PDA

View Full Version : Will Manning go down as best ever?


azbroncfan
02-05-2007, 02:14 PM
Now there aren't really anything to bash him about now since he has a ring. You knew he would get one sooner or later. When your team consistently has 12 wins you will get to the SB at some point. I know he isn't popular here because he rapes Denver everytime he plays them but he is the best QB in the league now.

Any thoughts?

Bronco Billy
02-05-2007, 02:20 PM
I'm not ready to call him the best ever. I'd definitely put him in my top 10, probably even my top 5. I still think he's a better QB than Brady, although that's not a popular opinion around here.

Rock Chalk
02-05-2007, 02:20 PM
Elway is best ever.

JMO.

Give me Elway over Manning any day of the week.

azbroncfan
02-05-2007, 02:23 PM
He will break every passing record known to man barring injury, probably get at least one more ring. It will be hard to not count him as one of the top 3 at the minimum.

Bronco Billy
02-05-2007, 02:23 PM
Elway is best ever.

JMO.

Give me Elway over Manning any day of the week.

I agree. Actually Skip Bayless was just talking about this on Cold Pizza. He had Brady at #2, Elway at #4, and Manning at #10. I remember him also mentioning Montana (I think #1), Unitas, Bradshaw, Namath (at 8th?), Staubach (#5?), and Marino.

Sassy
02-05-2007, 02:23 PM
This thread makes me want to puke a little...blah.

Bronco Billy
02-05-2007, 02:25 PM
He will break every passing record known to man barring injury, probably get at least one more ring. It will be hard to not count him as one of the top 3 at the minimum.

True. I think he will be in the top 3, but he's not a lock yet.

freak6
02-05-2007, 02:25 PM
Manning has the #'s, but his playoff performance this year was sub par for his standards. If he wins another ring, then I think he is in the conversation with Elway and Montana. As of right now, he is right there with Farve, Marino, and Brady.

Bronco Billy
02-05-2007, 02:26 PM
This thread makes me want to puke a little...blah.

I don't like him either. Putting that aside, he's a hell of a QB.

freak6
02-05-2007, 02:27 PM
I agree. Actually Skip Bayless was just talking about this on Cold Pizza. He had Brady at #2, Elway at #4, and Manning at #10. I remember him also mentioning Montana (I think #1), Unitas, Bradshaw, Namath (at 8th?), Staubach (#5?), and Marino.

Anyone that puts Namath in thier top 20 QBs of All-time is a moron.

I'd take Randall Cunningham over him, certainly Moon, Esiason, Young, Kelly, Fouts, McNabb, even McNair, Blanda, Plunkett, Tarkenton, Aikman, and maybe even Joe Thiesmann.

Pick Six
02-05-2007, 02:27 PM
Manning and the Colts were doing what they could to give the game away. Unfortunately, the Bears were also in a giving mood. I wasn't impressed...

Bronco Billy
02-05-2007, 02:33 PM
Manning has the #'s, but his playoff performance this year was sub par for his standards. If he wins another ring, then I think he is in the conversation with Elway and Montana. As of right now, he is right there with Farve, Marino, and Brady.

Montana had better teams than Manning.

Elway had a better arm, scrambling ability, and an uncanny ability to win at the end of the game.

Marino has the records and probably the quickest release ever.

Favre has a better arm and scrambling ability than Manning.

Brady has more rings at such a young age. Other than that, I don't see anything that makes him stand out.

Manning can decipher what the defense is doing as well as, if not better, than anyone. Plus, he's pretty darn accurate.

azbroncfan
02-05-2007, 02:34 PM
Manning has the #'s, but his playoff performance this year was sub par for his standards. If he wins another ring, then I think he is in the conversation with Elway and Montana. As of right now, he is right there with Farve, Marino, and Brady.

This is a classic post, Before he was great but couldn't win, now he won and his performance was subpar, now he needs another ring to win.

Do you remember Elways numbers from the first SB? Don't matter rings do.

Nice try though. He is a great QB whether you like him or not.

toad
02-05-2007, 02:34 PM
Right, wrong, or indifferent he very well may go down as the best ever.

At his current pace he's going to blow all passing records out of the water and will likely give Elway's (probably Favre's) wins record a run.

Top being the most prolific passer of all-time off with multiple league MVP honors, [at least one] Super Bowl victory, and [at least 1] Super Bowl MVP and, most likely, he'll become "the greatest."

Bronco Billy
02-05-2007, 02:35 PM
Anyone that puts Namath in thier top 20 QBs of All-time is a moron.

I'd take Randall Cunningham over him, certainly Moon, Esiason, Young, Kelly, Fouts, McNabb, even McNair, Blanda, Plunkett, Tarkenton, Aikman, and maybe even Joe Thiesmann.

I didn't agree with Namath at #8 or Brady at #2.

freak6
02-05-2007, 02:39 PM
This is a classic post, Before he was great but couldn't win, now he won and his performance was subpar, now he needs another ring to win.

Do you remember Elways numbers from the first SB? Don't matter rings do.

Nice try though. He is a great QB whether you like him or not.

I'm not saying he isn't great, I'm just saying Elway and Montana are greater.

Like I said, he is right there with the guys that put up big numbers, but only played in a couple SBs. Greatness is winning in the playoffs.

Elway played in 5 Super Bowls winning the last 2 with no ACL. That puts him over Manning. Montana played in 4 winning all of them, MVP in 3. Nuff said.
Brady has 3 rings, and solid numbers.

Mannng has one ring and #'s like Farve, and Marino who only played in one SB, but lost to a great SF team. That is why he is below Elway and Montana.

Rohirrim
02-05-2007, 02:43 PM
Nope.

Bronco Billy
02-05-2007, 02:50 PM
If each one of the these QBs played on the same average team with an decent defense, I think Elway goes to the most Super Bowls. Favre and Marino have also done well without an excellent team and a very good defense. Montana and Brady's SB success is, in a large part, based on their coaches (Bill Walsh and Bill Belichick) and the strength of their supporting cast.

freak6
02-05-2007, 02:56 PM
Bernie Kosar vs Joe Namath, who you got?

I'd take Dave Krieg over Namath all day. Phil Simms too. Bledsoe, and Kenny Anderson too. That's like 20+ better than Namath right there. I'm really not Suzy Kolber's brother, Namath just sucked.

It is so funny how people think Namath was some great football player in the NFL.

DivineLegion
02-05-2007, 03:08 PM
Right, wrong, or indifferent he very well may go down as the best ever.

At his current pace he's going to blow all passing records out of the water and will likely give Elway's (probably Favre's) wins record a run.

Top being the most prolific passer of all-time off with multiple league MVP honors, [at least one] Super Bowl victory, and [at least 1] Super Bowl MVP and, most likely, he'll become "the greatest."

I agree the stats will declare him the greatest but lets not forget the rule changes that have changed the face of the game through his generation...

NFLBRONCO
02-05-2007, 03:37 PM
Imagine Elway with Harrison Wayne and Addai/Edge early in his career. Elway took a crappy teams to 3 sb's before winning last 2. I think the experts forget Montana and Manning had more weapons.

bendog
02-05-2007, 03:40 PM
Absolutely, no other qb to ever have the horseshoe helmet can even compare.

Taco John
02-05-2007, 03:40 PM
Manning isn't the best ever. I'd still take Elway over him. I'd take Steve Young over him too.

It's stating the obvious to say that he's one of the best of this generation... I guess the real question beomes "is he *the* best of this generation?" I don't think we'll ever see the end of the Manning/Brady debate, which is good for the game.

maven
02-05-2007, 03:47 PM
How about we see if he can continue to put up large numbers every season. Injuries are a part of the game so anything can happen. I think he needs more Super Bowl appearances to be considered one of the best ever along with the large #'s.

loborugger
02-05-2007, 03:52 PM
Best ever? Doubtful. Besides, if you ask 10 experts to give a list of the best 10 QBs of all time, and you would get 10 different lists, with as many as 4 QBs occupying the top spot.

Also, I am not sold on the "hes now the best cuz he got a ring" arguement. His play this season definitely got his team to the playoffs, but the team won in the playoffs and the big game in spite of Manning.

Jason in LA
02-05-2007, 03:57 PM
He's going to climb way up that latter. He's going to have the records. If he gets a couple more rings, it going to be hard to keep him out of the top ten, and many will have him at #1, and I'd say that they would have a strong argument. A much stronger argument than this crap I've been hearing about Brady being a top 5 QB of all time. I've always felt that Brady wasn't close to being as good as Manning. Manning has always been on a better offense, but Brady has always been on a better team. I have no problem putting Manning in the conversation, because he's that damn good. But Brady? Overrated.

Taco John
02-05-2007, 03:57 PM
...the team won in the playoffs and the big game in spite of Manning.

I think it's a stretch to say that they won it *in spite* of Manning. Maybe that first game, but after that, Manning was a key contributor... And even in that first game, they wouldn't have won if Manning didn't settle down and just take what was given to him.

Jason in LA
02-05-2007, 04:00 PM
but the team won in the playoffs and the big game in spite of Manning.

You can say that for about 2/3s of Brady's playoff wins, but people put him up there with the greats.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that the Colts won in spite of Manning. In the Super Bowl he played well, not great, but well. But in the AFC title game, the Colts D was a no show, and Manning put that team on his back in the 2nd half. He was unstoppible and was the driving force for them to get to the Super Bowl.

bendog
02-05-2007, 04:02 PM
Let him win two before even considering it, and have one of them be in OT and be labled the greatest game ever.

Unitas was so outraged that he cut all ties to the relocated team. Other prominent old-time Colts followed his lead. He asked the Pro Football Hall of Fame on numerous occasions (including on Roy Firestone's Up Close) to remove his display unless it was listed as belonging to the Baltimore Colts. The Hall of Fame has never complied with the request. Unitas donated his Colts memorabilia to the Babe Ruth Museum in Baltimore; it is now on display in the Sports Museum at Camden Yards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Unitas

loborugger
02-05-2007, 04:04 PM
I think it's a stretch to say that they won it *in spite* of Manning. Maybe that first game, but after that, Manning was a key contributor... And even in that first game, they wouldn't have won if Manning didn't settle down and just take what was given to him.

The fact of the matter is, Manning played poorly until the 2nd half of the AFC title game. The other facets of the team carried him past KC and past B-more. They won in spite of his 2 TDs and 7 Ints. Just like in years past, the Colts woulda bowed out early had the other players not stepped up, esp the D.

Sir Mawn
02-05-2007, 04:07 PM
I would probably take 6 or 7 QB's ahead of Manning now. And 4 or 5 when he's done.

Kaylore
02-05-2007, 04:10 PM
It's too early to say. Winning the big game elevated him onto the conversation for top 7, though.

loborugger
02-05-2007, 04:11 PM
You can say that for about 2/3s of Brady's playoff wins, but people put him up there with the greats.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that the Colts won in spite of Manning. In the Super Bowl he played well, not great, but well. But in the AFC title game, the Colts D was a no show, and Manning put that team on his back in the 2nd half. He was unstoppible and was the driving force for them to get to the Super Bowl.


2/3rd of Brady's playoff wins? Are you serious? The dude is usually fairly flawless in the playoffs, the game last year in Denver and this season in Indy aside. In the 3 play off runs that ended with SBs, he threw 11 TDs and 3 Ints, with completion ratings in the mid 60s and a QB rating in the 90s. He may not have been the hero of every game, or even every SB, but he was definitely NOT a none factor. Sorry.

yavoon
02-05-2007, 04:13 PM
I agree the stats will declare him the greatest but lets not forget the rule changes that have changed the face of the game through his generation...

total league passing yards 2006: 104864

total league passing yards 1989: 102456


next excuse?

ZachKC
02-05-2007, 04:21 PM
total league passing yards 2006: 104864

total league passing yards 1989: 102456


next excuse?

Wow, thats interesting. Where did you dig that out of?

yavoon
02-05-2007, 04:22 PM
Wow, thats interesting. Where did you dig that out of?

I excelled and summed stats tables.

bendog
02-05-2007, 04:28 PM
What do you get if you go back to 79, or 69?

yavoon
02-05-2007, 04:39 PM
What do you get if you go back to 79, or 69?

couldn't find table for 69. 79 is 89170.

btw goin that far back made me think of # of teams. so I did averages.

2006 avg is 3508

1989 avg is 3659

1979 avg is 3184

actually lemme correct something, I took my 79/89 tables from pro football reference and my 2006 one from cbs. now I took the 2006 table from pro football reference and it gives a slightly higher total.

112277

perhaps a few teams got clipped in my copy paste from cbs. but the average thing is more interesting anyway, and those are all from pro football reference.

freak6
02-05-2007, 04:57 PM
Mike Vick or Joe Namath?

-Slap-
02-05-2007, 04:59 PM
Now there aren't really anything to bash him about now since he has a ring. You knew he would get one sooner or later. When your team consistently has 12 wins you will get to the SB at some point. I know he isn't popular here because he rapes Denver everytime he plays them but he is the best QB in the league now.

Any thoughts?

I think Brady is better, but feel free to pop a boner everytime you think about Peyton "raping" the Broncos.

-Slap-
02-05-2007, 05:03 PM
Anyone that puts Namath in thier top 20 QBs of All-time is a moron.

I'd take Randall Cunningham over him, certainly Moon, Esiason, Young, Kelly, Fouts, McNabb, even McNair, Blanda, Plunkett, Tarkenton, Aikman, and maybe even Joe Thiesmann.

A lot of people who weren't watching the League during Namath's career have that opinion after looking at his lifetime stats.

The guys who played against him in his prime don't feel that way. I agree he's overrated by the masses, but some of those names you have above him are comical.

Jason in LA
02-05-2007, 05:04 PM
2/3rd of Brady's playoff wins? Are you serious? The dude is usually fairly flawless in the playoffs, the game last year in Denver and this season in Indy aside. In the 3 play off runs that ended with SBs, he threw 11 TDs and 3 Ints, with completion ratings in the mid 60s and a QB rating in the 90s. He may not have been the hero of every game, or even every SB, but he was definitely NOT a none factor. Sorry.

That's the Brady hype that makes me sick.

In the first Super Bowl run Brady was a non-factor. He lost the game against the Raiders when he fumbled (only to be saved by the NFL's hatred for the Raiders). He led the Pats to zero points in the AFC title game against the Steelers, and he led his offense to 13 whopping points against the Rams in the Super Bowl. Like I said, non-factor.

In the first two playoff games during their second Super Bowl run he didn't do much of anything against the Titans and Colts. Hell, Manning kept giving the Pats the ball inside the Colts 30 yard line, and the Pats had to kick FG after FG. I'd say that Brady wasn't a factor until the Super Bowl against the Panthers. I will give him credit for that game. It was about time he finally showed up.

He was good during their third Super Bowl run, but nothing that I would call spectacular.

The guy is mostly hpye. He gets credit for putting his team on his back, but it's normally the other way around.

Rohirrim
02-05-2007, 05:05 PM
I watched a couple of SBs on saturday on NFL Network. I saw the Niners vs. Bengals, and the Pats vs. Rams. Then, I saw Manning yesterday in one of the most mediocre SBs I've ever seen. The performances don't even compare. Manning's performance yesterday is not even close to being in the same league as the performances of Montana and Brady in those two SBs. Watch and see. If you can't see that, you've got some kind of bias going.

Jason in LA
02-05-2007, 05:08 PM
I watched a couple of SBs on saturday on NFL Network. I saw the Niners vs. Bengals, and the Pats vs. Rams. Then, I saw Manning yesterday in one of the most mediocre SBs I've ever seen. The performances don't even compare. Manning's performance yesterday is not even close to being in the same league as the performances of Montana and Brady in those two SBs. Watch and see. If you can't see that, you've got some kind of bias going.

Are you talking about Brady's 16-27 for 145 yards? Naw, Manning's performance isn't close to that. Brady led his team to what, 13 points? He really shouldn't have gotten MVP for that game.

Clockwork Orange
02-05-2007, 05:12 PM
Are you talking about Brady's 16-27 for 145 yards? Naw, Manning's performance isn't close to that. Brady led his team to what, 13 points? He really shouldn't have gotten MVP for that game.

Ty Law should have taken home that award.

bendog
02-05-2007, 05:25 PM
hmm, I don't know of a site with league stats going back to the 60s. My recollection is that beginning with Air Coryall and Fouts in the mid 70s, offensive stats really started to climb. That's why you see the statistcal wierdness comparing guys like Sonny Jurgenson to Jim Hart. Hart was a good qb in a passing scheme, but Jurgenson is one of the best pure passers ever.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/JurgSo00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/HartJi00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/UnitJo00.htm

Jason in LA
02-05-2007, 05:25 PM
Ty Law should have taken home that award.

You are right about that one. The Pats won the game because of their pass defense. They played lights out. Ty Law made the biggest play out of all of them when he took that pick back for a TD. He played a great game and should have been rewarded for it.

bendog
02-05-2007, 05:37 PM
A lot of people who weren't watching the League during Namath's career have that opinion after looking at his lifetime stats.

The guys who played against him in his prime don't feel that way. I agree he's overrated by the masses, but some of those names you have above him are comical.

Physically, he really only had 5 years at most, really 65, 66, 67 and 68, but he was so competitive and tough he hung around for a decade. Sayers is comparable to Namath, imo. For 3 years Namath was deadly. Hadl and Lamonica prolly had more yards in 2 of those 3 seasons though

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/NamaJo00.htm

Archer81
02-05-2007, 05:49 PM
Here is a question, who is he more physically gifted than? Elway? Marino? Tarkenton? Unitas?


:Broncos:

broncs2bowl
02-05-2007, 06:01 PM
By the end of his career even with however many records he has....he will still be #3 behind Elway and Montana.

bendog
02-05-2007, 06:05 PM
Oh, Elway, beyond any doubt. But when you got a guy like Unitas leading the league in passing attempts in 1960 with 190 ... stats aren't reliable.

But, Payaton's in the top 3 for passing yards in like 8 out of 9 seasons. Some of us would take Brady as being more of a "gamer," but of his generation Manning's got to be one or two. Bobo's joined with King Kong on McNabb's back, though arguably the eagles cheap ass ownership haven't given him the cast (and he needs at least one plaster one a year now) that Indy's given Payaton.

Atlas
02-05-2007, 06:24 PM
Manning has only been in the league 9 years. He could win another 3 SB rings.. You just never know.

Rohirrim
02-05-2007, 06:26 PM
Are you talking about Brady's 16-27 for 145 yards? Naw, Manning's performance isn't close to that. Brady led his team to what, 13 points? He really shouldn't have gotten MVP for that game.

Brady was playing under far more pressure in that Rams game than Manning came close to yesterday. The rush was much heavier, the secondary he was playing against was flying around giving him nothing. He was threading passes into tiny gaps and getting hit while doing it. When was the first time in yesterday's game that Manning got hit - midway through the fourth quarter? Hell, the Bears gave Manning so much time, and played so much soft zone, he could have been making phone calls back there. The underneath routes were like a friggin ATM. He had them open all night.

The Montana game was even more impressive. In both those games, I saw QBs under enormous pressure, keeping their poise, taking what the defenses gave them, picking them apart with masterful passing, relentlessly moving the sticks and leading their teams with their performance. Hell, Montana threw this floater pass about thirty yards that lobbed over the coverage and dropped down to Rice like a dive bomb. I've seen very few QBs with that kind of touch. And that wasn't some perfectly planned timing pattern. It was a pass improvised to overcome great coverage.

Sorry. I just wasn't that impressed with Manning's performance yesterday, and even less impressed with Chicago's. If I were giving out the MVP award yesterday, I'm giving it to the Colt Oline. Go watch The Drive, with Elway vs. Cleveland, and ask yourself if Manning could have pulled that off. I don't think so.

freak6
02-05-2007, 07:18 PM
The guys who played against him in his prime don't feel that way. I agree he's overrated by the masses, but some of those names you have above him are comical.

Maybe Blanda and Theismann, but everyone of those guys I'd take over Willie Joe any day.

Namath's stats are atrocious, and with his knees the guy was a statue. It's not like he went out and beat the hell out of the Colts in SB3. He's the definition of East Coast NY Glamour Boy Bias.

Bronx33
02-05-2007, 07:40 PM
Jughead is 2 superbowls away from a best ever label in my book and this one got handed to him on a silver platter iam i wrong to ask him to earn it before he gets these types of threads?

yavoon
02-05-2007, 07:48 PM
Jughead is 2 superbowls away from a best ever label in my book and this one got handed to him on a silver platter iam i wrong to ask him to earn it before he gets these types of threads?

the goalpost moving we're getting today w/ manning is really amusing.

ZachKC
02-05-2007, 08:07 PM
Jughead is 2 superbowls away from a best ever label in my book and this one got handed to him on a silver platter iam i wrong to ask him to earn it before he gets these types of threads?

Are you trying to tell me he didn't earn this Superbowl?

ZachKC
02-05-2007, 08:08 PM
Ok guys, Manning hasn't shown me he is an elite QB. Any QB can go out and win a Superbowl.

When he wins a championship...without an offensive line...throwing a perfect game...WHILE finding out a way to tackle Bo Jackson on Tecmo football then I will concede that he isn't a guy who chokes in big games.

watermock
02-05-2007, 08:38 PM
He had a very poor postseason. Dungy got the D clicking.

Arkie
02-05-2007, 08:38 PM
Thursday February 01, 2007
NEW YORK (AP) Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning is already the NFL's most prolific pitchman, but marketing experts say a Super Bowl win could catapult him to a level few gridiron stars have ever achieved.

In case he wasn't feeling enough pressure about Sunday's game in Miami, the two-time NFL most valuable player should consider this: Experts say a win could allow him to not only triple his income from endorsement deals but also command profit-sharing or ownership stakes from the companies he endorses.

``With a victory Sunday, he will be at the top of his marketing game,'' said Henry Schafer, executive vice president of Marketing Evaluations Inc., which gives ratings called ``Q Scores'' to celebrities based on their commercial appeal.

``He will have the platform to transcend the sport of football to an even greater extent than he does now.''

Manning pocketed $11.5 million in endorsements in 2005, highest among football players, according to Sports Illustrated. New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, a three-time Super Bowl champion who earned $9 million in endorsements, was the No. 2 NFL player on the list. Tiger Woods led all U.S. athletes with $87 million in endorsement earnings.

continued (http://cbs2chicago.com/businesswire/Manning-Marketing_f_f_9----/resources_news_html)

No1BroncoFan
02-05-2007, 10:37 PM
Now there aren't really anything to bash him about now since he has a ring. You knew he would get one sooner or later. When your team consistently has 12 wins you will get to the SB at some point. I know he isn't popular here because he rapes Denver everytime he plays them but he is the best QB in the league now.

Any thoughts?
He wasn't even the best player on the Colts yesterday despite being given the MVP. He will be counted among the best now that he has a ring, but he's not even top 10 all time.

Ben

Pezman
02-05-2007, 10:41 PM
All I can say is, how effective would a QB like him be without a stellar offensive line adding major protection? Still, I'll give the guy props for running a competent playoff campaign. Its not like he did anything adverse to crush his teams hopes after all.

yavoon
02-05-2007, 10:55 PM
All I can say is, how effective would a QB like him be without a stellar offensive line adding major protection? Still, I'll give the guy props for running a competent playoff campaign. Its not like he did anything adverse to crush his teams hopes after all.

his oline is not stellar.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2007/01/30/ramblings/every-play-counts/4903/

azbroncfan
02-06-2007, 12:43 AM
Best ever? Doubtful. Besides, if you ask 10 experts to give a list of the best 10 QBs of all time, and you would get 10 different lists, with as many as 4 QBs occupying the top spot.

Also, I am not sold on the "hes now the best cuz he got a ring" arguement. His play this season definitely got his team to the playoffs, but the team won in the playoffs and the big game in spite of Manning.


That argument could be used on any HOF QB's that have won SB's. At some point in playoffs that has happened and probably more than once.

snowspot66
02-06-2007, 01:24 AM
This is a classic post, Before he was great but couldn't win, now he won and his performance was subpar, now he needs another ring to win.

Do you remember Elways numbers from the first SB? Don't matter rings do.

Nice try though. He is a great QB whether you like him or not.

I think it's a valid point. He played like **** and his team only faced one team in the entire playoffs with anything resembling a real NFL offense. He's a great QB, but God knows there's at least a half dozen QB's past and present I would take in a heart beat before I took him in the playoffs. I'd still take Brady over Manning any day of the week. The Broncos seem to have his number but the rest of the league should be thanking God that the Pat's ownership isn't willing to spend much on recievers. Only Elway ever consistantly did more with less.

He doesn't have to win another ring but he has to show he can play in a playoff game before I'm ready to crown his ass the best of all time. This year he played 2 good quarters, a couple average quarters, and the rest were all ass.

It's a very real argument that Bob Sanders and the weakest group of playoff teams in years did more to get Manning that ring than Manning did.

yavoon
02-06-2007, 01:52 AM
I think it's a valid point. He played like **** and his team only faced one team in the entire playoffs with anything resembling a real NFL offense. He's a great QB, but God knows there's at least a half dozen QB's past and present I would take in a heart beat before I took him in the playoffs. I'd still take Brady over Manning any day of the week. The Broncos seem to have his number but the rest of the league should be thanking God that the Pat's ownership isn't willing to spend much on recievers. Only Elway ever consistantly did more with less.

He doesn't have to win another ring but he has to show he can play in a playoff game before I'm ready to crown his ass the best of all time. This year he played 2 good quarters, a couple average quarters, and the rest were all ass.

It's a very real argument that Bob Sanders and the weakest group of playoff teams in years did more to get Manning that ring than Manning did.


such revisionist history. the only thing manning did bad in these playoffs was throw too many picks. and that is bad, so there's no sense excusing him too much. but his playcalling, his patience, his accuracy, his clutchness were all huge. every playoff game he threw a ton of passes. he had nearly 200 yards passing in the first half in the superbowl(even though it was raining heavily), he threw it how many times against NE? and had the game winning TOUCHDOWN drive, after making the largest comeback ever in a championship game.

even KC where he threw too many picks(on weird screwups between him and marvin), he had a large amt of yards and moved the team up and down the field.

cabronco
02-06-2007, 02:28 AM
his oline is not stellar.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2007/01/30/ramblings/every-play-counts/4903/

I think his O-line has a heck of a lot to due with Manning's performance. They've always have been. Why do you think teams have such a tough time getting to Peyton ? It isnt his scrambling abilities, he's just a notch above a Marino in that category. When I see the great quarterbacks in Superbowl victories, they all have a common theme, and thats a very solid O-line that can protect him. Montana would of never made it through his progressions without the line he always had.

watermock
02-06-2007, 03:12 AM
There wasn't much to choose from for MVP in that game other than the Colts OL.

snowspot66
02-06-2007, 03:49 AM
such revisionist history. the only thing manning did bad in these playoffs was throw too many picks. and that is bad, so there's no sense excusing him too much. but his playcalling, his patience, his accuracy, his clutchness were all huge. every playoff game he threw a ton of passes. he had nearly 200 yards passing in the first half in the superbowl(even though it was raining heavily), he threw it how many times against NE? and had the game winning TOUCHDOWN drive, after making the largest comeback ever in a championship game.

even KC where he threw too many picks(on weird screwups between him and marvin), he had a large amt of yards and moved the team up and down the field.

And those picks would have cost him against better offenses. Yeah they won, you can't take that away. But that just goes to show how much of a team game it is. If we're talking greatest QB of all time he's got to play hell of a lot better than he did and the reason he has to do that is he has never shown in the past that he could do it. Suddenly playing up to mediocre doesn't make him vault to the greatest ever.

TheReverend
02-06-2007, 08:11 AM
Brady was playing under far more pressure in that Rams game than Manning came close to yesterday. The rush was much heavier, the secondary he was playing against was flying around giving him nothing. He was threading passes into tiny gaps and getting hit while doing it. When was the first time in yesterday's game that Manning got hit - midway through the fourth quarter? Hell, the Bears gave Manning so much time, and played so much soft zone, he could have been making phone calls back there. The underneath routes were like a friggin ATM. He had them open all night.

Yeah that Ram's defense was much better than Chicago's... Hilarious!

loborugger
02-06-2007, 09:08 AM
That's the Brady hype that makes me sick.

In the first Super Bowl run Brady was a non-factor. He lost the game against the Raiders when he fumbled (only to be saved by the NFL's hatred for the Raiders). He led the Pats to zero points in the AFC title game against the Steelers, and he led his offense to 13 whopping points against the Rams in the Super Bowl. Like I said, non-factor.

In the first two playoff games during their second Super Bowl run he didn't do much of anything against the Titans and Colts. Hell, Manning kept giving the Pats the ball inside the Colts 30 yard line, and the Pats had to kick FG after FG. I'd say that Brady wasn't a factor until the Super Bowl against the Panthers. I will give him credit for that game. It was about time he finally showed up.

He was good during their third Super Bowl run, but nothing that I would call spectacular.

The guy is mostly hpye. He gets credit for putting his team on his back, but it's normally the other way around.

Well, I was watching Mike & Mike in the Morning just now. Manning has the dubious distinction of being the only QB to win a SB after throwing twice as many Picks as TDs in the playoff run.

I dont want to turn this into a Brady debate - I am not a huge fan of his - but at least he doesnt own the distinction of the worst post-season and still getting a ring title. I'll just repeat what I said before. It was the Colts D and running game that got them to the big game and won it, not Golden Boy.

Bronco_Beerslug
02-06-2007, 09:34 AM
Well, I was watching Mike & Mike in the Morning just now. Manning has the dubious distinction of being the only QB to win a SB after throwing twice as many Picks as TDs in the playoff run.

I dont want to turn this into a Brady debate - I am not a huge fan of his - but at least he doesnt own the distinction of the worst post-season and still getting a ring title. I'll just repeat what I said before. It was the Colts D and running game that got them to the big game and won it, not Golden Boy.Yeah, their D won all those games during the season to get them to the big game.

toad
02-06-2007, 10:08 AM
Numbers-wise, if Manning carries on at his current pace (assuming a 15 year career) he will own all the passing records. He'll have 62643 career yards and and astounding 465 career passing TDs.

Interesting, to all those who think Brady is a "game manager" and product of the system, if he carries on at his current pace (assuming a 15 year career) he will be 4th all-time in both passing yards (53865) and passing TDs (368). He'll be behind Manning (assuming the above), Marino, and Favre in those categories.

If both these guys carry on at their current pace for an average-length QB career, I simply can't see how you wouldn't put them both Top-5 of All-Time (and, IMO, if Manning wins another Super Bowl or two he may in-fact be the greatest ever).

IMO this is regardless of what types of teams they played on. Sure Manning's gaudy stats are somewhat a product of the talent he has on his offense...but his lack of championships could equally be related to the defense the Colts have lacked up until recent years. Sure Brady's championships are somewhat a product of NE's system and defense...but he's put up some surprisingly good stats too.

I know this board will be skewed pro-Elway and, likely, anti-Manning (due to his continuing drubbings of us) but its simply hard to argue his (and Brady's) place in history. Stat monster with championships to boot? I can't argue that.

20 years from now only 2 things will be remembered: Stats and Championships. The players surrounding talent, system, coaching, and "moxy" take a backline to stats and hardware (except maybe in Brady's case in which his "moxy" will likely define him).

Rohirrim
02-06-2007, 10:13 AM
Yeah that Ram's defense was much better than Chicago's... Hilarious!

Watch the games and compare. I did. They sure as hell played better against the Pats than the Bears did Sunday against the Colts.

footstepsfrom#27
02-06-2007, 10:22 AM
The best ever? That's a joke. First of all, Manning plays in an offense where he goes entire games without even being TOUCHED, let alone sacked. He has the best pass blocking offensive line in the NFL in front of him and the best offensive weapons at his disposal. Second, I hardly think his performance in the Superbowl merited the MVP, let alone speculaton he'll be the best ever. He was average...nothing more. But marketing drives these decisions now as much as performance. How else can you explain Vernon Davis doing TV commercials when he's accomplished NOTHING in the NFL?

Stats and passing records are a function of the way the game has changed today. The best QB I've ever seen was Elway, who could carry a mediocre team for an entire decade on his back...Montana second...and if you're looking for guys who won big, nobody in the modern era will ever touch what Otto Graham did for the Cleveland Browns. He took his team to the championship every year he played in the league. He even played pro basketball and his team won the title in the only year he played for them as well. Graham was the ultimate winner...Manning's the ultimate system QB...very good but take him out of his current environment and you'd see a completely different player. If Manning switched places with Brady, he would not have 3 titles. Manning's not even the best QB in the game today...I'll take Brady over him easily. Brady's won with average talent on offense and even if Manning gets to 3 Superbowl titles, which is unlikely, the best he'll be able to say is that he matched Brady with superior talent around him. Manning is the Troy Aikman of today...a very good quarterback with outstanidng talent around him, but not the best QB of his era. I don't care how many yards and TD's he throws for.

TheReverend
02-06-2007, 10:32 AM
Watch the games and compare. I did. They sure as hell played better against the Pats than the Bears did Sunday against the Colts.

And you attribute that solely to the Ram's playing better and give no credit to the Colt's offense for making the Bear's D look worse?

Rohirrim
02-06-2007, 11:14 AM
Numbers-wise, if Manning carries on at his current pace (assuming a 15 year career) he will own all the passing records. He'll have 62643 career yards and and astounding 465 career passing TDs.

Interesting, to all those who think Brady is a "game manager" and product of the system, if he carries on at his current pace (assuming a 15 year career) he will be 4th all-time in both passing yards (53865) and passing TDs (368). He'll be behind Manning (assuming the above), Marino, and Favre in those categories.

If both these guys carry on at their current pace for an average-length QB career, I simply can't see how you wouldn't put them both Top-5 of All-Time (and, IMO, if Manning wins another Super Bowl or two he may in-fact be the greatest ever).

IMO this is regardless of what types of teams they played on. Sure Manning's gaudy stats are somewhat a product of the talent he has on his offense...but his lack of championships could equally be related to the defense the Colts have lacked up until recent years. Sure Brady's championships are somewhat a product of NE's system and defense...but he's put up some surprisingly good stats too.

I know this board will be skewed pro-Elway and, likely, anti-Manning (due to his continuing drubbings of us) but its simply hard to argue his (and Brady's) place in history. Stat monster with championships to boot? I can't argue that.

20 years from now only 2 things will be remembered: Stats and Championships. The players surrounding talent, system, coaching, and "moxy" take a backline to stats and hardware (except maybe in Brady's case in which his "moxy" will likely define him).

Is it fair to compare the stats and accomplishments of QBs from the last ten years with the stats of those who played when you could knock the snot out of the QB any time you wanted and mug the receivers all the way down the field?

Rohirrim
02-06-2007, 11:23 AM
And you attribute that solely to the Ram's playing better and give no credit to the Colt's offense for making the Bear's D look worse?

I think part of it was the Bears game plan, which sucked. I couldn't believe how many times they had their LBs dropping back into coverage. They were giving up everything underneath because they were so afraid of getting burned deep. In fact, I would say the fear of the coaches trickled down to the players. It looked to me like Urlacher was yelling at the sidelines in the third quarter, waving forward like he wanted to play closer up to the line and get more aggressive, but the coaches were telling him no. They played aggressive all year and then took their foot off the gas in the SB. I guess their fear of failure was greater than their hunger for success. But I also attribute it to the Colt Oline, which deserved the MVP award, IMO. Teams have proven in the past that the way to beat Manning is to hit him early and hit him hard. Manning didn't get a grass stain on his uni until the fourth quarter when the game was already over.

TheReverend
02-06-2007, 11:43 AM
I think part of it was the Bears game plan, which sucked. I couldn't believe how many times they had their LBs dropping back into coverage. They were giving up everything underneath because they were so afraid of getting burned deep. In fact, I would say the fear of the coaches trickled down to the players. It looked to me like Urlacher was yelling at the sidelines in the third quarter, waving forward like he wanted to play closer up to the line and get more aggressive, but the coaches were telling him no. They played aggressive all year and then took their foot off the gas in the SB. I guess their fear of failure was greater than their hunger for success. But I also attribute it to the Colt Oline, which deserved the MVP award, IMO. Teams have proven in the past that the way to beat Manning is to hit him early and hit him hard. Manning didn't get a grass stain on his uni until the fourth quarter when the game was already over.

Did you even attempt to consider this as a by-product of the Colts multi-dimensional offense?

You credit the Rams who played against a Patriots team that was hardly more than one dimensional until Cory Dillon's arrival, and then attack the Bear's defense (probably the best in the league) and their gameplan against the most potent offense in the game.

Rohirrim
02-06-2007, 11:48 AM
Did you even attempt to consider this as a by-product of the Colts multi-dimensional offense?

You credit the Rams who played against a Patriots team that was hardly more than one dimensional until Cory Dillon's arrival, and then attack the Bear's defense (probably the best in the league) and their gameplan against the most potent offense in the game.

You're a Broncos fan, right? I'm beginning to wonder.

TheReverend
02-06-2007, 11:50 AM
You're a Broncos fan, right? I'm beginning to wonder.

Why? Because after Denver is knocked out of playoff contention I can drop team prejudices and appreciate watching the game and players objectively?

You're an NFL fan, right? I'm beginning to wonder.

Rohirrim
02-06-2007, 12:05 PM
Why? Because after Denver is knocked out of playoff contention I can drop team prejudices and appreciate watching the game and players objectively?

You're an NFL fan, right? I'm beginning to wonder.

I watched it objectively and came to the conclusion that it was a sloppy, mistake filled, mediocre SB. One of the worst I've ever seen. But I keep hearing the Payaton fans tell me what a glorius exhibition of football it was. There's a disconnect going on there.

TheReverend
02-06-2007, 12:12 PM
I watched it objectively and came to the conclusion that it was a sloppy, mistake filled, mediocre SB. One of the worst I've ever seen. But I keep hearing the Payaton fans tell me what a glorius exhibition of football it was. There's a disconnect going on there.

Now you're making up things. Find where I said any of that. Inclement weather makes sloppy, yet very exciting, football.

Jason in LA
02-06-2007, 12:15 PM
Brady was playing under far more pressure in that Rams game than Manning came close to yesterday. The rush was much heavier, the secondary he was playing against was flying around giving him nothing. He was threading passes into tiny gaps and getting hit while doing it. When was the first time in yesterday's game that Manning got hit - midway through the fourth quarter? Hell, the Bears gave Manning so much time, and played so much soft zone, he could have been making phone calls back there. The underneath routes were like a friggin ATM. He had them open all night.

The Montana game was even more impressive. In both those games, I saw QBs under enormous pressure, keeping their poise, taking what the defenses gave them, picking them apart with masterful passing, relentlessly moving the sticks and leading their teams with their performance. Hell, Montana threw this floater pass about thirty yards that lobbed over the coverage and dropped down to Rice like a dive bomb. I've seen very few QBs with that kind of touch. And that wasn't some perfectly planned timing pattern. It was a pass improvised to overcome great coverage.

Sorry. I just wasn't that impressed with Manning's performance yesterday, and even less impressed with Chicago's. If I were giving out the MVP award yesterday, I'm giving it to the Colt Oline. Go watch The Drive, with Elway vs. Cleveland, and ask yourself if Manning could have pulled that off. I don't think so.


When one guy throws for 145 yards, and the other guy throws for 250 yards, I don't want to hear that the guy who threw for 145 yards played better. It's just dumb.

I don't need to hear that the guy with 145 yards had it tougher. That's part of the game. Stop making excuses for the guy being a non-factor. I'm not going to give a guy credit because the other team was better (in that aspect of the game). It's a silly argument.

If Brady had similar numbers as Manning in the games that we are talking about, then I'll listen to your argument that he was better because the defense he played against was tougher (which I don't believe, but that's a seperate argument). But when he doesn't put up similar numbers, I don't want to hear it. And I'd say that Brady didn't put up similar numbers because he simply isn't as good. And like I said, he was a non-factor for about 2/3s of those playoff wins, even though he gets credit for all of them. Hell, he gets credit for the '01 AFC title game, even though he didn't lead them to any points. And he got a Super Bowl MVP in a game where he led his offense to 13 points. Yeah, but he threaded the needle a few times. Ah, okay.

Rohirrim
02-06-2007, 12:27 PM
The numbers argument applied to football is just plain dumb. It works fine with baseball; An ERA is an ERA. QB ratings are ridiculous, and so are arguments where you simply say, "He gained more yards, ergo he's better." Football is a hell of lot more complex and conditions can be vastly different from game to game. The arguments I hear against Brady are the same ones I've heard against Montana for years. As far as I'm concerned, they are all BS. If I had one game to win, regardless of conditions, all things being equal, and I had to choose a QB to win it, Manning wouldn't be in my top five.

TheReverend
02-06-2007, 12:32 PM
The numbers argument applied to football is just plain dumb. It works fine with baseball; An ERA is an ERA. QB ratings are ridiculous, and so are arguments where you simply say, "He gained more yards, ergo he's better." Football is a hell of lot more complex and conditions can be vastly different from game to game. The arguments I hear against Brady are the same ones I've heard against Montana for years. As far as I'm concerned, they are all BS. If I had one game to win, regardless of conditions, all things being equal, and I had to choose a QB to win it, Manning wouldn't be in my top five.

Tell that to the Plummer bashers

Jason in LA
02-06-2007, 12:50 PM
The numbers argument applied to football is just plain dumb. It works fine with baseball; An ERA is an ERA. QB ratings are ridiculous, and so are arguments where you simply say, "He gained more yards, ergo he's better." Football is a hell of lot more complex and conditions can be vastly different from game to game. The arguments I hear against Brady are the same ones I've heard against Montana for years. As far as I'm concerned, they are all BS. If I had one game to win, regardless of conditions, all things being equal, and I had to choose a QB to win it, Manning wouldn't be in my top five.


You are trying to make the argument that a guy who threw for 145 yards and led his team to 13 points was great. Now that's dumb.

yavoon
02-06-2007, 12:50 PM
I think his O-line has a heck of a lot to due with Manning's performance. They've always have been. Why do you think teams have such a tough time getting to Peyton ? It isnt his scrambling abilities, he's just a notch above a Marino in that category. When I see the great quarterbacks in Superbowl victories, they all have a common theme, and thats a very solid O-line that can protect him. Montana would of never made it through his progressions without the line he always had.

manning is incredibly hard to sack. his rookie year he took a line that was like 28th in sacks and made them 5th. and he has gottne a lot better sinc ethen.

hard to sack doesn't mean 40 yard dash time and scrambling. its blitz recognition, quick release, reading the coverage to know where u can throw it, pocket presence. all of which manning is very high in.

toad
02-06-2007, 01:06 PM
Is it fair to compare the stats and accomplishments of QBs from the last ten years with the stats of those who played when you could knock the snot out of the QB any time you wanted and mug the receivers all the way down the field?


Maybe, maybe not....but in the grand scheme of things, for history's sake, stats and accomplishments are all that will matter.

When we're dead and gone and Peter King's great great grandson writes an article on the best QBs ever I doubt it'll come down to: "half of Manning's career was post-2004 when rules for defending WRs changed, that must mean the guys with fewer stats and lesser accomplishments were actually better."

With all things being even close to relatively equal its just hard to say the guy with the lesser stats and accomplishments will go down in history as being "better."

I'm not saying its right or wrong but, as hard as it is to compare across generations in sports, stats and accomplishments will be all that matters in the end and, IMO, both Manning and Brady will have plenty of both and will go down as 2 of the all-time greats (if not THE 2 all-time greats).

And, FWIW, I dislike Manning as much as anybody....but his talent is hard to deny (and, now that he's over the "choker" hump, who knows what else he'll do).

Rohirrim
02-06-2007, 01:30 PM
You are trying to make the argument that a guy who threw for 145 yards and led his team to 13 points was great. Now that's dumb.

And, since the winning margin was three points, I guess those 13 points were pretty well done. I guess you could say that crummy 13 points won the game. Funny, whenever they run a poll on "Greatest SB Ever," that one always finishes in the top five. And yet here, it's a lousy 145 yards and a crappy 13 points. Smells like revisionism to me. ;D

Rohirrim
02-06-2007, 01:36 PM
Maybe, maybe not....but in the grand scheme of things, for history's sake, stats and accomplishments are all that will matter.

When we're dead and gone and Peter King's great great grandson writes an article on the best QBs ever I doubt it'll come down to: "half of Manning's career was post-2004 when rules for defending WRs changed, that must mean the guys with fewer stats and lesser accomplishments were actually better."

With all things being even close to relatively equal its just hard to say the guy with the lesser stats and accomplishments will go down in history as being "better."

I'm not saying its right or wrong but, as hard as it is to compare across generations in sports, stats and accomplishments will be all that matters in the end and, IMO, both Manning and Brady will have plenty of both and will go down as 2 of the all-time greats (if not THE 2 all-time greats).

And, FWIW, I dislike Manning as much as anybody....but his talent is hard to deny (and, now that he's over the "choker" hump, who knows what else he'll do).


Nowhere on this thread have I denied Payaton's talent. I just disagree with the idea that he's the best ever. Of course, I still think Jack Nicklaus is the best golfer who ever lived, and I will until Tiger can surpass his 18 major championships.

Jason in LA
02-06-2007, 01:44 PM
And, since the winning margin was three points, I guess those 13 points were pretty well done. I guess you could say that crummy 13 ponts won the game. Funny, whenever they run a poll on "Greatest SB Ever," that one always finishes in the top five. And yet here, it's a lousy 145 yards and a crappy 13 points. Smells like revisionism to me. ;D

That Super Bowl being one of the greatest ever does not mean that Brady's performance was one of the greatest ever. Two totally different things.

You are really reaching by saying that the 13 points that he led the team to was the difference in the game. Maybe if he had led them to more than 13 points the game would not have come down to a last second FG. Your point is like saying that if a team won a game 45-42, it was important that the defense was able to hold the opponent to 42 points so they could get the win. Maybe the offense won the game in spite of a poor defensive performance.

The Pats defense won the game in spite of Brady's poor performance, but the Brady gets credit for it. It's always been that way with the Pats.

You logic is giving me a good laugh. Keep reaching. I can't wait to read what you come up with next.

Rohirrim
02-06-2007, 01:53 PM
That Super Bowl being one of the greatest ever does not mean that Brady's performance was one of the greatest ever. Two totally different things.

You are really reaching by saying that the 13 points that he led the team to was the difference in the game. Maybe if he had led them to more than 13 points the game would not have come down to a last second FG. Your point is like saying that if a team won a game 45-42, it was important that the defense was able to hold the opponent to 42 points so they could get the win. Maybe the offense won the game in spite of a poor defensive performance.

The Pats defense won the game in spite of Brady's poor performance, but the Brady gets credit for it. It's always been that way with the Pats.

You logic is giving me a good laugh. Keep reaching. I can't wait to read what you come up with next.

I've pretty much accepted the fact that your fantasy world keeps spinning regardless of outside influences. :thumbsup: Yuk it up.

Jason in LA
02-06-2007, 02:06 PM
I've pretty much accepted the fact that your fantasy world keeps spinning regardless of outside influences. :thumbsup: Yuk it up.

That's the best you could come up with? Instead of debating the points, you take a shot at me. I guess you're out of material.

yavoon
02-06-2007, 02:08 PM
When we're dead and gone and Peter King's great great grandson writes an article on the best QBs ever I doubt it'll come down to: "half of Manning's career was post-2004 when rules for defending WRs changed, that must mean the guys with fewer stats and lesser accomplishments were actually better."he'll do).

most notably because this isnt even true.

TheReverend
02-06-2007, 04:48 PM
I've pretty much accepted the fact that your fantasy world keeps spinning regardless of outside influences. :thumbsup: Yuk it up.

No, actually you just have yet to make a valid point in this entire thread that pertains to the discussions you're involved in.

Rohirrim
02-06-2007, 07:40 PM
No, actually you just have yet to make a valid point in this entire thread that pertains to the discussions you're involved in.

No valid points? You're trying to convince me that Payaton will go down as the best QB ever. I say he doesn't come close to Brady, to name one contemporary. I would also include Montana and Elway on that list. Let's allow the numbers to speak for themselves:

Payaton has been in the league for 9 years. He is 7 - 6 in the playoffs and has one super bowl win.

Brady has been in the league for 7 years. He is 12 - 2 in the playoffs and has three super bowl wins.

It's not that I'm not making valid points. It's that arguing with you guys is like trying to convince Exxon Mobil that there's such a thing as global warming.

broncs2bowl
02-06-2007, 08:05 PM
Brady just doesnt rly shock me as a QB

Atlas
02-06-2007, 08:16 PM
Now there aren't really anything to bash him about now since he has a ring. You knew he would get one sooner or later. When your team consistently has 12 wins you will get to the SB at some point. I know he isn't popular here because he rapes Denver everytime he plays them but he is the best QB in the league now.

Any thoughts?


He definately could. He needs to win another Super Bowl than he'll be right up there with the very best.

Jason in LA
02-06-2007, 08:21 PM
No, actually you just have yet to make a valid point in this entire thread that pertains to the discussions you're involved in.

;D

Northman
02-06-2007, 08:27 PM
Will Manning go down as the best ever?


Answer: No

Jason in LA
02-06-2007, 08:29 PM
No valid points? You're trying to convince me that Payaton will go down as the best QB ever. I say he doesn't come close to Brady, to name one contemporary. I would also include Montana and Elway on that list. Let's allow the numbers to speak for themselves:

Payaton has been in the league for 9 years. He is 7 - 6 in the playoffs and has one super bowl win.

Brady has been in the league for 7 years. He is 12 - 2 in the playoffs and has three super bowl wins.

It's not that I'm not making valid points. It's that arguing with you guys is like trying to convince Exxon Mobil that there's such a thing as global warming.


Saying that Brady is 12-2 so he's one of the greatest is a very simple was of looking at it. So is Tedy Bruschi one of the greatest LBs ever? He is 12-2 in the playoffs. Using your logic, he is. You have to go deeper than that.

I've always felt that Manning was a lot better than Brady. Manning did play on a better offense (partly because of Manning), but Brady played on a better team, which is why he is 12-2 in the playoffs.

I've already pointed out, with details that Rohirrim has not been able to refute, that a number of those wins Brady wasn't much of a factor. Manning has been the driving force behind the Colts for the most part. I never felt that Brady was the driving force behind the Pats.

Now the Manning haters will point to the first two rounds of this year's playoffs, but do those two games erase all those great games by Manning? No. Without Manning the Colts suck every year.

I'm not about to put Manning in the top 5 of all time, but he's in the conversation. And he's climbing up the chart. I've never felt that Brady deserved to be in the conversation. He's a very good QB, but I never thought that he was great. Manning has been great.

azbroncfan
02-06-2007, 08:35 PM
No valid points? You're trying to convince me that Payaton will go down as the best QB ever. I say he doesn't come close to Brady, to name one contemporary. I would also include Montana and Elway on that list. Let's allow the numbers to speak for themselves:

Payaton has been in the league for 9 years. He is 7 - 6 in the playoffs and has one super bowl win.

Brady has been in the league for 7 years. He is 12 - 2 in the playoffs and has three super bowl wins.

It's not that I'm not making valid points. It's that arguing with you guys is like trying to convince Exxon Mobil that there's such a thing as global warming.


So who was the better QB Montana or Elway?

Rohirrim
02-06-2007, 09:33 PM
So who was the better QB Montana or Elway?

I put Elway down as the best of all time. Why? Because he won in all conditions and with all sorts of teams and coaches, from lousy to great. He dragged a couple of teams to the SB on his back. He exuded leadership. He made everyone around him better. He set a standard that his teammates strived to live up to. But I put Montana not too far behind. He had that same kind of fire in the belly to win that Elway had. Both great champions, but if Elway had played QB for Bill Walsh and the teams he put together in San Fran, who knows how many SBs John would have won.

yavoon
02-06-2007, 09:38 PM
I put Elway down as the best of all time. Why? Because he won in all conditions and with all sorts of teams and coaches, from lousy to great. He dragged a couple of teams to the SB on his back. He exuded leadership. He made everyone around him better. He set a standard that his teammates strived to live up to. But I put Montana not too far behind. He had that same kind of fire in the belly to win that Elway had. Both great champions, but if Elway had played QB for Bill Walsh and the teams he put together in San Fran, who knows how many SBs John would have won.

eleventy billion superbowls, atleast. they'd probably have to give them two a year just because only winning it once/year wouldn't be an accurate reflection of john elway's true mastery of life.

Rohirrim
02-06-2007, 09:40 PM
Saying that Brady is 12-2 so he's one of the greatest is a very simple was of looking at it. So is Tedy Bruschi one of the greatest LBs ever? He is 12-2 in the playoffs. Using your logic, he is. You have to go deeper than that.

I've always felt that Manning was a lot better than Brady. Manning did play on a better offense (partly because of Manning), but Brady played on a better team, which is why he is 12-2 in the playoffs.

I've already pointed out, with details that Rohirrim has not been able to refute, that a number of those wins Brady wasn't much of a factor. Manning has been the driving force behind the Colts for the most part. I never felt that Brady was the driving force behind the Pats.

Now the Manning haters will point to the first two rounds of this year's playoffs, but do those two games erase all those great games by Manning? No. Without Manning the Colts suck every year.

I'm not about to put Manning in the top 5 of all time, but he's in the conversation. And he's climbing up the chart. I've never felt that Brady deserved to be in the conversation. He's a very good QB, but I never thought that he was great. Manning has been great.

All I can say is, when the big game is on the line, I've seen Brady come through again and again. Maybe he doesn't put up the numbers Manning does, but he always seems to do enough to come out on top when it matters. What can I say? I'm sure as hell not a Pats fan, but the evidence of my eyes doesn't lie. I've also seen Manning come unglued in some of his biggest games and have some of his worst performances. That's not a lie either, going all the way back to Tennessee. The conditions came together for Manning to get his ring this year. Let's see what he does going down the line. As far as a LB getting the same credit for a win as the QB, why not the RG?

azbroncfan
02-06-2007, 09:42 PM
I put Elway down as the best of all time. Why? Because he won in all conditions and with all sorts of teams and coaches, from lousy to great. He dragged a couple of teams to the SB on his back. He exuded leadership. He made everyone around him better. He set a standard that his teammates strived to live up to. But I put Montana not too far behind. He had that same kind of fire in the belly to win that Elway had. Both great champions, but if Elway had played QB for Bill Walsh and the teams he put together in San Fran, who knows how many SBs John would have won.

I'm absolutely confused now, first Brady is better than manning because he has 2 more rings but Elway is better than Montana because Montana has 2 more rings.:kiddingme ???

The logic you used on your comparison of Brady and Manning is the exact same as Manning. Brady had better teams with great D's.

I'm confused?

Rohirrim
02-06-2007, 09:49 PM
I'm absolutely confused now, first Brady is better than manning because he has 2 more rings but Elway is better than Montana because he has 2 more rings.:kiddingme ???

The logic you used on your comparison of Brady and Manning is the exact same as Manning. Brady had better teams with great D's.

I'm confused?

I'm would try to answer that, but it doesn't make any sense. Elway has two more rings than Montana? ??? I don't have any idea what that second sentence means.

azbroncfan
02-06-2007, 09:52 PM
I'm would try to answer that, but it doesn't make any sense. Elway has two more rings than Montana? ??? I don't have any idea what that second sentence means.

Fixed it for you, but your logic doesn't work if you pull the more rings argument.

Rohirrim
02-06-2007, 10:13 PM
I feel like I've fallen into a courtroom. Anyway, I didn't say Brady is better ONLY because he has two more rings. I also said he comes through in the big games three times more often than Manning who has saved some of his worst games for the playoffs. That's just a fact. Maybe when it comes to Elway I'm biased. No doubt. But like I said, I don't put Montana far behind Elway. I just think the topic on this thread is way too premature. It's like saying, "Wow! Mickleson won his first major. Will he go down in history as the best ever?" Not even close.

Northman
02-07-2007, 05:55 AM
I put Elway down as the best of all time. Why? Because he won in all conditions and with all sorts of teams and coaches, from lousy to great. He dragged a couple of teams to the SB on his back. He exuded leadership. He made everyone around him better. He set a standard that his teammates strived to live up to. But I put Montana not too far behind. He had that same kind of fire in the belly to win that Elway had. Both great champions, but if Elway had played QB for Bill Walsh and the teams he put together in San Fran, who knows how many SBs John would have won.


Agree 100%. Its a no brainer bias or not.

Jason in LA
02-07-2007, 01:48 PM
All I can say is, when the big game is on the line, I've seen Brady come through again and again. Maybe he doesn't put up the numbers Manning does, but he always seems to do enough to come out on top when it matters. What can I say? I'm sure as hell not a Pats fan, but the evidence of my eyes doesn't lie. I've also seen Manning come unglued in some of his biggest games and have some of his worst performances. That's not a lie either, going all the way back to Tennessee. The conditions came together for Manning to get his ring this year. Let's see what he does going down the line. As far as a LB getting the same credit for a win as the QB, why not the RG?

Brady has mastered the art of the game winning FG drive. Sorry, but I'm not too impressed by those drives. In the '01 Super Bowl, I remember the big play of that drive to put them in FG range was a dump off pass where the receiver turned up and ran for a good 30+ yards. Yeah, great play by Brady. In the '03 SB against the Panthers, the Pats got the ball on their 40 yard line because the Panthers' kicker kicked the ball out of bounds. That was another easy drive.

Those drives were starting at the 2 yard line, like Elway had to do twice, and Montana once.

When Brady finally had to go the whole field and get a touchdown, he failed. The Colts picked him off.

As for the point about other players being considered great because of that 12-2 record, the point is that the QB, in this case Brady, gets too much credit for a win. Was Brady more important to the team than Bruschi? People will say yes because he's the QB. But the Pats were always more of a defensive team, even though the credit will go to Brady. Give Brady the Colts defense all those years and he doesn't win anything. The Pats may have missed the playoffs a number of times.

TheReverend
03-20-2012, 05:26 PM
This was a fun re-read.

Los Broncos
03-20-2012, 05:39 PM
If he led us to a SB win, I would consider him the best ever.

gyldenlove
03-20-2012, 06:20 PM
If does what Elway did, win 2 straight super bowls in his late 30s with the Broncos after coming over from the Colts, winning a super bowl MVP in his last ever game before walking into the sunset, then **** yeah he is the greatest.

DENVERDUI55
03-20-2012, 06:38 PM
I bet the biased view points shift now. The one that kills me are the people that say Marino/Kelly/Young was better than Manning. Elway will always be my top but Manning is top 5 and definately top 10. Brady has moved up in top 5.

ClamChowdah
03-20-2012, 06:56 PM
He's going to climb way up that latter. He's going to have the records. If he gets a couple more rings, it going to be hard to keep him out of the top ten, and many will have him at #1, and I'd say that they would have a strong argument. A much stronger argument than this crap I've been hearing about Brady being a top 5 QB of all time. I've always felt that Brady wasn't close to being as good as Manning. Manning has always been on a better offense, but Brady has always been on a better team. I have no problem putting Manning in the conversation, because he's that damn good. But Brady? Overrated.

Manning has a LOSING playoff record, 9-10 vs 16-6 of Brady, Brady tops Manning in every meaningful catagory, people are just jealous of Brady and the Patriots.

We had the WORST defense in the NFL, how do you think we ended up in the Superbowl? ROFL!

You must of forgot what happend to your defense last season, Brady shredded them.

ClamChowdah
03-20-2012, 07:00 PM
Brady has mastered the art of the game winning FG drive. Sorry, but I'm not too impressed by those drives. In the '01 Super Bowl, I remember the big play of that drive to put them in FG range was a dump off pass where the receiver turned up and ran for a good 30+ yards. Yeah, great play by Brady. In the '03 SB against the Panthers, the Pats got the ball on their 40 yard line because the Panthers' kicker kicked the ball out of bounds. That was another easy drive.

Those drives were starting at the 2 yard line, like Elway had to do twice, and Montana once.

When Brady finally had to go the whole field and get a touchdown, he failed. The Colts picked him off.

As for the point about other players being considered great because of that 12-2 record, the point is that the QB, in this case Brady, gets too much credit for a win. Was Brady more important to the team than Bruschi? People will say yes because he's the QB. But the Pats were always more of a defensive team, even though the credit will go to Brady. Give Brady the Colts defense all those years and he doesn't win anything. The Pats may have missed the playoffs a number of times.

Brady has made the playoffs 8 seasons in a row, the Patriots have missed the playoffs one season with Brady as starting QB, the other was with Cassel when we went 11-5.

2001 - 11-5
2002 - 9-7 - Missed playoffs
2003 - 14-2
2004 - 14-2
2005 - 10-6
2006 - 12-4
2007 - 16-0
2008 - Missed season
2009 - 10-6
2010 - 14-2
2011 - 13-3

You really shouldn't try and make points with false facts cause you clearly have no idea what are you are talking about, Brady has thrown to scrubs and the defense has been awful since about 2005.

Agamemnon
03-20-2012, 07:02 PM
Maybe he doesn't put up the numbers Manning does

Umm his numbers are often better than Manning's. Have been regularly over the last five years in fact.

Agamemnon
03-20-2012, 07:03 PM
I bet the biased view points shift now. The one that kills me are the people that say Marino/Kelly/Young was better than Manning. Elway will always be my top but Manning is top 5 and definately top 10. Brady has moved up in top 5.

Marino and Young were both easily in the same league as Manning. Kelly? Now that's just silly.

ClamChowdah
03-20-2012, 07:09 PM
Its quite obvious that people just hate Brady and the Patriots and will quite frankly make things up to discredit his achivements, the defense this year was the 2nd worst in the history of the NFL, it was downright horrible and has been for a long time.

We couldn't stop anybody even Tebow was running up and down the field and we still went to the Superbowl and were a dropped pass away from winning with no defense, wide recievers running out there playing corner.

As for his weapons? no deep threat at all, a slot reciever and 2 tight ends.

Peyton Manning is the best regular season QB ever, i'll give you that but how can someone with a losing playoff record be considered the best ever?

Brady has more Superbowl rings, more appearances, a much better playoff record has had a better season than any of Mannings and has also played in incliment weather as opposed to a dome.

He also leads Peyton 8-4 in head to head meetings, Peyton has nothing that tops Brady bar one and dones in the playoffs, he is better at that.

Dedhed
03-20-2012, 07:13 PM
Brady's success is a product of Belichick's greatness.

Dungy's success is a product of Manning's greatness.

ClamChowdah
03-20-2012, 07:16 PM
Brady's success is a product of Belichick's greatness.

Dungy's success is a product of Manning's greatness.

ROFL!

You can just coach up any old scrub to be a hall of fame QB these days, just drag them off the street and goto 5 Superbowls and win 3.

Cmon Bill, lets get Tebow, 19-0 and hall of fame!

extralife
03-20-2012, 07:33 PM
Peyton is now my boy, but Brady is better. He was successful as one type of QB, then he morphed into a better Peyton Manning than Peyton himself.

WolfpackGuy
03-20-2012, 07:36 PM
Kinda coincides with their cheating being exposed, but the Pats really haven't won chit since they started having Brady throw it all over the place.

ClamChowdah
03-20-2012, 07:43 PM
Kinda coincides with their cheating being exposed, but the Pats really haven't won chit since they started having Brady throw it all over the place.

Yeah we really started stinking it up, we've not been in the Superbowl for 6 weeks.

64-16 regular season record since spygate.

Dedhed
03-20-2012, 07:51 PM
ROFL!

You can just coach up any old scrub to be a hall of fame QB these days, just drag them off the street and goto 5 Superbowls and win 3.

Cmon Bill, lets get Tebow, 19-0 and hall of fame!
Brady is a great QB, but he's better because of Bill. Dungy is a joke.

Put Peyton on the 2011 Pats and they win the SB.

Gort
03-20-2012, 09:29 PM
Brady's success is a product of Belichick's greatness.

Dungy's success is a product of Manning's greatness.

both of their successes is due to rules changes that disproportionately favor the passing game over defending against the pass, and some unwritten rules that punish opposing defenses from tackling, touching, breathing on, or even looking at either Manning or Brady with hostile intent.

i do admit, it will be nice to be on the receiving end of bad calls for once. usually, Denver gets jobbed by the refs. with Manning, the refs will finally be on our side. :)

Gort
03-20-2012, 09:32 PM
Yeah we really started stinking it up, we've not been in the Superbowl for 6 weeks.

64-16 regular season record since spygate.

everybody knows you are Bob. just give it up already. sock puppet accounts are so 2003 anyway.