Saturday, July 19, 2008

Favre May Discover that 38 is Not So Special for Quarterbacks

Brett Favre had an excellent season in 2007 and there seems to be an assumption that if he plays in 2008 then he will pick up right where he left off but that is not necessarily the case. Favre turned 38 early last season and, as Don Pierson noted in a December 29, 2006 Chicago Tribune article (a free abstract is available at ChicagoTribune.com or you can read the entire piece by paying a small fee), "As peculiar and arbitrary as it may seem, age 38 represents a wall for so many quarterbacks it's impossible to ignore." Pierson notes the obvious--that many NFL quarterbacks don't even make it to 38 in the first place--but he lists a number of quarterbacks whose health and/or effectiveness declined markedly at or around that age. Here is a summary of what happened to several Hall of Fame quarterbacks who found out that 38 is not so special:

1) Dan Marino turned 38 during his last season (1999). He missed five games and posted the lowest passer rating of his 17 year career (67.4, 12.6 points worse than his 1998 rating).

2) During the 1999 season, Steve Young sustained a career-ending concussion two weeks before his 38th birthday. In the three games he played in that year, Young compiled a 60.9 rating, his worst since his second year in the league and a whopping 40.2 point decline from his 1998 rating.

3) John Elway retired after the season in which he turned 38 (1998), though to be fair he did not seem to be on his last legs at the time. He missed three games due to injury but was healthy enough to lead the Broncos to their second Super Bowl title in a row.

4) Johnny Unitas hung around until he was 40 but in his last three seasons he registered just three, four and three touchdown passes.

5) Similarly, Len Dawson played until he was 40 but was not an effective full time starter after he turned 38.

6) Sammy Baugh attempted just 33 passes in the 1952 season before retiring at the age of 38.

7) Even the legendary ageless wonder George Blanda was not immune to the effects of turning 38. He reached that milestone in 1965, the last year that he was a full-time starting quarterback. He played for 10 more seasons but primarily served as a kicker.

Pierson also mentions a couple exceptions, most notably Warren Moon, who had Pro Bowl seasons at 39 and 41. Still, there is no denying that health and productivity tend to rapidly decline for NFL quarterbacks at or around 38, even for players who had been healthy and productive right up to that age. Just because Favre turned back the clock last season does not mean that he can do so again this year.

Perhaps the most dramatic cautionary tale for Favre is what happened to Y.A. Tittle. In 1963, the 37 year old Tittle led the NFL in touchdowns (36), completion percentage (60.2) and yards per attempt (8.6) while directing the New York Giants to an 11-3 record and a 14-10 Championship Game loss to the Chicago Bears. Those individual numbers--and the close loss to the eventual NFL Champion--eerily mirror what Favre and the Packers did in 2007. However, in 1964, Tittle's numbers dropped dramatically (10 touchdowns, 52.3 completion percentage, 6.4 yards per attempt average) and the Giants fell to 2-10-2. Tittle retired after that campaign.

While some people may think that it is foolhardy for the Packers to not welcome Favre back so that they can replace him with the untested Aaron Rodgers, there is a sizable amount of historical evidence that suggests that Favre is hardly a sure bet to be successful in a season during which he will turn 39. Last year was a fairy tale for Favre and the Packers but the clock could very well strike midnight if he plays in 2008.

Above and beyond the numbers, the problem that I have with what Favre has done is the complete selfishness that he is displaying. No one begrudges him the right to leave the game on his own terms, whether that consists of retiring after a storybook season or continuing to play--with another team if necessary--until his wheels fall off. However, Favre is holding an entire team and its fans hostage with his vacillating. If he wanted to play, then he should have said so during the spring. After Favre made his tearful retirement announcement, the Packers quite naturally devoted their offseason planning to getting Rodgers ready to take the helm. Favre recently said that he understood that the Packers have moved on, as if he is making a big concession. Did he think that the Packers would just put their plans on hold after Favre made it quite clear that he had no intentions of playing again? If Favre had originally said that he wanted to keep playing then the Packers surely would have welcomed him back with open arms but now he has placed the team in an untenable situation: if they bring him back then they have wasted their whole offseason but if they grant Favre his release then he may go to a division rival and hurt them. The Packers are under no obligation to do something that could damage them competitively just to satisfy the whims of a diva who suddenly decided that he wants to be in the spotlight a little while longer. Is there anything more pathetic than a future Hall of Famer whining to a gushing Greta Van Susteren about how unfair life is?

None of this tarnishes Favre's legacy as a quarterback. Whether he stays retired, comes back and plays well or comes back and plays poorly, he will remain one of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time. After all, no one dwells on Unitas' last days as a Charger or Joe Namath's brief run as a Ram. However, the selfish, petulant and classless way that Favre is handling himself does tarnish his legacy as a person. Just imagine for one second that Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, Kobe Bryant or any other athlete who is a lightning rod for criticism did what Favre is doing. How do you think the media would portray the situation? How would fans react? Favre has received some criticism--and deservedly so--but he has been given a free pass compared to the treatment that those guys would get if they were involved in a similar scenario.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

anymous reggie

clearly favre not a prime player but he still is a good nfl player and could do well for green bay next season clealry the end is comeing favre just like all players. i just dont understand why greenbay act like they would do better with aaron rodgers than favre you was in championship game last year ride favre till he cant ride nomore

David Friedman said...

Reggie:

I think that Green Bay would have been happy to "ride" Favre if he had not retired in the first place. When he retired they moved on and it is not fair to ask them to just wipe out their whole offseason program, particularly for a guy who may only have one year left.

Anonymous said...

anymous reggie

sign favre to one year deal then after next year let him go he ahed too good a seaso to just let him go now. he is intrested in minnesota right now that would be a good move and the bears i dont know if green bay is going to trade him they are being hypritcal to say you have to stay retired or play back up if he wants to play sitll trade him to so one else if you really are going to move on.

David Friedman said...

Reggie:

Why should GB sign Favre when the Packers spent the whole offseason preparing Rodgers to be the starter?

I don't see why they should be obligated to trade him and help out someone in their division.

Favre is being extremely selfish and anyone in the media who does not call him out about this should not write negative things about TO or Moss, either.

Anonymous said...

anymous reggie

this is a travesty what green bay has done to legendary brett favre not allowing him to play else where and then not letting him start on there team either. they cant have it both ways if you moved on without favre fine let him play elsewhere release him or trade him. green bay fans giving thompson a standing o are being fooled by the propaganda machine that is green bay packers. favre said he was told not to show up at trainging camp by ted thompson they wanna have it both eays favre doesnt show up he doesnt want to play if he does show up he is being a distraction release favre and see if he wants to play.

David Friedman said...

Reggie:

Favre tearfully told the Packers in the spring that he was retired. Now that they moved on without him he is completely disrupting their training camp? Where is his loyalty to a franchise that made him a very wealthy man?

More to the point, why do you think that they are obligated to let him play wherever he wants to play? That is not in the best interests of their franchise.

Anonymous said...

anymous reggie

they cant hold him hostage he decided to come back and changed his mine you cant force a guy to stay retire or be a backup if you moved on trade him or relase him. best intresest of team is letting him play and start they lost that already brett favre isnt going to help you as a back up who cares if he helps another team.

David Friedman said...

Reggie:

Again, this is pro football, not a youth league, so explain why Green Bay is obligated to ship Favre to a team that could potentially beat Green Bay? Certainly Green Bay should not trade Favre within the division. The other thing to consider is that with Favre coming back at the last minute and being so mercurial if the Packers do decide to trade him they will not get back in return what a 4000 yard quarterback would normally bring. If I were the Packers I'd call his bluff, activate him, put him on the bench, fine him if he doesn't show up to every practice and meeting and then I'd cut him the day before the season started; he's held the team hostage for weeks, so I'd see how he likes having the shoe on the other foot.

This is so ridiculous--now Favre is not only causing a QB controversy in Green Bay but Tampa Bay and any other team that is considering signing him is having a QB controversy, too.

Although Favre played very well in the playoff win over Seattle, he is 1-3 in his last four playoff games with 8 TDs and 7 INTS. If you go back a little further he is 3-7 in his last 10 playoff games with 19 TDs and 19 INTs. Why exactly do people think that this guy is going to carry a team to the Super Bowl? Favre did play well last season but the Packers also had a very good running back in Grant and an outstanding defense.

Anonymous said...

anymous reggie

they were in overtime in the nfc championship game. i rather have favre than a not known commodity like rodgers anyday maybe favre faals off next year but maybe he doesnt. allow him to finish it out or relese him david if the packers are so big on rodgers let favre GO they know that if favre go to minnesota or tampa they could win superbowl why they wont he's not going to help you as a back up if you moved on so bad let him GO.

i dont understand packers i believe you have valid point maybe he wont produce next year, but if they have same doubts you do let him go i know im repeating but you cant hold ,am hostage and force him to be a backup especially all he has done for that organization.

David Friedman said...

Reggie:

1) Regardless of what Favre did for the team in the past, what he is doing now is not only selfish but it is destructive to the franchise.

2) If Favre wanted to play then he should have never retired in the first place.

3) After he retired, the Packers devoted their whole offseason to building the offense around Rodgers. It makes no sense for them to throw all of that work away to satisfy the whims of an old player who may get hurt, who may be ineffective and who may retire a month into the season.

4) The Packers are under no obligation to help Favre or to help out rival teams.

As I said, if I were the Packers I'd call his bluff, force him to come to camp, sit him on the bench and then release him a day before the season started. He is trying to bully the Packers and the only way to respond to a bully is to stand up to him. The only way I'd even consider trading him is if someone made a tremendous offer that included at least one first round draft pick--and that is not likely to happen.