not. Jordan COULD do things himself, and had a much easier team sport. If someone sucked, he could neutralize it. If Montana or Favre had a horrible tackle, it would be hard for them to perform, and that's just one of 11 on only offense. Sure QB is important, but you can't be the only good player on your team, or you will lose, and that has nothing to do with the QB.
(btw- Montana played in 15 seasons, so to compare numbers is fairly easy)
I also almost gave Montana the nod for his passer rating, which might be the single most important stat to me in ranking players. No matter what, that stat is the most universal throughout qb's.
I will try to come up with a formula as to how I rank players...you raise an interesting question, because everyone ranks differently in their own mind, so I'll work on trying to get a numerical system on paper.

I hope this long essay gave you the info you were looking for...sorry for it's length.

I also like our discussions because, IMO, we both try our best to back up our opinions and thoughts with some sort of stat or fact. Never is it "He is great because I think he is," and thats all you get. I understand what you are doing better now and why you rank they way you rank. And I agree that the QB position is too often weighed too heavily. However,I am not sure how you think about this, and I have said it before, when you have a HOF QB, (ie. Favre, Elway(I know how you feel about him, but he is a HOF'er), Marino, Montana...) that QB is so good that they can make average WR's look good. My point is that, IMO, Favre made Freeman look great those seasons that they went to the SB. Marino, again IMO, made Dupper and Clayton look good. And the list goes on, but then you have anomilies where you get HOF WR's to go with HOF QB's. Montan and Young to Rice, Manning to Harrision, Bradshaw to Lynn and Stallworth.

All I am getting at is that if a Team has a HOF caliber player on it, that player will make average players look above average. Too many times have you see a player shine with another player only to leave and fall flat on there face. Example, Culpepper without Moss, Freeman without Favre and many others I am sure.