VSN's Top 10 NFL Quarterbacks.

[Nukleopatra]

Saluki, this argument has been settled by user.

His explanation is far more believable than your conspiracy theory.

Sorry, brah.

 

[Saluki]

Saluki, this argument has been settled by user.

His explanation is far more believable than your conspiracy theory.

Sorry, brah.

Lol now it's a conspiracy theory that a QB needs more than just himself to win in the NFL? Oooook

 

[The Messenger]

So, basically, we're in agreement. Drew Brees is an average quarterback, who needs a superior supporting cast, before he's able to win anything?

That's been my point all along.

He's not a top 5 NFL quarterback.

The top 5 NFL quarterbacks get the job done with what they have.

You deserve a ''Thanks.''

Case closed, until later in the year, where we can do this all over again.

None of your top five quarterbacks have got shit done with what they have if they had what Brees has. The only quarterback in your top 5 who you can claim has rose up and done work with not-so-great talent is Tom Brady because of his receiving corps early on, but even that's pushing it.

You're a retard if you can't see that. I'll go down your top 10 and I bet every single QB has twice as much talent on his team than Brees has.

 

[The Messenger]

I think most of us can agree that Brees is decent, sure, we can give him that. But his stats show that he just can't finish out strong. You can throw for 5000 yards, and it's impressive, sure it is. But it doesn't mean shit if your team isn't playing in January.

To call Brees decent is completely retarded. Don't send me PMs apologizing cause I was right and you were wrong in this thread and then calling Nukleopatra a fag who rides Kurt Warner's jock and has a thing against Brees for no reason, then turn around and agree with him completely in this thread.

Are you scared to tell this guy what you really think?

http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss55/mv31designs/randomhero.png

 

[Nukleopatra]

I think most of us can agree that Brees is decent, sure, we can give him that. But his stats show that he just can't finish out strong. You can throw for 5000 yards, and it's impressive, sure it is. But it doesn't mean shit if your team isn't playing in January.

You watch football, too, eh?

Excellent post.

 

[The Messenger]

No, he never said the Brees needed a superior supporting cast. But he could use at least a competent one. Name one "Great" QB, that had sucess, especially in the playoffs. With a Defense, or rest of the offense that played poorly around him..............and fail. If i recall, it's possible for a QB that does have a decent team around him to not win in the playoffs, i.e. Manning in the years before they won the SB. But i can't think of ONE team who went to the playoffs, and had success with a good QB and NOTHING else. Which, according to you, is what should be happening.

Could not have said it better myself.

This guy thinks Brady, Manning, Warner, and Roethlisberger had nothing around thme. He thinks there team is equal to Drew Brees' team.

He would also take Rex Grossman over Drew Brees.

 

[bucky]

Kurt Warner:

------G/GS Team KW yards TD/INT
1998 1-0.....4-12...0-0.....39......0 0
1999 16-16..13-3...13-3...4353 ..41 13
2000 11-11..10-6...8-3.....3429...21 18
2001 16-16..14-2...14-2...4830....36 22
2002 7-6......7-9....0-6.....1431....3 11
2003 2-1 .....12-4...0-1....365......1 1
2004 10-9.....6-10..5-4.....2054....6 4
2005 10-10...6-10...2-8.....2713...11 9
2006 6-5 .....5-11...2-4.....1377....6 5
2007 14-11...8-8.....7-7.....3417....27-17
2008 16-16...9-7.....9-7.....4583....30-14

I like Kurt Warner. And I think he's a very good QB, but....

He has really had only 5 good years in the NFL out of 11.
If a QB is the only reason a team wins or loses, then what happened between 2002-2007. that's a horrendous win/loss record.

2002-2007 W/L 16-30

I'm beginning to change my mind about his HOF status. I think he should be a bubble guy.

 

[Nukleopatra]

I'm beginning to change my mind about his HOF status. I think he should be a bubble guy.

Yeah. It's a toss up.

Question, though - Do you have Drew Brees in the HOF?

 

[MRN]

Let's compare Drew Brees/Rex Grossman's win/loss records.

Drew Brees (with New Orleans) is 25 - 23
Rex Grossman (with Chicago) is 19 - 12

Drew Brees has 1 playoff victory in 7 seasons as starter.
Rex Grossman has 2 playoff victories and 1 super bowl appearance.

Stat wise, there's no comparison, Drew Brees is far superior. But when it comes to winning football games, Drew Brees ranks right there, or in most cases BELOW some of the worst quarterbacks in NFL history.

Jay Schroeder - 61 - 38, 4 post season victories.
Jeff Hostetler - 51 - 32, 4 post season victories, 1 super bowl.

As much as the NFL tried holding these losers back, they still managed to do one thing Drew Brees hasn't done yet - win post season games. I'm going to bring all of this up again in my yearly ''Drew Brees - Most Valuable Loser'' thread. It's a shame that we've wasted all of these stats in a thread like this. His incompetence deserves it's own section.

Proves nothing about the player. I have watched Rex, and I know he is a product of his defense, that record is fake, he didn't win us games, our defense did, and about the superbowl, Kyle Orton got us there...Rex did nothing for the bears.

 

[Nukleopatra]

I have watched Rex, and I know he is a product of his defense, that record is fake, he didn't win us games,

Well, then Rex and Drew do have something in common.

Drew doesn't win games either.

I thought this argument was closed by two excellent posts by User and Random?

If you guys really want to continue, I can have the thread up by tomorrow evening.

 

[killgod]

this was my last favourite argument at MM

http://www.operationsports.com/mm/showthread.php?t=195237&

i like my post on page 3 as well

http://www.operationsports.com/mm/showpost.php?p=3337049&postcount=48


not that any of that has to do with Brees, but more so some fun facts on Warner and Nuk's homeristic love for the guy.


Kurt Warner > NFC West

 

[bucky]

Yeah. It's a toss up.

Question, though - Do you have Drew Brees in the HOF?

Nuke, no I don't. Not yet. And I don't think he will be. I don't think he gets in on his own. The Saints will need to turn things around and win some playoff games and a title. Teams winning in the playoffs really can help individual players make it to the hall.

And as far as Brees and Warner.

If Warner were in his late 20's or early 30's I would take Warner over Brees. But sorry Nuke. I think I would take Brees over Warner right not. Only because Warner is getting to that age where QB's can take drastic drops.

If Warner were younger he would be in my top 4, probably top 2 or 3, depending on how Brady comes back. Brees would be somewhere between 5-7. But you just don't know what age is going to do to KW next year.

I'm hoping he's the same guy next year, because I like him.

 

[Nukleopatra]

this was my last favourite argument at MM

http://www.operationsports.com/mm/showthread.php?t=195237&

i like my post on page 3 as well

http://www.operationsports.com/mm/showpost.php?p=3337049&postcount=48


not that any of that has to do with Brees, but more so some fun facts on Warner and Nuk's homeristic love for the guy.


Kurt Warner > NFC West

I don't remember any of that.

Were we on the same page?

Because we've always been so close.

 

[killgod]

I don't remember any of that.

Were we on the same page?

Because we've always been so close.

Nope, I chose to side with that fuckhead Manning, but your homeristic love for Warner outweighed my ignorance to respect Manning's skill, which I don't think has ever happened before.


I guess you deserve a prize for doing so, here's one ugly ass dyke of a pig woman that will "lick the tip" for you.

 

[The Messenger]

1. Tom Brady.
2. Kurt Warner.
3. Peyton Manning.
4. Ben Roethlisberger.
5. Philip Rivers.
6. Eli Manning.
7. Donovan McNabb.
8. Tony Romo.
9. Drew Brees.
10. Jay Cutler.

1. Brady is the only one on your list who you can claim did something with not so much talent, but that was only, ONLY at the WR position. Outstanding playoff defense and they had a good running game and Kevin Faulk who always came up big when it mattered.

2. The fact that you have Warner above Peyton shows your fanboyism, but I'll go along with it right here. When Warner won his Superbowl he had Tory Holt, Marshall Faulk, Issac Bruce, an outstanding return game, and a hall of fame coach. When Warner broke his finger he lost his starting job and became a journeyman and a groomer. What did he do in Arizona before this year? He failed in your eyes because he didn't get them to the playoffs. In Arizona, Warner has Fitzgerald, Boldin, and in the playoffs his running game and defense actually showed up.

3. Peyton Manning has Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison, Dallas Clark, Edge, and Joseph Addai. But you know what? Manning was a complete failure his whole playoff career until he won the Super Bowl. You know the reason they won the Super Bowl? Bob Sanders and that defense that showed up in the playoffs, not to mention Dominic Rhodes. Peyton contributed far less than the defense and Rhones.

4. Ben Roethlisberger at number 4 screams idiocy. The guy is not an elite quarterback and you have him listed at number 4. He's the only person who you can call a true winner because he has 2 super bowl titles in 5 years. Therefore, in your eyes, he is twice as good as Warner... if not BETTER. These are your words. Let's not forget his outstanding defense and the running game in Pittsburgh. I'll give this to Ben, he shows up when he needs to in the playoffs, but he gets carried to the playoffs every season by his team. He's a more talented Rex Grossman.

5. Philip Rivers has won... NOTHING! He's only had one good season and suddenly he's better than Eli Manning who has won a Super Bowl, and Donovan McNabb who you yourself said in this thread you consider a "winner" even though he hasn't won shit. Not saying I disagree that Rivers is better than Eli and McNabb (as you can see from my list), but I'm going by your standards. Do you see how badly you are contradicting yourself? It's pathetic.

6. Eli Manning won his Super Bowl because of a lucky catch and an amazing, amazing defense. I like Eli, I've followed him since Ole Miss, and I've always said he's been better than what everyone thinks of him and he showed that when he won the Super Bowl, but if you think he did it himself then you're an idiot.

7. McNabb hasn't won shit, and last year Drew Brees completely destroyed McNabb's stats. But stats aside, let's look at what McNabb has accomplished in his illustrious career. Numerous NFC Championship game berths, funny thing is A.J. Feeley was able to do the same thing with that team, Jeff Garcia was able to win as well with that team. Add in the fact the Donovan McNabb completely choked in the Super Bowl then went and blamed it on an illness no one knew about before then.

8. Tony Romo is my quarterback so this will be hard, but here it goes. Tony has won nothing, completely nothing, and is horrible in the month of December when games count the most. He's disappeared in ALL of the big games. He's got so much talent around him, far more than Brees could ever dream of, and he hasn't done anything with it. You're stupid for putting Romo over Brees, and I'm a fucking die hard Cowboys fan. In every month besides December and the playoffs I would say Tony is a top 4 or 5 quarterback, but when games really and truly matter, and we need games, Tony is as good as Brooks Bollinger.

10. Jay Cutler... Please enlighten me. This guy hasn't won anything. All he has done is shown mere flashes of potential, and then went and disappointed everyone. You obviously haven't measured Cutler by your "winning=great QB" standards. Cutler barely completes 50% of his pass when his team is losing, and when they are losing, count yourself out if Cutler is your QB. I like Cutler, been following him since Vandy (i live in Tenn so I see all these Mississippi and Tennessee football players from college on), but Cutler doesn't measure up to your standards.

Your list should look like this...

1. Tom Brady
2. Ben Roethlisberger
3. Kurt Warner
4. Eli Manning
5. Brad Johnson
6. Peyton Manning
7. I'm sure there's other QBs left in the league who've won shit, but I just can't find them. Let's pray Dilfer, Elway, and Aikman all make returns so we can complete this list.

EDIT
Here's my challenge Nuk, find me one QB who has won anything with the amount of (or lack of) talent around him Brees has. To quote Katt Williams, "Don't worry, I'll wait."

 

[Nukleopatra]

Are you still waiting, Messenger?

Just curious.

 

[The Messenger]

I don't really care about your opinions on Drew Brees or Kurt Warner. But you watch what the fuck you say about Jay Culter.

Me <3 Cutler.

 

[bucky]

I don't really care about your opinions on Drew Brees or Kurt Warner. But you watch what the fuck you say about Jay Culter.

Who's this Cutler guy?

EDIT: Oh dude...sorry...I can't even joke about this...After you gave the Rodger's love. The Cutler Who? thing. I take it back.:happy:

 

[Goober]

10. Jay Cutler... Please enlighten me. This guy hasn't won anything. All he has done is shown mere flashes of potential, and then went and disappointed everyone. You obviously haven't measured Cutler by your "winning=great QB" standards. Cutler barely completes 50% of his pass when his team is losing, and when they are losing, count yourself out if Cutler is your QB. I like Cutler, been following him since Vandy (i live in Tenn so I see all these Mississippi and Tennessee football players from college on), but Cutler doesn't measure up to your standards.

Over the last two years, Cutler has done just as much as Brees, despite having a far worse defense, and a lot more injuries; which are your two big arguments for Brees. Cutler is also clutch, he has several game winning drives in his short NFL career.

As far as his losing record at Vandy goes, I think John Lynch said it best, "If this guy can take a bunch of future doctors and lawyers, and compete against some of the best teams in college football, you know he's good."

 

[The Messenger]

Over the last two years, Cutler has done just as much as Brees, despite having a far worse defense, and a lot more injuries; which are your two big arguments for Brees. Cutler is also clutch, he has several game winning drives in his short NFL career.

As far as his losing record at Vandy goes, I think John Lynch said it best, "If this guy can take a bunch of future doctors and lawyers, and compete against some of the best teams in college football, you know he's good."

How do you see Cutler as doing just as much as Brees? If you are going by Nuk's standard, then yes. However, if you have basic knowledge of football, and aren't being a complete homer here, you could tell Brees is a lot better than Cutler.

I like Cutler, like I said, and he's still young. Even then, Cutler has only shown mere flashes of potential and then faltered down the stretch. Look at Cutler's stats, 2 touchdowns and 4 interceptions during Denver's final 3 losses of the season that cost the Broncos the post season. That's not clutch.

You want to talk about what he did in game 2 of the season thanks to a retarded call by a ref, or do you want to talk about the final 3 games that are the reason Cutler sat at home and watched the playoffs?

I'm just saying, we can go by either actual performance on the field, or we can go by Nuk's logic which is "unless you win a super bowl you suck, oh yea McNabb is a winner."