[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

What Warner did at the turn of the century should classify him as one of the games greats. Should 3 excellent years put him in the top 20 of all time? Probably not. But a lot of the other guys had the benefit of stability that Warner never had. He still performed well in bad situations after St. Louis, and that's the mark of a great player. Not historically great, but great.

I'm all for giving Favre the benefit of the doubt due to longevity, but I'm a firm believer that a QB should be graded by his 3-5 best years, and not by how long he played. Too much of the latter is based on circumstance (injuries, coaching stability, QB depth chart).

yeah, I'm always torn on that kind of stuff. It's sort of how I feel about Presidents (not to go off on too much tangent here). It's like FDR was widely considered a great President. But how much of it was due to the fact that he had a 3rd term and I think a year into a 4th to see some of his ideas through? I mean what if Eisenhower had an extra four years? By the same token guys like Jim Brown and Sandy Koufax are considered among the greatest in their respective sports, but what if each had played another 10 years but rode the bench (not likely) for the last five. How would we remember their careers?