Peyton Manning the Greatest QB?

[Slice of Life]

I would take Manning over Brady for a fantasy pick for sure.  To win games in the playoffs?  No way.

If Manning played for the Pats his whole career, he'd have 5+ super bowls.

[dsc123]

I would take Manning over Brady for a fantasy pick for sure.  To win games in the playoffs?  No way.

Why?

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

I would take Manning over Brady for a fantasy pick for sure.  To win games in the playoffs?  No way.

If Manning played for the Pats his whole career, he'd have 5+ super bowls.

Nah.  Daddy still would want Eli to have his two!!! (note: this is not an iPhone smiley face).

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

I would take Manning over Brady for a fantasy pick for sure.  To win games in the playoffs?  No way.

Why?

See post 58.

[iacas]

If Manning played for the Pats his whole career, he'd have 5+ super bowls.

And if Brady played behind the Steelers offensive line for the past decade (okay, maybe that was too long) six or seven years, he'd be dead. :)

[Slice of Life]

And if Brady played behind the Steelers offensive line for the past decade (okay, maybe that was too long) six or seven years, he'd be dead. :)

Agreed. Ben may be the only QB in the league who could make them look formidable. Probably because he's as hard to take down as a shifty running back.

[saevel25]

I would take Manning over Brady for a fantasy pick for sure.  To win games in the playoffs?  No way.

Teams win games not QB's.

In the NFL Defense wins Championships. Not great QB's.

The last 11 Super Bowl Champs, 3 out of the 11 the team had the number 1 ranked scoring defense.

7 out of 11 the scoring defense was in the top 10.

Only once did a team finish the year with a scoring defense outside the top 20, NYG in 2011. Still during the playoffs, their scoring defense of 14 points per game, 6 points lower then their average. Which would rank them #1 in the NFL.

Number of times in those 11 years (10 of which Peyton played, he was hurt in 2011) that his team had a top 15 defense, 5 times.

Number of times the New England Patriots had a Super Bowl caliber defense, 10 out of the 11 years. Brady's teams had twice as many Elite defenses than Peyton's teams had during the past 11 years.

Wait lets check on Montana's Team.

1981: 2nd ranked defense

1984: 1st ranked defense

1988: 8th ranked defense

1990: 2nd ranked defense

Bart Starr in his 2 Super Bowl wins.

1966: 1st ranked defense

1967: 2nd ranked defense

I mean come on, impress me. When did he win one when his defense didn't carry him.

Wait, when did Peyton carry his team to a Super Bowl win, 2006, his team had the 18th ranked scoring defense.

I could say that Peyton is a better QB for the fact that he produced so many wins on team that half the time had a sub Super Bowl caliber defense.

[mmoan2]

Until he wins 14 majors, then no ....

In the last 10 years or so ... yes ...

Joe Montana and Johnny U are still on my top list ... I grew up dream of being Johnny U ... plus I think Johnny U changed the game as we know it today, something Peyton will ever be able to say.

Not so sure about your last statement. The passing game from pre-1998 (before Peyton) and now are vastly different, largely because of Peyton. Brady, Brees, Rivers, Rogers - all now routinely throw for 5000 yards because the league actually changed its rules to make passing easier because people became infatuated with big-play passing. Manning ushered those changes in. His intellectual prowess and attention to detail are also unmatched in history, which raised the bar on what offensive coordinators and head coaches expected their QBs to do. NFL QB playbooks are now the size of War and Peace. The Giants won the 1990 Super Bowl with like 6 running plays and a pass offense that could fit on a Denny's menu. And I'm a lifelong Giants fan.

The changes are not as different as pre-Johnny U and post Johnny U, but they had barely been using an oval-shaped football and made forward passing as important as the run game when Unitas started. In the 50s, 2000 yards passing was a lot. He was as much a small part of a big change as someone who personally changed the game himself.

I've been a Montana guy my whole life, but Peyton Manning may have changed my mind when he went to Denver. He's actually BETTER now at, what, 37? If he adds one or even more Super Bowls, I think the argument is over. Montana always just seemed like the perfect QB to me, and he has the 4 rings. He also benefitted from Bill Walsh, an always strong defense, and a big cast of offensive weapons. Then again, he played in the 80s, which was, IMO, the strongest decade of NFC football in history, so it's tough...

[iacas]

In the NFL Defense wins Championships. Not great QB's.

Common myth.

Pretty sure that in the Super Bowl era, the team with the better offense has won half of them, while the team with the better defense also won half.

I'm remembering a book called "Scorecasting" that has a whole chapter on this. It talks about this in the NFL, but also in other sports, and it's a myth in them as well. I'm not prepared to debate it, but I recommend picking up the book if you're at all interested in sports.

http://smile.amazon.com/Scorecasting-Hidden-Influences-Behind-Sports-ebook/dp/B004C43GC4/

[Slice of Life]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1467101-does-defense-really-win-championships

There's another interesting article. Note the "exception"...2006 Colts. ;)

[saevel25]

Common myth.

Pretty sure that in the Super Bowl era, the team with the better offense has won half of them, while the team with the better defense also won half.

I'm remembering a book called "Scorecasting" that has a whole chapter on this. It talks about this in the NFL, but also in other sports, and it's a myth in them as well. I'm not prepared to debate it, but I recommend picking up the book if you're at all interested in sports.

http://smile.amazon.com/Scorecasting-Hidden-Influences-Behind-Sports-ebook/dp/B004C43GC4/

In terms of match ups, yea. I can see it going down 50/50.

In terms of just getting to the Superbowl, complete teams get there more. Even at worst, the defenses are average.

Majority of the time teams with both good offenses and defenses get to the Super Bowl. It makes sense. Great defense + great offense = highest scoring differential.

If two QB's are statistically the same, and all people want to do is compare wins in the playoffs. The more complete teams will do better. Clearly Peyton didn't nearly have the same amount of defensive help as Brady. The discussion isn't even close in terms of statistics, Peyton is way above Brady.

I'll take a look at that book, looks interesting.

[iacas]

In terms of just getting to the Superbowl, complete teams get there more. Even at worst, the defenses are average.

Majority of the time teams with both good offenses and defenses get to the Super Bowl. It makes sense. Great defense + great offense = highest scoring differential.

Just read the book. Like I said, I'm not interested in talking about it. I am pretty sure the authors address the fact that you first have to GET to the championship to WIN the championship, though… :)

[dsc123]

See post 58.

Oh, right.  When everyone explained why #58 didn't make sense and you didn't respond, I mistakenly took it as an indication that you understood.

Teams win games not QB's.

In the NFL Defense wins Championships. Not great QB's.

The last 11 Super Bowl Champs, 3 out of the 11 the team had the number 1 ranked scoring defense.

7 out of 11 the scoring defense was in the top 10.

Only once did a team finish the year with a scoring defense outside the top 20, NYG in 2011. Still during the playoffs, their scoring defense of 14 points per game, 6 points lower then their average. Which would rank them #1 in the NFL.

Number of times in those 11 years (10 of which Peyton played, he was hurt in 2011) that his team had a top 15 defense, 5 times.

Number of times the New England Patriots had a Super Bowl caliber defense, 10 out of the 11 years. Brady's teams had twice as many Elite defenses than Peyton's teams had during the past 11 years.

Wait lets check on Montana's Team.

1981: 2nd ranked defense

1984: 1st ranked defense

1988: 8th ranked defense

1990: 2nd ranked defense

Bart Starr in his 2 Super Bowl wins.

1966: 1st ranked defense

1967: 2nd ranked defense

I mean come on, impress me. When did he win one when his defense didn't carry him.

Wait, when did Peyton carry his team to a Super Bowl win, 2006, his team had the 18th ranked scoring defense.

I could say that Peyton is a better QB for the fact that he produced so many wins on team that half the time had a sub Super Bowl caliber defense.

My brothers in law suffer from the same affliction. As a Patriot's fan, they've been conditioned to believe that Brady>Manning in the playoffs, no matter what the facts say.  Since playoff wins in the only stat that gives Brady the edge, it becomes the be-all, end-all.

I came close once to convincing them otherwise, and as my last shot to convince @boogielicious that he's wrong, I'll repeat it here.

Andy Pettite (19 playoff wins) was a better pitcher than Pedro Martinez (6 playoff wins).   Fact or fiction?

Common myth.

Pretty sure that in the Super Bowl era, the team with the better offense has won half of them, while the team with the better defense also won half.

Yeah, I've heard the same.  But do you remember how exactly it was determined?  For example, the top defense and top offense have met in the super bowl 5 times.  The team with the top defense won 4 times.  The exception was when the 49ers beat the Broncos, and the 49ers had the 2nd or 3rd best defense and the Broncos' turned the ball over 4 times.

It would be interesting to see how often teams with defenses outside the top 10 fared and how teams with offenses outside the top 10 fared.  Too much work than I'm willing to do right now.

edit:  it looks like that bleacher report article answers that somewhat.

[iacas]

Yeah, I've heard the same.  But do you remember how exactly it was determined?

edit:  it looks like that bleacher report article answers that somewhat.

No, but I remember it made a convincing argument.

And the Bleacher Report article doesn't go back too far. Plus if you have a crappy offense, your defense is likely to give up more points because the other teams will have more drives per game. So being a "top 12" defense can be explained by your offense having the ball a lot. The Steelers with Bettis often had the ball for 35+ minutes of the game. Even an average defense can keep opponents from scoring more with 20-25 minutes rather than 30+.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

See post 58.

Oh, right.  When everyone explained why #58 didn't make sense and you didn't respond, I mistakenly took it as an indication that you understood.

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.

[saevel25]

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.

Actually it was under performing defenses. The reason being in almost all their games in the playoffs Manning's offenses has scored MORE than what their defense allows up per game. Meaning Manning basically did his job. He created a positive run differential versus their statistical average. The issue was, in almost all their losses the defense gave up more points then their average.

So in reality the defense still holds more importance for Manning.

Again I pointed out that Brady had top 15 defenses 10 out of the last 11 years. Manning had 5 during that stretch.

You just can't put the primary reason for loosing on the QB. That is just plain stupid.

If you want to see how Peyton performed versus Brady in the post season, here are the stat lines.

Brady:     Comp. Percentage: 62.11%, Yards: 6424, TD's 43, INT: 22, Rating: 87.5, in 26 games
Manning: Comp. Percentage: 64.34%, Yards: 6589, TD's 37, INT: 24, Rating: 89.2, in 23 games

Basically they performed identically. Meaning if want to still play this game, Brady won more games because he was on the better team.  Manning had higher completions percentage, more yards, and a higher rating, also playing in 3 less post season games!!

Mannings Yards per game in the Playoffs was 286 yards. If he played in 3 more games, he would have had well over 7000 yards, 42 TD's and 27 INT.

Oh, you might say, well he threw more INT, but he also produced a higher passer rating. This means, besides the INT's he was a better passer because the passer rating includes INT's in the formula.

So if the QB's are identical what is the missing link? Play the dramatic music, THE REST OF THE TEAM!

Since this is all for fun, in the words of Jim Carry,

[dsc123]

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?

[dsc123]

Actually it was under performing defenses. The reason being in almost all their games in the playoffs Manning's offenses has scored MORE than what their defense allows up per game. Meaning Manning basically did his job. He created a positive run differential versus their statistical average. The issue was, in almost all their losses the defense gave up more points then their average.  So in reality the defense still holds more importance for Manning. Again I pointed out that Brady had top 15 defenses 10 out of the last 11 years. Manning had 5 during that stretch.  You just can't put the primary reason for loosing on the QB. That is just plain stupid.  If you want to see how Peyton performed versus Brady in the post season, here are the stat lines.  Brady:     Comp. Percentage: 62.11%, Yards: 6424, TD's 43, INT: 22, Rating: 87.5, in 26 games Manning: Comp. Percentage: 64.34%, Yards: 6589, TD's 37, INT: 24, Rating: 89.2, in 23 games Basically they performed identically. Meaning if want to still play this game, Brady won more games because he was on the better team.  Manning had higher completions percentage, more yards, and a higher rating, also playing in 3 less post season games!!  Mannings Yards per game in the Playoffs was 286 yards. If he played in 3 more games, he would have had well over 7000 yards, 42 TD's and 27 INT.  Oh, you might say, well he threw more INT, but he also produced a higher passer rating. This means, besides the INT's he was a better passer because the passer rating includes INT's in the formula.  So if the QB's are identical what is the missing link? Play the dramatic music, THE REST OF THE TEAM!  Since this is all for fun, in the words of Jim Carry,

You forgot Bradys 10 fumbles.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

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?

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.

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.

2002 - #5 Seed.  Lost to Jets 41-0.

2003 - Co-MVP; #3 seed, scored 41 and 38 points over the Broncos and KC (did not punt once).  Lost to Pats 24-14.

2004 - MVP; #3 seed, scored 49 over Denver.  Lost 20-3 to the Pats.

2005- #1 Seed. Lost to Pitt 21-18.

2006- Only SB Championship.  #3 offense, #2 passing 26.7 PPG (#2), Defense 22.5 (#23)

2007 - #2 seed, Lost to SD 28-24.

2008 - MVP #5 seed. Lost to SD 23-17.

2009 - MVP #1 seed.  Lost to NO 31-17

2010 - #3 seed.  Lost to Jets 17-16.

2012 - #1 seed.  Lost to Baltimore 38-35, #4 offense, #5 Passing, 30.1 PPG (#2), Defense 18.1 (#4)

2013 - MVP #1 seed.  Lost to Seattle 43-8, #1 offense (#1 passing), 37.9 PPG (#1), Defense 24.9 PPG (#22)