Originally posted by daragon:
We're basically arguing about unkowns here. But in my gut, I feel that if you put RW on the Saints teams that Brees won with, RW wouldn't have come close to what Brees did. RW is elusive, and he can play well, but I just dont think he has the skills or abilities that Brees has. And it may be the mental makeup, and not so much the physical attributes. As of today, Brees is superior to Russell. If RW even wants to be taken seriously as a top 5 QB in this league, he'll have to prove it this year, just like Kaep, RG3, Luck, Cam, etc. But of all of them, I think RW is actually the worst of the bunch, he just has a great team around him, and a great homefield advantage. You can't fault the guy for those things though, but I can state that my opinion is that he isn't as good as the rest.
Would I like RW to be the best? Sure, that would be great.
Obviously, if the QB of the team you follow is the best (or at least in that very upper echelon) the chances of that team winning a championship increases exponentially. But, what really matters is winning. So, if that great team and great home field advantage helps the Seahawks toward a non-empty trophy case and, the process, RW is merely "good" - I'm fine with that. You know, the whole Aristotle deal, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts."
