Skip to main content

Brett Favre and the Hall of Fame

Can you play your way out of the Hall of Fame?

That’s the question that comes to my mind lately whenever someone brings up Brett Favre. Favre, of course, is the longtime Green Bay Packers quarterback who won a record three Associated Press league MVP awards. (He shared his final award, in 1997, with Barry Sanders.) He’s also a member of the most elite class of sports heores in America: franchise quarterbacks who’ve won the Super Bowl.

His talent was and remains off the charts. Unbelieveable arm strength from any of a thousand release points. Accuracy from the pocket, on the run, falling backwards, or over defenders. Great mobility and improvisation, especially in his younger years. And his toughness-oh my, but we’ll get to that later.

Not only that, he’s now considered (if a bit inaccurately) to be the last remaining symbol of loyalty in team sports. He’s certainly had to clout to ask to be traded to a winner for his last few seasons. And, conversely, he’s certainly given his team cause to look in other directions, yet they’ve stood by him.

Last year Favre led the league with room to spare by throwing 29 interceptions. Would he come back? Will the Packers bench the franchise and start building for the future by playing Aaron Rodgers?

(When Aaron Rodgers is your best bet for future success, your franchise has problems outside of just the quarterback position.)

Favre, of course, came back. He’s off to a rocky start-statistically, he’s had two fine games and two abysmal ones. It’s funny-in his first few years, he was immune to criticism. Now he’s become immune to praise. People all over the country can’t wait to say he should have retired-or, more absurdly, that the Packers should cut him.

Any football fan can tell you Favre has been going downhill for several years now. Really? The numbers don’t bear that out in the slightest, except that he was bad last year. That said, his go-for-broke mentality-long his most-admired trait-may backfire the most in the playoffs. He threw six picks against the Rams in the playoffs following the 2001 season, and chucked another four to Vikings defenders after 2004. But even his playoff performances-statistically anyway-haven’t really been all bad. (You have to scroll down that link to see postseason numbers.)

If it’s not obvious yet, I still think Favre’s a first-ballot Hall of Famer, no questions asked. But his legacy will never be the same. By the time he comes up for Hall of Fame consideration, his MVP trophies will be at least fifteen years old, and his historic prime will be but a distant memory. And it taints everything else he’s done-his painkiller addiction, once swept under the rug, is just one more talking point for armchair analysts on the bury-Favre bandwagon. He was the toughest QB ever-now he’s Barry Bonds in shoulder pads.

Of course, it’s not fair to consider decade-and-a-half-old events and not the more recent past, and Favre’s last few years should certainly count against him-I just think his struggles have been blown way out of proportion. What’s interesting, though, is how much Favre’s early fame will count against him in terms of public sentiment. If he hadn’t been so popular when he was young, no one would be so quick to deride him now.

Let’s look at a more borderline candidate: Jerome Bettis. Bettis ran for more than 13,000 yards in his career-good enough for top-five, all-time. But while Bettis was a dangerous young player, his production really tailed off his last few years. Yes, he was injured. Not to be heartless, but so were countless other backs-like the superior Terrell Davis.

Do you remember ever hearing discussion of Bettis’ Hall of Fame chances before his last season? I don’t. But his syrupy-sweet storybook ending overshadowed the obvious: his decline bagan a long, long time ago. While he’d always been more of a power runner than a distance guy (an understatement if there ever was one), he averaged more than four yards a carry only once after 1997. (Check his career stats here for a more complete picture.)

By the end of his career, he morphed into primarily a short-yardage back-a tremendous, tough-to-stop short-yardage back, capable of starring on occasion-but a role player nonetheless. Is that somehow better than having one awful year in a career full of great ones?

While Bettis’ on-field performance should have been, by any reasonable standard, hurting his shot at Hall of Fame glory, his personality, perseverance, and superstar quarterback may have played him right into the Hall. I just think that’s funny.

Comments

Mike said…
By the way, who else got a kick out of Marcus Nash speaking Saturday night?
David said…
yeah, bettis might just ride his fairytale ending right on into the hall. but my argument against him is the same as it was against e. smith. you shouldn't be rewarded for longevity... you should be rewarded for greatness. i honestly don't think bettis was a great player. good. yes. an assett to have when you are in short yardage situations? probably. but those aren't make or break situations. there are at least four or five viable options when you are in short yardage territory, just becuase you weigh 349 lbs and are 4'3" and can fall over for a couple doesn't make you great.

you hit a good point, his average plauged him his entire year. i think great backs have career avg's up near 4.7 and above... but that's just me.

favre, no brainer. but i did hear some stink about him being pretty cold to incoming rogers. i thought that was pretty lame. help the kid out... teach him a few things. then go back to making cameos on friends and ben stiller movies.
Mike said…
Mr. P, you bring up a great point about quality vs. quantity. It's sort of my argument for T.D., but ultimately also why I don't care whether he gets in: for at least a year, and maybe more like two, he was the absolute best player in the league. There are more guys who get into the Hall of Fame than there are guys who can say they were the very best-so which is the greater honor anyway? It's also a good point because that's exactly the stance I was trying to explain to a new HPS reader who refuses to comment on the blog. And I loved your crack about Bettis in short yardage.

If that's true of Favre, that is lame.

Cap, I agree, and of course Favre has major media backing too, not that he needs it. In fact, the hype is surely the main cause of all the recent backlash.

I do think the media hype can make a difference, though maybe not in the way you'd think. I don't think the writers certain players were nice to are necessarily going to consciously sway their Hall of Fame vote in a certain guy's favor, though it's possible it could help a borderline guy. A bigger factor is what everyone else-including future HoF voters not necessarily even in the biz yet-is going to think as a result of positive coverage today. For example, let's say I got a reporting job and got a vote years down the line. Well, I can't really say with authority whether many players today who aren't quarterbacks deserve the Hall, you know? For example, take Ray Lewis. He was awesome, and he's clearly in decline now, but I haven't watched enough Ravens games over the years to know how long he was really good without going, at least partially, off other people's opinions.

You're right: position and supporting cast make a big difference here. That said, I still think Favre was at a really high level relative to other QBs longer than Bettis was relative to runners.

Favre has lost some of the best aspects of his game, no question. I was just trying to point out that he hasn't "sucked" as long as everyone seems to think he has.

Popular posts from this blog

Five mini-columns

In this in-between time at the start of football and late-but-not-that-late in the everlasting baseball season, there's not any one topic that stands out, so I thought I'd give you my well thought out opinions on five things in sports (originally ten, but I let No. 3 run so long that I thought I'd cut it short (having now finished this, I realize the word short is out of place here)). This probably means I'll have nothing to write about for weeks, so enjoy. Keep in mind that a) I came up with this list at 2 a.m. this morning (I couldn't sleep and I'm not kidding; you have no idea the kind of pressure that comes with running this website) and b) I'm still not making any money off this, so if it makes no sense, blame yourself (which, interestingly enough, also makes no sense). And we're off! 1) Maurice Clarett vs. Ohio State: Before you skip down to No. 2, which I would certainly do in your position, hear me out. There is actually a little timeliness to t...

And now that it’s gone, it’s like it wasn’t there at all

I never thought this blog would last longer than Jay Cutler's career with the Denver Broncos. He was a talented young prospect so good that the Broncos, a powerhouse organization only one game removed from the Super Bowl the season before, traded up to get him—or, in other words, a player whose upside was so huge, the team sacrificed its present to get his future. And now? He's gone . How did it come to this? * * * Often I'll play devil's advocate with a move like this; you know, I'll try and explain how it makes sense from the other side of the table. Today, during the most disastrous Broncos offseason in memory—and the draft hasn't even happened yet, so settle in—I just don't have it in me. I don't think move is really defensible from a football standpoint. But what the heck: as the article above says, the Broncos are sending Cutler and a fifth-round draft pick this month to the Chicago Bears for quarterback Kyle Orton, Chicago's first-rounder in t...

Did CU ever win the Pac-12?

In 2010, I bet a college buddy of mine (who longtime readers may remember as the only other contributor to Hole Punch Sports) that CU’s football team would not win the Pac-12 in the next 15 years. Guess what? It’s time for me to gloat, because I was right. Why we were doomed Back in the day, a lot of people made the argument that CU should join the Pac-12 because we’d get so much more TV money there. Of course, given college football is the answer to the question, “what if you had a sport where multiple teams were like the Yankees, and you created a whole universe of haves and have-nots?”, then yeah, you want to be aligned with some of the haves. But the question in my mind wasn’t, “will CU be better off with more money?” That’s an obvious yes. The question I asked was, will CU be any more competitive in their own conference if they’re competing against teams who are also getting more money? I couldn’t see why they would be. The mathematical angle Legend has it that Cowboys runn...