For Drew Brees To Be Considered One Of The Best NFL QB Of All Time (3 Viewers)

[blackngold4877]

You do realize that Manning was selected #1 overall and turned his team around almost immediately? Teams that are loaded with talent don't select #1 overall.

Yeah, poor Peyton got drafted by a team with Marvin Harrison and Marshall Faulk, then they replaced Faulk with Edgerrin James. Yeah, no talent.

 

[Gumbo's Dad]

First off I'd like to say, Horry is about as clutch as they get (aside of Jordan single handedly taking over games). When (especially) he was with the Lakers, PJ would keep him out most of the game then put him in (especially in playoffs and championship games) in the end to drain threes.

Now that I got off subject, I think of all the present day QBs (and I'm putting my homerism aside), Drew has the best chance of claiming G.O.A.T. IMHO, Montana has that label, and I know it's debatable, but Brees is more or less today's version of Montana. I think it's realistic to think Brees has another 2-4 championships in him as long as improvements on defense keep coming. The similarities between the two are almost eerie. If you look at both rosters (from the late 80s, early 90s) you can almost plug the names in at the same positions and it's pretty much a wash... Even on defense.

Yeah, I think Montana is the GOAT. And not because of stats, but because of SB's won. It will take at least one more SB win, and probably more, for Drew to be considered GOAT. He is statistically better than Montana. But with stats alone you get Fouts or Marino.
But I see a lot of parallels between Montana and Drew. The proof is in the SB wins.

 

[lvsaintsfan57]

You do realize that Manning was selected #1 overall and turned his team around almost immediately? Teams that are loaded with talent don't select #1 overall.

They do when their QB is named Jim Harbaugh... Once again, not a knock to Manning, but look at Detroit, terrible team but give them an elite QB, they're 10-6 instead of 6-10. As mentioned before, Harrison and Faulk/James aren't scrubs... QB was the missing piece to the puzzle in Indy...

 

[FleurDeLeap]

He's already proven how accurate he can be, how many passing yards he can get in a single season, and won a Super Bowl along with winning the Super Bowl MVP. The only thing I see really missing is a regular season MVP, but he should have won that award last year and this year. I guess more Super Bowl wins and the most passing yards of all-time could help him claim the title of greatest QB of all time. Oh yeah and he does have quite a few 4th quarter comebacks.

 

[Anteros77]

Yeah, poor Peyton got drafted by a team with Marvin Harrison and Marshall Faulk, then they replaced Faulk with Edgerrin James. Yeah, no talent.

Right, because Joe Horn, Colston, Reggie Bush and Deuce were all scrubs right?

No. Both teams had talent on the roster. Both teams talent was realized when they added an elite QB. Personally I think Drew has surpassed Peyton...but let's not undervalue what Peyton did in Indy just because we want to prop Drew up.

 

[Optimistic Ozzy]

Brees caused hell to freeze over and pigs to fly, how many QB's have that on their resume'?
Nuff SAID!!!!! 2 DAT!

 

[SaintsFanInLA]

I just think it's a little unfair to reward QBs who have great defenses with the title of "greatness".

Drew was better in numbers prior to the Super Bowl year but we didn't make the playoffs because of our deplorable defense. Drew was still great this year, but now we have a ball-hawking defense and with it came a Super Bowl Championship which is now getting Drew his credit.

That hardly seems fair.

 

[NYCsaint]

If Drew continued to put up the numbers he's had for the next 4-5 years, is he automatically in the discussion of the greatest of all time?

Or does he have to win more championships regardless of the numbers? If so, how many does he have to win in order to be legitimately in this discussion?

I don't really know how I feel about this. Because, to me Drew was the best QB in the league a few years ago even when our defense was substandard. And since he was given a defense and we won a Championship, now the pundits are giving him some serious credibility.

I don't actually think it's fair to judge athletes solely on championship rings won but I do understand it. I think Robert Horry has 7 or 8 NBA Championships but in NO WAY would I ever consider him a better or greater player than Charles Barkley or Karl Malone who both have NO rings. (Just so you understand where I am coming from.) But I do think winning a championship as a percentage of evaluating the greatness of a player has merit.

Right now, Montana and Brady are considered the creme de la creme with Peyton Manning knocking on the door of that. In fact, had the Colts won this past Super Bowl, I think many were already trying to crown him as the best QB of all time.

If Brees wins 2-4 more Super Bowl Championships, I don't think that there is any question that he would be in the Montana/Brady discussion but in your opinion what exactly would he have to do to be legitimately in that discussion?

Well, to address the Horry v Barkley/Malone issue, I think there is a big difference between leading a championship team and being a player on a championship team. Where Jordan WON championships, Horry helped win championships. Its a big difference. Also, Its much easier to argue that the greatest (insert any position here) in the NBA has to have rings is because you can carry a team from any spot on the floor.

Drew will have to win atleast 1, probably 2+ more rings because the measuring stick for a qb isnt how many touchdowns, yards, etc... its whether you can carry your team to a victory, and more particularly big game wins. There are only two ways to judge that, win/loss record (which doesnt account for big games), and titles. You dont see the same rings debate with other positions because your WR, CB, safety, arent expected to carry you the same way -- it helps there cause if they have come up big in the SB, but its not a disqualifier as it is with Marino, Kelly etc. When debating if a player like Ed Reed is the greatest safety, Ive never heard someone say "if only he had a couple more rings"

 

[NYCsaint]

I just think it's a little unfair to reward QBs who have great defenses with the title of "greatness".

Drew was better in numbers prior to the Super Bowl year but we didn't make the playoffs because of our deplorable defense. Drew was still great this year, but now we have a ball-hawking defense and with it came a Super Bowl Championship which is now getting Drew his credit.

That hardly seems fair.

Part of it is that a QB is thought to be responsible for a certain level of organizational leadership, not even just offensively. He sets a tone for the whole team. He can inspire players to come be a part of that defense. Coaches want to be on the staff. He doesnt just take control of the huddle, but his attitude permeates the entire franchise.

Look at how Gregg talks about Drew. Do you think that he would be here if not for Drew being on the roster? Sharper would be here? As overreaching as it sounds, that Drew gets a little bit of credit for that ball hawking defense that helped get him there. Thats the kind of thing that I think seperates not just the good from the great, but the great from the greatest of all time. Is he there yet? no, but hes building the resume and has a strong foundation.

 

[Doronin]

At my last job interview, we got into that discussion about how to present a case for a player in today's league. My belief is that overwhelmingly, everyone has the big numbers now. The only way stats stand out anymore is if they look more akin to something from a video game than reality.

When it comes to HoF voting, they are going to look at stats, where they place all-time with those stats and then take a very subjective look at what they meant to their franchise(s). Then the "Did they get a ring?" question will pop up. Post-season records and whatnot are fun to argue over, but when it comes right down to it, one Super Bowl ring, just one, weighs far more than any amount of stats. Case and point, Joe Namath had modest statistics even by the standards of his era, but he's in the Hall. Why? He had a presence that was probably bigger than the game, and arguably saved the AFL with what he accomplished in Super Bowl 3. Seriously, if the Jets do not win the Super Bowl that year, then everything that succeeded it with the merger of the NFL/AFL may have been completely different. But the point is, the stats, even judged by his contemporaries, were not that impressive.

Drew Brees, lets face it, he's going to get a "Katrina double bonus" when his name comes up for debate. Now stop for a second and put yourselves in the shoes of some sports writer that votes on these things from up in Washington state or something, and look at it externally for a minute without the black and gold glasses. He came in with a busted shoulder, and immediately took a beleaguered franchise with a terrible history, who was recently on the verge of relocating after a hurricane, and got them a division title and an NFC title game appearance. All in his first season with them. Then with perseverance and a refusal to quit, was able to help will the team into it's first Super Bowl appearance ever, and won it against all odds against a sure-fire Hall of Famer in Peyton Manning who had already been there and done that.

Right now, as it stands, all Drew needs to do is remain consistent and he'll be getting fitted for a yellow jacket. Assuming all he does is put up consistent numbers (ex: ~28 TD, less than 15 INTs per year), then he will get in. Probably as a second or third ballot, but he will get in for everything he did off the field in addition to what he meant to the Saints. Now if he is consistent in getting the team into the postseason and manages to get one more Super Bowl ring? He'll be first ballot, no question about it.

The point of this is to not overstate the stats. That one ring was certainly enough to elevate Brees to HoF status, IF, he remains statistically consistent for another 5-6 years. Whether or not he is first ballot, or later depends on what other accolades he can rack up along the way.

The only way Brees fails to make it in the HoF is if, God forbid, something catastrophic occurs (serious enough injury, etc.) which would prevent him from playing, or if the franchise suddenly took a total nosedive (very unlikely) and made him look bad in the process.

The only time QBs need the absurdly freaky stats to get in the HoF is when they do not have a Super Bowl win. I think that has been proven ad nauseum with guys like Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Jim Kelly and Warren Moon.

 

[PTisCruisin]

To be the greatest of all time you have to have the greatest numbers of all times.

The QBs:

-with the most SB rings have 4. Brees has 1

-with most passing yards: Favre-69,000, Marino-61,000, Manning - 50,000, Brees(30,600) isn't even in the top 20 yet(about 33,000).

-with the most completions: Favre-6,000, Marino-almost 5,000, Manning 4,200, Brees-2,700(Brunell is 20th with 2,753)

-with the most pass TDs: Favre-500, Marino-420, Manning-366, Brees-202, Steve Young is 20th with 232

These are just some of the categories and their leaders, and where Brees sits.

So, as you can see Brees, statistically is chasing Favre, Marino, and Manning. Montana was top 10 in each of these categories (9,9,10) with him being at the top in SB rings.

Since Montana is arguably one of the best if not the best QB of all time, I think Brees needs to finish his career in the top 10 in each of these categories and get at least 3 total SB rings. The higher he ends up in the stats sheet, the less SB rings he'll need. He'll certainly need to continue what he's done the last 4 years, for about another 5 or 6, in my opinion.

 

[SaintsFanInLA]

To be the greatest of all time you have to have the greatest numbers of all times.

The QBs:

-with the most SB rings have 4. Brees has 1

-with most passing yards: Favre-69,000, Marino-61,000, Manning - 50,000, Brees(30,600) isn't even in the top 20 yet(about 33,000).

-with the most completions: Favre-6,000, Marino-almost 5,000, Manning 4,200, Brees-2,700(Brunell is 20th with 2,753)

-with the most pass TDs: Favre-500, Marino-420, Manning-366, Brees-202, Steve Young is 20th with 232

These are just some of the categories and their leaders, and where Brees sits.

So, as you can see Brees, statistically is chasing Favre, Marino, and Manning. Montana was top 10 in each of these categories (9,9,10) with him being at the top in SB rings.

Since Montana is arguably one of the best if not the best QB of all time, I think Brees needs to finish his career in the top 10 in each of these categories and get at least 3 total SB rings. The higher he ends up in the stats sheet, the less SB rings he'll need. He'll certainly need to continue what he's done the last 4 years, for about another 5 or 6, in my opinion.

I think that this post is the best one yet to explain the "how" or "why" as it relates to Drew and being the GOAT. Good post man. + rep

 

[bornnraisedwhodat]

Looking at the 2010 NFL Facts and Records book, Drew is on his way. He is all over that book. He is 31 years old, a good 6-7 more years of consistent play, some more stellar post season performances, and another ring or 2...it would be hard not to say he has reached GOAT status.

 

[SaintJ]

I think it's Unitas and Montana. I just do. Mixing up all the qualitative and quantitative criteria, I throw in Graham, Baugh, Starr, Marino, Elway, Favre, Manning, Brady and Young in there as well right behind them.

While Unitas may not have as many rings or numbers, I see him as the inventor of the modern QB position, the prototype combination of coach on the field, physically courageous leader and great, great passer all in one, the mold from which guys like Montana, Manning and Marino were built.

 

[sean5340]

One more championship and he's in. No matter when it happens.