Drew Brees Legacy

[amfootball]

If Brees gets a second ring this year how does it affect his legacy? I think it immediately puts him ahead of the other two ring holders Eli and Ben because he is a better QB. It would be hard not to put Brady then him in the rank of things. Thoughts?

[Dustin]

It wouldn't affect his legacy at all. He's already one of the top 10 best QBs ever and a 1st ballot HOFer.

[amfootball]

It wouldn't affect his legacy at all. He's already one of the top 10 best QBs ever and a 1st ballot HOFer.

I agree in that regard. But I think it vaults him out of the one ring guys (Manning, Rodgers) and puts him ahead of Eli and Ben who are not first ballot HoFers IMO.

[Dustin]

I agree in that regard. But I think it vaults him out of the one ring guys (Manning, Rodgers) and puts him ahead of Eli and Ben who are not first ballot HoFers IMO.

He's already better than Eli and Roethlisberger anyone who argues otherwise is wrong.

[amfootball]

He's already better than Eli and Roethlisberger anyone who argues otherwise is wrong.

That is why it is an interesting topic I think. Those guys have two rings and led impressive playoff runs those years so even though statistically Brees is superior another ring would end all discussion. At least I think it would. lol.

[chad72]

Brees never produced such kind of numbers in San Diego. Sean Payton is a big reason for Brees' stats, goes without saying.

 

Eli and Big Ben (and Flacco included) are the kind of guys who never play up to their ceiling consistently in the regular season. But when their team is good enough to make the playoffs, they are the kinds that improvize and take chances, and that little improvization puts their teams over the top sometimes (shrugging off rushers and heaving it and letting WRs make plays comes to my mind right off the bat). That explains the discrepancy between their regular season and postseason numbers too, IMO.

 

Brees, Rodgers, Brady, and Peyton have one high level that they constantly play at and out of the 4, the improvization would be in the order of Rodgers, Brady, Brees and Peyton from high to low come playoff time. Just an observation.

 

But then, I have seen Brees' teammates on D, Rodgers' teammates on D, Peyton's teammates on D take a mental day off come playoff time not being able to seal the deal a LOT, pretty much like the Dodgers' hitters not providing run support for Kershaw thinking he will be perfect and they don't need to make as many plays. That is how I can see Brees, Rodgers, and Peyton being on the wrong end of a 36-41, 45-51, 35-38 score in the playoffs. I don't think it is a co-incidence.

 

That is why you have to tip your hat to Belichick's coaching because the Patriots have won more games with Brady committing more turnovers than throwing TDs (2006 Chargers, 2007 Chargers, 2011 Ravens) than many other teams when their QBs turn the ball over a few times. Belichick does not let the other facets of the Patriots team take that mental day off. He is the Vince Lombardi of this generation, no doubt in my mind.

[Nobody]

Are you implying it would make him better than Peyton?

[dynasty13]

Are you implying it would make him better than Peyton?

 

Yes, I believe that is the poster's 'hidden' intention ;)

[Guest TeamLoloJones]

If Brees gets a second ring this year how does it affect his legacy? I think it immediately puts him ahead of the other two ring holders Eli and Ben because he is a better QB. It would be hard not to put Brady then him in the rank of things. Thoughts?

Brees won't ever surpass Brady or Peyton regardless of how many rings he gets...sorry he just won't.  It will be between Brees and Rodgers for 3rd best qb of this era. (2000-now)  No one else is even close to those top 4.  Not Eli, not Big Ben.

[chad72]

Yes, I believe that is the poster's 'hidden' intention ;)

 

Hearing that from a Pats fan is refreshing.

 

Now, we can etch it in stone that amfootball fawns over Brady (duh?) and disparages/constantly attempts to disparage anything Peyton might be accomplishing or may have accomplished (she may thrown in a complimentary bone every now and then to get us to digress).

 

Any chance to cast a stone at Peyton, amfootball will be there with a front row seat, implicit or explicit,

[GoPats]

If Brady and Manning are 1 and 1A, I'd put Rodgers next, then Brees. When you get past those four guys there's a drop-off to the next "tier" that includes guys like Big Ben and Eli.

[amfootball]

If Brady and Manning are 1 and 1A, I'd put Rodgers next, then Brees. When you get past those four guys there's a drop-off to the next "tier" that includes guys like Big Ben and Eli.

Ok, what if Rodgers wins another ring? I think those two - Brees and Rodgers - are interesing QBs to debate because they are elite along with Brady and Manning even though they have not accomplished what those two have done. That is why I think if either one of them gets another ring with Brees in the best position this year it looks to do it, it puts him right behind Brady in terms of his legacy. I kind of see Manning in his own category. He is not just a one Sb QB as he has all the other merits - the league MVPs, regular season records, etc. - but legacy is accomplished in the post-season so that is why I posted the question. It easlily could have been what is Rodgers legacy if he gets another ring but honestly I just don't think his team is good enough this year but it is still early.

[bayone]

Brees never produced such kind of numbers in San Diego. Sean Payton is a big reason for Brees' stats, goes without saying.

 

Eli and Big Ben (and Flacco included) are the kind of guys who never play up to their ceiling consistently in the regular season. But when their team is good enough to make the playoffs, they are the kinds that improvize and take chances, and that little improvization puts their teams over the top sometimes (shrugging off rushers and heaving it and letting WRs make plays comes to my mind right off the bat). That explains the discrepancy between their regular season and postseason numbers too, IMO.

 

Brees, Rodgers, Brady, and Peyton have one high level that they constantly play at and out of the 4, the improvization would be in the order of Rodgers, Brady, Brees and Peyton from high to low come playoff time. Just an observation.

 

But then, I have seen Brees' teammates on D, Rodgers' teammates on D, Peyton's teammates on D take a mental day off come playoff time not being able to seal the deal a LOT, pretty much like the Dodgers' hitters not providing run support for Kershaw thinking he will be perfect and they don't need to make as many plays. That is how I can see Brees, Rodgers, and Peyton being on the wrong end of a 36-41, 45-51, 35-38 score in the playoffs. I don't think it is a co-incidence.

 

That is why you have to tip your hat to Belichick's coaching because the Patriots have won more games with Brady committing more turnovers than throwing TDs (2006 Chargers, 2007 Chargers, 2011 Ravens) than many other teams when their QBs turn the ball over a few times. Belichick does not let the other facets of the Patriots team take that mental day off. He is the Vince Lombardi of this generation, no doubt in my mind.

 

Team concept all the more important at playoff time, also coaching , Payton gone not calling plays Brees and team nothing , Brees couldnt out shoot other team to make up for bad D, Ryan now has turned Saints D around into a Force 

 

BB is greatest of caoches

 

If Brady and Manning are 1 and 1A, I'd put Rodgers next, then Brees. When you get past those four guys there's a drop-off to the next "tier" that includes guys like Big Ben and Eli.

 

both great answers, still says i have no likes, Man when did i use them, u get 20 a day and use only a few early am today

[GoPats]

Ok, what if Rodgers wins another ring? I think those two - Brees and Rodgers - are interesing QBs to debate because they are elite along with Brady and Manning even though they have not accomplished what those two have done. That is why I think if either one of them gets another ring with Brees in the best position this year it looks to do it, it puts him right behind Brady in terms of his legacy. I kind of see Manning in his own category. He is not just a one Sb QB as he has all the other merits - the league MVPs, regular season records, etc. - but legacy is accomplished in the post-season so that is why I posted the question. It easlily could have been what is Rodgers legacy if he gets another ring but honestly I just don't think his team is good enough this year but it is still early.

 

Too difficult to say, it would depend on how things went for Rodgers (or Brees) in the pursuit of that "next" ring. If they carried their teams and won shootout-type playoff games, my take would be different than if, say, their defenses carried them through some wins. 

 

I don't really agree that "legacy is created in the postseason." I've always said there's no hard and fast rule for that. Every legacy is different and unique. Marino's postseason woes are pretty well-documented but there's no denying he's a top-five all-time QB. Conversely, Joe Montana would not be a Hall of Fame QB if he had put up his regular season numbers without the multiple Super Bowl wins. As Pats fans we're lucky, we kind of get the best of both worlds, but at the end of the day, I'd take pedestrian stats for Brady with a title over a career year with an early playoff exit! 

[bayone]

Too difficult to say, it would depend on how things went for Rodgers (or Brees) in the pursuit of that "next" ring. If they carried their teams and won shootout-type playoff games, my take would be different than if, say, their defenses carried them through some wins. 

 

I don't really agree that "legacy is created in the postseason." I've always said there's no hard and fast rule for that. Every legacy is different and unique. Marino's postseason woes are pretty well-documented but there's no denying he's a top-five all-time QB. Conversely, Joe Montana would not be a Hall of Fame QB if he had put up his regular season numbers without the multiple Super Bowl wins. As Pats fans we're lucky, we kind of get the best of both worlds, but at the end of the day, I'd take pedestrian stats for Brady with a title over a career year with an early playoff exit! 

 

Mike Ditka after last Peyton game  ( on TV , few channels had it ) said he hates term greatest and hates that people say u need to win in playoffs, he said he hoped all have watched Peyton and can actually appreciate the Nuances ( my word ) he said simply the special things he does to elevate the players, manipulate the defense, move his players around , put them in best possible position, etc etc ertc & then execute the play beautifully   ,  its like nothing seen before he said and a special thing of beauty that he hopes fans can really appreciate the level his play has shown in many ways, even changing the play calling from 1st few games where often hiked after omaha word used and this time said it on hard counts and got 2 neutral zone infractions after the word was said and got first down on at least 1 with extra yardage , and then  a 1st down on next play with other if not just with yardage too

 

Remarked that in 3rd quarter basically no 3rd downs at all , just kept getting first down without needing a 3rd down try 

[GoPats]

Mike Ditka after last Peyton game  ( on TV , few channels had it ) said he hates term greatest and hates that people say u need to win in playoffs, he said he hoped all have watched Peyton and can actually appreciate the Nuances ( my word ) he said simply the special things he does to elevate the players, manipulate the defense, move his players around , put them in best possible position, etc etc ertc & then execute the play beautifully   ,  its like nothing seen before he said and a special thing of beauty that he hopes fans can really appreciate the level his play has shown in many ways, even changing the play calling from 1st few games where often hiked after omaha word used and this time said it on hard counts and got 2 neutral zone infractions after the word was said and got first down on at least 1 with extra yardage , and then  a 1st down on next play with other if not just with yardage too

 

Remarked that in 3rd quarter basically no 3rd downs at all , just kept getting first down without needing a 3rd down try 

 

I agree with Ditka. With all the sick 40 times and bench-press numbers and speed and physical skill on display in the NFL, it's pretty interesting that the best weapon in the game right now is Manning's brain.

[bayone]

I agree with Ditka. With all the sick 40 times and bench-press numbers and speed and physical skill on display in the NFL, it's pretty interesting that the best weapon in the game right now is Manning's brain.

 

yes I got in a new like on this one suddenly 

 

& u know i wont dissagree

[MAC]

Another variation on a constant theme.

 

Your argument is predicated on the assumption that all that matters is counting rings. You only feel this way because Brady has three.

 

Once again, comparing QBs is far more complicated than that. Brees is a far better QB than the others you mention. That was pretty obvious even watching him pick apart teams in San Diego. He is probably a HOFer at this point already, and his SB win has little to do with it.

 

In contrast, Eli and Rothlesberger would ONLY ever be in the SB conversation (with some people) BECAUSE of their SB TEAM wins.

 

Put it this way, can you imagine if Brees had played on some of those Steeler teams?

[amfootball]

Another variation on a constant theme.

 

Your argument is predicated on the assumption that all that matters is counting rings. You only feel this way because Brady has three.

 

Once again, comparing QBs is far more complicated than that. Brees is a far better QB than the others you mention. That was pretty obvious even watching him pick apart teams in San Diego. He is probably a HOFer at this point already, and his SB win has little to do with it.

 

In contrast, Eli and Rothlesberger would ONLY ever be in the SB conversation (with some people) BECAUSE of their SB TEAM wins.

 

Put it this way, can you imagine if Brees had played on some of those Steeler teams?

For sure. I always put stock in the rings and it is not because Brady has three. I think the greats of the greats have multiple championships. Why else did Lebron go to Miami when he was on his way to being the best statstical player of all time? And why when Manning was asking last year if his goal was to win the SB, did he say his goal is to win the SB every year? I think it is wide held belief but certainly not the only criteria but the one with the most weight.

 

I have Brees in this thread because like Brady he has been statistically dominant and already has one ring. I think two rings separates him in a unique way similar to Brady. I think the same could be said for Rodgers if he gets a second.

[amfootball]

Too difficult to say, it would depend on how things went for Rodgers (or Brees) in the pursuit of that "next" ring. If they carried their teams and won shootout-type playoff games, my take would be different than if, say, their defenses carried them through some wins. 

 

I don't really agree that "legacy is created in the postseason." I've always said there's no hard and fast rule for that. Every legacy is different and unique. Marino's postseason woes are pretty well-documented but there's no denying he's a top-five all-time QB. Conversely, Joe Montana would not be a Hall of Fame QB if he had put up his regular season numbers without the multiple Super Bowl wins. As Pats fans we're lucky, we kind of get the best of both worlds, but at the end of the day, I'd take pedestrian stats for Brady with a title over a career year with an early playoff exit! 

Montana was league MVP twice. Marino was league MVP once. It is a myth that Montana was not a great regular season performer. It is just is not emphasized because he has the four rings while Marino's stats are over emphasized because he has none.

[IndyTrav]

Its a pretty interesting debate.....Obviously Peyton has raw #'s over pretty much everyone in existence. So without using that....

 

Comparing them amongst there peers, and how many times they have led the league in QB categories. 

 

Completions/Attempts/Comp%/Yards/TD/INT

 

Peyton: 3/2/2/2/3/1

Brees: 3/2/3/4/4/1

 

Thats pretty amazing to me that Brees has led the league in yards and TDs 4x, where as Peyton with his HoF WRs and 3+ additonal years has only done it 2x in yards, 3x TDs....And he's only done it once since Brees got to NO, and that was Brees first year in NO....

 

 

Brees 7 year run in New Orleans may in fact be the greatest run a QB has ever had, statistically. Guy has averaged 4795/34/16 while in NO, while Peytons career avg is 3965/29/14......Thats crazy. 

[Dustin]

Its a pretty interesting debate.....Obviously Peyton has raw #'s over pretty much everyone in existence. So without using that....

Comparing them amongst there peers, and how many times they have led the league in QB categories.

Completions/Attempts/Comp%/Yards/TD/INT

Peyton: 3/2/2/2/3/1

Brees: 3/2/3/4/4/1

Thats pretty amazing to me that Brees has led the league in yards and TDs 4x, where as Peyton with his HoF WRs and 3+ additonal years has only done it 2x in yards, 3x TDs....And he's only done it once since Brees got to NO, and that was Brees first year in NO....

Brees 7 year run in New Orleans may in fact be the greatest run a QB has ever had, statistically. Guy has averaged 4795/34/16 while in NO, while Peytons career avg is 3965/29/14......Thats crazy.

im not sure where you're getting your numbers, but Peyton averages well over 3965 for his career. He has only thrown for less than 4000 twice.

[IndyTrav]

im not sure where you're getting your numbers, but Peyton averages well over 3965 for his career. He has only thrown for less than 4000 twice.

You sir, are correct, I added his injury season. His career avgs are:

 

4249/31/15, compared to Brees (in NO) 4795/34/16....

[jvan1973]

For sure. I always put stock in the rings and it is not because Brady has three. I think the greats of the greats have multiple championships. Why else did Lebron go to Miami when he was on his way to being the best statstical player of all time? And why when Manning was asking last year if his goal was to win the SB, did he say his goal is to win the SB every year? I think it is wide held belief but certainly not the only criteria but the one with the most weight.

I have Brees in this thread because like Brady he has been statistically dominant and already has one ring. I think two rings separates him in a unique way similar to Brady. I think the same could be said for Rodgers if he gets a second.

so you think Jim Plunkett was better than Brett Favre. You think Terry Bradshaw was better than Steve Young. You think Trent Dilfer was better than Dan Marino.

Championships are teams accomplishments not individual ones.

[GoPats]

Montana was league MVP twice. Marino was league MVP once. It is a myth that Montana was not a great regular season performer. It is just is not emphasized because he has the four rings while Marino's stats are over emphasized because he has none.

 

Fair point, believe it or not I sort of "forgot" about the MVP awards in 1989 and 1990.   :ashamed:

 

But that said, when you look at his career numbers, he was sickly efficient. They don't pop at  you from a production standpoint. He never threw for 4,000 yards in a season and his season high for TDs was 31. I know it was a "different era" but still, his legacy is all about the postseason mystique, not the regular season stuff.

[amfootball]

so you think Jim Plunkett was better than Brett Favre. You think Terry Bradshaw was better than Steve Young. You think Trent Dilfer was better than Dan Marino.

Championships are teams accomplishments not individual ones.

I think it is difficult to compare QBs from different eras because the game has changed so much. Bradshaw played in a heavy run focused era whereas Young, Favre and today's guys are in the passing era.

 

All any player can is the best of his generation which is why I was comparing Brees and his potential second ring as vaulting him behind Brady. I would never even begin to compare Brees to Marino much less Bradshaw. Such a different game today then back then. But I think it is fair to compare him to his contemporaries - Brady, Manning, Rodgers, Eli, Ben, etc. Hence the thread topic.

 

To your point about championships, I do no believe stats are individual either as so much depends on the personnel around the QB and the coaching scheme.

[jvan1973]

I think it is difficult to compare QBs from different eras because the game has changed so much. Bradshaw played in a heavy run focused era whereas Young, Favre and today's guys are in the passing era.

All any player can is the best of his generation which is why I was comparing Brees and his potential second ring as vaulting him behind Brady. I would never even begin to compare Brees to Marino much less Bradshaw. Such a different game today then back then. But I think it is fair to compare him to his contemporaries - Brady, Manning, Rodgers, Eli, Ben, etc. Hence the thread topic.

To your point about championships, I do no believe stats are individual either as so much depends on the personnel around the QB and the coaching scheme.

otto gragham the best ever. most championships= the best ever.

[Superman]

Read an amazing stat on Brees today: He's thrown a touchdown pass to 42 different receivers, as of Monday's game. That's just stupid. Guys like Brady and Manning and others don't really get that kind of chance, because they played for so long with one team (maybe Manning will, but the Colts had way less turnover than any team Brees has played for). But that really caught my attention.

[amfootball]

Fair point, believe it or not I sort of "forgot" about the MVP awards in 1989 and 1990.   :ashamed:

 

But that said, when you look at his career numbers, he was sickly efficient. They don't pop at  you from a production standpoint. He never threw for 4,000 yards in a season and his season high for TDs was 31. I know it was a "different era" but still, his legacy is all about the postseason mystique, not the regular season stuff.

When Brady won the AFC East last year he jumped ahead of Montana for most division titles at 10. Montana had 9. Also, in terms of winning percentage,  Montana is second only to Brady for his career. While I won't deny the talent around Montana, anyone who watched him played understood you were watching a surgeon all the time. He was methodical, took what the defense gave him, and then would hit Rice deep just when you thought he was going to go underneath. I can see why Brady gets compared to him a lot. Most QBs that have tremedous talent can't reel it when the pressure is on. This was Marino's problem IMO and also Manning as well. They lose patience, whereas Joe Cool never did and Brady was/is as closest to him as we will probably ever see. 

[Superman]

You sir, are correct, I added his injury season. His career avgs are:

 

4249/31/15, compared to Brees (in NO) 4795/34/16....

 

And that's (obviously) cherry picked for Brees. His numbers took off as a Saint. Before that, he was a good, not great, QB. Manning's career numbers up there are over twice the time span.

 

And that's really what, in my mind, sets Manning apart from the others, statistically speaking. He's been a stat machine for pretty much his entire career, before Brees and Rodgers were even in the league, and before Brady really started slinging it. In a way, Manning paved the way for the elite passers of today's generation; he's both a predecessor and a peer for these guys, including Brady. He was outperforming the guys who came before him already, and has continued to perform as well as the guys who came after him.

 

As for Brees, in comparison with anyone not named Brady or Manning, there just is no comparison right now. Rodgers will probably be in the discussion, and right now he's in the current elite grouping, but he doesn't have the history the other three have. Rodgers has just been so doggone good the last two seasons that he deserves to be on the list. Neither Roethlisberger nor Eli Manning are in that grouping. And I'd have Brees in that grouping even if he hadn't won in 2009. Brady has worked his way to the top 2 of list mostly because of what he's done since 2005, not because of what he was a part of prior to that.

 

Rings and postseason accomplishments are a part of the conversation, and always will be. But I personally don't think they carry more weight than the players entire body of work. They account for maybe 10% of a player's career, and in football, even a great quarterback is subject to the play of his teammates. That's especially so in the playoffs, where you're playing against the best competition. I don't downgrade any quarterback just because they haven't won a lot in the playoffs, or because another player has won more.

 

So if the premise of the thread is whether Brees needs another ring to be among the best of his generation, the answer is no. He's already no less than fourth. I'm not sure he can do anything to move up to second. 

[Jules]

Brees is a bit of the black sheep in the elite QB group even if he won 2 more rings. No matter how good he is in any given season they will give the MVP to Manning/Brady or Rodgers even. It's just how it is. People would rather not raise him up on that elusive pedestal IMO. Or the media at times anyway. It is almost as if many want him to be behind Manning/Brady and even Rodgers at times.....

 

They only really liked the Saints when they could use the Katrina story 24/7 since the NFL loves a good feel good story. And that was the ultimate....a football team inspiring it's people.

[Moose Of Woe]

If Brees gets a second ring this year how does it affect his legacy? I think it immediately puts him ahead of the other two ring holders Eli and Ben because he is a better QB.

 

Brees is, and has been, better than Ben and Eli by a mile.

 

The only QBs in the game you can  make a case being better than him are Rodgers, Peyton, and Brady. He's a great QB. If he had zero rings that wouldn't change.

[RGIII]

Brees is a bit of the black sheep in the elite QB group even if he won 2 more rings. No matter how good he is in any given season they will give the MVP to Manning/Brady or Rodgers even. It's just how it is. People would rather not raise him up on that elusive pedestal IMO. Or the media at times anyway. It is almost as if many want him to be behind Manning/Brady and even Rodgers at times.....

 

They only really liked the Saints when they could use the Katrina story 24/7 since the NFL loves a good feel good story. And that was the ultimate....a football team inspiring it's people.

 

Eh, look at who has won it and why they won it.  Brees has been undoubtedly elite since joining the Saints in 2006.  That year was the year LT broke the rushing TD record and won MVP.  The next year was the year Tom Brady broke the passing TD record and won MVP.  In 2008 the Saints only managed an 8-8 record so it went to Peyton who took the Colts to 12-4.  In 2009 Brees and Peyton were remarkably similar statistically but Peyton had slightly more passing yards, slightly more passing touchdowns, and finished with a slightly superior record at 14-2 to the Saints' 13-3.  In 2010 Brees was intercepted 22 times while Brady went 16 games with only 4 turnovers.  Last year we all saw what AP did and Brees was clearly never in the running with the Payton-less Saints.

 

He's been consistently prolific and consistently a top 3 QB... but he's been up against the spectacular every year.  2011 was clearly his best shot but he had to compete with Aaron Rodgers' best season as a pro as defending Super Bowl champ.

[Synthetic]

Brees will always be the guy at the end of the table that don't get the respect he deserves, like Jules says, he's the black sheep. Guy wins a Super Bowl 'but his defense did the work'. He shatters the passing record 'but he's a stat hog'. In just 5 years he shatters every N.O. franchise record in passing 'but they never had any good quarterbacks before him'. Brees could throw for 100 TD's and it would still be some excuse as to why he don't deserve no respect. He's been cheated out of an MVP twice in his career in 2009 and 2011.

 

 

He's like the James Cagney of quarterbacks. Cagney is no doubt one of the greatest actors ever, but when it comes down to it, he was always snubbed of awards despite how tremendous his performances were in movies, the awards always went to the next guy, and it was always some excuse. All these decades later we pretty much laugh at this. People remember him more than ever and that's probably how it will happen with Brees, he'll be remembered in the future and never forgotten.

 

 

There's no way on earth I would take Rodgers over him. I'm biased though, I think he's better than all 3 golden boys and the modern day Warren Moon if we ever had one. The playoffs is where it matters, and Brees has yet to choke in the playoffs at the Dome. Where Rodgers goes 15-1 dominating the league and lets a 9-7 Giants team blow them out. Not to mention last year, yet again. Take away that Super Bowl, and would people even put him in the top 3 category? I really like Rodgers, but in times he gets too much praise. He's not a comeback quarterback like Favre is remembered as one.

 

If there is a "Top 3" quarterbacks it is Manning, Brees, and Brady.

 

 

As far as Super Bowls go, at least he gets the job done when he needs to. Brees don't get enough credit for leading this team in comebacks when they are down by 14+ points, and he's done it so many times, it's become a normal thing.

 

One more thing; I'm sick to death of being constantly reminded Brees plays for the "Katrina Saints' give it a rest already. I suffered the hurricane just like everyone else, and I already get reminded every single game by some horrible commentator or a know-it-all on ESPN "but the Saints are a new team since hurricane Katrina!" it got old 7 years ago. We don't spend our lives down here dwelling on those painful memories of seeing our houses get flooded and losing the work of family generations. It's like when you have a drug or drinking problem and someone has to constantly remind you after you went clean that you were a junkie or drunk years ago but now you're clean as if it's supposed to make you feel good about yourself.

[amfootball]

Brees will always be the guy at the end of the table that don't get the respect he deserves, like Jules says, he's the black sheep. Guy wins a Super Bowl 'but his defense did the work'. He shatters the passing record 'but he's a stat hog'. In just 5 years he shatters every N.O. franchise record in passing 'but they never had any good quarterbacks before him'. Brees could throw for 100 TD's and it would still be some excuse as to why he don't deserve no respect. He's been cheated out of an MVP twice in his career in 2009 and 2011.

 

 

He's like the James Cagney of quarterbacks. Cagney is no doubt one of the greatest actors ever, but when it comes down to it, he was always snubbed of awards despite how tremendous his performances were in movies, the awards always went to the next guy, and it was always some excuse. All these decades later we pretty much laugh at this. People remember him more than ever and that's probably how it will happen with Brees, he'll be remembered in the future and never forgotten.

 

 

There's no way on earth I would take Rodgers over him. I'm biased though, I think he's better than all 3 golden boys and the modern day Warren Moon if we ever had one. The playoffs is where it matters, and Brees has yet to choke in the playoffs at the Dome. Where Rodgers goes 15-1 dominating the league and lets a 9-7 Giants team blow them out. Not to mention last year, yet again. Take away that Super Bowl, and would people even put him in the top 3 category? I really like Rodgers, but in times he gets too much praise. He's not a comeback quarterback like Favre is remembered as one.

 

If there is a "Top 3" quarterbacks it is Manning, Brees, and Brady.

 

 

As far as Super Bowls go, at least he gets the job done when he needs to. Brees don't get enough credit for leading this team in comebacks when they are down by 14+ points, and he's done it so many times, it's become a normal thing.

 

One more thing; I'm sick to death of being constantly reminded Brees plays for the "Katrina Saints' give it a rest already. I suffered the hurricane just like everyone else, and I already get reminded every single game by some horrible commentator or a know-it-all on ESPN "but the Saints are a new team since hurricane Katrina!" it got old 7 years ago. We don't spend our lives down here dwelling on those painful memories of seeing our houses get flooded and losing the work of family generations. It's like when you have a drug or drinking problem and someone has to constantly remind you after you went clean that you were a junkie or drunk years ago but now you're clean as if it's supposed to make you feel good about yourself.

Hard to disagree with much of what you say here. The only knock against Brees IMO is that sometimes he can he a TO machine. He has 169 picks in his career compared to only 125 for Brady. That being said, he is a guy that can lead his team back unlike Rodgers.

 

I think another ring gets him out of the black sheep category and puts him square behind Brady. His first four years in NO I believe were the best stastically over that time. Better than Manning and Brady.

 

I like his team this year because it looks like he has a solid D. They have not given up 20 points to any team yet this season...

[amfootball]

And that's (obviously) cherry picked for Brees. His numbers took off as a Saint. Before that, he was a good, not great, QB. Manning's career numbers up there are over twice the time span.

 

And that's really what, in my mind, sets Manning apart from the others, statistically speaking. He's been a stat machine for pretty much his entire career, before Brees and Rodgers were even in the league, and before Brady really started slinging it. In a way, Manning paved the way for the elite passers of today's generation; he's both a predecessor and a peer for these guys, including Brady. He was outperforming the guys who came before him already, and has continued to perform as well as the guys who came after him.

 

As for Brees, in comparison with anyone not named Brady or Manning, there just is no comparison right now. Rodgers will probably be in the discussion, and right now he's in the current elite grouping, but he doesn't have the history the other three have. Rodgers has just been so doggone good the last two seasons that he deserves to be on the list. Neither Roethlisberger nor Eli Manning are in that grouping. And I'd have Brees in that grouping even if he hadn't won in 2009. Brady has worked his way to the top 2 of list mostly because of what he's done since 2005, not because of what he was a part of prior to that.

 

Rings and postseason accomplishments are a part of the conversation, and always will be. But I personally don't think they carry more weight than the players entire body of work. They account for maybe 10% of a player's career, and in football, even a great quarterback is subject to the play of his teammates. That's especially so in the playoffs, where you're playing against the best competition. I don't downgrade any quarterback just because they haven't won a lot in the playoffs, or because another player has won more.

 

So if the premise of the thread is whether Brees needs another ring to be among the best of his generation, the answer is no. He's already no less than fourth. I'm not sure he can do anything to move up to second. 

So championships are a factor of the team but not stats? Manning had tremendous offense talent around him in Indy his entire career and now in Denver. And as you pointed out, Brady's numbers did not begin to sky rocket until he had great talent around him in 2007 and beyond. Same for Brees when he left SD for NO. You can't have this both ways. Conclude that post-season does not matter on the one hand because it is a team sport and then on the other hand say stats are not the result of the team. Both Brees and Brady would have matched Manning stat for stat had they had the offensive weapons around them the first half of their careers.

[Superman]

So championships are a factor of the team but not stats? Manning had tremendous offense talent around him in Indy his entire career and now in Denver. And as you pointed out, Brady's numbers did not begin to sky rocket until he had great talent around him in 2007 and beyond. Same for Brees when he left SD for NO. You can't have this both ways. Conclude that post-season does not matter on the one hand because it is a team sport and then on the other hand say stats are not the result of the team. Both Brees and Brady would have matched Manning stat for stat had they had the offensive weapons around them the first half of their careers.

 

You insist on taking this to its most extreme and arguing the fringes of this topic. I didn't not say that postseason doesn't matter. I said I don't think it is necessarily more meaningful than the other 200 games in a player's career; it's not a trump card. Brees, for instance, has been a much better quarterback than Eli and Ben since he went to NO. The fact that they both have a ring more than him doesn't undo his superior quarterbacking.

 

And yes, stats are partly attributed to the team. Again, don't take this to the extreme. And while Manning had better weapons, there was just a different brand of quarterbacking from him. You probably won't just accept this, but the Colts relied on their passing game more than other teams did. To me, Brady and the Pats shifted a couple years prior to 2005. I know his stats didn't take off until 2007, but he really started displaying the attributes necessary to carry a team much sooner than that. What was missing prior to 2007 were the weapons, not anything from the quarterback. 

 

In Brees' case, he's just been a different player entirely in NO. Maybe he would have developed into this kind of passer in San Diego. It's not like he was a bum. Like I said, he was a very good quarterback, just not great. But he was also young, still developing as a player. This might be the natural evolution of Drew Brees, but it seems pretty obvious that he's benefited tremendously from playing for Sean Payton.

 

Brees' weapons haven't necessarily been that much better the entire time he's been in NO. His best WR in 2006 was rookie Colston, a raw 7th rounder from Hofstra. Reggie Bush led the team in receptions. Outside of those two, no one else even had 40 catches. And I think Brees deserved MVP that season. They didn't really get weaponized until 2008 or so, with Shockey, Lance Moore, and a more balanced running game. Go back to his time in San Diego, he had Gates, LdT was a great receiver, and they had a great running game. He didn't blow in NO because they had more weapons. 

[amfootball]

You insist on taking this to its most extreme and arguing the fringes of this topic. I didn't not say that postseason doesn't matter. I said I don't think it is necessarily more meaningful than the other 200 games in a player's career; it's not a trump card. Brees, for instance, has been a much better quarterback than Eli and Ben since he went to NO. The fact that they both have a ring more than him doesn't undo his superior quarterbacking.

 

And yes, stats are partly attributed to the team. Again, don't take this to the extreme. And while Manning had better weapons, there was just a different brand of quarterbacking from him. You probably won't just accept this, but the Colts relied on their passing game more than other teams did. To me, Brady and the Pats shifted a couple years prior to 2005. I know his stats didn't take off until 2007, but he really started displaying the attributes necessary to carry a team much sooner than that. What was missing prior to 2007 were the weapons, not anything from the quarterback. 

 

In Brees' case, he's just been a different player entirely in NO. Maybe he would have developed into this kind of passer in San Diego. It's not like he was a bum. Like I said, he was a very good quarterback, just not great. But he was also young, still developing as a player. This might be the natural evolution of Drew Brees, but it seems pretty obvious that he's benefited tremendously from playing for Sean Payton.

 

Brees' weapons haven't necessarily been that much better the entire time he's been in NO. His best WR in 2006 was rookie Colston, a raw 7th rounder from Hofstra. Reggie Bush led the team in receptions. Outside of those two, no one else even had 40 catches. And I think Brees deserved MVP that season. They didn't really get weaponized until 2008 or so, with Shockey, Lance Moore, and a more balanced running game. Go back to his time in San Diego, he had Gates, LdT was a great receiver, and they had a great running game. He didn't blow in NO because they had more weapons. 

Good points. I think coaching is also part of the "team" topic here. Manning was fortunate to get Tom Moore and his offense in Indy which he has now brought to Denver. Brady has had Belichick and several very good OCs. I think Brees got the short end of the stick and played for a lousy org. I mean there is a reason why Eli refused to go there. You may be right that perhaps it took Brees a little longer to develop but I would guess that had he had Sean Payton from the get go his career would have been very similar to Manning and Brady.

[Buck Showalter]

Saints D is balling, with a stacked team Brees looks like the second coming, without Sean Payton or a defense Saints miss the playoffs...

18 took the Colts to the playoffs year in & year out with less than stellar defenses...

just saying...

[crazycolt1]

All this QB talk is opinions. Some think that rings are what make a QB the best. Some think pure stats make them the best. To say who is right is impossible because no one is going to give on their opinion one way of another. We have beat this dead horse thread over thread and never get anywhere. There have been great QBs in history who never won a super bowl and some not so great QBs who have a ring. It's always been the QB gets too much credit for wins and too much blame for losses. Most just overlook the fact that it is a team who makes a QB just as much as a QB makes a team. Marino had just as much talent than any of these QBs that have been brought up but yet he has zero rings because of the team he played on. Bradshaw has 4 rings because of the team he played on. There are a few QBs who were pretty low on talent compared to some we are talking about that have rings. Fans are selfish when it comes to their fav QB. They fail to see the team aspect of it all.