CSC All-Time Saints Team Election: Quarterback

He will be, but his playoff record doesn’t quite merit him among the all-time greats. Yes, I know Marino never won a championship and all that. Still, I don’t see Peyton at quite the same level with him yet. When it’s all said and done, the MSM will ensure he is remembered among them and I probably won’t disagree when that time comes.

Before coming to NOLA, Brees had some good moments in San Diego too, but I agree he’s not quite up there as high as Peyton at the moment on the list of all-time greats. Barring injury, he certainly has the ability to rank up there among the greats. Let’s hope his success continues. His success is our success.

so what is your point about the other QB’s who never played for the Saints?

“Plus HOF voting takes a strong look at the role the player had in the community and how they handles themselves as a player, which Brees is hands down top-tier.”

While this is true, matters of this nature are typically looked upon as disqualifier, not a qualifier. In other words, if someone is sitting squarely on the bubble, donating half their salary to charity isn’t likely to tip the scales in their favor. Conversely, a player who is a shoo-in otherwise can be blacklisted due to personal behavior — as is commonly thought to be the case with both Jim Tyrer and Johnny Sample — but even that is not etched in stone. See Lawrence Taylor and Michael Irvin for examples of talent > off the field issues.

“If Manning had let’s see had half the weapons Brooks had, he would’ve at least had a handful of playoff victories.”

I disagree. Manning had three Pro Bowlers on offense in 1979 and didn’t fare any better than Brooks did record wise. In fact, Brooks reached that same .500 mark or better three consecutive seasons.

That member is CeNile, and that could explain a lot.
BTW CeNile, welcome to the wolf pack. Stick with it! You communicated your opinion & your reasoning & that was an important thing to do. So what if others (including me) voted for Brees. There’s basically nothing wrong with wanting to focus on retired players.

You know what’s even weirder? The records of those same crappy teams immediately before he arrived and after he left.

New Orleans went from 2-11-1 in 1970 (pre-Manning), to 4-8-2 in 1971 (with Manning).
New Orleans went from 4-5 in 1982 (with Manning, to 8-8 in 1983 (post-Manning).

Houston went from 7-9 in 1981 (pre-Manning), to 1-14 in 1982 (with Manning).
Houston went from 2-14 in 1983 (with Manning), to 3-13 in 1984 (post-Manning).

Minnesota went from 8-8 in 1983 (pre-Manning) to 3-13 in 1984 (with Manning).
Minnesota went from 3-13 in 1984 (with Manning) to 7-9 in 1985 (post-Manning).

In summary, NFL teams performed worse 66% of the time immediately after acquiring Manning, and better 100% of the time immediately after parting ways with him. Surely this is one of the most baffling phenomena in the history of professional sports, considering how great of a QB Manning was at this level.

I just noticed this is only your third comment.

Thanks for joining and contributing to CSC.

Just like comparing a quarterback from one era to another using only stats, ridiculous.

It’s evidently been a joke since at least 1978, if you had a Pro Bowl QB that couldn’t lead his team past the .500 mark.