I don't have any respect for any athlete that holds out on their team as it is, but for Brees to hold out on his team because he was "only" going to get paid $14 million is inexcusable and quite honestly, excruciatingly immature.
I used to have some level of respect for Brees, even though I was already convinced that he was overrated. That changed this offseason. Now it's just one more argument the sheep will have to tout that Brees should have won the NFL MVP, that he's better than Brady or Manning, yada yada yada.
Let me tell you what people already know, but willfully ignore. Aaron Rodgers is a better player than Drew Brees, BY FAR. It really only takes half a brain to know that, and let me show you why.
If a quarterback only throws half as many passes as another, how then what would be the best way to compare the two? You obviously can't just go by the total number of passing yards, touchdowns and interceptions, because you're not looking for production, you're looking for who has more potential.
Therefore, you have to go by percentages. That's the real standard of evaluating who is the more talented player.
Rodgers threw the ball 502 times last season, while Brees threw it for a whopping 657 times. That's 155 more passes than Rodgers. You would expect Brees to outscore Rodgers in a landslide here, but instead, Brees only has a touchdown percentage of seven, while Rodgers has a percentage of 9.
Brees had 800 more passing yards than Rodgers, but Rodgers threw the ball for 9.2 yards a pass, while Brees threw it for 8.3 yards a pass.
Brees had 14 interceptions while Rodgers only had six. Some might say "you should expect more because Brees had more passes". Did I not establish that we're going by percentages? Rodgers had a 1.2 interception percentage, while Brees had a 2.1 interception percentage.
So why is it better that Rodgers was more efficient? The bottom line is that Brees had more production right? WRONG. And here's why.
If a player is more efficient, that means he's going to get just as much done in less time. That means Rodgers was winning games by the third quarter when Brees had to drive up the score several times just to look anything like Rodgers. If you're a head coach in the NFL, who would you choose?
This isn't difficult to understand. Rodgers won the award, and he won it with the right number of votes.
Further more, Brees plays at least nine games a year indoors, while Rodgers is only guaranteed two. Brees has an amazing pool of running backs (the Saints ranked sixth in rushing both in 2009 and 2011), while Rodgers has had, at best, a solid running game to compliment him.
Take 2010, where both the Packers and the Saints struggled with the run game. Rodgers still had a higher touchdown percentage than Brees, and Brees threw 11 more interceptions than Rodgers.
Since 2008, Rodgers has been sacked on average once for every 13 passes, while Brees sacked on average once for every 26 passes. Rodgers is sacked virtually twice as much as Brees is.
Rodgers has 1,200 career rushing yards, while Brees' has 600 career rushing yards. Rodgers has 16 rushing touchdowns to Brees' eight. Rodgers has a lifetime passer rating of 104.1, while Brees lifetime passer rating is 94.
I don't know where to stop.
The only thing, and I mean the only thing, that I could find that Brees truly has over Rodgers is accuracy. Brees has twice broken the record for NFL completion percentage, in 2009 and 2011.
But Rodgers is not far behind him. Their career completion percentages are 65.4 and 65.9 respectively. It's only a matter of time before Rodgers surpasses him. In fact, I'll bet you right now Rodgers will surpass Brees this year and will even become the most accurate passer in history.
So there you have it. My case why Rodgers is better than Brees. Don't tell me that I'm just biased cause I'm a Packers fan. I've stated my case with facts. While my bias may motivate me to make my case, it doesn't take away the facts.
Rodgers is a better quarterback, and 10 years from now, no one will deny that.