Peyton Manning the Greatest QB?

[ilikefishes]

[quote name="boogielicious" url="/t/77701/peyton-manning-the-greatest-qb/120#post_1068099"] I did respond.  Brady has a better winning percentage than Manning in the playoffs. Therefore, I would take Brady over Manning.  Plain and simple.  Not sure why you and others don't get this. And Please don't bring up the one time winners with 100%.  That is trivial. Wins and are more important than personal stats.  Manning doesn't win as often in the playoffs.  Brady has been to 5 SB and 8 CG because he wins at a higher % than Manning in the playoffs.   Matt brings up, "it is a team sport", over and over again.  Correct.  But the only person who has been on all the Pats playoff winning teams since BB has been coach is Brady.   So I would take Brady. Matt claims that Manning's team lost because they had weaker defenses.  I pointed out that they lost games because of underperforming offenses. Now give me the choice of Montana in his prime, and I would take Montana over Brady and Manning.

Are you just messing with me or do you really think someone seriously brought up 1 game winners? I took the time to make a list of players with 5 appearances or more, ranked by winning percentages, and asked whether you thought those guys were better than brady (big ben, flacco, eli, dilfer, etc), because they had a higher playoff win %. The obvious answer is no, and the next question is why you think that's a reason to put brady over manning, but not those others over brady. And yes, brady is the only guy who was on the teams that went 9-0 from 2001-2004, and also on the teams that have gone 9-8 since. But what does that mean? That brady has gotten worse? Or that the reason they won the first 3 was somethung other than brady, who was still there later but couldnt win?[/quote] Or there was a video camera involved.

[Slice of Life]

Or there was a video camera involved.

Boom. 0-2 in Super Bowls after spygate.

[dsc123]

Someone brought up Frank Reich above.  Too tired to look it up.  Big Ben and Flacco have done well, but are struggling now.  Dilfer did a great job, but only really had one good post season.  Flacco's SB year was excellent.  The next five years will really tell us if he can continue to play well in the PS.  But we are not talking about him, we are discussing Manning.

This is why its really frustrating.  I listed four guys who were 2-0 or 1-0, then said I was kidding and made a list of everyone with more than 5 wins, but then you ignored the actual point.  You almost address it here, but then cop out again.

And this is about Manning.  You knock him for playoff winning percentage.  But those players have higher winning percentages in the playoffs than Brady, yet you agree they are not better than Brady.  Thus playoff winning % does not reflect the QBs skills or performance and your only knock on Peyton is gone.

I just don't see how you can pin these losses below on the defense except 2012.  Do you think the Broncos lost the SB last year because of their defense?  Look at how much they scored in their losses 14, 3, 18,24,17,17,16,35 and 8 ( left 2002 off).  Those are not great numbers for the offense.

This is perfect because every time you bring up a knock on Peyton, Brady is about the same.  And that's important because the knock is always that he doesn't perform in the playoffs, which you believe Brady does.  No matter how you try to show that, the facts simply don't match the perception.

I'm going to start by stating that I don't think the number of points scored in losses means anything.  You're bringing a career down to a handful of games that necessarily turned out poorly, and ignoring all the good things.  But here we go.

Tom Brady's points scored in playoff loses

2013 vs Denver 16

2012 vs Baltimore 13

2011 vs Giants 17

2010 vs Jets 21

2009 vs Baltimore 14

2007 vs Giants 14

2006 vs Indianpolis 34 (Too bad he played against Peyton, who put up 38)

2005 vs Denver 13

Brady averaged 17.75 points in his playoff loses.

Peyton Manning averaged 15.2, counting 2002.

So the difference between a player who is terrible in the playoffs and one that is great in the playoffs is 2.5 points by his team?

Overall its about the same.  Brady's teams scored 25.1 points in the playoffs.  Manning's teams scored 22.5 points.  About two and a half points separating greatness from the choke artist?

And of course those are all influence by other things, like having a defense that forces 3 and outs so your offense has more changes.  Hell, Brady's defenses might have scored 2.5 points per game.  But we know that Manning's personal stats in the playoffs are as good or better than Brady's.

[Patch]

I think Y.A. Tittle should get at least an honorable mention. That guy played some tough football. http://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A86.J3UtF0lUiWkAvpUPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTBsOXB2YTRjBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkAw--?_adv_prop=image&fr;=yhs-ironsource-fullyhosted_003&va;=y.+a.+tittle&hspart;=ironsource&hsimp;=yhs-fullyhosted_003

[MS256]

I don't think Peyton could beat Archie.

Just joking of course but I do still think Archie was the best college quarterback I ever watched. Didn't translate at all to the NFL but mostly because the Saints were horrendous.

[dsc123]

I think Y.A. Tittle should get at least an honorable mention. That guy played some tough football. http://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A86.J3UtF0lUiWkAvpUPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTBsOXB2YTRjBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkAw--?_adv_prop=image&fr;=yhs-ironsource-fullyhosted_003&va;=y.+a.+tittle&hspart;=ironsource&hsimp;=yhs-fullyhosted_003

Football might be the hardest game to compare across generations because it has changed so much.  Pretty much anyone who was the best of their generation could be in the conversation for GOAT.  From there I think people often favor who was the best when they were 15-20 years old because we all tend to romanticize the past.

[MS256]

Football might be the hardest game to compare across generations because it has changed so much.  Pretty much anyone who was the best of their generation could be in the conversation for GOAT.  From there I think people often favor who was the best when they were 15-20 years old because we all tend to romanticize the past.

That's true and in every measurable sport it's obvious that each generation gets better so head to head I'll always take the modern player. Both football and basketball (mostly football) are much less hesitant to change rules than baseball and golf so that alone makes statistics more skewed over time.

Teams in the past established running games to a much greater extent to protect the quarterback. Almost any hit on the quarterback was legal and they couldn't just throw the ball away if they were outside of the tackle box like they can now.

Even something as inconsequential as stopping the clock with a spike was illegal and occasionally a ball intended to be thrown OB to stop the clock was picked off because there had to be a receiver (and therefore a defensive back) in the area.

On the other hand defensive players that were 6' 5" 250 lbs. and running a 4.5 40 were pretty much unheard of so there wasn't quite as much danger of getting hit by a train on every play.

[saevel25]

Even something as inconsequential as stopping the clock with a spike was illegal and occasionally a ball intended to be thrown OB to stop the clock was picked off because there had to be a receiver (and therefore a defensive back) in the area.

On the other hand defensive players that were 6' 5" 250 lbs. and running a 4.5 40 were pretty much unheard of so there wasn't quite as much danger of getting hit by a train on every play.

Actually off topic , isn't spiking the ball intentional grounding, if you wanted to take the literal action? I don't think there is a player near enough to be considered an eligible receiver, and the QB is with in the tackles?

[MS256]

Actually off topic , isn't spiking the ball intentional grounding, if you wanted to take the literal action? I don't think there is a player near enough to be considered an eligible receiver, and the QB is with in the tackles?

I didn't realize it was off topic since it's a change in the rules but:

Yes you can spike the ball to stop the clock. They do it almost every game.

That wasn't the case in the 60s. The rule of having to have a receiver in the area applied even to "clock plays".

[saevel25]

I didn't realize it was off topic since it's a change in the rules but:

Yes you can spike the ball to stop the clock. They do it almost every game.

That wasn't the case in the 60s. The rule of having to have a receiver in the area applied even to "clock plays".

Well I know that, I was just talking in terms of literal interpretation of intentional grounding, technically spiking the ball is a legal intentional grounding action.

[Slice of Life]

Well I know that, I was just talking in terms of literal interpretation of intentional grounding, technically spiking the ball is a legal intentional grounding action.

There's an exception. The spike is technically it's own play. It's a mechanism for the offense to stop the clock without using a timeout. You have to in almost one motion, receive the snap and spike the ball.

If you were to receive the snap, step back and look at a receiver, and THEN spike it...it would be considered intentional grounding.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Someone brought up Frank Reich above.  Too tired to look it up.  Big Ben and Flacco have done well, but are struggling now.  Dilfer did a great job, but only really had one good post season.  Flacco's SB year was excellent.  The next five years will really tell us if he can continue to play well in the PS.  But we are not talking about him, we are discussing Manning.

This is why its really frustrating.  I listed four guys who were 2-0 or 1-0, then said I was kidding and made a list of everyone with more than 5 wins, but then you ignored the actual point.  You almost address it here, but then cop out again.

And this is about Manning.  You knock him for playoff winning percentage.  But those players have higher winning percentages in the playoffs than Brady, yet you agree they are not better than Brady.  Thus playoff winning % does not reflect the QBs skills or performance and your only knock on Peyton is gone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

I just don't see how you can pin these losses below on the defense except 2012.  Do you think the Broncos lost the SB last year because of their defense?  Look at how much they scored in their losses 14, 3, 18,24,17,17,16,35 and 8 ( left 2002 off).  Those are not great numbers for the offense.

This is perfect because every time you bring up a knock on Peyton, Brady is about the same.  And that's important because the knock is always that he doesn't perform in the playoffs, which you believe Brady does.  No matter how you try to show that, the facts simply don't match the perception.

I'm going to start by stating that I don't think the number of points scored in losses means anything.  You're bringing a career down to a handful of games that necessarily turned out poorly, and ignoring all the good things.  But here we go.

Tom Brady's points scored in playoff loses

2013 vs Denver 16

2012 vs Baltimore 13

2011 vs Giants 17

2010 vs Jets 21

2009 vs Baltimore 14

2007 vs Giants 14

2006 vs Indianpolis 34 (Too bad he played against Peyton, who put up 38)

2005 vs Denver 13

Brady averaged 17.75 points in his playoff loses.

Peyton Manning averaged 15.2, counting 2002.

So the difference between a player who is terrible in the playoffs and one that is great in the playoffs is 2.5 points by his team?

Overall its about the same.  Brady's teams scored 25.1 points in the playoffs.  Manning's teams scored 22.5 points.  About two and a half points separating greatness from the choke artist?

And of course those are all influence by other things, like having a defense that forces 3 and outs so your offense has more changes.  Hell, Brady's defenses might have scored 2.5 points per game.  But we know that Manning's personal stats in the playoffs are as good or better than Brady's.

And again, every time I tell you that I would pick Montana , you bring up Brady again.  I have not stated that Brady is GOAT and have stated repeatedly that I would pick Montana or Starr as GOAT because of their success in the playoffs.  I also keep pointing out that although Manning has decent overall stats in the playoffs, his offense's lack of production have been responsible for the majority of the losses.

[Slice of Life]

And again, every time I tell you that I would pick Montana, you bring up Brady again.  I have not stated that Brady is GOAT and have stated repeatedly that I would pick Montana or Starr as GOAT because of their success in the playoffs.  I also keep pointing out that although Manning has decent overall stats in the playoffs, his offense's lack of production have been responsible for the majority of the losses.

He's not arguing against Montana, he's arguing with your belief that Brady is superior to Manning because of the playoff results. Even though he's debunked it...as well as other people.

How hard is it to understand?

[mmoan2]

There's an exception. The spike is technically it's own play. It's a mechanism for the offense to stop the clock without using a timeout. You have to in almost one motion, receive the snap and spike the ball.

If you were to receive the snap, step back and look at a receiver, and THEN spike it...it would be considered intentional grounding.

You're right, of course, but I always thought it was a lousy rule. Even the words "intentional grounding" mean exactly what a spike is, intentionally grounding the ball. It's become the 4th time out.

[Golfingdad]

Actually off topic :offtopic: , isn't spiking the ball intentional grounding, if you wanted to take the literal action? I don't think there is a player near enough to be considered an eligible receiver, and the QB is with in the tackles? :-P

I don't think so ... Isn't it part of the rule that you're throwing it away specifically to avoid a sack? besides, even if they did throw a flag for intentional grounding on that play, so what? The penalty is simply a spot foul with loss of down. So instead of 2nd and 10, it would be second and 12. Big whoop. ;)

[Slice of Life]

I don't think so ... Isn't it part of the rule that you're throwing it away specifically to avoid a sack? besides, even if they did throw a flag for intentional grounding on that play, so what? The penalty is simply a spot foul with loss of down. So instead of 2nd and 10, it would be second and 12. Big whoop. ;)

And the clock would run off...defeating the purpose of spiking. It would be a big whoop.

[MS256]

I don't think so ... Isn't it part of the rule that you're throwing it away specifically to avoid a sack? besides, even if they did throw a flag for intentional grounding on that play, so what? The penalty is simply a spot foul with loss of down. So instead of 2nd and 10, it would be second and 12. Big whoop. ;)

I've actually seen an interception on that play down on around the 1 yard line, where even a "spot foul" and giving up a couple of yards would be giving up some valuable real estate.

My memory is fairly decent but I actually don't remember if that was always a spot penalty in those days? Just know that I never saw anybody spike the ball to stop the clock until it became legal to do so.

Edit: Good point by @Slice of Life signals for the clock to start maybe they don't get off a play. I don't think they had time run off of the clock for an offensive penalty back then but if only a second or two was left they wouldn't get a play off.

[dsc123]

And again, every time I tell you that I would pick Montana, you bring up Brady again.  I have not stated that Brady is GOAT and have stated repeatedly that I would pick Montana or Starr as GOAT because of their success in the playoffs.  I also keep pointing out that although Manning has decent overall stats in the playoffs, his offense's lack of production have been responsible for the majority of the losses.

Another cop out.  What he said:

He's not arguing against Montana, he's arguing with your belief that Brady is superior to Manning because of the playoff results. Even though he's debunked it...as well as other people.

And that's because

You knock him for playoff winning percentage.  But those players have higher winning percentages in the playoffs than Brady, yet you agree they are not better than Brady.  Thus playoff winning % does not reflect the QBs skills or performance and your only knock on Peyton is gone.

and,

I . . .  asked whether you thought those guys were better than brady (big ben, flacco, eli, dilfer, etc), because they had a higher playoff win %. The obvious answer is no, and the next question is why you think that's a reason to put brady over manning, but not those others over brady.

You sort of responded without answering the last one, saying the others haven't been good lately, but Brady hasn't won in 10 years, so it didn't really answer the question.  And that's fine, you're under no obligation to go back and forth with me.  But if you're going to engage, you've got to engage, not just dodge and repeat yourself, occasionally throwing out a new argument but then bailing when its disproven.

Ultimately- -and this is the meat of it --unless you think those guys are better than Brady, you have to admit that playoff win % is not the best indicator.  And once you admit that, your sole knock against Peyton disappears, as does your sole stated reason for choosing anyone else over Manning--be it Brady in a playoff game, or Montana/Starr as GOAT.