Higher in the all-time list:Brees vs Ben?

Now do the rank of defenses Ben had to play against versus the rank of the defenses Brees had the good fortune to play against.

 

My guess is that a lot of this is the result of (1) cap allocation and (2) style.

(1) Cap allocation: My guess is that across Ben's career we spend more on defense than the Saints did with Brees. On average, that probably meant that our defensive talent was better (or at least our guys were older) and our offensive talent (outside of the QBs) was worse (or at least younger). Since the NFL cap makes each season a zero-sum contest re: spending, I think this is essentially arguing that Ben probably played on teams with better defensive talent around him, but worse offensive talent around him. It might be because I'm a Steelers fan, but I think when you have a very good QB you should be spending cap and money on D because the QB should be a force multiplier on the offensive players.

I think that's certainly what we were doing when we were more successful.

We were less successful when we allocated big contracts to a WR (who went crazy) and a RB (who wouldn't even take our money!). But Ben probably had better passing stats. Which is probably some kind of anecdote about this entire argument.

(2) Style: As I'm sure we all know, the Steelers rarely do shootouts. Throughout Ben's career (with Cowher and Tomlin), the focus has been on winning but not driving up the score. We have generally been about trying to win games while avoiding shootouts. I think this is reflected in both (1) the higher defensive rating and (2) the fact that Ben has less gaudy stats than Brees.

Style wasn't just about how we played, but the players we put on the field too. The defensive minded coach loves Heath Miller because he's good at blocking and catching...and they probably think of it in that order. I love Heath too! The offensive coach picks Jimmy Graham because he sees TE1 more as a WR than an old school guy who can block well AND catch. He'll just put someone else in if he needs a guy to block.

Summary (although it's not shorter than the post...dammit!) I doubt anyone is surprised by this difference. The defensive minded coaches made defensive minded teams (especially Cowher because Ben was still young). And the offensive minded coach didn't. The other side of this coin is probably that the average quality of the offensive guys around Brees was better than what Ben played with. Because their focus was more on offense.

I wonder what the difference in their average cap% is across their careers. It's probably similar because they were both very good QBs. But I strongly believe that a big part of why Brady was dominant was because he played below his market value (usually by something like an elite player at a medium value position I think).

 

This is a good point.

I also think teams tend to mirror their opponents.

Part of the reason we had such a great defense in the Mason/Duck/Mason year was that the defense really was very good.

And I think part of it was the opposing teams knew that if they got to 10 points (exaggerating...but probably not by much), it would probably be enough.

My brother is a Chiefs fan (who kind of stopped watching the NFL right before they drafted Mahomes). So I remember this playoff game between the Colts and KC where the opposite was true. These were two incredible offenses going head to head. Both teams went into this game thinking "we've got to score 50 to win this game because the other team is going to score as much as they can no matter what". I don't think anyone has ever said that sentence about a Steelers coached team since I started watching the NFL (right at the end of Noll's tenure).

It's probably possible to test this, but my guess is that generally when you have a high scoring offense teams tend to be more aggressive against you (and score more points). And when you struggle to score, teams probably tend to be less aggressive against you (and score fewer points).

 

LoL. Funny how people flip flop all the time..
We must get an Offensive HC the NFL is all about Offense.
Later.....
Why didn't so, and so make more SBs?
Oh he never had a good Defense.
LoL

 

Choices a team makes.

 

Personally, I think it had more to do with Brees' offensive playstyle vs. Ben's that he got the MVP votes. Brees would consistently throw 50-100 more passes a year than Ben (which led to more yards and TD's by default), his ADOT was significantly lower (leading to higher completion percentages and lower pick numbers), and the style of offense played all favored Brees. The Steelers paid money on defense and let offensive players like Wallace, Bell, Sanders, etc. walk. The Saints kept money on the offense. The only times that the Steelers went all out on offense (the Killer B's era), Ben put up passing years that were just as good as most of Brees' AP years (particularly 2014 and 2018). Again, I know I am biased, but Brees looks a lot more pedestrian in a Steelers offense, while Ben would've put up similar numbers to Brees in an offense that was built to throw it all day.

Its a hard comparison, and if you go purely on stats and accolades you have to give the nod to Brees by a slight margin... but I do think there is an argument for Ben to be a "better" player. Its just whatever you value more imo. Brees was accurate, but was more of a dump off merchant that thrived in short passes to intermediate ones. Ben was a risk taker that would routinely hold onto the ball in order to fish for bigger plays. He did very well at all portions of the field, and was able to "play off script" in a manner that Brees was never capable of. Both great players and both deserving of their status as great QB's.

https://www.nfl.com/news/top-25-quarterbacks-of-all-time-patriots-tom-brady-leads-list-0ap3000001035041

This list has Ben at #19 and there are 5 guys ahead of him that played all or 90% of their career before the NFL merger in 1970 (which would exclude them from being included in any list I consider). I think Elway and Marino are a bit overrated IMO (and having Russell Wilson ahead of Ben is wrong) but I would probably safely put Ben at 13 in this list (removing the 5 guys from before the merger, and him jumping Wilson), which I think is pretty fair. I could see him anywhere between 12 and 17 all-time (post merger). Anything worse is a bit insulting, but I don't think there's a really strong argument for top 10.

 

totally agree with you. There's also a different side of the coin. Brees got to enjoy having all the money spent on the offense, while the Steelers generally let offensive players walk to keep money on the defense (except for a 5 year window in the Killer B's era). Not surprisingly, Ben put up really great numbers in those years. Would Brees' numbers have gone down if they let their offensive guys walk to spend on the defense? Yes. How would Ben's stats look like if he had highly paid offenses his whole career instead of holding onto the key defensive pieces? Better lol

There's too much to consider to state that Brees is better than Ben because his defenses were worse. They were that way by design. The Saints were trying to score a bajillion points. The Steelers were trying to win games 24-17. Ben would've statistically benefitted from having a "bad" defense in a lot of the same ways that Brees did (and vice versa).

 

I also think that the SA allegations kind of made Ben toxic for individual awards.

Holmes had a great SB against Arizona. But I think the SB MVP goes to the QB in that games 99 times out of 100.

And it probably also cost him futures votes for things like league MVP and 1st team All Pros. If it were me, he'd be a 1st ballot HoF'er. But after what they just did to Billy B, I could see them making Ben wait because of Midgeville too.

 

Let's not act like Roethlisberger had some slouches on offense. Ward, Holmes, Wallace, Sanders, Bryant, AB.

Brees had Colston and a collection of JAGs at receiver.