For the talk about whether or not Peyton Manning would be regarded as the best quarterback in NFL history if the Colts win their second Super Bowl in four seasons (to which I say "no"), there's been little to no discussion over Drew Brees. The reason I bring it up is this. I got done (finally) running and ranking the 2009 numbers and awarding points for the league leaders, which I'll touch on in a minute.

Here's how it's done. A quarterback's overall offensive production is quantified using a particular algorithm I developed; it includes rushing totals as well as passing. It's then broken down on a per-attempt basis to determine efficiency. The top five in the league receive weighted points (5 points for 1st place, 4 for 2nd place, and so on). Quarterbacks of a championship team receive a 5-point bonus, a championship runner-up a 4-point bonus. These point totals are fed into a different algorithm which looks like this:
(square root of production points + square root of efficiency points)^2, + (championship bonus).

For those who ask "why square root, then square?", it's simple; I actually drew this from baseball. As it stood at the end of last season, the 10 most productive QBs all-time included Vinny Testaverde and Drew Bledsoe. Obviously, this is largely based on the fact that Testaverde stuck around forever and Bledsoe was in offensive systems that allowed him to throw 700 times per season. Playing around with square roots basically serves to penalize someone whose career value was entirely in raw production without the efficiency (and vice versa).

As for whether it closely correlates to who we consider "the best ever", the top 15 using this ranking system are all HOF inductees or will go in on the first ballot. The top 26 has 21 HOFers and the top five marginal candidates (Hadl, Ken Anderson, Rote, Lamonica, Isbell). You get the idea.

Anyway, the reason I bring up Brees is this. Three seasons ago, his overall ranking using this system was in a huge logjam around 90th with guys like Tommy Kramer, Jim Plunkett, and Scott Mitchell. Since then, he'd led the league in production once, been second once, and been third once. In terms of production, he's led the league once, been second once, and been fourth once. He's also going to pick up the championship bonus for the first time in his career. So in the last three seasons, he's gone from around 90th to around 30th, which is weak HOF territory. I'm not suggesting that he's worthy of Canton at this point, but give him two or three more seasons like what he's done over the last two or three and he'll be getting into that realm.

And in case you're wondering about the two first-ballot HOFers that played today, Brett Favre is in 7th, Peyton Manning 6th (and another Super Bowl win would push Manning just barely into 5th).

He has plenty of good years left. I think depending how well the team does these next few years and he can get to/win another Superbowl he will have a chance to be Top 10 I believe.

At this point, he's not even in the discussion.

1th

38st

/end discussion.

thedynasty1998 wrote: At this point, he's not even in the discussion.

This. It is way too premature to have this conversation about Brees. I honestly could not even begin to tell you where I would rank him all-time. I can think of at least 50 other QB's though I would probably rank above him at this time. At the end of the day, maybe I rank him higher (maybe he will turn out to be top 10 material who knows). However, right now is not the time.

I swear some people have no context of history and what others achieved previously.

This is dumb! No where in the discussion yet

I could name 30 QBs ahead of him. Then I would crunch numbers and could probably name quite a few more ahead of him.

Not in the discussion "YET"

Of the QB's I've seen he's top 5, so he's probably within the top 20 at this point. If he wins the super bowl, he's one of the all time greats and you can take that to the bank.

Little Danny wrote: This. It is way too premature to have this conversation about Brees. I honestly could not even begin to tell you where I would rank him all-time. I can think of at least 50 other QB's though I would probably rank above him at this time. At the end of the day, maybe I rank him higher (maybe he will turn out to be top 10 material who knows). However, right now is not the time.

I swear some people have no context of history and what others achieved previously.

Laley23 wrote: I could name 30 QBs ahead of him. Then I would crunch numbers and could probably name quite a few more ahead of him.

What I've noticed over time is that, as it relates to rankings, there's a clear top strata (anywhere from three to fifteen), there's a second tier (usually the next twenty or so), then there's a huge group where the only thing to separate them is something like this:
1) Player A had five above average seasons and six average seasons
2) Player B had one All-Pro type season, two above average seasons, three average seasons, and five below average seasons
3) Player C had one above average season and ten average seasons
4) Player D had seven average seasons, five below average seasons, and two Super Bowls or NFL championships

I'm curious to see who you'd rank ahead of Brees at this point, if nothing else because I think you'd see that it would bear out this point. And as an aside, if Brees' last five seasons were to begin his career, the general consensus would be that he's one season away from being a HOF lock.

sleeper wrote: Of the QB's I've seen he's top 5, so he's probably within the top 20 at this point. If he wins the super bowl, he's one of the all time greats and you can take that to the bank.

A super bowl win does not make one of the all time greats. One game isn't going to mean that much. He's thrown for over 4,000 yards each year with the Saints. I can't get good enough stats on my phone, but I bet he also threw a lot. Either way, Brees will probably be top 20 if he's consistent the next few years.

NNN- For the all-time list? In no particular order:

Manning
Favre
Marino
Elway
Montana
Unitas
Jim Kelly
Staubach
Steve Young
Aikman
Bradshaw
Otto Graham
Warren Moon
Randall Cunningham
Tom Brady
Phil Simms
Kenny Anderson
Boomer Esiason
Ken Stabler
Joe Naimath
Bart Starr
Kurt Warner
Frank Tarkenton
Dan Fouts
Sonny Jurgensen
Len Dawson
Bob Griese
Steve McNair
Donovan McNabb
Sammy Baugh
YA Tittle
Joe Theismann

I would rank all of these guys ahead of Brees as of right now. This is just a quick lilst. I am sure if I gave it some additional thought I would come up with some more.

Jim Plunkett, John Hadl and Roman Gabriel should be on that list.

Good list.

Brees with another 3 years of these stats, and some more playoff success will rise the lsit quickly. Its just as of now, I dont have him in my top 30-40.

We shouldnt even be having this discussion. Drew Brees has won a total of 3 playoff games in his career. He wouldnt make a top 50. Yet!

For what it's worth, here's my list of who's ahead of Brees at this point (no order).

Arnie Herbie, YA Tittle, Bob Waterfield, Brett Favre, Cecil Isbell, Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, George Blanda, Daryle Lamonica, Fran Tarkenton, Frankie Albert, John Unitas, Joe Namath, Donovan McNabb, Joe Montana, Ken Anderson, Len Dawson, Terry Bradshaw, Sonny Jurgensen, Norm Van Brocklin, Tobin Rote, Kurt Warner, John Hadl, Sid Luckman, Sammy Baugh, Otto Graham, Steve Young, Peyton Manning, Roger Staubach.

NNN do you really think Brees is better than Tom Brady, Troy Aikman, and Warren Moon just to name a few guys that aren't on your list?

For me Brees wouldnt even crack the top 30. If he can continue hows be been doing for the next 3-5 years then Im sure he will move up there.

trackandccrunner wrote: NNN do you really think Brees is better than Tom Brady, Troy Aikman, and Warren Moon just to name a few guys that aren't on your list?

For me Brees wouldnt even crack the top 30. If he can continue hows be been doing for the next 3-5 years then Im sure he will move up there.

I think that Aikman is one of the most horribly overrated quarterbacks in history. Pretty much his entire career value and perception of greatness is built around what the Cowboys accomplished as a team without any real consideration given to how much of a part Aikman played in that. His role over his career was basically that of a Bob Griese or early Terry Bradshaw (hand off, don't screw things up); if you take away the championships, absolutely no one would ever consider Aikman a HOFer.

Warren Moon had one of the great seasons of all-time in 1990, but outside you're looking at a guy who's regarded as great for three reasons:
1) He passed the ball a ton in Houston, which will inflate numbers relative to how much he actually produced on a per-attempt basis,
2) He stuck around for a LONG time, thus ensuring high career rankings through attrition, and
3) He's black. A problem with putting numbers in the hands of boneheads is that they'll use them inappropriately, and when you put numbers in the hands of people who are rightfully hacked off over the NFL's horrid history involving black quarterbacks, it creates a situation where the reaction is either to stand your ground (and be branded racist) or find a way to justify caving in (in this case, "Well, he's just like Jim Kelly, who's already in....")

Tom Brady is a cross between Aikman and Drew Bledsoe. Basically, team postseason success brought him undue credit, but he's also become somebody who passes the ball a ton without the actual production to back it up. Since I'm a fan of "How strong of a case does one have?", which usually involves taking away someone's most prominent accomplishment and seeing how strong of a case they have for HOF consideration, let's take away Brady's championships (which, of course, have nothing to do with the NFL's 6th ranked, 2nd ranked, and top-ranked defenses during those years).

What we'd be left with is this type of comparison.
QB 1 - 31421 total yards, 231 total touchdowns, 99 interceptions, 15 fumbles lost
QB 2 - 36122 total yards, 244 total touchdowns, 100 interceptions, 16 fumbles lost

1 is Tom Brady, 2 is Donovan McNabb. And if you take away each player's best season (for Brady, it would be 50 touchdowns), it skews even more heavily. Then you can throw in comparisons with caliber of running backs, caliber of offensive line, caliber of receivers....there's a reason I refer to McNabb as "Brady without the team success or accolades".

I don't understand how he couldn't be in the discussion. The question was where does he rank all-time, wouldn't that technically include every QB who has ever played?

NNN you can argue every QB benefits from the system they run, longevity or the team that surrounds them. Would Joe Montana have won 4 Super Bowls and put up his numbers if he played for the 80's Pittsburgh Steelers? Didn't he benefit from running the West Coast Offense and having the genuis of Bill Walsh? Additionally, even though Warren Moon posted some numbers by running the Run and Shoot, some other QB's were not as successful (ie. Scott Mitchell in Detroit).

Finally, many argue that Emmitt Smith benefitted from the great offensive line and should not be considered among the best RB's of all time. If Emmitt is not to be considered as one of the Greatest RB's, and Troy is not to be considered amongst the Greatest QB's, does anyone deserve any glory for that team?

SQ_Crazies wrote: I don't understand how he couldn't be in the discussion. The question was where does he rank all-time, wouldn't that technically include every QB who has ever played?

There's been fewer than 200 quarterbacks (or single-wing tailbacks who did a lot of throwing) who have had a meaningful career, which I've basically defined as "a career of at least five full seasons".

Here's a funny one to think about. Two QBs who are contemporaries produce this...

QB 1 - 125 career games, 2666/4070 passing (65.5%), 32344 yards, 208 touchdowns, 128 interceptions, 286 rushing yards and 3 rushing TDs, 104 fumbles with 20 lost, sacked 260 times for -1669 yards. 57-44 career record as a starting QB. Total yards are 30961, total touchdowns 211, total turnovers 148. 4 Pro Bowl appearances, 2 first-team All-Pro.

QB 2 - 122 career games, 2697/4164 passing (64.8%), 30646 yards, 202 touchdowns, 110 interceptions, 482 rushing yards and 7 rushing TDs, 57 fumbles with 11 lost, sacked 159 times for -1165 yards. 55-51 career record as a starting QB. Total yards are 29963, total touchdowns 209, total turnovers 121. 4 Pro Bowl appearances, 1 first-team All-Pro.

QB 1 has an advantage of 998 total yards and 2 touchdowns, but QB 2 has turned the ball over 27 times fewer.

QB 1 is Kurt Warner (who I was roasted for two weeks ago for being about the only person who I said wasn't a first-ballot HOFer and referred to him as a "marginal candidate"). QB 2 is Drew Brees (who I'm being less roasted for here for daring to put the two in the same realm).

Kurt Warner will get in when you consider what he has done in the playoffs. I found this graph on the interrnet. It does not include his last game.

Little Danny wrote: NNN you can argue every QB benefits from the system they run, longevity or the team that surrounds them. Would Joe Montana have won 4 Super Bowls and put up his numbers if he played for the 80's Pittsburgh Steelers? Didn't he benefit from running the West Coast Offense and having the genuis of Bill Walsh? Additionally, even though Warren Moon posted some numbers by running the Run and Shoot, some other QB's were not as successful (ie. Scott Mitchell in Detroit).

There's a world of difference between running a system and being along for the ride. I'll use Terry Bradshaw as an example. For Pittsburgh's first two Super Bowls, he was used in the mold of a Trent Dilfer or Bob Griese type. For the last two, they don't come close to the playoffs without him, let alone win anything.

To your last point, Warren Moon was a substantially better quarterback than Scott Mitchell.

Finally, many argue that Emmitt Smith benefitted from the great offensive line and should not be considered among the best RB's of all time. If Emmitt is not to be considered as one of the Greatest RB's, and Troy is not to be considered amongst the Greatest QB's, does anyone deserve any glory for that team?

Now you're touching on two entirely different things. I think there's a tendency to want to assign credit or blame a small number of people for the success of the whole. The Dallas teams won because they were above average at pretty much every position on the field; any player at any given time would be among the 10 or even 5 best in the league at his position.

And to Aikman, let's be honest. There was one season of his career where you could argue that he was among the 5 or 10 best quarterbacks, that being 1992.

NNN wrote: QB 2 -55-51 career record as a starting QB.

Although we are talking position and not team, this strikes me as being too low (52%) of a winning percentage. Two years from now if we talking 76-62 (55%) he looks to be in better shape.