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

National Basketball Association Finals Preview Blowout!

If you're looking for a stereotypical matchup breakdown for the NBA Finals between the Detroit Pistons and San Antonio Spurs, (Game One is tonight, 7 o'clock Mountain, ABC), you've come to the right place! Center: Ben Wallace, Pistons vs. Nazr Mohammed, Spurs Wallace might be the league's top defender, winning his third Defensive Player of the Year award this season and leading the Pistons in both blocks and steals. It's said he's an improved offensive player, but he still scores primarily on tips and wide-open dunks. "Big Ben" is horrific from the foul line, connecting on 42.8% this season. Also, his brother has taken on NBA players and can probably beat up Mohammed's brother. Mohammed has been a good fit for the Spurs since being traded from the Knicks. It appears Isiah Thomas may have finally made his first mistake as general manager in New York, as Mohammed has started every Spurs' playoff game, averaging 8.1 points to go with a solid seven...

Forget Brett Favre (*)

From my 2007 NFL season preview : Favre's not as good as he once was-who is?-but he's not the disgrace people make him out to be...I don't think he "deserves" to go out with another Lombardi or anything, but I hope he gets to leave on a good note. Oops. What a mistake. And I even knew this day was coming. Let me say that Brett Favre deserves to go down in history with whatever records he earns, so long as a giant asterisk is placed by each and every one of them. As you may have heard, Sunday's victory over the New York Giants made Favre the winningest quarterback in NFL history. I don't know what ESPN did on TV, but this record practically went unnoticed in the places I follow sports. But it's of crucial importance to me. Why? "Maybe someday down the road it will mean a lot," a typically humble Favre said after the 149th win of his career, moving past Hall of Famer [and indisputable greatest quarterback of all time] John Elway. Humble...

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...