SBtS: Brett Favre Should Retire

[YoHoChecko]

<h1 align="center">Stats Behind the Stats</h1><h2 align="center">Brett Favre Should Retire…</h2><h4 align="center">… or the Packers should make drastic changes to their offensive scheme and play-calling.</h4><p>Towards the end of this season, a thought occurred to me. After Brad Johnson and Mark Brunell were pulled from their starting positions, and Steve McNair’s play fell off from earlier in the season, many media types and pundits wrote these situations off to age issues. Often phrases such as, “you can’t expect him to last through the season at this age,” were muttered in reference to these players. Brett Favre, however, has such a strong reputation for toughness and continuity, that such things were rarely said about him. He <i>was</i> expected to make it through the ends of seasons playing at a high level. Not only that, but he often displayed his arm strength in ways that prove he still has it, physically.</p><p>As I thought through it, though, it made sense that at the age of 37, Favre might wear down as the season went on. Age might be becoming a factor. I immediately thought back to the end of the 2005 season, when Favre’s numbers plummeted down the stretch of a meaningless, lost season. It was easy to write off the drop in play as a side effect of having nothing for which to continue playing.</p><p>Instead of writing off his poor play to emotions or state of mind though, there are other factors to consider. In that same season, Favre led the league in passing attempts by a wide margin. In fact, Brett Favre had at least 42 more attempts in 2005 than any other QB in the league. In 2006, there was no relief as Favre actually threw more passes, again leading the league in pass attempts. For a career, Brett Favre now ranks second all-time in passes attempted, with a lead of nearly 1000 attempts over John Elway in third place. One could only imagine that, at this point, despite still being able to move around the pocket and throw some lasers, Favre would begin to show signs of wear and tear.</p><p>The question then becomes, "do the statistics point to the same conclusion?" The answer is, unequivocally, yes. Using an arbitrary cut-off point of 484 pass attempts, or just over 30 passes per game (this was chosen for the sake of ease of statistical gathering), I examined Favre’s play over the past two seasons in terms of pass attempts, and then compared it to his 2004 numbers as a sort of control. The results are clear.</p><p>The following shows how Brett Favre performed over the past two seasons combined (and I assure you that each season was fairly similar in terms of drop-off), arranged by his numbers through his first 484 attempts contrasted against his numbers in pass attempts 485 and beyond.</p>
<table align="center" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="4" textalign="right"><th>
<td>Com</td> <td>Att</td> <td>&#37;</td> <td>Yards</td> <td>Yd/Att</td> <td>TD</td> <td>INT</td></th><tr><td><b>Att 1-484</b></td> <td>580</td> <td>968</td> <td>59.9</td> <td>6274</td> <td>6.48</td> <td>36</td> <td>34</td></tr><tr><td><b>Att 485+</b></td> <td>135</td> <td>252</td> <td>53.6</td> <td>1492</td> <td>5.92</td> <td>2</td> <td>13</td></tr></table><p>As you can see, there is a considerable drop-off in every statistical category. The most alarming, of course, is the TD/INT ratio. Beyond 484 pass attempts, Favre simply ceases his TD production, while his percentage of interceptions per pass attempt skyrockets from 3.5% to 5.2% (almost a 50% increase). </p><p>If there was any question as to whether or not this is a sign of aging, or has been a persistent problem throughout Favre’s career, we need only look back as far as the 2004 season. That year, beyond 485 pass attempts, Favre’s numbers looked like this:</p><table align="center" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="4" textalign="right"><th><td>Com</td> <td>Att</td> <td>%</td> <td>Yards</td> <td>Yd/Att</td> <td>TD</td> <td>INT</td> </th><tr><td><b>2004</b></td> <td>39</td> <td>56</td> <td>69.6</td> <td>561</td> <td>10.0</td> <td>5</td> <td>1</td></tr></table><p>As if the end-of-season numbers weren’t convincing enough, there is also evidence that Favre wears down around the same point within games (beyond 30 attempts). Throughout the 2006 season, Favre’s numbers in attempts 1-30 are far superior to his numbers in attempts 31+, as shown in the following table:</p><table align="center" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="4" textalign="right"><th><td>Com</td> <td>Att</td> <td>%</td> <td>Yards</td> <td>Yd/Att</td> <td>TD</td> <td>INT</td>
</th><tr><td><b>Att 1-30</b></td> <td>259</td> <td>459</td> <td>56.4</td> <td>3054</td> <td>6.65</td> <td>14</td> <td>9</td>
</tr><tr><td><b>Att 31+</b></td> <td>84</td> <td>154</td> <td>54.5</td> <td>831</td> <td>5.40</td> <td>4</td> <td>9</td> </tr></table><p>While the change in completion percentage is far less dramatic, the problem with TD/INT ratio reappears, and his yards per attempt suffer even more severely. All of these numbers clearly point to the fact that Brett Favre’s age is leading to a decline in his play as he wears down. The only possible solutions here are for Brett to retire before the situation worsens or for the Packers to throw the ball significantly less frequently.</p><p>However, in Brett’s entire career as a starter, he has thrown fewer than 484 pass attempts only twice (471 each time). Possibly coincidentally, or possibly not, those two seasons account for two of his three highest completion percentages in his career. Furthermore, Mike McCarthy has been the coordinator of the 49ers’ and Saints’ offenses over the past six seasons and has only stayed below that benchmark once. So in order to keep Brett Favre and have an effective year of play from him, McCarthy, Favre and the Packers would have to dramatically alter their style, improve their running game and sink from the top passers in the league into the bottom third. While these changes could easily be made (and would likely benefit Favre’s successor down the road, as well) perhaps it would be easier if Favre decided the time had come to hang ‘em up. And if Favre does decide to return, the Packers had better take a close look at the available RBs in this year's draft and in free agency.</p>

[Azazel]

best stat here?


As if the end-of-season numbers weren’t convincing enough, there is also evidence that Favre wears down around the same point within games (beyond 30 attempts). Throughout the 2006 season, Favre’s numbers in attempts 1-30 are far superior to his numbers in attempts 31+, as shown in the following table:

Com Att &#37; Yards Yd/Att TD INT

Att 1-30 259 459 56.4 3054 6.65 14 9

Att 31+ 84 154 54.5 831 5.40 4 9

that IS quite the drop eh?


wow....great stuff...and from a packer fan.

thanks for the outlook.


as much fun as i have at brett's expense, i think he should come back, if he didnt I would have a drop in opinion of him. he can get the all time record...hell grandpa....go get it.

LAST YEAR i though he should stay out, but that competitive nature THIS year should have him in the huddle next year.


plus with a shot at that alltime TD record, its almost solidified that he will get that alltime INT record...whch would be sweet.


GREAT work as always YOHO.

[Sascha]

Well, it looks like they need Favre for the first 30 passes of each game, and then send in Rogers for the rest.


Excellent work YoHo, one of the best analysis I've seen.

[|(evin|(olb|(ritik]

Nice article Yoho.

....... and all this time I thought I was just a "hater". :D

[YoHoChecko]

Well, it looks like they need Favre for the first 30 passes of each game, and then send in Rogers for the rest.
I was thinking more along the lines of the University of Georgia 2004-05/University of Florida 2006 system. It's not really a 2-QB system. It's just 2 or 3 possessions per game, they stick a mobile QB in there to keep the defense on its toes and change the pace. The 2 or 3 series should be enough to reduce Favre's per-game average by 9 attempts and keep him fresh for the end of the game. That's why I wanted Tarvarious Jackson in round 5 last year, only I was 3 rounds too late d-: I wonder how Ingle Martin is progressing, or what sorts of running QBs are available this year.

I just realized that I may not have made my sarcasm here obvious enough, but this was intended to be a joke.


Excellent work YoHo, one of the best analysis I've seen.
Thanks (-:


Nice article Yoho.

....... and all this time I thought I was just a "hater". :D

Hey, I've always defended Brett, but I've also insisted that when his play merited criticism or he didn't still have it, I'd report on that as well. That time, for me, has come.

[Whit Prowdy]

How much do you attribute the "fall from grace" in 2005-06 since 2004 to the departure of Javon Walker, the abscence of Robert Ferguson, and the seeming unwillingness of the recievers to catch passes? If I remember, some of those 13 INT's after pass attempt 485 were not his fault (see Lions game).

[YoHoChecko]

How much do you attribute the "fall from grace" in 2005-06 since 2004 to the departure of Javon Walker, the abscence of Robert Ferguson, and the seeming unwillingness of the recievers to catch passes? If I remember, some of those 13 INT's after pass attempt 485 were not his fault (see Lions game).

The loss of Walker, Ferguson, ect. explains some of the variance between 2004 and 2005-06, but it doesn't explain the gap from early 2005-06 to late 2005-06. For the record, this attempt cutoff generally speaking looks at the last 3 games of '05 and '06 and the last two games of '04 (because they passed less that year)

So while you can use changeover in roster to explain the drop from '04 to the next two years, the fact that the drop-off is so pronounced both within the seasons, as attempts get high, and within games as attempts get high.

Even if you wipe out ALL of the interceptions from late in the season, isn't it still problematic that he drops from throwing TDs on 3.7&#37; of his attempts to on ZERO.7 percent of his attempts after 484 attempts?

I've made a living off of defending Favre and finding the stats that people should look at and which interceptions were "bad" or "not his fault." I know all the reasons for statistical successes and failures in the past. This one I can't explain except for the most obvious answer. Favre wears down. He wears down throughout games and he wears down throughout seasons. The only way to stop this is to throw A LOT fewer passes, but who knows if the damage has already been done?

Do you realize that over the past two years at ages 36 and 37, Favre has two of the top eleven seasons all-time as far as number of attempts in a season. Each of the past two years he's been up there on the all-time list as one of the oldest starting QBs in the league. He is great, but he is human. It is having an effect on him

P.S. Only 9 QBs threw the ball 485 times or more last season, so it's not a ridiculous benchmark for which to ask... and 485 is awfully close to the ends of seasons, so losing Ferguson in weeks 4 or 5 or whenever he usually gets hurt is already accounted for throughout the first 485 attempts... and it's not like Ferguson ever does much anyway.

[jjflr]

good job of taking an objective viewpoint of the situation..........I have felt that Favre is holding the entire Packers organization back for a couple of years..........this organization cannot move forward until he hangs it up........and it IS time...........

[Blackmallard]

Or, instead of retiring he could change his number to "F-13", play untill he breaks the TD record, then hang it up midseason (or even midgame).

[YoHoChecko]

good job of taking an objective viewpoint of the situation..........I have felt that Favre is holding the entire Packers organization back for a couple of years..........this organization cannot move forward until he hangs it up........and it IS time...........

Thanks for the kind words, but that is a viewpoint I have never quite understood. The notion that Favre is holding anything back defies logic, to me. The Packers wanted to build for the future, and so they did. Favre did not stop them from bringing in a new head coach. Favre did not stop them from drafting a first round QB. Favre did not stop them from turning over 70% of the roster in 2.5 years. Favre did not stop them from fielding a team with 20 rookie/first years and 8 more only in their second NFL year.

Furthermore, the performance of Phillip Rivers in year 3, Carson Palmer in year 2 and several other examples coupled with the struggles of many rookie QBs creates the notion that starting a QB immediately might not be what's best for the QB or for the team, and therefore Favre isn't holding them back at the QB position, either.

Had Favre been absent from the team for the past year or two, what changes to "move forward" do you think they would have made that they have not made anyway?

(though let's try to keep this brief as it is almost a whole different topic in regards to Favre's retirement, and I'm not here to argue against his retirement, obviously... just this common notion juxtaposed against the reality of he team's operations over the past two seasons.)

[jjflr]

Brett Favre has a 'free pass' in Green Bay.........with the fans.........with his teammates.........with the coaches.........and with the organization........

He brought the title back to title-town and was given a lifetime pass to play as long as he wanted in a Packers uniform and as good/bad as he wanted in a Packers uniform...........

Brett Favre holds this organization back each year he continues to play (regardless of 'why' he continues)...........

2 points:

#1

This year, Brett Favre had a LOWER passer rating than 'struggling' young QB's such as Matt Leinart, Eli Manning, and Alex Smith. At least these teams are giving their young QB's valuable game-experience which should make them a lot better in the future.

Favre keeps going downhill each year and each year that the Packers aren't giving a young QB some quality game-time, the longer it's going to take to get the Packers back to contention status. He doesn't improve this team by being there. They could put just about anyone in there and get the results they're currently getting. They might as well have someone in there that has the chance to get 'better' with time.........Favre is only going to get worse as he gets older.

Favre barely beat out some QB's in passer rating that were BENCHED due to ineffective play on the field this year (Plummer, Frye, and Brad Johnson). Would Favre EVER be benched ? Of course not, because he has a lifetime pass.

#2

Either consciously or sub-consciously, the Packers coaches are doing the SAME thing the Dolphins did towards the end of the Marino era..........they think that they have a 26-year Brett Favre in the prime of his career that can carry the offense on his back and they end up throwing the ball WAY too much............The Packers were 3rd in the NFL this year in % of plays passing (59.4)...........that is WAY too much for a QB that proved to be only slightly better than 63-year old Brad Johnson...........

The only 2 teams that threw the ball more than the Packers as a % of their plays ? The Rams at 59.5%............(a couple of guys by the names of Holt and Bruce justify it).............and the Lions at 66.2%.......(typical Mike Martz).........

How did their QB's fair in a pass-heavy offense ? A heck of a lot better than Favre..............Marc Bulger finished near the top of the league in almost every category and Jon Kitna's numbers surpassed Favre's in every major category..........

Fact is, Brett Favre KNOWS that he has a lifetime pass, regardless of how bad he gets..........and I don't know what his motivation for continuing to play this many years is..........but I DO know that each year that he continues to play is another year that the Packers can't start over...........

[Badeye]

I lost a lot of respect for Favre in the last 18 months. After hearing him stated 'its not in my contract to help the new guys' and then watch as he played "Hamlet" (To play, or not to play, that is my question!) for months last off season...I'm at the point he needs to retire and prepare for induction into Canton. He hasn't been 'coachable' since Holmgren left, that much is very clear. He will do whatever he wants on the field, and nobody at Green Bay has the resume' big enough to tell him, ala Holmgren 'Knock off the rocket balls, OKAY?'.

Its been great watching him. I've enjoyed it all. I felt for him when he played the day his father passed away, and just blew away the opposing team.

But its time for him to go. I don't want Favre to go out like Kenny Stabler, unable to throw more than thirty yards.

[YoHoChecko]

I agree with much of what you just said. Very much of it. Moreso than most Packers fans would. But when you say every year he's there is another year in which they can't start over, it's ONLY referring to the QB position. Because they already HAVE started over. They're two years into their rebuilding project. This team is being put together basically from scratch.

Now I think it would be a good time to transition the QB, too... but I am of the mind that the QB should be one of the LAST pieces you add to the puzzle. Favre, for the past two years, has done them the favor of keeping the heat and pressure off of their young, new QB by playing through the transition, the lack of weapons, the constant changeover at WR, the lack of a running game. A young QB, say Aaron Rodgers, would get killed under these conditions and it would be very very difficult for him to develop and acquire good habits and maintain good technique, reads and progressions.

Now that they are nearing the end of a HUGE roster make-over, it'd be fine to see what they have at QB, so that if it doesn't work out, they can quickly try and find another QB to step in and be that last piece. But don't act as if the Packers would be better off right now if Aaron Rodgers had played a year or two with a bad O-line, a bad running game, one good WR and a bunch of injured WRs and a team that led the league in drops. To say that would be fooling yourself--and that's not even taking into consideration the "you're not Favre, so you stink" mentality many of the fans are likely to throw at him for every mistake.

[Badeye]

I agree with much of what you just said. Very much of it. Moreso than most Packers fans would. But when you say every year he's there is another year in which they can't start over, it's ONLY referring to the QB position. Because they already HAVE started over. They're two years into their rebuilding project. This team is being put together basically from scratch.

Now I think it would be a good time to transition the QB, too... but I am of the mind that the QB should be one of the LAST pieces you add to the puzzle. Favre, for the past two years, has done them the favor of keeping the heat and pressure off of their young, new QB by playing through the transition, the lack of weapons, the constant changeover at WR, the lack of a running game. A young QB, say Aaron Rodgers, would get killed under these conditions and it would be very very difficult for him to develop and acquire good habits and maintain good technique, reads and progressions.

Now that they are nearing the end of a HUGE roster make-over, it'd be fine to see what they have at QB, so that if it doesn't work out, they can quickly try and find another QB to step in and be that last piece. But don't act as if the Packers would be better off right now if Aaron Rodgers had played a year or two with a bad O-line, a bad running game, one good WR and a bunch of injured WRs and a team that led the league in drops. To say that would be fooling yourself--and that's not even taking into consideration the "you're not Favre, so you stink" mentality many of the fans are likely to throw at him for every mistake.


Actually, I think the Packers would be much better off TODAY if Aaron Rogers had been the starter all of last year. Favre isn't getting any better, we both know this. That said, the Packers made this same mistake in 1969. They kept some guys they simply shouldn't have due to the link to the Dynasty Lombardi built, so this isn't all that surprising.

Favre won't get you to the playoffs again in his career is my point. Aaron Rogers most likely will. The longer you wait...the longer you'll be waiting, if you see what I mean.

btw, did you catch the NFL Networks 'America's Game' segment on the 1966 Packers? I found it, like all of them so far, to be facinating. I highly recommend it if you haven't see it yet.

[YoHoChecko]

Actually, I think the Packers would be much better off TODAY if Aaron Rogers had been the starter all of last year. Favre isn't getting any better, we both know this. That said, the Packers made this same mistake in 1969. They kept some guys they simply shouldn't have due to the link to the Dynasty Lombardi built, so this isn't all that surprising.

Favre won't get you to the playoffs again in his career is my point. Aaron Rogers most likely will. The longer you wait...the longer you'll be waiting, if you see what I mean.

btw, did you catch the NFL Networks 'America's Game' segment on the 1966 Packers? I found it, like all of them so far, to be facinating. I highly recommend it if you haven't see it yet.
See, this is just a matter of opinion, I suppose, but I'm a big proponent of not playing a QB until they are ready to play. With some, that MIGHT be right away. With others, it might be after a year. Rodgers might have been ready last year, but keep in mind with a new coach and a newish offense, he was in his second year in the league with his second coach/offense. I'd generally prefer that a young QB spend a year on the bench in a system before stepping in. I think that year can be very beneficial. If Rodgers stepped in this year, with a struggling running game, a spotty O-line early and a team that led the league in drops, he might start resorting to things that are outside of the scheme. He might not have been able to locate those 2nd and 3rd options in time, and his confidence, his development, and his mechanics might get damaged in the long run.

It's just a philosophical difference that I have with many on the board. I don't think rookie QBs should start, and I don't see any problem with QBs taking 2 or even 3 years before playing. That said, Rodgers has had 2 years now, one in the current system. The line has gotten better, too. So now it would be beneficial to take a look at what we have in Rodgers. Hence my article that Favre should retire. But I really think that the team has not been put back by waiting. I think having Favre start these past two years has been very beneficial to Rodgers.