Drew Brees On His Way to Becoming All-Time Greatest Saints Quarterback. Or is he Already There?
Drew Brees has thrown for 14,579 yards to date in his three years and change as a New Orleans Saint. Drew currently stands fourth on the Saints all-time career passing yardage list, just 51 yards shy of the current third place holder, WWL's very own Bobby Hebert. Barring a situation so horrific and frightening I dare not even speak it's name, I'm pretty sure Brees will surpass Hebert's mark early in this weeks game against the Bills. In fact, book it as one of my predictions in our weekly contest.
And he will do it 27 games quicker than Hebert. That's enough to make Drew the greater of the two. But numbers don't mean everything. If they did, Aaron Brooks could be considered the second best quarterback in Saints history and he's not. That means the battle for the title of greatest all-time Saints quarterback is still being waged and it's between only Archie Manning and Drew Brees. Unless, of course, you think Brees has already done enough.
Do you?
0 recs |
51 comments
|
Comments
Brees is already the greatest PLAYER in Saints history. In fact, if you list the top-ten players, he is five of them.
by saveyourboredom on Sep 22, 2009 7:19 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
The 2 no votes
were cast by Archie and Peyton Manning
by b_robichaux on Sep 22, 2009 7:22 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Eli
voted the other way, he was a mamma’s boy! =P
by b_robichaux on Sep 23, 2009 7:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But numbers don’t mean everything. If they did, Aaron Brooks could be considered the second best quarterback in Saints history and he’s not.
I agree. Brooks is the best QB they ever had prior to Brees. And that DEFINITELY doesn’t have everything to do with numbers.
"It feels like a tiny prick " -Reggie Bush
by coldpizza on Sep 22, 2009 7:49 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
That being strictly as a Saint. Stabler’s still the best based on an entire career, imo.
"It feels like a tiny prick " -Reggie Bush
by coldpizza on Sep 22, 2009 8:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No way Brooks is #2
IMO, no way Brooks is the best Saints QB not named Brees. This would’ve been an interesting discussion for the all-time team. My take on QB is that, perhaps more than any other position, you have to take non-stats into account. Leadership, being the face of the franchise, etc all factor into it. That’s why Manning and Brees are the top 2. Manning has been the face of the franchise for 30 years. Brooks has the stats, but the guy was not a leader. On top of that, nobody ever did less with their stats than Brooks.
by SaintBevo on Sep 22, 2009 8:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree with “being the face of the franchise” being an prevalent factor in determining greatness. I mean, Gary Cuozzo was the face of the franchise in 1967 and he certainly wasn’t the best QB on that team in hindsight. Bart Starr was the face of the Packers for longer than Manning ever was/has been the face of the Saints and neither is a hair on the ass of Brett Favre, in terms of all-time greatness. Don’t get me wrong, I think it SHOULD be a factor, just not an overriding one. Same thing with Super Bowl victories, although that doesn’t even begin to apply in Saints speak.
"It feels like a tiny prick " -Reggie Bush
by coldpizza on Sep 22, 2009 8:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't recall saying it should be THE factor
just that it must be taken into account. Bart Starr is considered great becuase he won championships – dittoTerry Bradshaw, whose stats are pedestrian compared to lots of other QBs.
by SaintBevo on Sep 22, 2009 7:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Leadership, being the face of the franchise, etc all factor into it.”
I do agree with your et cetera, though. Which would include athleticism, something that Brooks had far more of than any Saints QB ever. Factor that in with his statistics, his lone post-season victory and relative mediocrity in practically every other category and he edges out the “leadership” of any other 8-8 at best QB, imo. Hebert had more success than any of them, of course. I just never viewed him as anything more than a poor man’s Jim McMahon, in terms of overall talent. Which is a particularly apt comparison, being that the Bears are one of the few teams with a less impressive QB resume than the Saints. Ok, maybe I’m being harsh on Sid Luckman.
"It feels like a tiny prick " -Reggie Bush
by coldpizza on Sep 22, 2009 9:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aaron Brooks???!!!
You HAVE to be out of your freaking mind! Aaron Brooks didn’t amount to a pimple on an NFL quarterback’s ass. I’m still wondering what he was using to blackmail Haslett for his job.
by Rocat on Sep 22, 2009 9:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Neither did Manning, Hebert or any of the other QBs we ever had. At least, not while they were here.
"It feels like a tiny prick " -Reggie Bush
by coldpizza on Sep 23, 2009 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
“On top of that, nobody ever did less with their stats than Brooks.”
Manning didn’t do less with his?
"It feels like a tiny prick " -Reggie Bush
by coldpizza on Sep 22, 2009 8:19 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Brooks had way more talent around him than Manning did
Are you honestly taking Brooks over Manning, or this just coldpizza the devil’s advocate?
by SaintBevo on Sep 22, 2009 7:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brooks was definitely better than Manning. He surpassed nearly all of Manning’s records in half the number of games, that while throwing less often. He won a playoff game without a running game and his number one WR, something that even Drew Brees has yet to do. He was far more mobile than Manning and had a stronger arm. More talent? Manning had Chuck Muncie, Henry Childs and Wes Chandler in his arsenal. Please name the three Pro Bowlers Brooks had to work with in his. Even Brooks’s worst season (3-13) wasn’t as bad as Manning’s worst (1-15). Was there a devastating hurricane in 1980 that I just don’t remember? Brooks played three games (2002) with a partially torn rotator cuff. Manning missed an ENTIRE SEASON (1976) with tendinitis in his shoulder. Even when Manning was 100% healthy, he had a sidearmed delivery that made most NFL coaches cringe. I’m not saying he wasn’t a decent QB given the circumstances, but if Manning was sooo much better than Brooks — to the point that I must be “out of my mind” to think Brooks was better — then why didn’t he ever overcome the lack of talent around him? What about in Houston and Minnesota? Oh, woe was Archibald! The Suck just inexplicably followed him everywhere he went. Hell, I guess that makes David Carr and Joey Harrington great QBs, too. Why continually make excuses for one guy and not the other? Brooks accomplished more because he was the better QB. Period.
"It feels like a tiny prick " -Reggie Bush
by coldpizza on Sep 23, 2009 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you related to both Donte Stallworth and Aaron Brooks?
Let me first say, that I’m not here to say that Manning was a great QB. He holds a special place in New Orleans lore because of how he handled himself in the face of the incessant losing and crapiness and what he meant to the community. How would he have done if he and Bradshaw’s places were switched – we’ll never know but I’ll bet he would have done just fine in Pittsburgh and Bradshaw would have done no better than him here, if not worse.
Brooks’ stats are mostly better than Mannings. That being said, there are lots of variables that affect those stats – that’s not an excuse, it is just the truth – and it can be hard to quantify those variables.
Did Manning have a better supporting cast? I’d say no. He did have Chandler for a couple of years (never a pro bowler in NOLA) but talent elsewhere on the team was lacking. Brooks had Joe Horn in his prime, Ricky Williams for some of the time, a decent O-line On top of that, it was a different league then as well. There was not as much depth across the league as there was in Brooks’ time. There will never be the talent disparity in the modern NFL as there was in Manning’s time.
Anyway, you go ahead and put your Aaron Brooks fathead up, it’s fine with me.
by SaintBevo on Sep 23, 2009 8:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm happy for you, I'm going to let you finish,
but Hokie Gajan is one of the best quarterbacks of all TIME!
1 for 1, 1 touchdown, 0 interceptions, 158.3 rating. Respect!
by GlackAndBold on Sep 22, 2009 8:33 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Do you remember
who caught that TD pass?
"It feels like a tiny prick " -Reggie Bush
by coldpizza on Sep 22, 2009 8:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wayne Wilson
"It feels like a tiny prick " -Reggie Bush
by coldpizza on Sep 22, 2009 9:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
im too young for archie
but brees def has hebert and brooks beat. but luckily for the sake of this argument, brees has plenty of time to add to his resume.
by DrewBreesManCrush on Sep 22, 2009 10:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Archie...
…could have been the greatest QB period, but he played for a crap team. I feel bad for him sometimes.
by jack_casse on Sep 22, 2009 10:09 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
You could make that case for a lot of good QBs over the years. Neil Lomax is the one that really stands out in my mind. Prorate his per game numbers over a typical NFL career today and he’s a Top 5 all-time QB statistically. Then again, had he been on a better team, would he have been passing nearly that often? Probably not. Same with Manning. His best season was 1980, when they were playing almost exclusively from behind. He was also given a couple of chances with better teams late in his career and did nothing with them. Jim Plunkett went to a worse team in the Patriots (same year as Manning), put up similiar career numbers and wound up winning a couple of Super Bowls with the Raiders. Not saying Plunkett was a GREAT quarterback, just that you can only play that particular violin so long. And let’s face it, the two teams under Dick Nolan weren’t THAT bad. Four Pro Bowlers on offense (including Manning), five total? That’s more than we’ve had in decades.
"It feels like a tiny prick " -Reggie Bush
by coldpizza on Sep 22, 2009 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Excuse ME, BUT..........
The Houston team that Archie got traded to was just as piss poor as the Saints at the time as were the Vikings the next season.Archie NEVER got to play for a decent team in the NFL, EVER. And I’ve ALWAYS felt sorry for him having been stuck with John Mecom’s Saints. Dallas begged Mecom to trade Archie to them. If he could have gotten with Dallas they would have won Super Bowls EVERY year until Archie retired.
by Rocat on Sep 22, 2009 9:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I feel sorry for him, too. That doesn’t make him better than Roger Staubach.
"It feels like a tiny prick " -Reggie Bush
by coldpizza on Sep 23, 2009 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just Think
if Archie was drafted by Pittsburgh, and the Saints took Bradshaw…….
You think you know, and you don't know, and you never, ever will know..Jim Mora Sr.
by metryman on Sep 22, 2009 10:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Archie Who?!!!
Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.
Who Dat?...... Drew Dat ! ! !
by Big and Easy on Sep 22, 2009 11:27 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It's all Good
I find it hard to compare QBs of the past becuase they didn’t have the overall quality that this team has. Hebert , Manning even Brooks would have looked like the greatest thing sense sliced bread if they could have had this bunch. I also think that Brees is the more cerebile of the list but that’s just me.
by Lyle Lirette on Sep 22, 2009 11:27 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Hummm
Maybe that’s why they call it a TEAM sport. Imagine Payton with no receivers, no O line and crap RB’s. I’ve always made the argument that if Emmet Smith played for Detroit and Barry Sanders was in Dallas Barry would have had much better numbers then Emmet ever had. Now most people say I say that because I HATE the cowboys, but if Archie had had a real O line and some real receivers. The reality is THIS is a better TEAM with a better coach and Breese is the right cat at the right time. Archie didn’t have any of that. Timing is EVERYTHING!!!!
by BigTMill on Sep 22, 2009 11:31 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I completely agree with you
I think most QBs that are good enough to play on the NFL level would tear it up statistically in this offense. Hell, even Brees has done better than he ever did in San Diego. There’s no doubt in my mind that Manning, Hebert, Brooks, any of those guys could have performed at least comparably to Brees in a scheme so geared towards the pass. Same goes for the WRs. Ike Harris, Quinn Early, Willie Jackson … none were anything terribly special in their day … all would be putting up Lance Moore type numbers in today’s Saints offense. Not saying Moore is anything terribly special himself, but judging from the number of Saints fans that call this the “best WR corps in the league” based solely on production, you could pretty easily juxtapose those 2nd tier guys all day without a hitch.
"It feels like a tiny prick " -Reggie Bush
by coldpizza on Sep 22, 2009 12:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you honestly think
that Brooks, or even Hebert would have comparable numbers to Brees, even with the present collection of talent around him, then I think we may be at an impasse.
Brooks could not carry Brees’ jock in a suitcase. Hebert probably couldn’t either, but he gets a pass because he’s from LA. and had lots of wins, many of which were in spite of him (perhaps that’s harsh, but you get my drift).
by SaintBevo on Sep 22, 2009 7:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone is forgetting Hebert's, but mainly Brooks'...
….ability to LOSE a game. If someone could find me how leads the league in All-time INT thrown while ine the red zone, no better yet, within 30 yds of the endzone, Brooks tops that list.
Athleticism only gets you so far without a brain to operate it properly. At QB, Intelligence and people skills are two important skills that Brooks was lacking in.
Besmirching the reverence of the sport of customer service since Aug 26, 2009
by asaint on Sep 22, 2009 9:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t say Brooks wasn’t intelligent, he just didn’t have good decision making skills.
Don’t get me started on Hebert. I still haven’t forgiven him for the Eagles playoff loss and his post-game reaction to questions from the media.
by SaintBevo on Sep 23, 2009 8:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's one thing
to say the current Saints offense heavily favors the pass, and that gives Brees his gaudy numbers. It’s entirely another to suggest that those numbers would be attainable by any qb or receiver in the league if he were in our system. Y’all might be right, but there isn’t a shred of evidence to support that assertion. What about Ramsey in Spurrier’s college spread offense experiment in Washington? That one year singlehandedly killed both of their pro careers with its pitiful performance. While that’s not likely a perfect comparison, it does move somewhat toward the point that running a spread offense is not just a “plug-and-play” system that succeeds on the coaching over the player performance.
Brees obviously gets to pass and control his offense more in our system than he did in SD, where they had Ladanian Tomlinson, but he also gets to pass more because he’s extraordinarily good at it. Not any qb can run our system. Not even every “top-tier” qb can. Of course, I don’t, and never will have any proof to back that statement up, either, but it seems far less a stretch against Occam’s Razor than to suggest Brees and Colston and Henderson should give all their glory over to Sean Payton, which sounds like the implied assertion.
Brees’ success is a product of the system he works in, but the system is a product of the abilities of it’s pieces. Same holds true for all of the Manning clan, and Brooks, and every quarterback and/or receiver group who ever played.
Brees is clearly already the best qb we ever had. He is, from my point of view, the only current roster member who would belong on the All-Saints team from this summer. He’s already beaten Hebert and matched(beaten, in a way) Brooks in playoff success. He will only be behind Manning statistically after next week, barring any freak occurrences, and, while I’m too young to speak intelligently on Archie’s play, I’d say Brees’ legacy in the city already puts him up there with him. Even if Brees left the team after his contract expired, or got injured and couldn’t play somewhere in the near-ish future, I would argue that his individual ability got us farther in the NFL than Manning’s ever could, “bad team” or not.
by FuSoYa on Sep 22, 2009 1:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
“It’s entirely another to suggest that those numbers would be attainable by any qb or receiver in the league if he were in our system.”
I didn’t say ANY, I said MOST. I also said at least COMPARABLY. I think Brees is a very good QB in a system geared toward QBs. Patrick Ramsey is/was a below average (i.e., not part of the “most” majority) QB in a system geared toward QBs. I won’t shy away from the assertation that practically every current NFL starter and roughly half of the number two QBs in the NFL (which would represent a majority) WOULD do nearly as well in this offense. That’s not a knock on Brees at all. That’s just me saying I don’t think there’s much difference between he and a Shaun Hill, for example, in a pass-all-day attack. That’s strictly hypothetical, mind you, and I sure as hell wouldn’t want to put it to the test at the risk of picking the wrong lab rat.
“to suggest Brees and Colston and Henderson should give all their glory over to Sean Payton, which sounds like the implied assertion.”
To paraphrase Billy Ray Cyrus, all should give some, some should give all. Brees is at the former-most end of that list. Jamal Jones or Chase Daniel would represent the latter end of that talent spectrum. I personally think Brees could excel in any offensive scheme, just not to the extent that he excels here. I think Colston could make a name for himself in most, maybe start for half, if not a little more. I don’t think he’d be a #1 WR for many other teams, though. Not so much based on his talent — he’s a friggin Herman Moore clone — but moreso because I simply don’t think a 7th round pick would get an opportunity to start, in most cases.
Henderson could probably start for 3 or 4 other teams. You’re talking about an Ashley Lelie, Brandon Lloyd type guy on the outside looking in. Jerricho Cotchery, best cast scenario. No one anyone would be willing to break the piggy bank for, put it that way. Meachem would be comparable to Limas Sweed in most offenses. Big, raw talent, starting potential, still a lot of question marks. He could be Plaxico Burress good. He could be Ernest Wilford bad. The jury is still deliberating.
Moore’s a hands guy and that would lend itself well to just about any scheme. Whether he would have ever been given a shot is the real question. This goes back to what I was touching upon with Colston. There are guys on practically every NFL training camp roster that catch everything thrown their way and don’t even crack the active roster. They’re either too small, too slow or (often times) there’s another player that the team simply has more invested in, be it money, scouting time, a first day draft pick, etc. Simply “being better” isn’t always enough. Henderson and Meachem had “gimme a chance” stamped across their foreheads coming out of SEC schools. Colston and Moore? Not so much.
All politics aside, Moore has the TALENT to be on at least half the rosters in the league. Again, I don’t think his odds of starting are MUCH better than Henderson’s. Moore is roughly Deion Branch or Torry Holt (today, not in their prime). All in all, it’s a rag tag group of WRs that all bring a little something different to the table in THE perfect offense for QBs and WRs.
"It feels like a tiny prick " -Reggie Bush
by coldpizza on Sep 22, 2009 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
cmon
brees is great and there are a handful of qb’s in the league who could run our offense very well. but i dont think that there are enough starting qb’s to go around in this league much less enough to come in and routinely make three or four reads every time they drop back, make a decision, and get the ball accurately to an open receiver before getting sacked at the rate that brees does. just in our division, do you think that matt ryan, jake delhomme, and byron leftwich could all replace brees?
by DrewBreesManCrush on Sep 22, 2009 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shaun Hill? Really?
I like that guy, but he’s not close to Brees when you combine scrambling, reading options, moving defenses with his eyes, and accuracy.
WR corps-wise, I agree. If our group was broken down into individual pieces, none would rank in any upper-echelon lists. Colston would start just about anywhere, I think, but he’s not a one-man passing game like Moss or Johnson(you pick which one). The receiving unit, however, is without equal in my mind. I’d believe the “plug-and-play” effectiveness for the receivers a little more readily, but these guys work in this system extremely well. I think Arizona is the only club with a group nearly as effective and cohesive as New Orleans, but I’ll take New Orleans any day. New England is obviously up there, too, but from what I’ve seen, they just aren’t as versatile as our group. Maybe it’s a difference in system, but with their running game, I’d start watching some Saints games if I were Belichick.
by FuSoYa on Sep 22, 2009 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Matt Ryan, absolutely. Delhomme possibly short term, but I wouldn’t want to make that switch, even if you included DeAngelo Williams in the trade. Ditto on Leftwich. They’d all be an immediate downgrade, but not as big of one as their current play would lead you to believe. That being said, there are a handful of NFL backups that I’d rather have starting for the Saints over Delhomme or Leftwich. There are no backups I’d rather have starting for the Saints over Ryan.
"It feels like a tiny prick " -Reggie Bush
by coldpizza on Sep 22, 2009 2:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
ill agree about ryan (and delhomme and leftwich). but the nfl is full of copycats, if our system is the main reason for our offensive success, then why isnt everyone else trying to emulate our offense as much as possible? ill bet there are plenty of nfl teams out there that drool over our offense and only wish that they had the proper triggerman to put a high flying system into place. did you watch the colts – fins game last night? peyton easily scored while making all the hand signals, jumping around, and screaming at his lineman that are required for an elite qb. pennington on the other hand ran one of the worst two minute drills ive ever seen against a def that was clearly on its heels. its clear to me that as far as qb talent is concerned there are have’s and have not’s. and the colts are a have and the fins are a have not.
by DrewBreesManCrush on Sep 22, 2009 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
disagree with you pizza
To say that even over half of the QBs in the NFL could come in and do comparable to Brees isn’t right in my mind. Sure, you want to bring in Manning or Brady and they would be right around the same numbers as Brees possibly but a little less. Brady did alot with no name receivers when they won their superbowls but NE and Indy don’t really have a running game either and they pass alot. I don’t think that anyone would do better except maybe Manning. He’s one of the all time best. There are alot of good QBs in the NFL but almost none would come close to Brees’ numbers. I would only take one other QB and that’d only be in the 4th quarter and down. That QB would be Manning because there is no one else like him that wins games when behind. Idk what you would consider close to Brees’ numbers but I don’t think most would get very close imo. Also, I’ve already discussed the WRs. Colston is a #1 WR on 1/2 the teams and would be among the best #2 WRs with only Boldin being in front of him. Moore would start for 3/4 the teams in the NFL as a #2 receiver imo. Henderson and Meachem are both legitimate deep threats with the chance to burn anyone on any given play.
Superbowl bound!!!...I hope? Go Saints! :D
by skinnykinney on Sep 22, 2009 6:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Who's number one?
Archie Manning verses Drew Brees isn’t a fair comparison. Drew has an INFINITELY better team to play with,an infinitely better coaching staff to work with and an infinitely better ownership and general manager to work for. It’s not fair to Archie to make that comparison. If a young Archie Manning had been quarterbacking THIS team he would probably be doing better than Drew Brees (NO disrespect to Drew, of course) because Archie was a much better runner than Drew.
by Rocat on Sep 22, 2009 9:08 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Let's not get too excited...
But Drew Brees is only in his fourth season as a Saint. 3 years and 2 games. That’s it. Now, Manning may not have been the best quarterback ever, but he played his butt off every game, even when the Saints would finish with only a few wins. He won with his arm and his feet. With Manning in the game, you always believed that a team with little talent could overachieve every year. Now is Drew Brees a better passer? Hell yeah. He makes throws that Manning wouldn’t even dream of making. But let’s stop the coronation until Brees sticks around for awhile. But Brees has much better talent to work with.
As for a question of talent, if this were about a bunch of relatively untalented players that would only work in a certain system, well then, this style would be copied everywhere. But it’s not. No one can come close offensively to approaching the Saints. It’s not just because of the system. If it is the system and not the players, then we should formally decide that Sean Peyton is the greatest NFL offensive mind in history. But just because a player wasn’t drafted high doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have talent. If the 2006 draft were redone today, Colston would be a mid-1st round pick. Period.
As for Brees’ talent, he’s among the best. I believe that performance belies all other statistics. But I think that if Drew Brees were the prototypical quarterback (6’5" like Manning), then his talent wouldn’t be even the slightest question. He’s got the accuracy, the cannon arm, the desire, and is one of the smartest quarterbacks (with Manning) out there.. But he also never gets sacked. Now part of it is because he has incredible feet and pocket presence, but part of it is the system (or why else would a group of average NFL linemen consistently have the lowest sack rate per attempt year after year). Personally, I think that Brees would be near the top at nearly every system regardless.
But who do you think might be better than Brees at this system? With all the deep balls, the third down conversions, the lack of a running game until this year, the great timing that the offense requires. Manning, sure. Brady? If it’s 2007 Brady, probably, but not 2009 Brady. That’s about it. I would trust no one else to do all the reads that are required on all those 3rd and longs that Brees converts. That keeps the offense going, and that’s what scores us points.
by Michaelw552 on Sep 22, 2009 9:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Welcome to CSC!!!
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Saintsational on Sep 22, 2009 10:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, Dave
just noticed you changed part of the CSC banner.
Just wondering…are we cautiously undefeated, or confidently undefeated?
Smell Greatness
by HansDat on Sep 22, 2009 11:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
all will be revealed tomorrow morning
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Saintsational on Sep 22, 2009 11:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh boy now I won't be able to sleep
it’s like Christmas Eve…
Smell Greatness
by HansDat on Sep 22, 2009 11:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If (when) Brees
wins league MVP, he is fo-sho…
You think you know, and you don't know, and you never, ever will know..Jim Mora Sr.
by metryman on Sep 22, 2009 10:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 


















