Favre's streak vs Ripken's streak

cycloneworld · 12-10-2007, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by mwitt

I'd say the QB is less likely to get hurt than just about any other position on a football field.

Agreed. Although Favre's streak is super-impressive.

mwitt · 12-10-2007, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Steve

QB's are always the focal point and get the press. When you look at the injury reports, you will see:

far more DB's missing for sprained ankles that a QB could play with.

WR's out with hammy pulls that QB's seldom even get, but could play with. It's hard to get a WR to even go over the middle, let alone survive the hits.

RB's - lets not even go there

OL & DL - knees, shoulders, knees, shoulders, knees, shoulders, etc

LB's - usually on the giving or receiving end of what the RB's do plus take on 300 lb OL

Exactly. Favre wouldn't be playing with a separated shoulder at almost any other position. Who does he think he is, Emmitt Smith?

cycloneworld · 12-10-2007, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Steve

QB's are always the focal point and get the press. When you look at the injury reports, you will see:

far more DB's missing for sprained ankles that a QB could play with.

WR's out with hammy pulls that QB's seldom even get, but could play with. It's hard to get a WR to even go over the middle, let alone survive the hits.

RB's - lets not even go there

OL & DL - knees, shoulders, knees, shoulders, knees, shoulders, etc

LB's - usually on the giving or receiving end of what the RB's do plus take on 300 lb OL

Good point. QBs can play with more injuries that running backs, WRs, d-backs, etc can.

ISUFan22 · 12-10-2007, 12:53 PM

I just reviewed the injury report. 16 of the 32 NFL teams have a quarterback listed on the injury report.

Of course there will be more WRs, RBs, OL/DL, LBs, etc on the report - because there are more of them on the field.

Flag Guy · 12-10-2007, 12:53 PM

Really this is an apples to oranges comparrison.

They're both fruits (~16 year without missing a game) but beyond that they are 2 different sports, each with their own hazards and challenges (lower impact but higher repitition vs hard impact and 1/10th the reps).

Yes there is a higher chance Farve could get hurt when he plays, but Ripken plays 10x more and eventually probability is bound to bite you like the ***** that it is.

Both are respectable accomplishments to say the least. To compare though? It'll just fuel a debate that goes in circles

cyclonenum1 · 12-10-2007, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by ISUFan22

Really?

Thursday night, how many QBs went down in that game? 2.

There are a slew of teams playing a back-up QB due to injury right now and/or at some time during the season.

Look at all the new rules protecting the quarterback...they exist for a reason (albeit sometimes extreme). Brett played most of his years without these and is still standing.

Because he is smart enough to know the number one thing when you go back to pass...GET RID OF THE BALL ASAP.

Most of the QBs that are getting sacked a lot (and injured) are ones that just don't understand how critical it is to let the ball go quickly. David Carr is a great example...in Houston his line was given grief for him being sacked so much. The truth was that he just held the ball too long. You put Favre behind that same line and the sacks would be greatly reduced.

mwitt · 12-10-2007, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

Agreed. Although Favre's streak is super-impressive.

Definitely impressive. Just doesn't impress me nearly as much as Ripken's.

And the thing is...Cal's record didn't stop because of an injury, illness, etc. He decided to stop the streak.

I think a lot of the opinions about this have to do with the fact that the media makes love to Brett Favre on a daily basis, and Cal Ripken has been out of baseball for almost 7 years now.

CloneFan65 · 12-10-2007, 12:55 PM

The difference to me is that Ripken played every day just to keep the streak alive. During a 162 game season it may have actually hurt Ripken to not take days off. As he got older he needed the rest and by taking a few days off during the season he could have been more productive. On the other hand, Favre taking a day off hurts the team.

mwitt · 12-10-2007, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by ISUFan22

Of course there will be more WRs, RBs, OL/DL, LBs, etc on the report - because there are more of them on the field.

And their positions make them more susceptible to injuries, and the demands of their positions won't allow them to play with injuries that a QB may have.

Remember Byron Leftwich playing with a broken leg and he couldn't walk? Remember McNabb staying in the game in Arizona a few years ago after he broke his ankle? Could you do that at any other position?

mwitt · 12-10-2007, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by CloneFan65

On the other hand, Favre taking a day off hurts the team.

Not in that Cowboys game.

ISUFan22 · 12-10-2007, 12:58 PM

I'm not talking about playing with injuries or not - someone else brought that up and continues to be debated. I talking about being more/less at risk to injuries....refuting the point a previous poster made.

cycloneworld · 12-10-2007, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by ISUFan22

I'm not talking about playing with injuries or not - someone else brought that up and continues to be debated. I talking about being more/less at risk to injuries....refuting the point a previous poster made.

Favre is much, much more susceptible to injuries but is he 10 times more? IMO, no. Which is why I think Ripken's streak is more impressive.

ISUFan22 · 12-10-2007, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

Favre is much, much more susceptible to injuries but is he 10 times more? IMO, no. Which is why I think Ripken's streak is more impressive.

A decent point.

I do think Favre (or any NFL player) is 10x more susceptible to injury than baseball players.

cyclonenum1 · 12-10-2007, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by CloneFan65

The difference to me is that Ripken played every day just to keep the streak alive. During a 162 game season it may have actually hurt Ripken to not take days off. As he got older he needed the rest and by taking a few days off during the season he could have been more productive. On the other hand, Favre taking a day off hurts the team.

And you think Favre is not playing to keep the streak alive?

You make the hypothetical statement that Ripken may have been more productive had he taken some days off but this is purely a hypothetical on your part...and by the way, Ripken's stats were pretty damned impressive...with no days off.

As for Favre taking a day off and it hurting the team...I think if you look back to the past 2 or 3 seasons...there were more than a few people (including Packer fans) that thought Favre should "hang 'em up"...precisely because his production was falling. Clearly he has rebounded this year with a nice season but I thought the Packers may have looked the best they have all season when Aaron Rodgers went in to replace Favre a couple of weeks ago. Maybe I should make the hypothetical that the Packers would be better with Rodgers starting at QB to match your hypothetical.

The voting is pretty close (almost even)...and with both the regional bias towards Favre (I'm sure more people in Iowa pay attention to the Packers than pay attention to the Orioles) and the bias of time (Favre's streak is a current topic getting a lot of press and attention) I would have thought that Favre's streak would win this poll more handily.

cycloneworld · 12-10-2007, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by ISUFan22

A decent point.

I do think Favre (or any NFL player) is 10x more susceptible to injury than baseball players.

I think that NFL players are probably more than 10x susceptible to injuries but I do not think that QBs are. Especially smarth QBs like Favre, Manning, Brady, etc.

Difference of opinion but I think everyone agrees that both are pretty amazing.