Drew Brees Legacy

[crazycolt1]

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. 

It is real apparent that you brought this thread up for your props for Brady and used Brees as a lead into that. Your not as clever as you think you are. if you would have let it go after a couple of comments you wouldn't come off as much of a Brady homer as you are. 

[amfootball]

It is real apparent that you brought this thread up for your props for Brady and used Brees as a lead into that. Your not as clever as you think you are. if you would have let it go after a couple of comments you wouldn't come off as much of a Brady homer as you are. 

Let what go? I have been discussing Brees the whole time in relation to Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Ben, Eli. If you want to read more into then that go ahead. It is no secret that I am fan of Brady.

 

The Montana topic was brought up by another poster and I was just responding to his point about Montana not being remembered as being a great regular season QB.

[crazycolt1]

Let what go? I have been discussing Brees the whole time in relation to Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Ben, Eli. If you want to read more into then that go ahead. It is no secret that I am fan of Brady.

 

The Montana topic was brought up by another poster and I was just responding to his point about Montana not being remembered as being a great regular season QB.

This beat a dead horse subject is exactly that. As far as QBs are concerned is there any QB besides Sammy Baugh who led the league as a QB, interceptions and kicking in the same year? So as you can see this debate could go on forever and no one would be happy till their own fav QB was on top in their own mind. 

[amfootball]

This beat a dead horse subject is exactly that. As far as QBs are concerned is there any QB besides Sammy Baugh who led the league as a QB, interceptions and kicking in the same year? So as you can see this debate could go on forever and no one would be happy till their own fav QB was on top in their own mind. 

You forgot this

[GoPats]

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. 

 

Sanest post in the thread! Bravo...

[GoPats]

But honestly... where does Mark Sanchez fit into this equation? You know, he did lead the league in buttfumbles last year... 

[No 1 Manning Fan]

A QB's greatness should be measured by offensive output, not rings, not even wins. By the logic of the OP, Eli Manning, Rothlisberger, Bradshaw, Griese, and Plunkett, are better than Marino, P. Manning, Unitas, Young, Jim Kelly, Tarkenton, all of whom were/are prolific passers, simply because of the number of rings.

Rings and wins are team accomplishments. Of course QB play effects the defense, but they are not ultimately responsible for the execution from one down to the next.

Come on people. This is the sort of stuff the uneducated general public thinks. I thought we were educated football fans here on this forum.

[amfootball]

A QB's greatness should be measured by offensive output, not rings, not even wins. By the logic of the OP, Eli Manning, Rothlisberger, Bradshaw, Griese, and Plunkett, are better than Marino, P. Manning, Unitas, Young, Jim Kelly, Tarkenton, all of whom were/are prolific passers, simply because of the number of rings.

Rings and wins are team accomplishments. Of course QB play effects the defense, but they are not ultimately responsible for the execution from one down to the next.

Come on people. This is the sort of stuff the uneducated general public thinks. I thought we were educated football fans here on this forum.

Nothing like putting words in my mouth. lol. My original post which seems eons ago was asking about Brees because he does have great offensive output over many seasons and a ring so I would think two rings would make his case as the second best Qb behind Brady for this era pretty solid. I only threw Eli and Ben in there because they do have two rings and have had some solid seasons as well just not to the level of Brees. While I do put the most stock in championships, the other things do matter but when a QB has BOTH then I think it becomes an easy pick. But many here disagree and the discussion has been good.

[No 1 Manning Fan]

Nothing like putting words in my mouth. lol. My original post which seems eons ago was asking about Brees because he does have great offensive output over many seasons and a ring so I would think two rings would make his case as the second best Qb behind Brady for this era pretty solid. I only threw Eli and Ben in there because they do have two rings and have had some solid seasons as well just not to the level of Brees. While I do put the most stock in championships, the other things do matter but when a QB has BOTH then I think it becomes an easy pick. But many here disagree and the discussion has been good.

How am I putting words in your mouth? You are alluding to the fact that Brees isn't on Eli's and Ben's level because he only has one ring. But Could be considered better if he wins another. I say screw the rings. He was better than them before he had a ring.

Marino and Kelly are better than Simms and Rypien, despite not having a ring.

The championship argue just doesn't cut it.

[Superman]

Nothing like putting words in my mouth. lol. My original post which seems eons ago was asking about Brees because he does have great offensive output over many seasons and a ring so I would think two rings would make his case as the second best Qb behind Brady for this era pretty solid. I only threw Eli and Ben in there because they do have two rings and have had some solid seasons as well just not to the level of Brees. While I do put the most stock in championships, the other things do matter but when a QB has BOTH then I think it becomes an easy pick. But many here disagree and the discussion has been good.

 

You don't see how this is the exact same debate, again?

[amfootball]

How am I putting words in your mouth? You are alluding to the fact that Brees isn't on Eli's and Ben's level because he only has one ring. But Could be considered better if he wins another. I say screw the rings. He was better than them before he had a ring.

Marino and Kelly are better than Simms and Rypien, despite not having a ring.

The championship argue just doesn't cut it.

I wasn't alluding to anything. I mentioned them because they are Brees' contemporaries and have had pretty solid seasons outside of their championship seasons just not to Brees' level. The only other Qbs to consider are Brady, Manning and Rodgers in the discussion. Your position is that Brees is already there in terms of being ahead of Ben and Eli. That is fine. But my question is where do you rank him if he gets another ring? Is he still behind Rodgers? Or ahead of him? What about in relation to Manning and Brady? That was the question. I just threw out the names because that would be the comparison for Brees. My position is that it would put him second behind Brady because he would have the stats and multiple rings. If you differ that is fine. That was the point of the thread. To spark discussion.

[amfootball]

You don't see how this is the exact same debate, again?

I apologize if this has been discussed before. In my time here I have not seen any threads on Brees. I felt it was relevant given his team is 4-0 and have a legit defense behind him which was not the case the last few seasons. I also think the whole team especially him and Payton are playing with a bit of chip on their shoulder given bounty gate.

[No 1 Manning Fan]

I wasn't alluding to anything. I mentioned them because they are Brees' contemporaries and have had pretty solid seasons outside of their championship seasons just not to Brees' level. The only other Qbs to consider are Brady, Manning and Rodgers in the discussion. Your position is that Brees is already there in terms of being ahead of Ben and Eli. That is fine. But my question is where do you rank him if he gets another ring? Is he still behind Rodgers? Or ahead of him? What about in relation to Manning and Brady? That was the question. I just threw out the names because that would be the comparison for Brees. My position is that it would put him second behind Brady because he would have the stats and multiple rings. If you differ that is fine. That was the point of the thread. To spark discussion.

And if he gets three rings does it make him better than Brady? If he gets 4 is he the best ever? The whole concept is ridiculous. This is not boxing. In boxing greatness is measured by holding the championship belt and for how long. That is a pretty decent measuring stick. Why? Because it is one on one, Mano a Mano.

Team games are a different animal all together. One player cannot take all take all the credit, nor all the blame. How can you say one player is better than another because one guy's team won a championship and the other guy's didn't?

Would you say that Hank Aaron was not the greatest hitter of his era because his team didn't win a World Series? Of course not. Would you say that Larry Bird might have been in the same category as Magic Johnson if he had won another title? No. He was already there. Their greatness is not dependent on a team accomplishment. They are simply great.

[shecolt]

amfootball writes:

 

It would be hard not to put Brady then him in the rank of things. 
 

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 think two rings separates him in a unique way similar to Brady.
 

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.

 

Also, in terms of winning percentage,  Montana is second only to Brady for his career.

 

My original post which seems eons ago was asking about Brees because he does have great offensive output over many seasons and a ring so I would think two rings would make his case as the second best Qb behind Brady for this era pretty solid.

 

 

 

And, shecolt is wondering:  "Does amfootball stay awake at night trying to think of new ways to tell us how great she thinks Brady is?"

[Jules]

amfootball writes:

 

It would be hard not to put Brady then him in the rank of things. 

 

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 think two rings separates him in a unique way similar to Brady.

 

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.

 

Also, in terms of winning percentage,  Montana is second only to Brady for his career.

 

My original post which seems eons ago was asking about Brees because he does have great offensive output over many seasons and a ring so I would think two rings would make his case as the second best Qb behind Brady for this era pretty solid.

 

 

 

And, shecolt is wondering:  "Does amfootball stay awake at night trying to think of new ways to tell us how great she thinks Brady is?"

 

 

 

Have to give her credit though for being so devoted!

 

 

[jskinnz]

This type of debate is mindless to me. It is message board & sports talk radio nonsense. You know what Brees' legacy will be no matter what he does from here on out? One of the best QB's of his era and among the best in the history of the game. Is here the best, 3rd best or 9th best QB ever - who freaking cares? That is a subjective debate with no right or wrong answer. There are no and will never be any hard fast rules to how those rankings are measureed. Which then begs the questin - why debate it at all? Just appreciate the quality of his play. Same with Brady, Manning, & the other greats of the generation.

[amfootball]

And if he gets three rings does it make him better than Brady? If he gets 4 is he the best ever? The whole concept is ridiculous. This is not boxing. In boxing greatness is measured by holding the championship belt and for how long. That is a pretty decent measuring stick. Why? Because it is one on one, Mano a Mano.

Team games are a different animal all together. One player cannot take all take all the credit, nor all the blame. How can you say one player is better than another because one guy's team won a championship and the other guy's didn't?

Would you say that Hank Aaron was not the greatest hitter of his era because his team didn't win a World Series? Of course not. Would you say that Larry Bird might have been in the same category as Magic Johnson if he had won another title? No. He was already there. Their greatness is not dependent on a team accomplishment. They are simply great.

I am not saying Brees isn't already great or that some how another ring would validate his greatness. I was talking about his legacy if he should get another ring.

 

In my view, which I readily admit is not the view of everyone, mulitple championships makes ones legacy more impactful especially when that player as you said is already a great player. Some feel Marino is the best to ever play the game. I get that view. I don't hold it. But totally understand where people are coming from when they say that.

 

At any rate, thanks for sharing your opinion as that is why I started this thread. I was just wondering what another ring would do to how peope view him overall in terms of his peers and the other greats that have played the game. Some see him as kind of the black sheep who should have won the MVPs in 2009 and 2011. So perhaps another ring erases that altogether. I don't know. Just posing the question as he has a pretty powerful team around him this year and I like them just as much as Seattle to come out of the NFC.

[amfootball]

amfootball writes:

 

It would be hard not to put Brady then him in the rank of things. 

 

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 think two rings separates him in a unique way similar to Brady.

 

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.

 

Also, in terms of winning percentage,  Montana is second only to Brady for his career.

 

My original post which seems eons ago was asking about Brees because he does have great offensive output over many seasons and a ring so I would think two rings would make his case as the second best Qb behind Brady for this era pretty solid.

 

 

 

And, shecolt is wondering:  "Does amfootball stay awake at night trying to think of new ways to tell us how great she thinks Brady is?"

I can always count on you SheColt to cut and past all my Brady comments into one nice post.

 

Good to see you posting. I hope things are well with your husband. I have been praying for you.

[dgambill]

I promised myself I wouldn't come into these threads but the Brees thing lurred me in to thinking it was an original idea....sadly...it didn't take long for me to realize this is just another thread about Brady being number 1. mehhh  So much potential this thread had. Why we have to rank everything is beyond me....its like an obsession. Great qb...one of the best of his generation...thats all we need to say....with or without rings.

 

 

amfootball writes:

 

It would be hard not to put Brady then him in the rank of things. 
 

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 think two rings separates him in a unique way similar to Brady.
 

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.

 

Also, in terms of winning percentage,  Montana is second only to Brady for his career.

 

My original post which seems eons ago was asking about Brees because he does have great offensive output over many seasons and a ring so I would think two rings would make his case as the second best Qb behind Brady for this era pretty solid.

 

 

 

And, shecolt is wondering:  "Does amfootball stay awake at night trying to think of new ways to tell us how great she thinks Brady is?"