saintswhodi

As was prev stated Euph, you will NEVER win this argument by looking at stats in a vacuum. EVER. Case in point, let's say running back A runs for 120 yards and running back B has 3. If we looked at stats in the vacuum, most would say RB A was the stud. But when you expand the stats, RB A was Edge James week 1 verses NE where he had two red zone fumbles, and running back B was Jerome Bettis who had 3 Tds on 3 yards(or possibly less). Once you step out the vacuum, who would you rather have had? Numerous folks have tried to explain to you current QBs are in a completely different era then QBs even 10 years ago, cause the league wants stats and TDs to explode. Archie played in the era of some of the greatest defenses of our time, and on the worst team of the era top to bottom. You may see a dominant defense here and there in today's NFL, but nothing like the ones of the 60s and 70s. And heart can't be measured, but you can open your eyes and see up to this point, Brooks has not had it, to go with intelligence, football smarts, and leadership qualities. You can throw out stats all day, but the best argument against that was already given as well. Give me Brady and 3 rings over Peyton and TD records any day of the week. It's all about winning. So until you can step out the "look at his stats box" and come with something more significant than that, you will not change anyone's mind in this discussion.