RealGM

Had one touchdown taken back due to a penalty and one unlucky interception yesterday. Had one interception that should have been a punt against Carolina. He has played great in the playoffs and this year was no exception. Given an equal supporting cast for every quarterback if someone were to pick Drew Brees before Rodgers, Montana and Manning as the greatest quarterback ever I couldn't complain though I'd likely take Rodgers first. Should he be in the discussion for the greatest quarterback ever?

definitely a discussion for GOAT

Lowkey yesterday I think the saints threw the game. That was some WWE type stuff

He will take over as the leader in all time passing yards early next season. He is also 6th all time in passer rating (though 2-7 are all really close, so the difference is negligible).

He's definitely one of the best ever.

One of the most fun QBs I've watched. He pretty much always looks like he's having a good time.

Greatest QB ever?

Uhhh... no.


One of the all time greats?

Yup.

All accolades and career accomplishments aside, I'm taking Aaron Rodgers over every other qb.

I think he's #3 of active QBs now, so no, not GOAT.

Dont think anyone (active), Rodgers included, legitimately challenges Brady, who's surgical with his throws. As far as retired players go, Montana, Favre, Peyton, Unitas, Marino.. I think I'd have them all ahead of Brees as well.

FNQ wrote:I think he's #3 of active QBs now, so no, not GOAT.

Dont think anyone (active), Rodgers included, legitimately challenges Brady, who's surgical with his throws. As far as retired players go, Montana, Favre, Peyton, Unitas, Marino.. I think I'd have them all ahead of Brees as well.

There aren't any significant all time measurables where you can even justify having Drew Brees lower than maybe 3-5 all time.

I feel like I cut that short without taking the time to justify what I said. All stats are all time, of course.
Completions: Brees is second, he'll pass Favre by about week three next season.
Yards: Third, he'll be first by about mid season next year.
TDs: Tied for third and will be neck and neck with Brady to pass Favre for second.
Passer Rating: 6th (behind Wilson and Romo? Wtf?)
Completion %: First all time.
Game Winning Drives: 6th and will likely move up to 4th next year and already a solid 8 slots ahead of Joe Montana (who's tied with Vinnie Testeverde and only one ahead of Matt Stafford, go figure)

I have no problem with him in the Top 5. I'm not sure that I would put him above either Brady or Montana. Championships matter regardless of the stats because in the end that's the ultimate goal. Even with that, I place him above guys like Bradshaw and Staubach based on his numbers. There has to be a balancing act in all of this where the two meet. But I could easily have him at #3 and the numbers would support it.

RavenMad31 wrote:

FNQ wrote:I think he's #3 of active QBs now, so no, not GOAT.

Dont think anyone (active), Rodgers included, legitimately challenges Brady, who's surgical with his throws. As far as retired players go, Montana, Favre, Peyton, Unitas, Marino.. I think I'd have them all ahead of Brees as well.

There aren't any significant all time measurables where you can even justify having Drew Brees lower than maybe 3-5 all time.

Different eras. If you want to compare the pass happy attack of today vs the more balanced approach of 20 years ago, then all the QBs now are 'better'. I have him 3rd behind Brady and Rodgers now.. are you saying there aren't 2 QBs in NFL history I'd rather have? Because Peyton is an easy one, and then in terms of ball placement, Montana and Marino I'd take too. I think Brees and Favre are on the same level.. Unitas is the toughest one to evaluate because that era was the most exaggerated anti-pass era in football.

RavenMad31 wrote:

FNQ wrote:I think he's #3 of active QBs now, so no, not GOAT.

Dont think anyone (active), Rodgers included, legitimately challenges Brady, who's surgical with his throws. As far as retired players go, Montana, Favre, Peyton, Unitas, Marino.. I think I'd have them all ahead of Brees as well.

There aren't any significant all time measurables where you can even justify having Drew Brees lower than maybe 3-5 all time.

Super Bowls. Statistically it's probably not even fair to compare present day players to ones from 20-30 years ago. Basically any present day top 5 guy puts up better numbers than Montana.

FNQ wrote:

RavenMad31 wrote:

FNQ wrote:I think he's #3 of active QBs now, so no, not GOAT.

Dont think anyone (active), Rodgers included, legitimately challenges Brady, who's surgical with his throws. As far as retired players go, Montana, Favre, Peyton, Unitas, Marino.. I think I'd have them all ahead of Brees as well.

There aren't any significant all time measurables where you can even justify having Drew Brees lower than maybe 3-5 all time.

Different eras. If you want to compare the pass happy attack of today vs the more balanced approach of 20 years ago, then all the QBs now are 'better'. I have him 3rd behind Brady and Rodgers now.. are you saying there aren't 2 QBs in NFL history I'd rather have? Because Peyton is an easy one, and then in terms of ball placement, Montana and Marino I'd take too. I think Brees and Favre are on the same level.. Unitas is the toughest one to evaluate because that era was the most exaggerated anti-pass era in football.

I get you there. It's hard, if not impossible, to compare stats across eras, particularly in passing and receiving. I pretty much operate on the assumption that more recent QBs grew up throwing more in pee wee, high school and college, therefore are a better, more polished product by the time they are in the pros. Essentially, we are just evolving better, more sophisticated athletes, therefore, I'm assuming, whether correctly or not, that today's players on average are just more capable than previous generations. When I was a kid, I think our little league team would only throw a couple times per game. A lot of college teams would rarely pass, even national powerhouses like Oklahoma and Nebraska. It was a novelty the way BYU would throw all over the place or when a college team would run a pro style offense. That being the case, I can't put Unitas ahead of these guys because it's just speculation as far as what you'd get if Unitas had played in the last couple decades instead of when he did. I think Montana and Marino get too much credit and blame for their success or lack thereof in winning Super Bowls, so I try to stay away from ring counting. It's basically like saying other greats like Ronnie Lott, Roger Craig or Charles Haley or Fred Dean meant nothing to those teams.

RavenMad31 wrote:
I get you there. It's hard, if not impossible, to compare stats across eras, particularly in passing and receiving. I pretty much operate on the assumption that more recent QBs grew up throwing more in pee wee, high school and college, therefore are a better, more polished product by the time they are in the pros. Essentially, we are just evolving better, more sophisticated athletes, therefore, I'm assuming, whether correctly or not, that today's players on average are just more capable than previous generations. When I was a kid, I think our little league team would only throw a couple times per game. A lot of college teams would rarely pass, even national powerhouses like Oklahoma and Nebraska. It was a novelty the way BYU would throw all over the place or when a college team would run a pro style offense. That being the case, I can't put Unitas ahead of these guys because it's just speculation as far as what you'd get if Unitas had played in the last couple decades instead of when he did. I think Montana and Marino get too much credit and blame for their success or lack thereof in winning Super Bowls, so I try to stay away from ring counting. It's basically like saying other greats like Ronnie Lott, Roger Craig or Charles Haley or Fred Dean meant nothing to those teams.

Yup.. most sports have these generations where stats dont line up as well to the past. Look at MJ vs Steph.. if by #s alone, you might think Steph is the greatest scorer of all time. Or the steroid era of baseball..

For me with football, and I know it limits my scope because I'm only 35, I just go based on the memory of how well these guys commanded the field and dopped the ball in tight spots. In some cases (Montana, Young) its hard to separate the QB from the rest of the talented players on the team.. but I think most of these QBs here had factors going for them that served their cause. Brees played mostly on turf, and played for a team that had horrible defenses quite a bit. Brady had one of the best coaches/FOs surrounding him his entire career. Rodgers got to prepare behind another top 10 all-time QB for several years and when he jumped in, he was 110% ready to roll. And oh yeah, has had some great WR the entire time.

So for me, I understand that QB rankings are going to be volatile person to person. I think tiering it is the way to go.. but even with tiering, I think the #1 for me, all by himself, is Tom Brady. Manning comes close because he was basically an O/D coordinator that was on the field, but Brady has this innate ability to not only throw precision passes, but to just understand whats going to happen several seconds ahead. For example, take last Sunday. Now it was an incomplete pass, but there was one play where Brady was under pressure, moves in the pocket, sees James White flashing towards the sideline. Not enough sideline to lead him out that way. Not enough time to wait for his next move. So Brady throws one over White's back shoulder, prompting White to turn spin the other way and would have picked up 15-20 yards had he caught it. Hits him right in the palms, dropped. If the pass had a half second more air under it, its a 1st down and more.. but just that play stuck with me. Brady saw all this while being under tremendous pressure. That kinda stuff is amazing to me.

I think he's 4th or 5th compared to his own contemporaries, with Brady, Manning, Rodgers, and maybe Favre ahead of him.

No real argument for GOAT.

Otis Driftwood wrote:Championships matter regardless of the stats because in the end that's the ultimate goal.

Are we consistent in all cases? Tim Duncan is better than Lebron, who squeezed by in two of his championships? Aaron Rodgers doesn't look too good either. Brady looking like Steve Young in the playoffs over and over again and playing weak competition in the AFC doesn't hurt him?

Celtsfan1980 wrote:

Otis Driftwood wrote:Championships matter regardless of the stats because in the end that's the ultimate goal.

Are we consistent in all cases? Tim Duncan is better than Lebron, who squeezed by in two of his championships? Aaron Rodgers doesn't look too good either. Brady looking like Steve Young in the playoffs over and over again and playing weak competition in the AFC doesn't hurt him?

Your Brady hatred is unhealthy.

Celtsfan1980 wrote:

Otis Driftwood wrote:Championships matter regardless of the stats because in the end that's the ultimate goal.

Are we consistent in all cases? Tim Duncan is better than Lebron, who squeezed by in two of his championships? Aaron Rodgers doesn't look too good either. Brady looking like Steve Young in the playoffs over and over again and playing weak competition in the AFC doesn't hurt him?

I hated Montana for over a decade. But until Brady and this lot of QB's came along, he was clearly the GOAT. Smart people concurred. Only those who hated the dude would put Marino above him. No one does that anymore.

There is nothing consistent when compiling lists like this. Stop trying. The man has 5 NFL championships and has been at the top of the QB heap for most of his career. Championships matter. To argue otherwise is myopic and indicates a serious case of "I just hate the guy".