Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack
But he shouldn't be punished for that. If anything it should be the opposite, I'd think. I mean would you rank Kurt Warner one of the game's bests because of 1999 (and maybe 2001?)
|
What Warner did at the turn of the century
should classify him as one of the games greats. Should 3 excellent years put him in the top 20 of all time? Probably not. But a lot of the other guys had the benefit of stability that Warner never had. He still performed well in bad situations after St. Louis, and that's the mark of a great player. Not historically great, but great.
I'm all for giving Favre the benefit of the doubt due to longevity, but I'm a firm believer that a QB should be graded by his 3-5 best years, and not by how long he played. Too much of the latter is based on circumstance (injuries, coaching stability, QB depth chart).