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 my...foot. Don't give me that aw-shucks garbage; Favre defiled the game with his drugged-up antics. Let's not forget his former addiction to vicodin. In other words, he's like Barry Bonds, if Bonds had ever actually been caught. (And if people were saying things like, "Forever will the NFL's record books be tainted by this shameful act.")
I don't think painkillers directly enhance performance the way steroids do, but I think they still help a ton in football. Can you imagine the physical anguish that most of those guys are in every Sunday? If someone had a way not to feel it so much, wouldn't that be a huge advantage? Wouldn't painkilliers help you play better and in more games than you might otherwise? And wouldn't that help you break career records?
And to cheat and break Elway's record...well, that's just inexcuseable.
* * *
In all seriousness, I like Brett Favre. I don't really care that he was hooked on painkillers more than a decade ago. When I look back on his career, I don't count it against him. And I think this record is way more impressive than the coverage of it would lead you to believe.
Now's a good time to compare Favre's legacy with Elway's. My favorite two Elway stats were these: first, he retired as the quarterback with the most career wins in NFL history, and second, he retired as the quarterback with the most Super Bowl starts in NFL history (and still holds that mark).
Favre will retire with better passing statistics than Elway, but I think Elway will be remembered more fondly. It's not because of the drugs, though, and it's not really because Elway's Broncos beat Favre's Packers in Super Bowl XXXII. It's because Favre peaked when he was so young.
The idea that Elway would be more respected historically would have been inconceivable back in the run-up to that matchup, when Elway was the aging warrior who might never win a title, and Favre was the defending champion with a ring-filled future. Who would have thought then that Elway would probably retire with more rings than Favre?
It's so funny to me looking back on it. Going into that game, Favre had won or shared the last three NFL MVP awards, and his team the year before had dominated from start to finish. Elway, on the other hand, had one MVP trophy with a decade's worth of dust on it, and his teams never really got the national respect Favre's did.
In a way, that game changed everything for both men. Elway finally won his coveted championship, then added another one the next year, seemingly just for kicks. Though Favre would be incredible-one of the best quarterbacks in the world-for years to come, his meteoric rise pretty much came to a stop once that game ended.
Favre has made it past the wild-card round just twice since Super Bowl XXXII. That's only once more than Elway, who retired in 1999.
Favre's continued to play, game after game after game, and usually at a high level. It's just not that impressive compared to what he'd done before that fateful day, when his team was upset on the game's biggest stage.
Elway never really peaked the same way for many reasons, some of which were outside of his control. Elway's awesome running ability, for example, diminished greatly as he grew older, but the addition of a running game and a real coach to his team allowed him to put up his best statistical seasons as he wrapped up his career.
Because Elway finished so strong, everyone's more understanding of his early struggles. Instead of, "Wow, Joe Montana kicked his butt," it's, "Remember the Drive?" With Favre, it's, "Why does he throw so many picks? He has to retire," and "Remember when we thought this guy was good?"
Elway was more consistently great over his career. Did Favre have a higher peak? It's so hard to say, but surely he was held in higher esteem during his career than Elway was. Three MVPs...it really is amazing.
Will time heal all wounds? Elway's stature has only grown in retrospect, and it's possible Favre's will do the same. But I just feel like Favre's reputation has taken too many hits the last few years. Both will go down as legends, but I think Elway will be respected more by average football fans.
19 comments:
Punchy,
I wish you were right, but I think you're wrong. Elway, because of those early mishaps, will never be remembered as fondly by the average fan than Favre.
Granted, you make a great case for Elway: his career is, I think, more impressive than Favre's . . . mostly because, despite disappointment, he bore fruit in the end. It did seem like Elway never lost it, whereas it does seem like Favre has lost it. Favre's career trajectory looks a lot like Troy Aikman's. I mean, most guys peak, decline, then retire. Elway was awesome, hit some major bumps along the way, and came out a champ - twice - at the end. It's impressive, but rare. I mean, look at how Montana went out. Elway, I think, was by far the most fortunate, though I'd love to know what he would say about it.
I think the early success makes first impressions strong. I still meet people who say Elway was a loser because they made early impressions. (Of course, everyone in Minnesota hates Favre . . .)
David
Oh, and Punchy, you should definitely indulge in the pleasures of DVR or Tivo technology. It's so much more convenient than you can imagine. I used to get annoyed when the phone would ring at ten minutes to the hour during my favorite show. Now I just pause it and rejoice that I can fast forward through inane commercials for however long I get behind. It really is the way TV was meant to be. Plus, you can record shows and watch them when you want without ever having to think about a tape again . . . utterly brilliant.
I hope you'll reassess your first impressions . . . even though I agree that taping games to watch later is lame.
DG
Thanks for the take. Of course I'm in Colorado, where most everyone loves Elway, though it seems like the national media warmed up to him after the Super Bowl wins.
I got nothing against TiVo, just against watching games late. (Well, since you brought it up, I also don't like the monthly fee, so I'd probably just record on a computer. But I don't watch enough TV to justify either option. Shoot, I'd get rid of cable altogether if it weren't for Monday Night Football and the NBA playoffs.)
That's an interesting comparison, and your narrative about Super Bowl XXXII makes perfect sense. I do think Elway will be remembered more fondly - already, there are more people saying Elway was the best ever, and any fan respects a player who chooses to walk away on top.
I also think that Favre had the benefit of playing with more talent when he was younger - aside from the Duke, those mid-80s Broncos teams were atrocious. The real miracle was that they got to the Super Bowl at all.
And the Vicodin thing is noteworthy - just more proof that the media goes soft on the players it likes.
The mid-'80s Broncos weren't quite atrocious outside of Elway, especially considering their competition in the AFC. But they sure didn't have Reggie White on defense, either.
It's interesting to think about the supporting casts, because Elway and Favre's career paths were essentially reversed in that respect-Elway's teammates were best at the end of the line, while Favre's were great at the start but got worse over time. (It's also worth noting that both spent time mid-career with mediocre coaches (Wade Phillips/Ray Rhodes).)
Anyway, the improvement in Elway's team masked some of his diminishing skills (though the most important factor, his passing ability, was pretty much razor sharp until the end), while Favre's decline was more obvious because his team decayed around him. If the Packers' trajectory was more like the Broncos', would Favre's career numbers mirror Elway's? While Elway finished more strongly, Favre's MVP seasons-strictly from a numerical standpoint-completely blew No. 7's best out of the water. I always wonder how big of a factor teammates are in stuff like that.
Elway's Super Bowl-winning teams had a better coach and a better running back than Favre ever played for/with, and it's certainly plausible Favre'd still be tearing it up with a late-'90s Shanahan and Terrell Davis alongside him. I haven't talked myself out of Elway, but this is more food for thought.
i think the most interesting point to understanding favre = you mentioned.
he peaked early. that's really odd.
i'm going to lose sleep over that one.
While I'm not a fan of the Broncos, or John Elway for that matter, I do think Elway is undoubtably the better QB. One could argue that the single most difficult thing to accomplish in the game of football is a late 4th quarter comeback. A good portion of Elway's legacy is based on his ability to lead his team down the field executing near impossible completions late in the 4th quarter to an eventual victory. The fact that he could perform so well under so much pressure is why he is a better QB than Brett Favre. Countless times I've watched Farve make inexcusable mistakes late in the 4th quarter just when his team needed him most.This is often written off by the media as his "gunslinger mentality." Farve would do himself a great favor by growing up and using his head instead of chucking the ball into his opponents hands when the game is on the line. In the 4th quarter I'd take a John Elway over Farve every single time (or preferrably, Steve Young) and for that reason Elway will, and does, have a better reputaion and be know as a better QB.
Favre didn't peak that early, Pugs-he played in the Super Bowl at ages 27 and 28, which really isn't as young as it sounds. Elway played in his third Super Bowl at 29, but he could have retired at a normal age in his mid-30s and never made it back, you know? It's just that Favre (like Elway) kept playing forever.
Blaine, I get what you're saying, but I think most fans react too strongly to the inflated hype surrounding Favre. It's true that the announcers cut him way too much slack. But it's not fair to say that Favre is bad under pressure or anything, though he's certainly cost the Packers some games. I can remember in 1999, for example, when he led the Packers to three fourth-quarter comebacks in the first four weeks. That was a long time ago, of course, but if I went off something other than memory, I'm sure I could find some positive examples.
I might take Steve Young over Favre, too, but only if it means I get Jerry Rice as well. Actually, not even then, considering Favre's 3-1 record in head-to-head playoff meetings against Young. (And the loss came when Young lobbed a last-second pass into double-coverage and T.O. made a name for himself...in other words, taking chances isn't always irresponsible, dumb, and immature.)
Mike,
The play you're referring to was the last play of the game, so Young wasn't really left with any other options than to throw into double coverage (an amazing throw I might add). Farve, on the other hand, will often throw an interception when he has other options available to him (take a sack or throw the ball away).
Was Young only clutch because he had no other choice? It's true that Favre makes costly mistakes. It's not true that he does it every time, or that it's always right to take the sack, unless you're Rex Grossman or something.
Obviously it's not always correct to take the sack; I was simply trying to point out that more times than other QBs such as Young and Elway, Farve will make a poor decision when the game in on the line late in the 4th quarter. I recognize that there are times in a 4th quarter drive when it becomes necessary to take some chances when your team is behind, I just think that all too often Favre will take unnecessary risks on a 1st or 2nd down when he could have waited for a better opportunity. I think unquestionably, Elway did a much better job of deciding which risk were worth taking on his late-game drives which is why he is the better QB.
Blaine:
Your whole line of reasoning is shaky at best. There is no way that Young, a guy who spent most of his career backing up an overhyped, weak-armed Joe Montana, can compare to Elway, especially in the fourth quarter. Elway was simply the best under pressure. And Favre has shown some serious clutch ability - who can forget the game he put up the week after his father died? Young has one great comeback that I can remember, and all I remember about it is that one play.
John,
I actually think you missed my point. My intention was to argue that Elway is a much better QB than Favre because he is such a better QB in the clutch. That game against the Raiders wasn't really clutch at all. The game was never even close. I do admit it was one the best games I've ever seen a QB have, but it doesn't alter the fact that Favre just can't get it done late in the game on the same level as Elway. (I really just threw Young in there 'cause I know Mike thinks he's overrated, but my original argument was that Elway is a better QB because he is a better 4th quarter QB.)
For the record, I don't think Young's that overrated-I believe I defended his Hall of Fame election in the comments here once. I just don't think he's Favre or Elway good.
You don't think he's Favre good!? He has the all-time highest QB rating, and he's tied for the most league passing titles with Sammy Baugh. I agree that Elway was better, but overall I think Favre is tremendously overrated.
Seriously, you're going there? Passer rating? What is that? Some sort of convoluted mash-up formula that weighs four passing statistics equally, regardless of their relative worth? Yes.
Kurt Warner briefly passed Young as the career leader in the category, which I think says you all you need to know about the stat. The passing title, of course, is just the passing leader for that particular season. So I don't give it much weight, either. (And no, I never thought Warner was better than Young.)
Besides, wouldn't Young's passer rating have been lower if he could have actually stayed on the field during his declining years? It seems much easier to me to have impressive rate-type statistics if you don't play much as a young or old player. Sort of like how Todd Helton had one of the highest career slugging percentages ever a couple years ago, but continues to fall down the list as he gets older. (Retired players, of course, already have their bad years factored in.)
The fact that Young had a shortened career makes his 6 passing titles (6 times that he passed for more yards than Elway and Favre) all the more impressive. However, I do think you make a good point regarding his passer rating. Not playing in his declining years may have altered the rating. Of course, that is assuming he would have had some declining years. Elway didn't have much of a drop off and perhaps Young wouldn't have either.
No, Steve Young's six passing titles do NOT mean he passed for more yards than Elway and Favre. Young never led the league in passing yards-the passing title goes to the guy with the highest rating. Elway led in passing yards once, in 1993, and Favre's done it twice. (I don't think passing yards, in a vacuum, are all that great of a stat, either.) Young did have years where he threw for more yards than both Elway and Favre, just not six of them. He did it twice, in 1992 and 1994.
Even had he played longer, Young surely would have had a higher career rating than Favre, and especially Elway, whose career rating didn't top 80. Shoot, Brian Griese has a better career rating than Elway. Check this list and you'll see why I hate on the statistic.
Elway's numbers got better for the most part as he approached retirement, but I think that's mostly because he was finally playing in an offense that allowed for good passing numbers. If he'd played with Shanahan his whole career, maybe his numbers earlier would have been better and he would have appeared to decline more. That doesn't take away from the fact that he played brilliantly under Shanahan, especially considering his age.
Young, on the other hand, had teammates and coaches who only got worse (though never bad) as time went on. That said, at least the Niners were smart enough to keep running the same offense, and I think he would have continued to play at a high statistical level. And like I said, the gap in rating between Young and Elway was way too big to be closed, anyway.
Clearly your statistical knowledge dwarfs mine.
Post a Comment