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

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Top 10 for me.. He's not above (from my lifetime) Montana, Unitas, Elway, Brady not to even mention older NFL vets.. He greatly benefited from a wide open era, favorable offensive rules and expansion (also know as dilution) allowing him to play longer against weaker comp than the old timers. I know Brady has those same parameters, but he has more jewelry.

You should have heard Solomon Wilcots on NFL Radio talking about him. It was like Jesus had just retired from religion. He was saying he was the best there ever was, that Hollywood will be calling for a movie on his life story, blah, blah, blah..

I'm sorry, but no way Elway ranks over Favre. There's just no way. I can see others (too early on Brady though), but not Elway.

[SKINSnCANES]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I'm sorry, but no way Elway ranks over Favre. There's just no way. I can see others (too early on Brady though), but not Elway.

How many super bowls did Elway go to, four?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Top 20, probably not Top 10. Here are eight guys that IMO are hands down better: Peyton Manning, Brady, Marino, Elway, Baugh, Graham, Unitas, Montana.

Others to discuss; Steve Young, Aikman, Tarkenton, Kelly. Favre was very good, but many of his numbers are inflated because he was so durable and played so long (not bad things, but they do inflate stats).

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Favre was very good, but many of his numbers are inflated because he was so durable and played so long (not bad things, but they do inflate stats).

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?)

[GTripp0012]

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).

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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).

yeah, I'm always torn on that kind of stuff. It's sort of how I feel about Presidents (not to go off on too much tangent here). It's like FDR was widely considered a great President. But how much of it was due to the fact that he had a 3rd term and I think a year into a 4th to see some of his ideas through? I mean what if Eisenhower had an extra four years? By the same token guys like Jim Brown and Sandy Koufax are considered among the greatest in their respective sports, but what if each had played another 10 years but rode the bench (not likely) for the last five. How would we remember their careers?

[Mc2guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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).

You can never have truly compare greats from different era's, but we can never have an objective conversation until you agree on the definition of "greatest." If we confine the argument a bit you can start to rank players on an apples to apples basis. Everyone has their own definition of great, unfortunately.

Personally, I think you have to look at the whole package, so my criteria would be as follows:

Wins - Did the player win on a consistent basis
Stats - Did the player contribute significantly on a statistical basis
Longevity - How long did they contribute at a high level
Peak Performance - At their best, how good were they relative to their peers, and how long did they perform at that level.
Intangibles - How did this player affect the outcome of games beyond their play? Where they a great leader, a great personality, did they elevate the play of their teammates?

Based on these 5 criteria, I would have to rank Favre top 10 of all time. He played extremely well, for a very long time. At his best he was equal or better than any of his contemporaries, and he owns almost all of the records. He didn't have the intangibles that a Montana had, and his game management signficantly lowers his ranking, but he certainly elevated the play of those around him. Had he not had several down years at the end of his career, I suspect there would be little question about his place in history.

FWIW, here are my top 10

1) Starr (simply the greatest, 5 NFL championships, owned all the stat records when he retired, lead the league in all statistical categories while he played, 7.85 YPA career and beat 8.2 YPA six times, more than anyone; played best when it mattered - 106 rating and 9.6 YPA in championships; extemely high intangibles...teammates were inspired by and would die for Starr, incredible leader)
2) Montana (4 championships, quickest release ever, pure winner, most clutch player, HUGE leadership intangibles, 127.4 rating in superbowls is INSANE, icewater in his veins)
3) Baugh (2 NFL championships, greatest two way player ever, perfected the forward pass, 109 rating in '45 compared to league average of 43, 7.3 YPA when the rules allow d'backs to mug the receiver)
4) Unitas (3 championships, threw for 40,000 in defensive era, called own plays, 7.8 YPA career)
5) Grahm (3 NFL championships plus 4 AFL championships, gaudy 9.0YPA, only played for 6 years in NFL)
6) Brady (3 championships, best season ever, insane post season stats, finds a way to win)
7) Marino (purest passer ever, limited wins and limited intangibles)
8) Bradshaw (4 championships, great arm, pure winner)
9) Favre (Owns all the records now, and won consistently with flair)
10) Elway (best comeback QB, great deep arm, lots of intangibles, great runner)

Honorable Mention: Manning, Tarkenton, Fouts, Moon, Griese (Bob), Luckman, Staubach

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mc2guy

You can never have truly compare greats from different era's, but we can never have an objective conversation until you agree on the definition of "greatest." If we confine the argument a bit you can start to rank players on an apples to apples basis. Everyone has their own definition of great, unfortunately.

Personally, I think you have to look at the whole package, so my criteria would be as follows:

Wins - Did the player win on a consistent basis
Stats - Did the player contribute significantly on a statistical basis
Longevity - How long did they contribute at a high level
Peak Performance - At their best, how good were they relative to their peers, and how long did they perform at that level.
Intangibles - How did this player affect the outcome of games beyond their play? Where they a great leader, a great personality, did they elevate the play of their teammates?

Based on these 5 criteria, I would have to rank Favre top 10 of all time. He played extremely well, for a very long time. At his best he was equal or better than any of his contemporaries, and he owns almost all of the records. He didn't have the intangibles that a Montana had, and his game management signficantly lowers his ranking, but he certainly elevated the play of those around him. Had he not had several down years at the end of his career, I suspect there would be little question about his place in history.

FWIW, here are my top 10

1) Starr (simply the greatest, 5 NFL championships, owned all the stat records when he retired, lead the league in all statistical categories while he played, 7.85 YPA career and beat 8.2 YPA six times, more than anyone; played best when it mattered - 106 rating and 9.6 YPA in championships; extemely high intangibles...teammates were inspired by and would die for Starr, incredible leader)
2) Montana (4 championships, quickest release ever, pure winner, most clutch player, HUGE leadership intangibles, 127.4 rating in superbowls is INSANE, icewater in his veins)
3) Baugh (2 NFL championships, greatest two way player ever, perfected the forward pass, 109 rating in '45 compared to league average of 43, 7.3 YPA when the rules allow d'backs to mug the receiver)
4) Unitas (3 championships, threw for 40,000 in defensive era, called own plays, 7.8 YPA career)
5) Grahm (3 NFL championships plus 4 AFL championships, gaudy 9.0YPA, only played for 6 years in NFL)
6) Brady (3 championships, best season ever, insane post season stats, finds a way to win)
7) Marino (purest passer ever, limited wins and limited intangibles)
8) Bradshaw (4 championships, great arm, pure winner)
9) Favre (Owns all the records now, and won consistently with flair)
10) Elway (best comeback QB, great deep arm, lots of intangibles, great runner)

Honorable Mention: Manning, Tarkenton, Fouts, Moon, Griese (Bob), Luckman, Staubach

Good post on the whole here, but I have a problem with your criteria. Some of the criteria isn't mutually exclusive. You list "stats" but then also "peak performance". Seems that a good chunk of peak performance is statistical production. Winning also factors into peak performance I would think. Intangibles isn't really on the same level as anything else.

I think you have a good start, but the only criteria you can really have is 1) longevity and 2) peak performance. The other 3 are simply tools you use to measure the criterias.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

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?)

You're right, I don't believe he should be punished for his stats, they are great accomplishments. My point is that although he is #1 in several QB stat categories some people are elevating him based on those numbers alone.

Obviously I wouldn't have Kurt Warner ranked as an all-time great, while he did have a great run for 2-3 years he doesn't have the longevity of the all-time greats mentioned. And if I'm on the sandlot field picking teams and I have 1st pick to chose from the all-time greats to be my QB, he isn't in the discussion.

When I think of "best of all-time", I think of stats, championships, Pro Bowls / All Pro awards, and the dreaded cliche "dominance in his era". The other thing I think about is who would I want to build a team around.

[81forHOF]

#1..

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Top 20, probably not Top 10. Here are eight guys that IMO are hands down better: Peyton Manning, Brady, Marino, Elway, Baugh, Graham, Unitas, Montana.

Others to discuss; Steve Young, Aikman, Tarkenton, Kelly. Favre was very good, but many of his numbers are inflated because he was so durable and played so long (not bad things, but they do inflate stats).

I agree with your top 8 there.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SKINSnCANES

How many super bowls did Elway go to, four?

So by that logic, players like Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer are better than Dan Marino????
ps- in case you didn't notice, football is a team game. Look at the stats, Favre blows him away.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I'm sorry, but no way Elway ranks over Favre. There's just no way. I can see others (too early on Brady though), but not Elway.

Absolutely Elway, 5 SB over the life of his career including 2 wins, the king of the comeback victory (47 career), had running skills (7 seasons over 200 yds rushing) and passing (7 seasons over 3,000 yards).. Dude is a legend..

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Absolutely Elway, 5 SB over the life of his career including 2 wins, the king of the comeback victory (47 career), had running skills (7 seasons over 200 yds rushing) and passing (7 seasons over 3,000 yards).. Dude is a legend..

Elway is overrated. He's definately was a great player who came up clutch a bunch of times in his career, but Farve (even on a per play basis) totally wipes his ass in all statistical categories, including MVPs won.

Elway had a long and successful career with lots of historic moments. His career just wasn't quite as good as Favres.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Elway is overrated. He's definately was a great player who came up clutch a bunch of times in his career, but Farve (even on a per play basis) totally wipes his ass in all statistical categories, including MVPs won.

Elway had a long and successful career with lots of historic moments. His career just wasn't quite as good as Favres.

I tend to agree with that.