OnTheRocks Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 The one thing I like about Favre is he has never taken a single snap and then gone to the bench to keep the streak alive....(ala Randy Moss a few weeks ago). Favre is in his 14th season. His streak started (i think) during his 3rd season. However. Ripken. two thousand six hundred thirty two???? 162 games a season for 16+ seasons. Tough call. It is no easy choice.
VABills Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 Difference is, Favre is a damn good QB. Ripken was an average to above average ball player at best. Without the streak, Favre is in the HOF. Without the streak Cal probably isn't.
wwovince Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 The reason being Football is a much more brutal sport. Take hits at the QB pos
USMCBillsFan Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 I voted Ripken. Farve's streak is unbelievable as well given the contact of football but having played A LOT of both sports there are numerous injuries in baseball as well. It's not hard to get plunked or slide wrong and severely sprain an ankle. I just think what Ripken did was just incredible.
OnTheRocks Posted November 29, 2004 Author Posted November 29, 2004 Difference is, Favre is a damn good QB. Ripken was an average to above average ball player at best. Without the streak, Favre is in the HOF. Without the streak Cal probably isn't. 137901[/snapback] VA....have you seen Cal's stats? This guy is a HOF'er if he stoped playing 3 years earlier. 400 + HR 1600 + RBI Career BA .276 3000 total games played Career Fielding Pct .977
BuffOrange Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 Ever get into one of those topics with somebody where you bring something up and one of you says: "it's a no-brainer" and the other person says "I agree". But then upon further discussion, you're shocked to realize that you actually disagree with each other? That's what happened w/ my roomate and I when this came up last year. I say Favre. I'm not saying Ripken's streak wasn't impressive, but almost all of us can relate to picking up a ground ball. I don't think any of us can relate to the physical pain and wear & tear of the NFL, being hit by 300+ LB giants week in and week out. That may sound a bit simplistic, but basically it boils down to 1 football game doing more damage to your body than 13 baseball games. If the baseball player was a catcher maybe it would be a different story.
Corp000085 Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 cal's in the HOF, streak or not. I vote for cal, simply because he played in a whole lot more games than favre.
OnTheRocks Posted November 29, 2004 Author Posted November 29, 2004 the one thing that is so similar is they were/are both 1st class guys.
BRH Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 Difference is, Favre is a damn good QB. Ripken was an average to above average ball player at best. Without the streak, Favre is in the HOF. Without the streak Cal probably isn't. 137901[/snapback] Rookie of the Year Two-time AL MVP Two-time All-Star Game MVP Two-time Gold Glover Retired with more HR than any shortstop in history Redefined the position; before him, power hitters (and tall guys) didn't play short Owns a World Series ring I'd say he did enough to get into the Hall of Fame, streak or no streak. And 2,632 games in a row is nonpareil. Consider also that he had a ridiculous consecutive-innings streak going for a long time as well. To my knowledge he NEVER pinch-hit or started a game just to keep the streak alive.
Alaska Darin Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 Difference is, Favre is a damn good QB. Ripken was an average to above average ball player at best. Without the streak, Favre is in the HOF. Without the streak Cal probably isn't. 137901[/snapback] Average? Nope. The ultimate professional.
BRH Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 If the baseball player was a catcher maybe it would be a different story. 137932[/snapback] I don't disagree it's more physically difficult to play catcher (and quarterback) than shortstop. But aside from catcher, shortstop IS the most physically demanding everyday position on the field. Cal's 2,632 absolutely blows away Lou Gehrig's 2,130 by a whole lot more than just 502 games, because first base is the easiest position on the field by far (for example, back in Gehrig's era, the big slow doofus on the team ALWAYS played first because there was no DH slot to stick him in). And this is coming from an old first baseman.
R. Rich Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 I'm no longer a baseball fan, but I do know that Cal Ripken had a very good career, streak or no streak.
Like A Mofo Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 Difference is, Favre is a damn good QB. Ripken was an average to above average ball player at best. Without the streak, Favre is in the HOF. Without the streak Cal probably isn't. 137901[/snapback] I disagree, and Im not even sure if that is relevant to this poll. Its about which streak is more impressive in the context of each players respective sport.
Like A Mofo Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 I'm no longer a baseball fan, but I do know that Cal Ripken had a very good career, streak or no streak. 137960[/snapback] Was it the 94 strike that disheartned you R. Rich?
Alaska Darin Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 I think it's pretty much a toss up. I like both of those guys and each is a credit to their sport, though Ripken never ate Vicodin out of his own vomit.
USMCBillsFan Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 I think it's pretty much a toss up. I like both of those guys and each is a credit to their sport, though Ripken never ate Vicodin out of his own vomit. 137969[/snapback]
R. Rich Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 Was it the 94 strike that disheartned you R. Rich? 137966[/snapback] Yep. Three things I remember about that (leading up to the strike): 1. Some pitcher (forgot who) being taken out of a game giving the finger (both hands) to the fans all the way to the dugout. 2. Some player (again, forgot who) saying something to the effect of, "I don't care about the fans..." in a postgame press conference when asked about fan reaction to whatever incident he was involved in that day. 3. The team I rooted for, the Montreal Expos, had the best record in the major leagues leading up to that strike, ruining any chance they ever had at getting to the World Series. The signs were there for me. I'm perfectly fine with pro and college football, college basketball, and even the occasional pro basketball game, though I'm losing interest in that too, especially with the level of immaturity in the players and with the recent trade my team, the Houston Rockets, made to acquire Tracy McGrady at the expense of Cuttino Mobley and one of my favorite players, Steve Francis.
stevestojan Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 Farve has 11 guys every week trying to kill him. SO, Farve takes it there. Yet, he only plays 16 games a season, so the chances of getting a risidual injury (like a pulled hamstring, twisted ankle, etc - things not related to getting hit) is geater for Cal Ripken Jr. You could make opposite arguments like this all day. I think it comes down to one thing. Luck. Farve has played through injury, yes, but he couldnt play if he had broken his throwing arm, or broken a leg, or tore an ACL or MCL, etc, etc. Cal played through injury I'm sure too, but nothing that would have stopped him anyway. Im sure he never tore his hammy, and then played. Both guys probably played when others would have taken the day off (Bretts Dad dying, for example). But both are simply lucky as well. If even one hit had made Brett land the wrong way on his throwing are, breaking it in two, streak over. If he makes a dive like Rich Gannon did recently, and broke a bone in his neck, he couldnt play, no matter how tough he is. If Ripken is running off a homerun and steps on second wrong and his achilles (sp?) bursts, he's done. So, again, they are both tough, as some players take a day off for having a cold. But both are extremely lucky to have avoided serious injury through such a long span.
Rico Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 I don't like either of them, though at least Favre is not a wife-beater. A-List Ripken, Cal. Mysteriously overrated as a player (as if longevity were everything!); physically abusive toward his wife after he caught her sleeping with Kevin Costner. Nice to his fans, though.
Like A Mofo Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 Yep. Three things I remember about that (leading up to the strike): 1. Some pitcher (forgot who) being taken out of a game giving the finger (both hands) to the fans all the way to the dugout. 2. Some player (again, forgot who) saying something to the effect of, "I don't care about the fans..." in a postgame press conference when asked about fan reaction to whatever incident he was involved in that day. 3. The team I rooted for, the Montreal Expos, had the best record in the major leagues leading up to that strike, ruining any chance they ever had at getting to the World Series. The signs were there for me. I'm perfectly fine with pro and college football, college basketball, and even the occasional pro basketball game, though I'm losing interest in that too, especially with the level of immaturity in the players and with the recent trade my team, the Houston Rockets, made to acquire Tracy McGrady at the expense of Cuttino Mobley and one of my favorite players, Steve Francis. 137981[/snapback] Damn R.Rich, I dont blame you for feeling hostile towards MLB being an Expos fan, it is a shame what MLB and Expos ownership did to that franchise, it could have worked there if they really tried. I do remember the player who flipped the bird to the fans, that was Jack McDowell giving the one finger salute to the Yankees fans! I love college basketball too R. Rich, I have soured on the NBA much for the same reason you have as well. I used to share season tickets to the Knicks. Now I wouldnt even consider it, even if I had the money.
Recommended Posts