Already today, people are talking about Favre's Super Bowls compared to other great quarterbacks. This may be the stupidest concept in all of sports.
The Super Bowl is just one game, and it's a weird game. It generally takes place after a bye for both teams, it's slower than a normal game, it's always against quality competition, halftime is extra long, etc. Plus, it's just one game! The Super Bowl is probably more subject to randomness than any other football game.
Judging any player based on how they performed in one game (or a handful of games) is idiotic. Ignoring how they played in that game and judging them solely by whether their team won or lost is even more idiotic, yet this is how the majority of people judge quarterbacks.
I blame Voltron.
If you've ever watched Voltron, you know how this goes. A big monster attacks the castle, the Voltron team tries to attack the monster with their stupid robot lions, which doesn't work. Then they form Voltron and try to punch it and shoot fire at it, which also doesn't work. Then, when all else has failed, they whip out the Blazing Sword, which always works. In Voltron-land, Voltron has the magical power to "play better" if you will, when it's all on the line. You see this paradigm recur in many children's action programs.
Of course, if you were a smart little kid like I was you spend most of an episode of Voltron yelling at them to just form the Blazing Sword already instead of dicking around with this other stuff. Then you get grounded for saying "dicking."
Anyway, Voltron is probably the Cold War's fault. The Blazing Sword is clearly a symbol of the atomic bomb, which is all powerful, but only useful in the most dire of situations. There is a good reason to not use the atomic bomb, as the collateral damage is massive, however this translates poorly into children's cartoons. You have to be able to use the big weapon for the show to be exciting, but you also can't use it right away, or the show will be boring and short.
So you end up with the Blazing Sword.
Unfortunately, this mentality of being able to summon up extra powers in dire situations seems to transfer over to sports analysis. We believe that great players should become magically brilliant when the game is on the line, and when the game is especially important.
Unfortunately, here in the real world, magical powers do not exist.
During an NFL season, every game is your most important game until you have clinched something. Players have to be at their best as much as they possibly can. It is a sad fact of human nature that we sometimes have let downs, but we do, and we really can't do much to control when they happen.
People are already making the "Elway was better: 2 Super Bowls to 1" argument. You know how much I hate that argument. The fact is that Favre played great against the Broncos in the Super Bowl, far better than Elway played, especially considering that Elway possessed a better RB and a superior corps of WRs/TEs. Yet Elway will always win with the Pundits, 2 to 1. That's so idiotic. Marino, Kelly, Tarkenton, they all get hit the same way. Kelly basically is considered an inferior QB because Scott Norwood missed a field goal. I heard Mike Wilbon on the radio the other day say that Ben Roethlisberger is the 3rd best QB in the league based on his Super Bowl win. Ben Roethlisberger's Super Bowl performance was one of the worst in Super Bowl History. That he won is a testament to the talents of the rest of his team.
The fact is that Favre was frickin' awesome. You can compare him to other great QBs in a bunch of different ways; in some he will appear better, and in others he will appear worse.
But if anyone reading this attempts to make any kind of Voltron argument to me, I'm just going to snap.
Long live the good ol' boy; the finest QB in Packer history, the toughest QB in NFL history, and a better QB than John fucking Elway.