Curious fact on Brett Favre

[AZCB34]

Originally posted by CardinalChris
I agree, but 29 teams other than Green Bay missed it too. Only by chance did somebody mention this to Ron Wolf so he could see this. Heck, Atlanta aven had him on their TEAM for a year and missed it.

I'm starting to feel like Arizona is doing a little more homework now than before. I have better feelings about lower round picks, and that's what you need to win in the league.

I hope you didn't misunderstand what I was saying. I was merely saying that every other team missed this (even GB since they didn't actually draft the guy). Maybe it was a simple fluke that it turned out the way it did but the good teams...well they find those flukes in advance. Wolf got the heads up and acted on it.

All teams are better evaluating talent...not only because they try ALOT harder but also there are so many scouting sevices now to aid them in their searches. 10 years ago, Clarion likely wouldn't have had a player drafted. Now, they do.

But if the Cards (and every other team) had done their homework, they would have had a clear understanding of exactly what Favre was all about.

Houdini's point is another entire can of worms to be hashed out but GB took that chance and then developed the guy...although Houdini also makes it seem like Holmgren had to keep putting up with mistakes that were killing the team when in reality, Favre has never had a losing record since taking over the starting job in 92. Sorry Houdini, if Holmgren had to put up with that? Well, there are a boatload of teams/coaches/fans here and everywhere who would have been more than willing to put up with that.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Originally posted by Floridacard
When you have an arm like Farve your mistakes don't hurt as much. If he throws into heavy coverage the db probably won't catch it. I wish the Cards had gotten him. I hear people say Farve is overated all the time, but can anyone name even 1 reciever that has been succesfull after leaving Green Bay.

Corey Bradford.

 

[Houdini]

Originally posted by AZCB34
...although Houdini also makes it seem like Holmgren had to keep putting up with mistakes that were killing the team when in reality, Favre has never had a losing record since taking over the starting job in 92. Sorry Houdini, if Holmgren had to put up with that? Well, there are a boatload of teams/coaches/fans here and everywhere who would have been more than willing to put up with that.

The point I was trying to make was how do we know any other coach besides Holmgren would have tutored and trained Favre to become the player he is? Glanville didn't. Take McCown for example. I really don't know how good he can be. But he sat on the bench his first year with the Cardinals just like Favre did in Atlanta. Now there are reports that the Cardinal's coaching staff aren't happy with him and it's barely the start of the 2nd season. Favre didn't start until the starting QB got injured early in the season of his 2nd year in the NFL and Favre was forced to play. Holmgren had no choice but to tutor him even though Favre wasn't ready to start by Favre's and Holmgren's own admission. If Blake got hurt, it's possible McCown could get thrown into the fire and turn out just like Favre, but some people are already giving up on McCown just like Glanville gave up on Favre. It's doubtful McCown will be another Favre, but I'm just saying that sometimes the coaching staff and situation play a factor in the player's success too. Even Holmgren wanted to bench Favre in favor of Mark Brunell at one point during his 2nd or 3rd season in Green Bay. An assistant coach talked him out of it.

 

[Pariah]

I think it's safe to say that in today's NFL, everyone has potential. There could be 10 Favres out there sitting on a bench waiting to happen--maybe we have one in McCown, maybe we don't. The only way we'll know is if McCown gets the nod at some point.

Now, here's what I'm worried about. If the team starts seeing the coaches get down on the kid or they see him struggling to learn the ropes, will they have confidence in him when he gets the job? I haven't heard anything about his leadership, so I don't know. I hope so though, or he may HAVE to go somewhere else to be successful.

 

[Skkorpion]

Originally posted by Houdini
Would any of us have ever heard of Farve though if not for Holmgren? Other coaches might have given up on Favre the way Glanville did instead of riding and tutoring him the way Holmgren did.

Valid point Houdini and Homlgren is doing it again with Hasselbeck. Over the last 6 games last year, Hasselbeck threw for more yards than any other QB and had the highest QB rating over that period.

 

[hef]

Originally posted by Houdini
The point I was trying to make was how do we know any other coach besides Holmgren would have tutored and trained Favre to become the player he is? Glanville didn't. Take McCown for example. I really don't know how good he can be. But he sat on the bench his first year with the Cardinals just like Favre did in Atlanta. Now there are reports that the Cardinal's coaching staff aren't happy with him and it's barely the start of the 2nd season. Favre didn't start until the starting QB got injured early in the season of his 2nd year in the NFL and Favre was forced to play. Holmgren had no choice but to tutor him even though Favre wasn't ready to start by Favre's and Holmgren's own admission. If Blake got hurt, it's possible McCown could get thrown into the fire and turn out just like Favre, but some people are already giving up on McCown just like Glanville gave up on Favre. It's doubtful McCown will be another Favre, but I'm just saying that sometimes the coaching staff and situation play a factor in the player's success too. Even Holmgren wanted to bench Favre in favor of Mark Brunell at one point during his 2nd or 3rd season in Green Bay. An assistant coach talked him out of it.

who was that assistant ? mooch ? gruden?

 

[AZCB34]

Originally posted by Houdini
It's doubtful McCown will be another Favre, but I'm just saying that sometimes the coaching staff and situation play a factor in the player's success too.

I won't argue this point. I fully admit that had the Cards done their homework/had the break Wolf did (and by circumstances GB did) there are no guarantees Favre would have turned out like he did but his talent was still there for them to cultivate. The end product nobody knows BUT I think it is safe to suggest that with the talent level he has shown he would have had success just about anywhere if given the chance. Holmgren gets the credit for Favre being the player he is but it was only a case of right place/right time IMO. His talent would have made any number of OCs/HCs look like genius'.

Would it be safe to assume that Trestman and his WC offense could have gotten the same results out of Favre? Or Fassel before him?

JMHO

 

[Houdini]

Originally posted by hef
who was that assistant ? mooch ? gruden?

I don't remember for sure, but I think it was Steve Mariucci. He was the Packer QB coach from 92 through 95. It's possible it could have been Gruden or Andy Reid, but I think it was Mooch.


AZCB34,

You said Favre would have had success just about anywhere if given the chance. That's most likely true, but he got his chance because the starting QB got injured and they were forced to play Favre. McCown is asking for someone to give him his chance. Until McCown really gets his chance, no one knows if McCown could be another Favre or a Ryan Leaf. I'd hate to see the Cardinals spend 6 years on Jake, but give up so quickly on McCown the way Glanville did on Favre.

 

[Russ Smith]

Originally posted by Houdini
I don't remember for sure, but I think it was Steve Mariucci. He was the Packer QB coach from 92 through 95. It's possible it could have been Gruden or Andy Reid, but I think it was Mooch.


AZCB34,

You said Favre would have had success just about anywhere if given the chance. That's most likely true, but he got his chance because the starting QB got injured and they were forced to play Favre. McCown is asking for someone to give him his chance. Until McCown really gets his chance, no one knows if McCown could be another Favre or a Ryan Leaf. I'd hate to see the Cardinals spend 6 years on Jake, but give up so quickly on McCown the way Glanville did on Favre.

Wasn't McCown being compared to Aaron Brooks out of college?

He's got talent but he's raw, in many ways it may be in his best interests to be a #3 and not a #2 this year to remove the pressure of having to play before he's ready.

 

[AZCB34]

Originally posted by Houdini
AZCB34,

You said Favre would have had success just about anywhere if given the chance. That's most likely true, but he got his chance because the starting QB got injured and they were forced to play Favre. McCown is asking for someone to give him his chance. Until McCown really gets his chance, no one knows if McCown could be another Favre or a Ryan Leaf. I'd hate to see the Cardinals spend 6 years on Jake, but give up so quickly on McCown the way Glanville did on Favre.

OK, then we agree completely on this (see the Bickley thread). I think McCown deserves a chance but not mop up action in a 41-0 debacle. He needs extended time to see if he is the man. The Cards cannot assume they know everything from camp and preseason.

Favre got his chance and when he got it he ran with it. If/when McCown gets his chance, it is up to him from there. I personally think Holmgren benefited more from right place/right time but in all of life sometimes that is what separates the greats from the average folk.

 

[hef]

Originally posted by AZCB34
OK, then we agree completely on this (see the Bickley thread). I think McCown deserves a chance but not mop up action in a 41-0 debacle. He needs extended time to see if he is the man. The Cards cannot assume they know everything from camp and preseason.

Favre got his chance and when he got it he ran with it. If/when McCown gets his chance, it is up to him from there. I personally think Holmgren benefited more from right place/right time but in all of life sometimes that is what separates the greats from the average folk.

i think holegram and favre were the out come of one of the best coaching staffs that we may ever see, look at what all those ASSIATANTS are doing today in the nfl

 

[Rivercard]

Originally posted by hef
i think holegram and favre were the out come of one of the best coaching staffs that we may ever see, look at what all those ASSIATANTS are doing today in the nfl

Great players can make coaches look like genius'. Maybe it was a great staff, but Holmgren hasn't exactly set Seattle on fire so far.

 

[hef]

Originally posted by Rivercard
Great players can make coaches look like genius'. Maybe it was a great staff, but Holmgren hasn't exactly set Seattle on fire so far.

that is my piont he does not even resemble the caliber of his old staff (andy reid, mooch and gruden) dont get me wrong favre is a special player but do you think he would be half as good if we nabed him or anyone else for that matter

 

[AZCB34]

Originally posted by hef
that is my piont he does not even resemble the caliber of his old staff (andy reid, mooch and gruden) dont get me wrong favre is a special player but do you think he would be half as good if we nabed him or anyone else for that matter

The point is yes, I do think he would be more than half as good. In fact, I think he would be almost as good had he been had by another team. It is because HE is just that talented. Yes, he needed coaching and a chance but ultimately what got him where he is is his abilities (and desire). He made Holmgren look great, not the other way around. JMHO.

 

[hef]

Originally posted by AZCB34
The point is yes, I do think he would be more than half as good. In fact, I think he would be almost as good had he been had by another team. It is because HE is just that talented. Yes, he needed coaching and a chance but ultimately what got him where he is is his abilities (and desire). He made Holmgren look great, not the other way around. JMHO.

imo holmgren had nothing to do w/ favres success so i agree w/ you there i also agree that favre is extremly talented player but he was also very raw and who knows he might be as good as he is today w/out mooch but i seriously doubt it b/c mooch is a great qb coach just look what he did for jeff garcia and whatch out for harrington b/c in 2 years he will be a pro bowler imo

 

[Houdini]

Originally posted by hef
imo holmgren had nothing to do w/ favres success so i agree w/ you there i also agree that favre is extremly talented player but he was also very raw and who knows he might be as good as he is today w/out mooch but i seriously doubt it b/c mooch is a great qb coach just look what he did for jeff garcia and whatch out for harrington b/c in 2 years he will be a pro bowler imo

Mooch was the buffer between Holmgren and Favre. Homgren would kick Favre in the butt and chew him out, and Mooch would go over and pat Favre on the back and give him encouragement.

It definately takes talent, but coaching plays a role too in a players development. Didn't the Steelers give up on both Unitas and Len Dawson? Both are in the hall of fame now. I don't think Bart Starr would be in the hall of fame without Lombardi. So you never know how some players careers might have turned out with different coaching.

One person's garbage is another persons fillet mignon.