Brett Favre: Most Overrated QB in Football History?

Former New York Giants and Minnesota Vikings Hall of Fame quarterback Fran Tarkenton created a stir recently by going on an Atlanta area sports radio program and calling out Brett Favre on his off-the-field behavior.  Controversy has since ensued.

Tarkenton elaborated on his personal blog, recently writing "...my opinion was that Brett Favre is wrong...He tells [the Packers] a year ago that he’s going to retire, and they go down to Mississippi to talk to him, and again he says 'I’m going to retire.' So they start preparing their team for the next year, and preparing their quarterback, Aaron Rogers, and they get all their plans in place, and just before training camp he tells them, 'I think I want to play.' But what he really wants to do is manipulate the situation and go play for Green Bay’s arch rival, my team, the Minnesota Vikings. How can you do that?"

Tarkenton basically hopes Favre goes to play for Minnesota, but not to help the Viking franchise.  Tarkenton wrote, "I think it is wrong for the Vikings and I think it is wrong for Green Bay. I think it is just wrong. But I kind of want him to go because if he goes there to Minnesota I believe he will burn every bridge he has in Green Bay. The disloyalty!"

He wants to see Favre ruin his reputation with his fanbase because Tarkenton is calling Favre selfish.  Of course, Tarkenton is correct in that assessment.

"But why is this such a firestorm?" Tarkenton asked.  "Because the world loves Brett Favre. I love Brett Favre! We love his play. But do we have to agree with everything that he does or that I do or say? Why hasn’t any other sportscaster or sports writer been candid?"

Which makes me wonder, why hasn't any sportswriter or commentator also called out Favre for a career worth of poor play, inflated stats, costly mistakes, and drug and alcohol abuse?

Favre is not the game's best quarterback.  He is not the best quarterback of the so-called "modern era" or of even the last 10-15 years.  He's good, perhaps great, but nowhere near the top of the heap.  Allow me to elaborate.

Without a doubt, Favre has posted incredible numbers, doing so with a sometimes receiving core of questionable talent.  But two of his career numbers are often overlooked - interceptions, for which he has posted more than anyone in NFL history and fumbles, for which Favre ranks second all-time (just 4 shy of Warren Moon's 161).

Favre, in his career, has turned the ball over 376 times (310 INTs plus 66 fumbles lost out of 157 fumbles committed) in 273 games played.  That's an average of 1.38 turnovers per game - just from his hands alone.  Are you willing to take the field with a quarterback who's going to turn the ball over that often, knowing that without a doubt in a three game span, he's going to turn the ball over 4 times?

The argument often tossed about in Favre's favor is that "well, you play as many games as Favre has, you're bound to throw a few interceptions."  If that's the case, then he's also bound to throw a few TDs as well.  One's as accidental as the other then.  If you want to make that sort of argument, do those stats really matter? 

If just the sheer number of touchdowns thrown makes a quarterback great, then how do you feel about Vinny Testeverde and Dave Krieg?  Are they two of your personal top ten all-time quarterbacks?  If not, why not?  Those two rank #8 and #9 respectively in total touchdowns thrown in a career.  Suddenly that stat isn't so impressive, is it?

Set aside personal stats (which in any career with a longevity such as Favre's are going to be inflated based simply on the number of games played), many who defend Favre's career say "he's a winner."  Yes, the man won a Super Bowl.  So did Trent Dilfer.

But Dilfer's Super Bowl win doesn't count, right?  He had the benefit of quarterbacking on a Ravens team built around the league's #1 defense that year.  The Raven's defense won the Super Bowl, not Dilfer, or so the argument goes.

Amazingly, looking back to Favre's Super Bowl victory, he, too, was the beneficiary of the NFL's #1 defense that year.  Check your record books.  The Packer's were the league's top defense in 1996.  And in their return trip to the Super Bowl in 1997, the Packer's defense was ranked #5.  Was it Favre's quarterbacking that got them to the big game in those seasons, or a great defense?

In the decade since that second Super Bowl appearance, the Packers record was 97-63, reaching the playoffs on six occassions.  Favre gets the credit for those 97 wins, right?  Yet in those playoffs, Favre and the Packers went 3-6 (and oddly enough, two of those three wins came against former Packer coach Mike Holmgren).  But the argument would say you can't blame Favre for those losses.  He's not a "losing" quarterback.

Let's not forget 2003 Divisional Playoff loss to the Philadelphia Eagles.  Everyone blamed the defensive coordinator, who lost his job after the game, for the famed "4th and 26" play.  But that didn't lose the game for the Packers.  It merely continued the Eagles fourth quarter drive which ultimately led to a game-tying score and overtime.  It was there that Favre blew the game, throwing a foolish deep pass under pressure off his back foot into double coverage where it was intercepted.  That turnover lead to the Eagles game-winning score.

In the 2007 Conference Championship Game against the Giants, Favre again threw an interception which lead to the game winning score for his opponents.  But that was just Brett being a "gunslinger" and "doing what he does best," right?  I'd like someone to explain that to me.  A quarterback throws a ball into double coverage and the receiver catches it, it's "threading the needle" and being a "playmaker."  The same quarterback makes a similar throw which ends up in the defender's hands and it's a "dumb play" and the QB "should've known better."

Favre was somehow immune to this criticism.  His triple coverage completions were always hailed as him making a great play (not the receiver, mind you), but his interceptions were never his fault, even if they were thrown underhanded while falling down.  Favre earned that respect somehow.

Part of that respect came from his consecutive games played streak.  But how did he maintain that for so long?  Drugs.  For all the talk of performance enhancing drugs in sports, it's often forgotten that Favre had a severe addiction to the pain killer Vicodin.  It was so bad, Favre wrote in his own book that he'd sometimes take so many pills that he'd vomit them up, clean them off, and re-take them.  He used family members names to acquire questionable prescriptions for the drug.  But he never came under the wrath of the NFL for it because (a) the drug wasn't illegal and (b) he willing entered a rehab program to clean himself up.

But add on top of that addiction Favre's well known drinking habit (his nickname while on Atlanta was "barfly"), and you can see why the man didn't feel any of those injuries.  He didn't feel much of anything pain-wise while that high.

Despite all of this, Favre's hailed as the game's greatest quarterback.  I say poppycock.  He had a great arm.  He had guts.  He had the talent.  But he made as many mistakes and foolish plays as anyone in the history of the game.  That cannot be overlooked.

So love him if you must.  But I ask that you take off your fan cap for a moment and consider the amount of heartache he caused.  For the man likely cost you as many, if not more, games and titles than he won for you.