How do you people get away with the name calling on a regular basis here?
But anyway....the bolded area pretty much tells the world that you have not a clue to what you are talking about. Too bad because your first couple paragraphs probably impressed someone who has not been paying attention. But you just had to blame the playoff losses on Brett...and that blew your entire arguement.
I let things that attack the opinion go. He didn't say you're an idiot, I interpreted it as him saying your argument is idiocy.
The type of things that you're arguing just make you sound like you have no response to what people are saying to you. Someone presents an argument to you and your response is essentially "Nuh-uh."
I believe he means to say the '02, '03, '05, and '08 playoff losses. Here's Favre's statlines in those games:
2001 @ St Louis: 26-44, 59.1%, 281 Yards, 6.89 Y/A, 2 TDs, 6 Interceptions
(2nd TD came down 45-10)
[Opposition: Kurt Warner 18-30, 216-2-1]
2002 ATLANTA: 20-42, 47.6%
, 247 Yards, 5.88 Y/A
, 1 TD, 2 Interceptions (TD came down 24-0)
[Opposition: Michael Vick 13-25, 117-1-0)
2005 MINNESOTA: 22-33, 66.7%, 216 Yards, 6.55 Y/A, 1 TD, 4 Interceptions
[Opposition: Dante Culpepper 19-29, 284-4-0]
2008 NEW YORK: 19-35, 54.3%, 236 Yards, 6.74 Y/A, 2 TD, 2 Interceptions (Unable to move the offense at all in 4th Quarter and OT)
[Opposition: Eli Manning 21-40, 252-0-0]
The bottom line is that in most of those games (although the final is very
arguable), Favre was outplayed and probably could have been considered the goat. Against Minnesota and St. Louis, I have an extremely
hard time saying Favre didn't very strongly have a negative impact on his team. Against Vick and the Falcons, Favre couldn't move the offense until the 2nd half. Against the Vikings, he was heartily outplayed by Culpepper in a poor-weather game.
You have pretty much stated the rest of the players on the team have let Favre down, and supported that sentiment with nothing but the fact that the team lost the game. Favre did as much as anybody to lose every playoff loss of the Sherman era with the exception of the '04 Eagles game (4th and 23). So I'm interested to see if you have anything to back up your statements other than filling in the mindless ad-lib of excuses. "Nope. Obviously, he was worse because (the Defense put him in bad spots/he had bad receivers/the fans didn't cheer hard enough) and besides, did you see (the weather/how awesome the other teams were/his gray hair)?!"
Firstly "your idiocy" is far from attacking the argument. I am pretty certain that you know that.
Secondly....a person can pull all sorts of numbers out of a hat to back their opinions no matter what side of an argument you are on. I could list a crapload of numbers to back my opinion that Favre was not the biggest reason we lost all those playoff games. He was pathetic against the Rams and that is indefensible but can anyone truly say he lost the Giants game? Missed FG's, an awful performance from Al Harris and ZERO running game had nothing to do with it right? Come on....who actually thinks that way?
No matter how you dice it though....it has very little to do with my orignal contention that the Packers lost in the playoffs on a routine basis because they were not that good in the first place. With most any other player at QB...it is very likely that most of those teams would not have even been in the playoffs to begin with.