Poll on Drew Brees (rank as all time Saints QB) {merged} (1 Viewer)

Is Drew Brees one of the best Saints QB's ever?

  • Yes, he should be mentioned with the best of our former leaders.

    Votes: 311 96.9%
  • No, he's not the calibre of Jeff Blake or maybe Archie Manning yet. Give it time.

    Votes: 10 3.1%

  • Total voters
    321
If Jeff Blake is "one of the greatest Saints QBs ever" from only 11 games started, then yes, Drew Brees just blows everyone out of the water.

The problem is, Jeff Blake isn't, precisely because he only played 11 games, and so neither is Brees yet. Longevity has to count for something.

There is zero doubt Drew Brees will surpass all former Saints QBs, Hebert, Manning, Brooks, etc, but to have this discussion 8 games into his era is probably not fair.
 
>>I'm not understanding why Jeff Blake is being mentioned in the same category as Archie Manning. Is it sarcasm? The guy played half a season for us, with average stats.

See CT's post. He's got our best winning percentage BY FAR of any of our QB's who played a minimum of 10 games. And he's slighted too often by thsoe who long for the yesteryears filled with misery and unahppy endings. I'm assuming Hebert is probably second, but I don't have the Saints Almanac to cross-reference. Brooks or maybe Dave Wilson (who did have an 8-8 year and I think a 7-9 year) or maybe Kramer or Wade Wilson would probably be close behind. I'm thinking Bobby Scott would be one of the lowest.

Remember, being a smart "field general" can be important to your team's success. However, winning is all that really matters. ;)

TPS
 
As of Nov 6th 2006 My top 6 saints QBs of All time:

1. Manning
2. Brees
3. Hebert
4. Blake
5. Everett
6. Brooks
 
As of Nov 6th 2006 My top 6 saints QBs of All time:

1. Manning
2. Brees
3. Hebert
4. Blake
5. Everett
6. Brooks

Yeah a lot of people forget that ol' "Chris" Everett was a pretty solid QB, but he only had 2 solid seasons at NO.

Still baffled anyone puts a QB on their list when he hasn't started even an entire season. Guess that's more a commentary on the quality of QB we're used too
 
I think he is right there talent wise. He is probably the best field general we have ever had, but might be lacking some of the strong arm passing skills of someone like Manning or Everett.

Given some time, he should easily be considered our best ever.
 
Yeah a lot of people forget that ol' "Chris" Everett was a pretty solid QB, but he only had 2 solid seasons at NO.

Still baffled anyone puts a QB on their list when he hasn't started even an entire season. Guess that's more a commentary on the quality of QB we're used too


Yeah, my list is contingent of Brees continuing to play the way he has played so far. I feel safe in doing it because he is an experienced QB and has been around long enough that I feel confident that he will not go through a melt-down the way Brooks did.

To be honest, the only other time I have seen a Saints' passing game working this well was with Brooks in 2001 and part of 2002. Blake may have done the same had we added some more weapons and had he been given another year, but the truth is that Blake was not as good a QB with the Bengals as Brees was with the Chargers. Right now, Brees just looks to be in complete command.

But, you are right, there just isn't much to choose from. When you only have one playoff win, and that QB had a complete meltdown, and your consensus best QB ever never won a playoff game and IIRC threw more Interceptions than TD's it really a sad and subjective debate.
 
Yeah, my list is contingent of Brees continuing to play the way he has played so far. I feel safe in doing it because he is an experienced QB and has been around long enough that I feel confident that he will not go through a melt-down the way Brooks did.

To be honest, the only other time I have seen a Saints' passing game working this well was with Brooks in 2001 and part of 2002. Blake may have done the same had we added some more weapons and had he been given another year, but the truth is that Blake was not as good a QB with the Bengals as Brees was with the Chargers. Right now, Brees just looks to be in complete command.

But, you are right, there just isn't much to choose from. When you only have one playoff win, and that QB had a complete meltdown, and your consensus best QB ever never won a playoff game and IIRC threw more Interceptions than TD's it really a sad and subjective debate.


Agreed.

I'd go

1. Manning
2. Hebert
3. Brooks
4. Everett

Blake may have been 3, maybe even 2, but he lost his job. 11 games is to small a sample.

I have zero doubts Brees will surpass all 4 on that list. If he strings together just 2 playoff seasons (this season and the next) he'd almost, by default, go to the top. I mean when you think about it, the only "winner" we've ever had was Bobby Hebert of all people. How pathetic is that?
 
>>Blake may have been 3, maybe even 2, but he lost his job. 11 games is to small a sample.

I went with minimum 10 games. :hihi:

He broke his foot. Those rainbow passes to Joe Horn were legendary! I think the staff got caught up in the Aaron Brooks hype just the way the fans did since he took it to the hated Mike Martz Rams in the 2000 Playoffs played in 2001. We went 2-1 and almost won the Christmas present game. I'll never forget some Rams fans walking out of the dome and hearing Detroit had knocked off someone else to get them their wildcard appearance (loss to the Saints).

7-3 is it though. Hebert only played in 16 games in 2 seasons (1988 where we went 10-6 and 1992 when we went 12-4. His best completion percentage was in 1989 where he was 222-353 for 2,686 yards and 15/15 TD/INT. We went 6-7 that year under Hebert until John Fourcade (the "savior") came in and swept the last 3 games for us.

Blake, on the other hand, went 184-302 for 60.9% completion percentage, 2,025 yards and 13/9 TD/INT. His winning percentage of 70% is what matters though. That's Broncos and Patriots numbers over time, something he didn't have.

TPS
 
Blake, on the other hand, went 184-302 for 60.9% completion percentage, 2,025 yards and 13/9 TD/INT. His winning percentage of 70% is what matters though. That's Broncos and Patriots numbers over time, something he didn't have.

TPS

Yeah Steve, but how good were Brooks' numbers after 10 games?

Blake was playing well, but I didn't think he was playing great even then. Should he have gotten his job back to start the next year? Absolutely. But, you have to admit that Brooks was very good in 2001 and for 3/4 of 2002, much better overall than Blake was for the 10 games he played. Oh, and you know you just choose 10 games as an arbitrary number because you love Blake. Blake Lover. (t.m. St. Widge):ezbill:

In addition, unlike Brees, Blake had not played to that level before he got to the Saints. Brees proved before he got here that he was a Pro-Bowl caliber QB. Blake had a nice 10 games, but I don't think that makes him a great QB, even on a Saints QB scale, especially when you consider he never played that well before he got to the Saints, or after he left the Saints.
 
FWIW, it's hard to rank the "best ever" Saints QB's because you have to factor in different things if you're not looking solely at winning percentage. Because of our mostly dreadful history, Archie Manning usually tops most people's lists. He's a very likable guy and played his *** off as much as he could. But it never amounted to any post-season appearances. Bobby Hebert had a pretty good regular season record and did help us make the playoffs 4 times (might have been 3). But that's as far as we went. And the Saints had superior defenses during some of those years. Others may look at things done with other teams (Wade Wilson, Tommy Kramer, Snake Stabler, Billy Kilmer, etc.) and Super Bowl apperances. But those don't mean much to me. For now (until Brees gets his 10th game under him and we see where we are at that point), I have it:

Blake
Hebert
Manning (4, 3)
Brooks (3, 4)

Manning is "Mr. Saint" and does deserve to be mentioned as our best quarterback ever - as long as it comes with the asteriks that we sucked during most of his career. Anyone can play the "if" game (if if was a *insert your favorite noun and punchline here*). And "if" we had anything resembling the year our offense sent 5 players to the pro bowl (1979 I think), then maybe Manning could have shown what he was worth at that proverbial next level.

Brooks played .500 ball here for 4 seasons.

TPS
 
>>Blake may have been 3, maybe even 2, but he lost his job. 11 games is to small a sample.

I went with minimum 10 games. :hihi:

He broke his foot. Those rainbow passes to Joe Horn were legendary! I think the staff got caught up in the Aaron Brooks hype just the way the fans did since he took it to the hated Mike Martz Rams in the 2000 Playoffs played in 2001. We went 2-1 and almost won the Christmas present game. I'll never forget some Rams fans walking out of the dome and hearing Detroit had knocked off someone else to get them their wildcard appearance (loss to the Saints).

7-3 is it though. Hebert only played in 16 games in 2 seasons (1988 where we went 10-6 and 1992 when we went 12-4. His best completion percentage was in 1989 where he was 222-353 for 2,686 yards and 15/15 TD/INT. We went 6-7 that year under Hebert until John Fourcade (the "savior") came in and swept the last 3 games for us.

Blake, on the other hand, went 184-302 for 60.9% completion percentage, 2,025 yards and 13/9 TD/INT. His winning percentage of 70% is what matters though. That's Broncos and Patriots numbers over time, something he didn't have.

TPS

You're putting to much stock in winning percentage, believe it or not. Damon Haurd is 5-2 right now and stands to extend that to 7-2 (Oakland and Miami up next), but that hardly makes him the next Brady.

If you put up 70% winning percentage over 5 years, win 3 Super Bowls, are clutch in the playoffs, sure, maybe you got something there. But going 7-3 in the regular season (or 5-2, or Kyle Orten going like, what, 8-3?, or Trent Dilfer taking Baltimore to the Super Bowl) is pretty meaningless by itself. That's why an 11 game sample is to small. It's just not enough. We went 7-3 for a lot of different reasons, some of which was Blakes play, much of which wasn't however.
 
>>Blake was playing well, but I didn't think he was playing great even then. Should he have gotten his job back to start the next year? Absolutely. But, you have to admit that Brooks was very good in 2001 and for 3/4 of 2002, much better overall than Blake was for the 10 games he played. Oh, and you know you just choose 10 games as an arbitrary number because you love Blake. Blake Lover. (t.m. St. Widge)

Bottom line? 7-3 with 60% of a new team, new staff and new attitude. It even took a while for us to gel, but some of those games were a thing of beauty. We started off 1-3, but then it was on. We won 6 straight until his leg got rolled up in Oakland bringing in Aaron Brooks off the bench. We lost that one going 3-3 (Aaron Brooks ball = .500) the rest of the way. Forget pro-bowls. It's all about wins.

TPS
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom