Drew Brees is not a top 10 QB of all time. Change my mind.

[MookieMonstah]

49 minutes ago, scar988 said:

see the QT below... Saints fans have been saying this ever since it happened. \/

Except it is cheating. It violated the CBA on personal conduct policy AND on cap circumvention because it was considered additional payouts on top of the cap. So yes. It legitimately was cheating. Violating the CBA is cheating. 

Hes literally saying they were punished because it was dirty...lol.

Scar, dont be obtuse. Did the Saints gain a COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE in that playoff game by having a system that monetarily rewarded players? Yes or no.

[scar988]

8 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said:

Hes literally saying they were punished because it was dirty...lol.

Scar, dont be obtuse. Did the Saints gain a COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE in that playoff game by having a system that monetarily rewarded players? Yes or no.

I'm not arguing whether it was a competitive advantage. That's not what is required for something to be considered cheating. At this point, you're moving the goalposts. They violated the rules. In any other situation, if you violate the rules, that's considered cheating.

[MookieMonstah]

Just now, scar988 said:

I'm not arguing whether it was a competitive advantage. That's not what is required for something to be considered cheating. At this point, you're moving the goalposts. They violated the rules. In any other situation, if you violate the rules, that's considered cheating.

I'm not moving goal posts. You're arguing semantics. Our discussion was clearly in regards to the Saints gaining a competitive advantage in the NFCCG.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

7 hours ago, iknowcool said:

Using this reasoning, Tyrod Taylor is a better QB than Roger Staubach.  And doesn't that just sound ridiculous?

Not particularly. If Tyrod Taylor played in Staubauch's era he'd look like a God amongst mortals. I understand you're comparing players from different decades and we have had such extreme advances in technology/performance over that time, but to me I just can't overlook these aspects of the game. The people today are playing a much more complex, physically demanding game than the guys from 50-75-100 years ago were.

And in another 50-75 years I would assume the guys from today's age will be remembered in the same way.

7 hours ago, iknowcool said:

When comparing across eras/decades/etc., you have to do so by comparing how they did relative to their peers (especially if you haven't seen them play).  Staubach would benefit from the same things guys benefit from now, just as Rodgers would not benefit from the things he benefits from if you threw him into 1950 NFL.  So it just doesn't make sense to say, well, such and such wouldn't be able to play now.  It'd be like saying the XB1 was a better console than the PS2, because if you put the PS2 into today's world, it would be considered very outdated.  But it ignores the PS2 would benefit from the same advances as today's consoles.  

I love rankings but they are just so difficult to do when you try and include every historical player.  You can say this about any sport, but I'd argue it is the most difficult for football because of how many different components there are.  

I just think things should be separated by era to make it more realistic/fair to the players of old. They don't stand a chance when competing against today's NFL players in any statistical category or "who was/is better" category.

7 hours ago, iknowcool said:

I don't know if Brees is in the top 10 or not.  The main thing I keep going back to, and what would probably be my main argument against it, is that the general consensus is that Brees is the 4th best QB of his era/run.  He's generally always been ranked behind Peyton before his retirement, Brady, and Rodgers.  Even after 2008, 2009, and 2011 respectively, the 3 years where you could best argue he was the best individual QB that year (I'd agree with '09, I'm taking Rodgers in '11, and I'm probably taking Rivers in '08), he was still behind those guys.  So, if he is in the top 10, he's definitely at the very edge.  

And here's the thing about him being 4th: Brady, Rodgers and Peyton Manning are all arguably top 5 QB's of all-time, and Brees kept pace with all of them statistically and beat one of them to win a Superbowl. I understand guys not putting Brees ahead of any of them, but not even top 10? I don't see that, especially not against guys like Favre or those old-timey QB's.

[MookieMonstah]

9 hours ago, scar988 said:

Meh. It’s all right. It’s like a French Creole take on southern food. 

That's...That's literally exactly what it is...

[MookieMonstah]

1 minute ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Not particularly. If Tyrod Taylor played in Staubauch's era he'd look like a God amongst mortals. I understand you're comparing players from different decades and we have had such extreme advances in technology/performance over that time, but to me I just can't overlook these aspects of the game. The people today are playing a much more complex, physically demanding game than the guys from 50-75-100 years ago were.

And in another 50-75 years I would assume the guys from today's age will be remembered in the same way.

I just think things should be separated by era to make it more realistic/fair to the players of old. They don't stand a chance when competing against today's NFL players in any statistical category or "who was/is better" category.

And here's the thing about him being 4th: Brady, Rodgers and Peyton Manning are all arguably top 5 QB's of all-time, and Brees kept pace with all of them statistically and beat one of them to win a Superbowl. I understand guys not putting Brees ahead of any of them, but not even top 10? I don't see that, especially not against guys like Favre or those old-timey QB's.

Its recency bias. Brees has not been an elite QB the past two years so people have that in mind rather than the Brees who literally hung 30 on everyone in the league...Only to watch his defense let up 35 lol

[iknowcool]

17 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Not particularly. If Tyrod Taylor played in Staubauch's era he'd look like a God amongst mortals. I understand you're comparing players from different decades and we have had such extreme advances in technology/performance over that time, but to me I just can't overlook these aspects of the game. The people today are playing a much more complex, physically demanding game than the guys from 50-75-100 years ago were.

But he wouldn't be the same Tyrod Taylor if you put him in Staubach's era.  He'd have the same resources as the players around him.    

It is just a flawed argument.  It is conjecture.  We don't know how these guys would do in different eras because it is impossible to know.  What we do know is how they did relative to their peers.  Staubach was considered a top-five at worst QB when he played, won numerous SBs, and retired with the highest passer rating in league history.  Tyrod is a journeyman.  What argument using facts and logical reasoning would there be to put Tyrod over Staubach?  I can say with absolute confidence that the answer is 0.

Besides, I feel like you are making it sound like Staubach was some slouch of an athlete.  By all accounts, he had a great arm and was very mobile.  Other than being less than 200lbs (which would have been easily fixable in 2021), why do you make it seem like he wouldn't even make a practice squad?

I mean hell, even Nathan Peterman is in the NFL.  So again using your reasoning/guesswork, Peterman is a better QB than Staubach, who wouldn't even make a practice squad.

Edited March 16, 2021 by iknowcool

[scar988]

24 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said:

I'm not moving goal posts. You're arguing semantics. Our discussion was clearly in regards to the Saints gaining a competitive advantage in the NFCCG.

I think you missed what I was arguing. I was arguing against the "no one is saying otherwise" in regards to the bounties being cheating. I don't give a crap about the NFCCG they won because of it.

[iknowcool]

13 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said:

Its recency bias. Brees has not been an elite QB the past two years so people have that in mind rather than the Brees who literally hung 30 on everyone in the league...Only to watch his defense let up 35 lol

It isn't recency bias though.  He has NEVER been considered by the majority of fans/media better than Manning, Rodgers, or Brady.

My point is that by including him in the top 10, you are saying 4 of the best 10 QBs of all-time all played at the same time.  Which is possible, sure, not saying it isn't or that it disqualifies him from being in the top 10 (because I personally just don't think I'm in a position to rank guys all-time)... but even if it is true, the likelihood of them all being in the top 5 or 6 is extremely low.  So Brees would be, at the best, at the edge of the list (#10 or #9).  How is that unfair to him?  You act like being called a top 10 QB all-time, or even missing out on that mark, is some disrespectful thing lol

The only thing I flat-out disagree with is the assertion that people's reasoning should be, well, if you put Player A in Player B's time period, this is how he would do.  By doing that it leads you to draw conclusions that just don't make any sense (ie. Taylor > Staubach) and it is guesswork.  

Edited March 16, 2021 by iknowcool

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

32 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

But he wouldn't be the same Tyrod Taylor if you put him in Staubach's era.  He'd have the same resources as the players around him.    

It is just a flawed argument.  It is conjecture.  We don't know how these guys would do in different eras because it is impossible to know.  What we do know is how they did relative to their peers.  Staubach was considered a top-five at worst QB when he played, won numerous SBs, and retired with the highest passer rating in league history.  Tyrod is a journeyman.  What argument using facts and logical reasoning would there be to put Tyrod over Staubach?  I can say with absolute confidence that the answer is 0.

Besides, I feel like you are making it sound like Staubach was some slouch of an athlete.  By all accounts, he had a great arm and was very mobile.  Other than being less than 200lbs (which would have been easily fixable in 2021), why do you make it seem like he wouldn't even make a practice squad?

I mean hell, even Nathan Peterman is in the NFL.  So again using your reasoning/guesswork, Peterman is a better QB than Staubach, who wouldn't even make a practice squad.

I recognize it's an unpopular opinion, but it's a hill I will die on. I'm never going to put guys like Otto Graham, Staubach, Johnny Unitas on top 10 lists of QB's when, for all intents and purposes, they weren't that good, especially compared to today's QB's - UNLESS we're doing a "top 10 QB's before the modern NFL", then it makes sense.

I can't find the gif, but I remember seeing a gif of what passing looked like when it first got going, and it was just hilarious to see what it looked like in the 30's-40's. Again, I think it's important to remember these guys and maybe say "Oh yeah Johnny U was a top 5 QB of his time", but in no way would I ever compare those guys to Patrick Mahomes - or Tyrod Taylor - or Nathan freaking Peterman for that matter.

 

[notthatbluestuff]

Just curious, can people rank movies from different eras against each other? After all, movies were totally different way back when... 

[notthatbluestuff]

1 hour ago, MookieMonstah said:

Hes literally saying they were punished because it was dirty...lol.

Scar, dont be obtuse. Did the Saints gain a COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE in that playoff game by having a system that monetarily rewarded players? Yes or no.

You're asking if a team gets a competitive advantage by injuring players on the opposing team? 

[iknowcool]

15 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

I recognize it's an unpopular opinion, but it's a hill I will die on. I'm never going to put guys like Otto Graham, Staubach, Johnny Unitas on top 10 lists of QB's when, for all intents and purposes, they weren't that good, especially compared to today's QB's - UNLESS we're doing a "top 10 QB's before the modern NFL", then it makes sense.

I can't find the gif, but I remember seeing a gif of what passing looked like when it first got going, and it was just hilarious to see what it looked like in the 30's-40's. Again, I think it's important to remember these guys and maybe say "Oh yeah Johnny U was a top 5 QB of his time", but in no way would I ever compare those guys to Patrick Mahomes - or Tyrod Taylor - or Nathan freaking Peterman for that matter.

 

So, just to make sure I understand and then I can leave it alone.  You would rank Nathan Peterman over Roger Staubach?  You think Peterman was a better QB than Staubach?

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

4 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

So, just to make sure I understand and then I can leave it alone.  You would rank Nathan Peterman over Roger Staubach?  You think Peterman was a better QB than Staubach?

Yes, because like I said if you put Staubach onto an NFL roster today, he wouldn't make the team.

EDIT: I mean, neither would Peterman, but I actually kinda like the comparison of Peterman vs. Staubach. It highlights how bad a QB would have to be today to be relative to QB's 60-70 years ago.

Edited March 16, 2021 by AFlaccoSeagulls

[LinebackerGod]

On 3/15/2021 at 1:39 AM, mdonnelly21 said:

#3. Unitas 

Once I saw this, I decided to stop reading.

 

Like others have said, comparing current players to guys that played ages ago is silly. Today's NFL talent is hilarious compared to what it looked like way back when. Jim Brown would have been a solid player in today's era and he's considered the GOAT by some.