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

[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.

[Mc2guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

Under your criteria, you could have a fantastic year or two, play for a long time, and rank highly? A Randall Cunningham in Minnesota '00 if you will?

I respectfully disagree. From my perspective the greats have to have capacity to play exceptionally and do it often for an extended period of time. In addition to this, intangibles mean something. Great leaders make players around them better and make teams better than they would otherwise be, and that has to count in my book.

I could see how stats and "longevity" could overlap, but that is the nature of performance based metrics, invariably performing well in one area will bleed over to other areas.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mc2guy

Under your criteria, you could have a fantastic year or two, play for a long time, and rank highly? A Randall Cunningham in Minnesota '00 if you will?

I respectfully disagree. From my perspective the greats have to have capacity to play exceptionally and do it often for an extended period of time. In addition to this, intangibles mean something. Great leaders make players around them better and make teams better than they would otherwise be, and that has to count in my book.

I could see how stats and "longevity" could overlap, but that is the nature of performance based metrics, invariably performing well in one area will bleed over to other areas.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying stats and longevity, for example, can not be compared because they do not share the same genus (i.e. components of QBing greatness).

Longevity and peak performance DO share the same genus, and therefore, can be compared under the same critieria, because (speaking philosopically), when you are talking about longevity, you are saying nothing about peak performance, and vice versa.

Anyway, I'm being real nitpicky there, but only because I thought your methodoligy was very sound, so I felt I could throw my two cents in and maybe thin some stuff out.

The bolded statement is totally unsubstanciated. I mean, it sounds good when said in a Disney movie, and some very smart football people certainly believe it to be true, but it's not a proven factor in quarterbacking. We can not prove that some quarterbacks automatically make players on their team try harder than other QBs. We know we can make them look better by playing better than other QBs, but that's all we know. It's my opinion that QB leadership is an important off field component of locker room chemistry, but changes nothing regarding on-field performance. Some QBs are more mentally prepared than others, but that can be measured statistically, and is hardly an intangible.

Again, I liked your initial post, because most people don't try to define "greatness" before coming up with a list. That's a pretty important step.