Gun Dog Forum

A discussion about employee performance today got me thinking. Who would you want on your team, the undeniably spectacular performer who also has episodes of disaster or the steady, consistent, not near as flashy but just as or more productive performer? What kind of dog would you perfer? The one like Farve that can throw a 40 yard lazer side arm while falling on his rear, who would throw a 60 yard go route instead of the 2 yard slant on 3rd and 2. Or would you choose the dog more in the Montana mode that utilizes every talent they and their partners have without making many mistakes? The type of dog that rarely takes your breathe away, but is consistent, steady and almost cerebral about their job.

So what do you prefer, the one who takes your breath away one moment and the next makes you want to strangle em or the one that is seldom awe inspiring but always fills the bag or puts the trophy on the shelf?

Montana

Pretty simple for me.

Pepper

One would would have to go with the dog using all his talents everytime out in a consistant manner, the piece of mind knowing he is going to get the job done, the way you want him to, sticking to his training like glue....... awe nuts.... I'm going with Farve, let him amaze me, if he screws up from time to time, so be it......nothing like having your breath taken away, I think.......LOL

In your definition easily a vote for a Montana type. But in reality an Elway type. Always rises to the top of the field year after year, takes your breathe away with natural ability and can always pull out a win no matter the situation, calm under pressure.

In football-Farve

In hunting-GWP

I want the dog (or employee for that matter) that is willing to risk everything in an effort to excel. If your not going to go all out I fail to see the point. It's not about winning or losing it is about doing something better than you've ever done it before. Anyone who participates just to win is missing the point in my opinion.

I'll take Montana at any stage in his career over the 2005-forward version of Favre.

First and foremost, I want a QB that knows he wants to keep playing.

Trial dog or hunter? For a trial dog I'd want a Favre dog. When the dog is on his game he wouldn't be beat. The judge's jaw would drop at what they just saw because no other dog could have done that. The worse the conditions the better the dog would perform. Even if the scout or handler was having a bad day the dog could easily carry the team to a win. Of course once the dog got older he would become a Prima Donna and become a runoff dog because you started trialing another dog.

For a hunting dog I may lean toward the Montana dog. The dog would work at a consistently high level, but there wouldn't be those "I can't believe what I just saw" moments like with the Favre dog. Of course when the younger dog comes into his own I'd have dump the older dog, but at least I'd know he'll come back in the end.

phermes1 wrote:I'll take Montana at any stage in his career over the 2005-forward version of Favre.

First and foremost, I want a QB that knows he wants to keep playing.

How about at the peak of careers?....it is easy to kick a guy on the way down and out.

In his prime Farve would be having Montana clean his locker and fetch his towels. Farve by a long shot would be QBing my football team if I had to choose between them both in their respective playing primes.

Well since I am a VIKING FAN I want Brett to come and play here for the Vikings.

Two Bears wrote:Well since I am a VIKING FAN I want Brett to come and play here for the Vikings.

Problem with the vikings is no matter who is QBing them....the team will choke when it counts. It is in their history/makeup....

As for a QB, Montana, no question, at anytime..........

Two Bears wrote:Well since I am a VIKING FAN I want Brett to come and play here for the Vikings.

Me too! lol.

I would take Montana.

Montana. I'll take a slightly less talented dog that keeps it's head in the game and produces consistent results rather than one you know is going to screw up big time with regularity, and never learn from it's mistakes.

As far a football players I'd take #16 over #4. IMO, other than a bigger arm, #4 was not a more talented football player than Montana. And Montana was the better athlete. Much smarter too.

Aslowhiteguy wrote:Montana. I'll take a slightly less talented dog that keeps it's head in the game and produces consistent results rather than one you know is going to screw up big time with regularity, and never learn from it's mistakes.

As far a football players I'd take #16 over #4. IMO, other than a bigger arm, #4 was not a more talented football player than Montana. And Montana was the better athlete. Much smarter too.

Better athlete? Come one I'm not much of a Favre fan right now, but the guy is an amazing athlete. Montana in his prime could never scramble as well as Favre could in his prime. Favre never had a wide receiver as good a Rice (Sharpe didn't play long enough) and still threw a lot of touchdowns. Favre played hurt a lot and his consecutive starts streak is probably one of his biggest records.

Aslowhiteguy wrote:
Montana. I'll take a slightly less talented dog that keeps it's head in the game and produces consistent results rather than one you know is going to screw up big time with regularity, and never learn from it's mistakes.

As far a football players I'd take #16 over #4. IMO, other than a bigger arm, #4 was not a more talented football player than Montana. And Montana was the better athlete. Much smarter too.

Better athlete? Come one I'm not much of a Favre fan right now, but the guy is an amazing athlete. Montana in his prime could never scramble as well as Favre could in his prime. Favre never had a wide receiver as good a Rice (Sharpe didn't play long enough) and still threw a lot of touchdowns. Favre played hurt a lot and his consecutive starts streak is probably one of his biggest records.

Great points on both sides-but what I want is Farve to grow into Montana I kinda doubt that will happen with dogs either.

Montana all the way! He has more titles, makes fewer mistakes, and always knew the right plays to make. He knew how to read the field and make the right throws, Farve has(had) a tremendous arm but got burned more often than not.

gspmo1 wrote:Montana all the way! He has more titles, makes fewer mistakes, and
always knew the right plays to make. He knew how to read the field and
make the right throws, Farve has(had) a tremendous arm but got burned
more often than not.

Farve made more plays than he got burned on, how soon they forget.....and when he did get burned, he was playing to win. He was the best.

muddycreek wrote:

Aslowhiteguy wrote:
Montana. I'll take a slightly less talented dog that keeps it's head in the game and produces consistent results rather than one you know is going to screw up big time with regularity, and never learn from it's mistakes.

As far a football players I'd take #16 over #4. IMO, other than a bigger arm, #4 was not a more talented football player than Montana. And Montana was the better athlete. Much smarter too.

Better athlete? Come one I'm not much of a Favre fan right now, but the guy is an amazing athlete. Montana in his prime could never scramble as well as Favre could in his prime. Favre never had a wide receiver as good a Rice (Sharpe didn't play long enough) and still threw a lot of touchdowns. Favre played hurt a lot and his consecutive starts streak is probably one of his biggest records.

Great points on both sides-but what I want is Farve to grow into Montana I kinda doubt that will happen with dogs either.

I'd have to say Montana was the better athlete. He was no slouch when it came to scrambling either. And as further evidence of his athletic ability I would point out that out of high school he was also recruited to play basketball. To be fair, both guys ended up being top notch NFL QB's, so we may be splitting hairs in regards to which one was the better athlete.

At least Joe knew when it was time to hang it up though. Bret should give him a call.

Farve played with the heart of a lion, I believe where Montana and a couple others, Elway, Marino, outshine him is in decision making, getting burnt while trying to win a game, is still getting burnt...... don't get me wrong, I believe him to be a great QB and perfect for Green Bay but I believe the three QB's I mention were more complete QB's, again not to take anything away from Farve and my very humble opinion

......and this relates to dogs how?

pear wrote:......and this relates to dogs how?

Well Favre likes to hunt with a dog , so we are good with the " relates to dogs how" issue..

Two Bears

Montana

I like my dog to get the job done. Trying too hard and taking unnecessary risks can be dangerous in the areas we hunt. A "Farve" dog is likely to fall of a cliff trying to do too much.

This is a no brainer.

In football, I agree with early post that Elway would be my choice.

Also, the comments about Montana, Elway, and Marino being better Quarterbacks - I also have to agree with this. If you think Farve is better than any one of these, your are either a green bay fan, John Madden, or someone crazy enough to think Madden actually knows anything about football past his man-crush on Farve.

I find it hard to stay on-topic and actually talk about dogs vs quarterbacks...

If I'm down by 5 on my own 20 with 2 minutes left, who I want taking the snap is a no-brainer. Montana wins those games. Favre sometimes does, but half the time he throws an INT instead.
Favre would probably give you a better highlight reel. Montana will fill your trophy case faster.

I'll take Montana. I want a QB that knows how to find the end zone and win championships. Nobody but nobody did it better.

I think you need to remember Favre never had Rice. Before you say it Freeman was not Rice. I would take either with Jerry.

Razor wrote:I think you need to remember Favre never had Rice. Before you say it Freeman was not Rice. I would take either with Jerry.

Montana got in done before Rice. With a slow white guy named Clark.

It's FAVRE not FARVE.

Aslowhiteguy wrote:

Razor wrote:I think you need to remember Favre never had Rice. Before you say it Freeman was not Rice. I would take either with Jerry.

Montana got in done before Rice. With a slow white guy named Clark.

Your kidding right?? Clark was a TE that caught the one pass in the end zone of the SB.

Razor wrote:I think you need to remember Favre never had Rice. Before you say it Freeman was not Rice. I would take either with Jerry.

I'll still take Montana. Freeman or Rice - neither of them would have made a difference when Favre throws it to the guys in the wrong jerseys.

Don't get me wrong - I think Favre was an incredible QB 10 years ago. It's too bad that the last 5 years have tarnished an otherwise impeccable legacy. 10 years from now, people will probably/hopefully forget what an *ss Favre was over these past few years and will appreciate him for his talent alone.

That being said, I'll take Montana. I might be a little bit biased in that regard, though. Montana was one of THE QB's when I really started paying attention to the game. Just as some folks might think that Staubach or Unitas were the best QB's ever, regardless of what anyone accomplishes after them. I watched Montana work too much magic in my 'impressionable years' to put many other QB's in the same league as him. Although Tom Brady merits serious consideration.

There are some great QBs mentioned here. Montano, Marino, Elway, I would take any of them any day over Farve. Don't get me wrong, Farve is very good. The other three are up there with the best ever though.

Probably the main reason Farve is so well thought of is Madden's man-crush on him. He won't shut up about Farve. And some people think Madden knows everything about football.

jt807 wrote:There are some great QBs mentioned here. Montano, Marino, Elway, I would take any of them any day over Farve. Don't get me wrong, Farve is very good. The other three are up there with the best ever though.

Probably the main reason Farve is so well thought of is Madden's man-crush on him. He won't shut up about Farve. And some people think Madden knows everything about football.

Or maybe it's because Favre is a 3 time MVP of the league, holds most of the noteable quarterback records, and is the most durable quarterback ever to play in the NFL.

Grange wrote:
Or maybe it's because Favre is a 3 time MVP of the league, holds most of the noteable quarterback records, and is the most durable quarterback ever to play in the NFL.

Durable is right! I mean, he's 40 and he's still playing! Or he's not! Or he is! Or he's not!

I would take Kenny Stabler.

Kenny Stabler !!!!!!!!! Do I detect a RAIDERS fan....., Farve holds most of the notable QB records ????? Wow , I did not realize that, I thought Payton Manning had made a pretty good run at some of those, hmmmm... speaking of Payton, I would take him over Farve any day

The original purpose of this post was to discuss the vastly different styles of dogs, however I will admit the path the thread has taken is very entertaining.

Yep, I would take the Snake any day. I just hope Al steps aside someday soon. Other wise I will still be routing for the worst team in the league. The Lions still make us look good though.