Let's see since becoming a starter in 1992 Brett Favre has started every single fucking game he has played in. He has been to 11 pro bowls, won 3 MVP's, and he has more passing yards and touchdowns then any quarterback in NFL history.
I'm going to first take this one idea and turn it into a totally different example for a second. Cal Ripken Jr, started in every single game from May 30, 1982 to September 20, 1998, an MLB record 2,632 straight games. Cal is a
Nineteen time All-Star and one of the most well known players of his era. The fans voted his game tying and game surpassing record as the "most memorable moment" in MLB. But is Cal Ripkin one of the greatest MLB players ever? No. His career batting average is a mediocre .276. He does have 3,184 hits and 431 homeruns, phenomenal for a shortstop in his time, but those seem less impressive when you consider he played in 3,001 games. A man plays enough games and he will have his hands on a good many all-time records, but does that make him as good as the players around him who played in much fewer games no. And Cal never won a World Series.
I imagine that the consecutive games streak may have held Cal back. He managed to escape much of his career injury free, but the grueling fact is he still played 162 games over 17 seasons and that alone will still wear and tire a man. Could Farve streak have hindered him. Absolutely. Especially in a sport like football. So Farves record games streak is not a sign of his greatness, but a sign of his dedication and commitment, much like Cal's. And his all time record for TD's, completions, passes, INTs, or any other record he holds, is impressive, but still the reason is in part due to Farve just being in so many games in his career. Marino played in 242 games, Brett in 285 games. 3rd and 4th place in TD's and passing yards, Peyton Manning, 192 games only.
Kurt Warner isn't considered nearly as great. Why? Same reason Steve Young and Steve McNair aren't considered great. Same reason Griffey Jr went from being the Greatest Player ever, to 'could've been'. He got injured. Injuries prevent players from reaching their full potential. Could Warner have done better than Farve if he had avoided injury and played in at least 3/4 of the games Farve has played, maybe, but we'll never know.
Now before I dive into which one is the better QB, I want to first acknowledge that both of these QB's are outstanding players that have each had moments of greatness and moments of defeat, and have achieved tremendous success in rough times. To say that one man is pure shit compared to the other is extremely ignorant, and shows that the person either has something up his a-hole, or doesn't know shit about football. This I'm directing to the thread starter who has shown the utmost disrespect and rudeness to his fellow posters. Everyman is entitled to their opinions, and while you have valid reasons to believe Warner is better than Farve, there are also valid reasons to believe Farve is better. Like a stubborn mule, you refused to acknowledge any accomplishment Brett Farve has done, while some have accepted your comments about Warner. Instead, you refuted your facts, acknowledge only Farve's failures, and laugh and put down others when you couldn't think of a counter. If that's how you get you kicks, that's cute, but respect what others have to say, this is a free forum.
Now off that rant, forget all statistics for they are misleading and self-indulgent. The only way that everyone can agree on equals greatness, is victory and championships. If MVP's were handed out that way Brady and Big Ben would have at least 3 and 2 respectively. Let's break them down into seasons and teams (Warner first cause his is more colourful).
Warner began with a Superbowl caliber team and won. Not to say that Warner didn't do his job well, but he had Faulk, Bruce, Holt, and a cast of others who did a fine supporting job. We had a Quarterback up here in Winnipeg named Khari Jones who shattered TD and Passing records over a 2 season span in 00/01. His receiving core included 3 players who were a combined 15-time all-stars since that first season. He also had a top 2 runningback. After 2 of those receivers left and 3rd one injured/old, he sank fast and his career was done a couple seasons later. Back to Warner, in his 3 real seasons with the Rams he lead a great team successfully. He was solid during the regular season, and did not play terribly in his superbowl lost. Who knows he may have won it had it not been for the injuries. Minor, but enough to throw Warner off his game. He sank and when your on top like the Rams were for 3 seasons, you can't go back, so they went with Bulger who performed well. Tough Break for Warner, but even tougher was in NY. Warner was basically keeping the seat warm for Eli Manning. Warner lead a mediocre Giants team to a mediocre record before being pulled. He needed to do sensational to keep that job and he went to the Cardinals where he endured 3 injury riddled seasons. He struggled the first 2, throwing near as many INT's as TD's and being sacked more frequently. He started to pick it up the third year and has now helped develop a medicore Cardinals team into a powerhouse. They lost a Superbowl Warner played well in, and won a hard earned playoff game this year vs Green Bay.
Both of these men have won Superbowls, but the first big difference was Brett Farve wasn't given a Superbowl contending team, they were down right awful when he joined them. But they built a team that was good enough to win the Superbowl and Brett was the glue. Green Bay never had a lot of the best players, but they had some good ones and Brett always managed to get the most out them. In 5 seasons from 93 to 97 Farve won at least 1 playoff game a season, had 2 Superbowl appearances and 1 victory. After next season and a 1st round playoff exit, the nucleus of the team broke up and Green Bay stunk. Farve in time managed to pull together impressive seasons out of mediocre to good talent, but in 4 playoff appearances from 02-05 never got past the second round. Farve again took a sub par team in 07/08 season to the playoffs, but cost himself a trip to the Superbowl. Went to the Jets where he took a mediocre team to a mediocre record while really being injured for the first time. Went to the Vikings where he took a good team and made them great. See last season with Green Bay for playoff results.
So what does this all mean? Well Farve is not a chock artist (though he doesn't do himself any favours) Sports, especially football, are a team sport. Ray Bourque of Hockey is one of the best defensemen, played 21 years for an average Boston Bruins team that frequently made the playoffs, but didn't advance far. Dan Marino is statistically one of the best regular season quarterbacks, but he also played for some lousy Dolphin teams. Farve has had a record 20 consecutive playoff games with at least one touchdown and has won at least 1 playoff game in 9 of his 12 playoff appearances. He has done well in the playoffs. And this means that Warner is a winner at 9-4 in the post season, but he needs to be healthy and have a good team around him to win. St. Louis was good when Warner took the keys, and Arizona developed into a strong contender while Warner was injured.
So who is the better QB? Well that depends on your definition. Warner I say is the better 'winner'. He knows how to win the big game, something Big Ben in Pitts is also terrific at. But unquestionable thou is that Warner always has a strong core of offensive players when he's good. Farve gets the most of his teammates. Farve leads by example and has had more memorable moments in Green Bay than most any other player has in their careers. Farve is as talented a QB as there is in the game, but even he can't carry a team on his back has cracked and fallen short on the big game almost as many times as he was victorious. My vote is they are both equally talented QB's in their own right. Warner is a proven playoff winner, Farve might very well be able to play forever.
