In my book, I spent a lot of time figuring out specific ways to measure careers against each other, eventually coming to this conclusion: I’d rather have four or five phenomenal years from Player A than 15 very good years from Player B. Well, I’d take 1999-2001 Warner over any three-year incarnation of Favre in his prime, and I’d take 2008-2009 Warner over any two-year incarnation of Favre after his prime. No contest.
But let’s say you could start a team with either of them. If I offered you nearly two full decades of Favre (a top-5 quarterback from 1993 to 2002 and a better-than-average quarterback from 2003 through 2009) or 11 up-and-down years from Warner (better peaks in 1999-2001 and 2007-2009, plus a higher playoff ceiling, but nothing else) … you’d take Favre. You would. Warner wins the “higher ceiling” and “better teammate” arguments, and that’s it.
Some guy who contradicts himself a lot.
