Favre Fade Fallacy Finally Found False
So, by now, we've all heard all of the "Favre can't get it done in December" stuff that we expected to hear going into this season. . .how Favre's age catches up with him when we hit the final month of the year and blah blah blah. Here's a little something that nobody's willing to talk about.
Here are the December and January records of the teams that Brett Favre has quarterbacked over the last decade.
Green Bay, 2000 - 4-0
Green Bay, 2001 - 4-1
Green Bay, 2002 - 4-1
Green Bay, 2003 - 4-0
Green Bay, 2004 - 3-2
Green Bay, 2005 - 2-3
Green Bay, 2006 - 4-1
Green Bay, 2007 - 3-1
New York Jets, 2008 - 1-3
That, ladies and gentlemen, gives Favre-led teams a record of 29-12 in December over the past 9 seasons, and 30-13 if you count his first two December games as a Viking. That means those teams won games at about a 71% clip. The last time I checked, that was still pretty darn good. Particularly when you consider that half of those 12 losses came in games where his team was either flat-out terrible (the 2005 Packers that went 4-12) or when he was injured (2008 with the Jets).
And do you know what all of the teams that I listed above there have in common?
There's not a single one of them that's as good as the team that Favre is playing on right now.
So, if Favre keeps "fading" the way he has in the past decade, the Vikings should have that #2 seed in the NFC playoffs locked up before the season finale, which will be nice.
2 recs |
47 comments
|
Comments
Hahaha Yea!
Why Do People Question The Vikings' Status?
by UnBannedVikingholic on Dec 19, 2009 10:10 AM CST reply actions
GASP, but you're wrong........
He’s 1-1 this December, blows everything out of proportion now! Just like the post this week…..I hope he bounces back, it’s a travesty, were all gonna die! The world is about to implode, dog’s and cats living together, mass hysteria!!!! (Note Sarcasm) ;-)
While I had my concerns at the start of the season, he has worked out nicely and other then a few gaffs, who hasn’t had them, he has played smart and even keeled. He was a little shaky at the start against Cincy, by the end of the game, looked back to his ’09 season form.
I’m waiting for some of our friends in Packerville to come and say how he is gonna choke in the playoffs, how he wont hold up to the pressure though he took them to 2 Super Bowls. And if we do make it there and finally win the Super Bowl, I would give them about 5 seconds after the game to come in here telling us it was a fluke, their Championship team was far superior or we still need to win 2 more to be as “good” as they were. I’m just pointing out the minority who do this as the majority have been civil and easy to chat with.
"If you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk."
"You men are only risking your lives, while I am risking an almost-certain Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor!"
"We have clearance Clarence. Roger Rodger, what's our vector Victor?"
hypocrisy
That is what packer fans live by now. I know because I’m surrounded by them at every turn. Most of these gb fans never criticized Favre in the past, but now that he is a Viking, they sound like and use the same arguements that his critics have used all along. Its sickening really and very tiring to have to remind these idiot homers what he did for GB all his years here. I figured that I would go back to the Pack once Teddo and Mcburger were gone, but with the way the fans are in this state, it makes me think if I want to be a part of it. For now just hope he can win a SB even if its for the Vikings, I can live with that as long as he makes the doubters look stupid.
True that
Ive noticed that too. They would always argue in his favor when he was on the team or made excuses about the rest of the team not stepping up. But with us, oh yeah, gonna meltdown faster then the polar caps.
"If you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk."
"You men are only risking your lives, while I am risking an almost-certain Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor!"
"We have clearance Clarence. Roger Rodger, what's our vector Victor?"
by VikesFaninNM on Dec 19, 2009 7:46 PM CST up reply actions
Wow, brave post
you heretic. :)
You obviously haven’t gotten the memo that Favre sucks. And you call yourself a blogger, lol.
Next time, could you not use facts and logic?
"We're used to Favre-a-palooza now. We're engulfed in Favre-a-palooza. It's not even Favre-a-palooza anymore. He's family now."
--Vikings TE Visanthe Shiancoe, on Brett Favre
Don't forget....
We still gotta worry about that “schism” in the locker room! I hear half the team still wants TJack to be QB! (sarcasm)
…I still can’t listen to Afam “Schism” Schefter on ESPN to this day!
by Medcity on Dec 19, 2009 10:55 AM CST via mobile reply actions
I can't believe the audacity
of some people!!!! You have to stop using facts and logic. I will not be responsible for the massive explosion of cheese heads all over Wisconsin.!!!!!! Count me out of all the clean up. I warned you!!!
by just another viking on Dec 19, 2009 11:24 AM CST reply actions
You can find out, with out the mess.
At your local library.

"What is best in life?"
"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."
Further proof, thanks....
Just seems that some “fans” are waiting for failure….When the Vikings lose a game, whether this year or next, they can say “I told you so.” I, on the other hand, will be enjoying whatever this team puts together….This is their mantra…
Favre performance is a good example…no matter what you say/write, they are waiting for a fail…and will pounce if it happens….Shame because rather than seeing the spot we are in (11-2?? Come on, there is gloom???) this season, they are nit-picking and looking for any criticism they can throw out there to get SOME enjoyment in regards to their mindset (fail fail fail they will eventually)…
Oh well….
SKOL!
I would rather be IN the Arena than watching from the stands...That is my life!
* Read Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" if you need further explanation...
by vikingfanfrom afar on Dec 19, 2009 11:49 AM CST reply actions
I was under the impression...
That it wasn’t his win/loss that faded so much as his stats and play. That his teams were winning late in the year despite his poor play as opposed to because of it.
I’m a Favre supporter, of course, just playing Devil’s Advocate. I don’t have the stats on hand and am about to run out the door, but that was the impression I was under.
Visit:
http://www.vikingvigil.com
Skol Vikings!
Woot Woot!
Right, I understand that.
Wins and losses are the bottom line, but no one ever knocked him on that with the exception of last year.
Visit:
http://www.vikingvigil.com
Skol Vikings!
Woot Woot!
Three cheer for GONZO
hip, hip, hooray. hip, hip, hooray. hip, hip, hooray. Gonzo the sound of reason.
ps Banned any body who does not agree with you. “joking”
It was a manufactured controversy....
I for one am tired of having to defend and apologize for the guy. Those caught up in the 24 hour news cycle hype can debate the issue regardless of the facts. Nothing is gained by tearing Favre down. Aside from Packer fans, no one has should enjoy the anticipation of Favre’s ever-pending downfall.
Compromised Media
I’m tired of a media that places the truth secondary to agenda and sensationalism. The Fourth Estate is seriously compromised.
Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!
After this year,
people will point to this year as another ‘fade’, regardless of what the win-loss is (which I expect to be very good).
I have no doubt that his statistics this December will not match up to his stats for the rest of the year. Of course, I don’t think anyone before put up the TD/INT ratio he had through 11 games, so it was almost certain that that was going to fall off a some.
I’ve said it before; You can always find some statistic to prove anything you already believe.
It may be false...
… but a look at the December W/L records of the teams he’s played for sure as hell doesn’t prove it one way or the other. I’m not expecting you to go all Football Outsiders on this site, but come on. You’re better than this, Gonzo, and so is your website.
Way better.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 19, 2009 3:38 PM CST reply actions
Give it up
Your point might be relevant with only a 2 or 3 year sample set…
Gonzo showed a 9 year sample of W/L records, enough to average out against seasons where they played both better, and worse, teams. He could have gone back further but correlation between Favre today and Favre 10 years ago is going to be decreasingly valid.
Also, we’re looking at 2 games against fairly weak teams and only 1 serious contender, so even if the W/L records of the other teams was of any relevancy whatsoever (which it isn’t), our schedule still fits your template of success against weak teams.
Maybe Favre will fade, maybe he won’t, but he doesn’t show a long history of doing so and there’s no reason to expect that he will this year. Only the sad hopes of his detractors support the notion.
Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!
Im not suprised that
they started coming out of the wood work. Like my post above, if he was still with them, we would be hearing all about how the “meltdown” was B.S.. But now with us, it’s all the truth.
"If you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk."
"You men are only risking your lives, while I am risking an almost-certain Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor!"
"We have clearance Clarence. Roger Rodger, what's our vector Victor?"
by VikesFaninNM on Dec 19, 2009 11:24 PM CST up reply actions
Like my post above, if he was still with them, we would be hearing all about how the "meltdown" was B.S.. But now with us, itās all the truth.
Haha no. This isn’t some new phenomenon or something. His play declining at the end of the year has happened pretty much every year now since 2000. I can’t tell you how many times I talked about this with my Packer buddies in previous years.
by packallday555 on Dec 19, 2009 11:39 PM CST up reply actions
I happen to think he's faded at the end of the season the last few seasons...
… but I’m willing to admit that I could be wrong. I just don’t think that w/l record is a very good indicator either way. In 2007, for example, the Packers went 3-1 in December, but Favre had a woeful performance against the Bears that month, and I don’t know any Packer fans that were surprised when he struggled against the Giants in the NFC championship game, because they had already seen him struggle periodically the previous few weeks.
But even that makes the point. The Packers didn’t lose to the Giants (or the Bears) in December 2007 and January 2008 just because of Favre. It’s pretty rare that one player wins or loses a game in football, the ultimate team sport. The 2008 Jets, when Favre was hurt and couldn’t throw the ball with accuracy or speed, might be the exception. Otherwise, using w/l record to evaluate a QB’s performance is a joke.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 20, 2009 6:54 AM CST up reply actions
Fading Argument
I’m not saying that Favre isn’t going to display any “fade” in Dec, I’m saying that don’t see any valid trend and significant in it. Not any more than any other player in the NFL. Take away last year with the Jets and the charge holds even less water.
But even that makes the point. The Packers didnāt lose to the Giants (or the Bears) in December 2007 and January 2008 just because of Favre. Itās pretty rare that one player wins or loses a game in football, the ultimate team sport. The 2008 Jets, when Favre was hurt and couldnāt throw the ball with accuracy or speed, might be the exception. Otherwise, using w/l record to evaluate a QBās performance is a joke.
The QB is the keystone position of the game, and while there’s a few examples of mediocre QBs that take excellent teams all the way, you’ll find fewer examples of teams with lousy QBs that do the same. The QB is more than just a game manager or hand-off machine, he’s the leader who sets the tone for the entire team. He’s the one who’s in a position to find a way to win while directing the team, and actually execute it, every single play that he’s in the game.
So I guess that makes two things we disagree on :)
Ultimately, we’ll see one way or another, very shortly, as the season unfolds.
Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!
Whats funny about these guys
If we were to go over there (ACME) and talk about Favre, we would suddenly be called trolls and that we need to give it up on Favre as they are all past that. Something I’ve seen posted there on more then a few occasion’s. Yet, they have no problem coming over here to troll and bring up Favre. Makes you wonder, who really are the one’s NOT over Favre.
"If you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk."
"You men are only risking your lives, while I am risking an almost-certain Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor!"
"We have clearance Clarence. Roger Rodger, what's our vector Victor?"
by VikesFaninNM on Dec 20, 2009 8:18 AM CST up reply actions
"Yet they have no problem coming over here to troll and bring up Favre."
I didn’t bring him up. I just found this thread. :)
But you’re probably right about the reaction you’d get if you posted a Favre thread on ACME.
And you’re also right about Packer fans being the ones who aren’t over Favre. Well, some probably are, but most aren’t. Puddnhead, as much I don’t care for him, hit on the head when he said a few weeks ago that the only “schism” that existed about Favre was in the Packers fanbase. Many are rooting for both teams. But even for those of us (like me) who were behind Rodgers and trading Favre from the beginning last year, it’s tough to get past the whole Favre mess when half of your buddies show up to Packer parties on Sunday wearing Vikings jerseys and are constantly begging you to flip over to the Viking game “just for a minute.” :)
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 20, 2009 9:20 AM CST up reply actions
Fair enough.
I think last week’s game was big. It’s been a while since anyone’s been able to persuade Favre that it’s ok to manage a game and win. I’ve thought from the beginning of the year that the question would be whether Favre would buy in enough to trust the defense and AP to win games for him late in the year. That’s what I think happened last week. If it continues, it doesn’t matter if his performance drops off or not, so long as he remains enough of a threat to take attention away from AP and make defensive coordinators worry. It’s pretty obvious that even if he’s tired and unable to match his performances from earlier in the season (and I’m not saying that’s the case), he’s still got defensive coordinators worried about him. If he keeps that up, he’s good enough to get Minny a title if the rest of the team is up to it.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 20, 2009 9:12 AM CST up reply actions
Actually ...
I wrote more or less the same thing and posted it here at DN in July.
So maybe it’s more having an audience being receptive to the message, and willing to listen to it, more than it being “something that nobody’s willing to talk about!”
#69
If I remember correctly, both starting tackles for Carolina are on IR. Should make for an interesting day for Jared Allen fans like me.
Putting aside the “Team wins aren’t all dependent on the QB” angle, how does “December Brett” compare to “September to November Brett?” I mean, we could say Ryan Leaf was a terrible QB in December, but that isn’t saying much — he was pretty much always terrible.
2000-2009
December Brett: 30-13 (.698)
Sept-Nov Brett: 75-46 (.620)
Hey, whaddya know? His teams actually do better in December! As Manimal points out, his teams might win in spite of him rather than because of him, because his monthly splits are pretty abysmal, but I’d wager most QBs play worse in December.
ESPN did a story about that somewhere...
Regarding all QBs in December, and they did the “elite” QBs and every single one of them had a drop off in the final four games, minus Peyton Manning. So it’s definitely a common thread among QBs, but Favre definitely has won where others have not.
Just food for thought.
Visit:
http://www.vikingvigil.com
Skol Vikings!
Woot Woot!
A more appropriate set of comparisons would be to analyze his September – November average QB rating, yards, TD’s and Completion % against their December average counterparts.
Having said that, many would agree with Gonzo’s presumption that team wins mean more than individual stats and lord knows talking heads and coaches are always talking about that ever elusive immeasurable about being a “winner” in crunch time vs. a big stat producer.
We are the vikings.......resistance is futile.
People have accused him of late season slides because of his TD:INT ratio, along with some other Qb stats. Yes, all that matters is whether or not you win the game, I know. Just telling you why people accuse him of sliding late in the season, and if you look at the statistics there is no arguing against this.
And I’ve seen a lot about how GB fans have made a big deal about his late season woes this past decade but we’re not the only ones. Before Favre became a Viking, DN was split 50-50 on whether or not they wanted Favre, and many of the Vikings fans on this blog who didn’t want Favre presented the argument that he struggled late in the year.
And a lot of GB fans complained about Favre’s late season struggles far before this year. Many of us watched Favre Qb our team from 2000-07, and watched him struggle at the end of the season pretty much every one of these years. Please don’t trick yourselves into thinking that the only reason his late season struggles are being brought up is because he is now a Viking. Packer’s fans talked about this issue far before this year.
saints lose
A Viking win tomorrow and we’re only half a game behind for home field advantage! Right?
by koooolaid1087 on Dec 19, 2009 11:13 PM CST via mobile reply actions
Whatever happens
The loss tonight is huge for several reasons:
1) Obviously, it means the purple is still within shooting range of being #1 in the NFC
2) More realistically, it means NO first stringers have to keep playing.
Romo, I love you (for now).
None
by BothTeamsOnSameSidelineOldSchoolVikesFan on Dec 19, 2009 11:18 PM CST up reply actions
the last few matchups make this an interesting run to the playoffs.
If the Vikes win out and the Saints lose 1 more…
One of our losses will be against the AFC, and theirs will be against the NFC AND the South.
Does that make our 14-2 better than their 14-2 against the tiebreakers??
I think it does…
GO VIKES!!
I BELIEVE...
by ArizonaVikingsFan on Dec 19, 2009 11:38 PM CST up reply actions
one game behind
as they are now 13-1, we could be 12-2
"If you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk."
"You men are only risking your lives, while I am risking an almost-certain Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor!"
"We have clearance Clarence. Roger Rodger, what's our vector Victor?"
by VikesFaninNM on Dec 19, 2009 11:25 PM CST up reply actions
Playoffs scenario
If the Vikes win out and the Saints lose 1 moreā¦
One of our losses will be against the AFC, and theirs will be against the NFC AND the South.
Does that make our 14-2 better than their 14-2 against the tiebreakers??
It does, since we would have had a better conference record ( 11-1 ) than the Saints ( 10-2 )
The Saints have only division games left,
which I believe is the significant tie-breaker, so their division record would be worse than ours if they lose one of those (and we win out).
If I remember correctly, head to head and then record against common opponents (minimum 4) is before division record, but neither of those applies.
by Migrant lurker on Dec 20, 2009 6:18 AM CST up reply actions
Yes
See http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures
In determining playoff seeding, division record is not important. The first tiebreaker is conference record. If the Vikings win out and the Saints lose just one more game, the Vikings would be the #1 seed.
That said, who cares? The only game that matters is the Panthers, and they will be amped up to try to upset the Vikings.
by medicineball on Dec 20, 2009 7:57 AM CST up reply actions
sorry but it doesn't work that way
first you’ve included 2000 through 2003 which not only was favre 31 through 34 (which as we discussed here is the peak age for a skilled qb) but those were also the last years favre actually wanted to play and participated in the offseason.
second, everyone whose actually looked at the stats knows that favre’s ‘fades’ began in the 2004 season. favre isn’t the same qb he was in his early 30’s and he hasn’t been for some time. notice how there’s only 1 4-win stat in the last 5 years you posted? that means something
you can try to argue with this, but you’ll have to have something heavy to argue with:
2004 rating through first 11 games – 96.76
65.82% through first 11
22td 11int
2004 rating through last 5 games – 90.1
61.66% through last 5
8td 6int
7-4 first 11, 3-2 last 5
55.4 rating in 1 playoff game with 1td 4int in a loss
2005 rating through first 11 games – 81.84
63.35% through first 11
19td 19int
2005 rating through last 5 games – 55
57.00% through last 5
1td 10int
2-9 first 11, 2-3 last 5
2006 rating through first 11 games – 76.96
56.12% through first 11
14td 10int
2006 rating through last 5 games – 63.98
54.38% through last 5
4td 8int
4-7 first 11, 4-1 last 5
2007 rating through first 11 games – 102.62
68.85% through first 11
22td 8int
2007 rating through last 5 games – 77.8
59.82% through last 11
6td 7int
10-1 first 11, 3-2 last 5
137.6 rating in 1st playoff game with 3td and 0int in a win
70.7 rating in 2nd playoff game with 2td and 2int in a loss
2008 rating through first 11 games – 94.53
70.82% through first 11
20td 13int
2008 rating through last 5 games – 55.38
56.56% through last 5
2td 9int
8-3 first 11, 1-4 last 5
2009 rating through first 11 games – 112.95
70.85% through first 11
24td 3int
2009 rating through last 3 games – 75.43
62.13% through last 3
3td 4int
10-1 first 11, 1-2 last 3
you can blame these numbers on the surrounding talent, or the coaching, or the quality of defenses, or an injury, or the phase of the moon in december. in a few of these game you may even be right. but this is too consistent over too many games in too many seasons for me to blame anyone but favre. and it’s happening again this year, imagine that. or is that the vikings fault but not favre?
http://www.nfl.com/players/brettfavre/gamelogs?id=FAV540222&season=2009
by iseepurplepeople on Dec 20, 2009 11:31 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Thank you!
Too say that the whole Favre fade thing is fabricated is absolutely ridiculous. His decline in his numbers and play has happened at to consistent of a rate to blame it on things around him. You said it perfect in that ya, of course sometimes it’s cause of the problems around him but not near the majority of the time.
If Favre continues to fade you still may have a relatively good chance of making it to the SB. Right now though, I don’t think you will with a couple other units failing around him.
by packallday555 on Dec 21, 2009 4:23 AM CST up reply actions
Umm... I know that I am gonna get some heat for this, but...
I think that a couple of the GB squads were as good (or even better) that the Vikings this year. Still too early to tell. Vikes have a great record, but the season isn’t over yet. I hope that Brett gets the ring, but until they do, the 2007 Packers were better. Hit me!!!!!
Acid test
If he blows against the bears, then start freaking out.
Da Bears are really bad and predictable….they have no secondary. And it won’t be that cold.

by 






















