Favre's Playoff Credibility

Okay, I’m worked on a couple of stats for you to address the claim that Favre is now a bad playoff quarterback.

First of all, you make the assumption that Brett Favre has only gotten bad in playoff games since the start of this millennium (of course, they missed the playoffs in 1999 and 2000). I won’t even go into his stats before that time, then. Let’s take it one game at a time.

2001

Favre’s regular season averages: 31 passing attempts per game, 61.6% completed, 245 ypg, 2 TDs/game, 0.9 INT/game, 94.1 rating

Green’s regular season averages: 19 attempts for 86.7 ypg, 3.8 receptions for 37 ypg, 0.7 TDs, 0.25 fumbles lost pg, 4.6 ypc

Misc regular season averages: : 105 rushing yards per game, 1.3 sacks allowed, 5 penalties per game for 41 yards, 3.25 sacks per game, 1.25 INT per game

2002:

Favre’s regular season averages: 34 passing attempts per game, 61.9% completed, 228 ypg, 1.6 TDs/game, 1 INT/game, 85.6 rating

Green’s regular season averages: 20 rushes for 88.6 ypg, 3.5 receptions for 28.1 ypg, 0.6 TDs/game, 0.18 fumbles pg, 4.3 ypc

Misc regular season averages: : 120 rushing yards per game, 1.7 sacks allowed, 6.7 penalties per game for 57 yards, 2.7 sacks per game, 1.5 INT per game

2003:

Favre’s regular season averages: 29 passing attempts per game, 65.4% completed, 210 ypg, 2 TDs/game, 1.3 INT/game, 90.4 rating

Green’s regular season averages: 22 rushes for 117 ypg, 3.1 receptions for 22.9 ypg, 1.25 TDs per game, 0.3 fumbles per game, 5.3 ypc

Misc regular season averages: : 159.9 rushing yards per game, 1.18 sacks allowed, 5.5 penalties per game for 43 yards, 2.2 sacks per game, 1.3 INT per game

2004:

Favre’s regular season averages: 33 passing attempts per game, 64.1% completed, 255 ypg, 1.9 TDs/game, 1.06 INT/game, 92.4 rating

Green’s regular season averages: 17 rushes for 77.5 ypg, 2.6 receptions for 18.3 ypg, 0.5 TDs per game, 0.25 lost fumbles per game, 4.5 ypc

Misc regular season averages: 119.3 rushing yards per game, 0.8 sacks allowed, 7.2 penalties per game for 59 yards, 2.5 sacks per game, 0.5 INT per game

All right, we good so far? By the way, notice how Favre’s numbers either held steady or improved in 2004, while nearly every other stat on every other squad declined?

Let’s keep going, though. This is about playoff games.

2001 (beat San Francisco 25-15, lost to St. Louis 45-17) RS: Regular Season, SF: San Francisco, SL: St. Louis.

Favre (attempts, yards, TD, INT, rating)

RS: 31, 245, 2 TD, 1 INT, 94.1

SF: 29, 269, 2 TD, 1 INT, 112.1

SL: 44, 281, 2 TD, 6 INT, 53.5

Green (attempts, yards, recpts., yards, TDs, fumbles, total rushing yards for all rushers)

RS: 19/86, 4/37, 0.7 TD, 0.25 fumbles, 105 yards

SF: 21/86, 2/12, 1 TD, 0 fumbles, 106 yards

SL: 16/94, 8/55, 0 TD, 1 fumble (plus two other fumbles), 118 total yards

Sacks (allowed, taken)

RS: 1.3 , 3.25

SF: 1 , 2

SL: 2, 2

Interceptions

RS: 1.25

SF: 1

SL: 1

Penalties (number, yards)

RS: 5/41

SF: 3/30

SL: 3/20

Verdict: In a playoff game, Favre matched or improved upon his regular season statistics, and did well. The rest of the team fared as well, also. Give Favre a positive point here for playing up to his lofty averages.

In the second game, Favre threw 6 more interceptions while attempting 13 more passes. Green rushed for good yardage, but the run was abandoned in the second half, giving Favre more opportunities to throw from behind. The penalties, interceptions, and sacks were not a major factor, but a Green fumble, as were the two others, were. Favre did play poorly in this game. We’ll give him a negative on this one. Favre is now 1-1.

2002 (lost to Atlanta 7-27) RS: Regular Season, AF: Atlanta Falcons

Favre (attempts, yards, TD, INT, rating)

RS: 34, 228, 1.6 TD, 1 INT, 85.6

AF: 42, 247, 1 TD, 2 INT, 54.4

Green (attempts, yards, recpts., yards, TDs, fumbles, total rushing yards for all rushers)

RS: 20/89, 4/28, 0.6 TD, 0.2 fumbles, 120 yards

AF: 11/34, 1/3, 0 TD, 0 fumbles (3 by teammates, though), 56 yards

Sacks (allowed, taken)

RS: 1.7 , 2.7

AF: 2, 0

Interceptions

RS: 1.5

AF: 0

Penalties (number, yards)

RS: 7/57

AF: 3/20

Verdict: Favre didn’t play extraordinarily bad, but was once again forced to throw 40+ times while a running game was now completely invisible. The defense forced no sacks or turnovers and allowed 192 rushing yards, 64 by Vick. Favre gets a push. He played worse than his average, but no more worse than every other squad on the team. 1-1-1.

2003 (beat Seattle 33-27, lost to Philly 17-20) RS: Regular Season, SS: Seattle Seahawks, PE: Philadelphia Eagles

Favre (attempts, yards, TD, INT, rating)

RS: 29, 210, 2, 1.3, 90.4

SS: 38, 319, 1, 0, 102.9

PE: 28, 180, 2 TD, 1 INT, 82.4

Green (attempts, yards, recpts., yards, TDs, fumbles, total rushing yards for all rushers)

RS: 22/117, 3/23, 1.25 TDs, 0.3 fumbles, 160 yards.

SS: 23/66, 5/44, 2 TDs, 0 fumbles, 78 yards

PE: 25/156, 3/16, 0 TDs, 0 fumbles, 210 yards

Sacks (allowed, taken)

RS: 1.1 , 2.2

SS: 0, 2

PE: 1, 8

Interceptions

RS: 1.3

SS: 1 (and a biggie)

PE: 2

Penalties (number, yards)

RS: 5.5/43

SS: 5/30

PE: 6/45

Verdict: Favre played a great game against Seattle, even though Green and the running game were very much stymied. You have to give him a positive for that one. 2-1-1.

Against Philly, it’s pretty easy to see that Favre played right along with his numbers with probably a lower completion percentage against a great defense. I’m tempted to give him a positive here, but because so many other aspects of the team also played well, I will give him a push. He certainly didn’t lose the game for them. This is a game the Packers should have won.

And, yes, some will say that one interception blew it. The interception would never have happened had the Packer played to win and gone for it on 4^th and 1, and the defense hadn’t allowed 4^th and 26. If you deduct a point from Favre for it, you deduct one from the defense, special teams, and coaching for the same, if not worse, stupidity. Push. 2-1-2.

2004 (lost to Minnesota 7-27) RS: Regular Season, MN: Vikings

Favre (attempts, yards, TD, INT, rating)

RS: 33, 255, 1.9 TD, 1.06 INT, 92.4

MN: 33, 216, 1 TD, 4 INT, 55.4

Green (attempts, yards, recpts., yards, TDs, fumbles, total rushing yards for all rushers)

RS: 17/77, 2.5/18, 0.25 fumbles, 119 yards

MN: 20/80, 2/16, 0 TD, 1 fumble (3 by teammates), 105 yards (only 6 rushes in second half)

Sacks (allowed, taken)

RS: 0.8 , 2.5

MN: 2, 4

Interceptions

RS: 0.5

MN: 0

Penalties (number, yards)

RS: 7/59

MN: 8/55

Verdict: This one, to me, is probably the biggest debate. Being at the game, the whole team didn’t appear to be in the game. The statistics suggest that the game might have been closer, but we know that the Vikings scored on a lot of one-play launches. Favre hurt the team with his 4 INTs, but he also was playing without his top 2 WRs, and was playing with 2 guys who normally didn’t play offense with him: Chatman and Thurman.

Does that excuse the 4 INTs? No. He takes accountability for them. They obviously impacted the game. But the team was down by only 2 TDs to start the second half, and they ran Green only 6 times AFTER he had run 14 times for 60-odd yards in the first half. Davenport fumbled three times. The defense not only forced no interceptions, but started getting into spats with each other on the field.

The sacks were up there, but many were at the end of the game, as Culpepper kept looking downfield to keep throwing more long.

You may disagree, but I mark this one as a push, less on the basis of stats, and more on what I saw at the game that day…a team that allowed itself to be pushed around and embarrassed, that looked lost and confused.

Yes, Favre was matching nearly every reg. season stat except the interceptions. But when the Packers cut the game to 24-17, the Vikings set out to stay on the field. They first managed a 4.42 minute drive in the fourth quarter for a TD. The Packers stall after two incomplete passes and a sack, then punt the ball, miss the muff on the play, and then watch as the Vikings run EIGHT MINUTES off the clock without scoring. On that drive they allowed a 3^rd and 6 and a 4^th and 1.

Favre didn’t get a chance to have a 4^th quarter comeback. The defense has to take some bite on this one.

So, in retrospect, though debatable, I place Favre’s performance at 2-1-2. That means, in the Sherman era, he has played well enough to win twice, played poorly enough to lose once, and played down to the level of the rest of the team twice.

You want to chastise Favre for this kind of performance? Go for it. But if you want to place the blame for two of those losses in the right place, I’d be looking at the guy who is supposed to make sure every squad comes in and plays at top level. And that’s the coaches. That’s Mike Sherman.

I’ll say that Favre sucked it up in St. Louis. Admitted, conceded. You got me.

The two wins, he played efficiently. The two other losses, though…I don’t give him a “negative” unless he plays poorly while everyone around him is busting their arses off. And they didn’t. They came in flat and played without heart.

Here’s the one caveat I will give you on Favre. His mistakes are more glaring than any other quarterback. Tom Brady could throw the exact same interception, and no one would notice. But, because Favre makes plays that no one else makes, takes risks that no one else makes, the mistakes are very overt. But his interception-to-attempt ratio is in the middle of the pack, which is pretty good when you consider he was throwing 40+ times a lot last year.

He is also entertaining. Like it or not, I’d rather watch Favre put a bullet to Ferguson in the endzone with two guys within inches of the ball, instead of watching Craig Nall or Aaron Rodgers play run-run-pass-punt.

The Sum Of Its Parts

I still remember the announcement, sitting in my chair with my pretzels, as the Patriots ran onto the field. They had just gotten done announcing the starting lineups for the “Greatest Show on Turf”, with superstars like Kurt Warner, Issac Bruce, Torry Holt, and Marshall Faulk all getting a turn to bask in their own, individual moment of glory.

I remember waiting for the Patriots to be announced, almost snickering at the bunch of no-names that the Rams were going to steamroll for their second Super Bowl in three years. Who were these guys? Who was Tom Brady? I didn’t know a soul on the defensive side of the ball…and for that matter, if they hadn’t already been hyping up Brady as the guy who replaced Drew Bledsoe, I wouldn’t have known a soul on their offense, either.

But, it didn’t matter. “And now, being introduced as a team, the New England Patriots!!!” (see vision of entire team, offense and defense, running out as one mass onto the field).

Ha. Ha ha.

That’s not supposed to happen. I’m supposed to see chest-thumping and wild dancing. I’m supposed to see Ray Lewis do his little dance, or Terrell Owens mocking it. I’m supposed to see a face to go with each of these superstars’ names.

Ha. Funny Patriots.

As the game went on, I not only found myself rooting for the Patriots because they were underdogs, but because they played so well. I saw them stymie the vaunted Rams into a 14 point deficit. I saw Ty Law pick off a pass and return it for a touchdown. I saw a young, efficient quarterback pass for only one touchdown and 147 yards.

And then, as I feared, I saw the Rams fire back, on the arm of a former MVP named Warner.

And I saw them fall short. Glitz and showmanship and high-powered offense lost the battle to hard work, selflessness, and a stout defense.

I was almost insulted when Tom Brady was named MVP of that game. The whole team should have been named the MVP.

I heard the saying reverberating in the echoes of 9/11….”We’re All Patriots”.

Since that day, the New England Patriots have become an odd measuring stick for the rest of the NFL, and naturally, the Green Bay Packers. How can’t they…they’ve won 3 out of 4 Super Bowls. Every team wants to be in that position.

But how do you copy the blueprint of the Patriots? Spend a sixth round draft choice on a quarterback? Find castoff running backs to come in and be your runners? Have no-name wide receivers come in and play? That’s not sexy. That won’t bring in the fans. Randy Moss will sell more jerseys.

At the end of the Super Bowl, we once again found ourselves wondering… “Who the heck do you give the MVP award to???” Again, they played flawless, if unspectacular, football. The Eagles, again, had the sexy name players that got all the individual attention: Terrell Owens, Donovan McNabb, Brian Westbrook, Kearse, Trotter, Simon. And, again, they tried to come back at the end of the game, and the Patriots turned them away.

Again, Brady passed for a modest 236 yards and a couple scores. No interceptions. Donovan McNabb, like Warner, passed for 350+ yards, but turned it over to a great defense too many times.

The Patriots can’t give credit to any one position, any one squad for their success. They play with complete team ball. Freddie Mitchell disses one Patriot, the rest come together and shut him down. The defense is great. The offense is efficient and nearly error-free. Adam Vinatieri is ice-blooded. And the coaching is the best in the league.

They’re so efficient, they are almost boring. Bland. Old-School.

And they are everything right in sports. Perhaps the only thing. We live in an era of me-first, me-shawn, me-pumped up sports that are turning people away from our favorite past times. The NHL is on the verge of shutting down because of greed. The NBA has become a showcase for street thugs who never had to go to college. MLB has become a travesty of itself, embroiled in steroids and an unlevel playing field that has turned half the teams into AAAA farm clubs.

Even the NFL has approached these “new norms”, with players like TO, Randy Moss, and Mike McKenzie threatening the fabric of the game.

But the Patriots are the epitome of teamwork. If “Hoosiers” were a football team, it would be the Patriots.

Synergy is the intangible effect of great teamwork, where the overall team becomes more than a sum of its parts. The old story of 1+1+1=14 can easily be applied to New England: average players and late-round picks buy into the team concept, and work to their ability in a selfless way that makes the whole team more successful, and more successful than any other team in the league right now.

Forget those position-by-position matchups that the media likes to do. It doesn’t apply to the Pats. They’d probably lose every single battle, but they win the war.

Our Packers, unfortunately, are becoming the anti-Patriots, and I don’t believe that’s a good thing. We see talent at nearly every position, and we constantly fret about how they are underachieving. Favre has taken heat. Green has taken heat. Hunt is in the oven with the setting on “high”. Sharper, Carroll. Even the players who are actually playing well are getting criticism, like Barnett and Harris and Driver. Oh, don’t forget the criticism of the coaches. Burning effigy of Mike Sherman, anyone? The Slowik effigy has finally burned out.

As the media and fans search to find a formula that explains our problems, it becomes painfully noticeable that two things are prevalent:

a) nearly everyone boils the problem down to one person or player on the team;

and

b) nearly every person or player on the team has had a finger pointed at them by somebody as being the problem.

Not good. The critics of the team have focused so much on their “pet problem”, without realizing that each my simply be a symptom of a greater problem.

Teamwork. Synergy. Playing together on the same page. Team first, me second. Goals. “Super Bowl or Bust”.

I am in full awareness that there are many people who are more qualified than me to evaluate players and their performances. Not being a scout and having limited statistical experience (though I did get an A in Stats in college), I know that many here have leads and information I can’t have access to.

So, I approach this from an introspective fan’s point of view. Perhaps all of our arguments, from the Turnover Cultists to the Favre Apologists, from the Coaches-Fault to the Players-Fault, from the Cut-em-all-and-take-the-hit to the We-must-resign-Wahles…each of these are just symptoms, that benching Favre or cutting Sharper or going to a 3-4 defense or getting rid of Sherman won’t solve.

Sherman received high praise his first season for taking the boys on a bus to go bowling during training camp. It brought a sense of relaxation of comfort with the team. I’m sure he was pretty popular for a day or two, also.

With Sherman planted back in his position as coach, perhaps this is a good step towards building back that environment, where slackers like Antonio Freeman aren’t tolerated, where the W is the only stat worth caring about, where the Head Coach is the General leading you into battle, and everyone else falls into ranks and blindly battles for the cause. Bellichek falls into that category, for certain.

Perhaps Thompson is another step towards regaining this feeling. Perhaps Jim Bates will bring that discipline to the defensive side of the ball. You respect a guy more when you don’t feel he’s the “Coach’s Favorite Buddy”.

Obviously, there hasn’t been a sense of such synergy in Green Bay since the 60’s, when a bunch of good athletes got together and played blindly for a guy named Lombardi.

There are many symptoms that need to be treated: deciding who to resign, deciding what schemes to implement, planning for a quality draft.

But a lately-much-maligned GM by the name of Ron Wolf walked into Green Bay in 1991, looked at the roster, and said there weren’t many players here than would still be here a couple years from then. And he was right. Only a couple of guys like Butler, Jacke, and West remained Packers when they won the Super Bowl.

Wolf established an attitude of “You’re only here as long as it takes us to find someone better to replace you”, and the players jumped on board. They knew who was in charge, and trusted that direction.

Some may suggest that Mike Holmgren was a part of that philosophy, until perhaps his own ego got in the way following the Super Bowl victory. Such, also, will eventually happen to today’s Patriots.

But for now, the Patriots have written up a blueprint with no directions, a pattern to follow with nothing to prove it except their record. Dynasty talk aside, they are the ONLY team in the new era of free agency to have consistent, lasting success.

But it isn’t the schemes. It isn’t having a marquee player at every position. It isn’t doing a personalized dance in the end zone.

It’s introducing yourself as a team. It’s playing defensive back when you’re a wide receiver, and enjoying it. It’s standing up for your teammates, instead of standing around when your lineman is cheap-shot, and only having the coach actually go get in that player’s grill after the game.

The Packers finished the season as a bunch of individuals, with their fingers pointed at each other. The Patriots finished as a team, with their fingers pointed in the air.

Where’s your finger?