Peyton Manning the Greatest QB?

[Golfingdad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abu3baid


Your better than that... just to prove a point they ripped the whole league and just dumb luck that they didn't win the sb.. video camera ppfffhhhtt

Have to agree.  I went back and looked it all up (because I wanted evidence to support my disagreement ;)) and all I found was:

Quote:

In 2012, nearly five years removed from the incident, former Jets head coach Eric Mangini stated that "I think when you look at the history of success that [the Patriots] had after that incident, it’s pretty obvious that it didn’t play any type of significant role in the victories [the Patriots] had or the success that [the Patriots] had." ^[16] As of the conclusion of the 2011 NFL season, the Patriots had the best record in the NFL since Spygate, compiling a 48-16 record from 2008-11 (the Pittsburgh Steelers and New Orleans Saints were second best over that span at 45-19). ^[29]

The dudes went to the Super Bowl undefeated and lost on the flukiest of flukes, and have proceeded to maintain the best overall record in the league since.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

If you are talking 2007 when they went 16-0 in the regular season,

It wasn't dumb luck. The NYG manhandled New England Patriots. They probably could have been hearing the calls on a direct feed and still lost that game

I don't do memes, but if I did this is where I'd throw in the Joker one where he says "I can't tell if you're being serious or not??"  Manhandled??  You are talking about the game where the Giants won by 3 points and needed some nobody to catch a ball with one hand and his helmet during the final drive to do it.

It's not quite dumb luck, but it's not far from it.

[Slice of Life]

Coming into this weekends game, Denver's defense was rated #1 in the AFC.

And the season isn't over.

If Peyton wins the Super Bowl this year, will you concede that all he needed was a top 10 defense like Brady had during his 3 championships? And that was the reason he had struggled to win more rings before?

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Coming into this weekends game, Denver's defense was rated #1 in the AFC.

And the season isn't over.

If Peyton wins the Super Bowl this year, will you concede that all he needed was a top 10 defense like Brady had during his 3 championships? And that was the reason he had struggled to win more rings before?

No.  Because you will always say that Manning wins because of Manning, but loses because of his team.  And you will always say the opposite for Brady with your baffling logic.  Stats mean nothing.  Manning threw for 438 yards 34/57 with two TDs.  Gaudy numbers to pad his stats.  But he lost by 22 points to someone who was only 33/53 for 333 yards.  Why?  Because Manning was 3 for 11 on 3rd down and 0 for 4 on fourth and threw picks when it counted most.  All passing downs. The ball was in his hands and he came up empty.  You will blame his D for the loss and never put the blame on him.  But you also won't give Brady the same credit for shredding a supposed great defense.  In fact, I guarantee you will say Brady only won this game because of his defense.

[saevel25]

No.  Because you will always say that Manning wins because of Manning, but loses because of his team.  And you will always say the opposite for Brady with your baffling logic.  Stats mean nothing.  Manning threw for 438 yards 34/57 with two TDs.  Gaudy numbers to pad his stats.  But he lost by 22 points to someone who was only 33/53 for 333 yards.  Why?  Because Manning was 3 for 11 on 3rd down and 0 for 4 on fourth and threw picks when it counted most.  All passing downs. The ball was in his hands and he came up empty.  You will blame his D for the loss and never put the blame on him.  But you also won't give Brady the same credit for shredding a supposed great defense.  In fact, I guarantee you will say Brady only won this game because of his defense.

Not for me. I'll always consider wins and losses a team stat, not a QB stat. I don't even consider it when talking about who is a better QB. Too much goes on in the game to say one position is the primary reason a team wins.

[Slice of Life]

No.  Because you will always say that Manning wins because of Manning, but loses because of his team.  And you will always say the opposite for Brady with your baffling logic.  Stats mean nothing.  Manning threw for 438 yards 34/57 with two TDs.  Gaudy numbers to pad his stats.  But he lost by 22 points to someone who was only 33/53 for 333 yards.  Why?  Because Manning was 3 for 11 on 3rd down and 0 for 4 on fourth and threw picks when it counted most.  All passing downs. The ball was in his hands and he came up empty.  You will blame his D for the loss and never put the blame on him.  But you also won't give Brady the same credit for shredding a supposed great defense.  In fact, I guarantee you will say Brady only won this game because of his defense.

Wrong again. I never said Manning wins because of Manning. It's a team sport as I've said all along. Keep slapping yourself in the forehead, maybe it will knock things back into place.

I've said time and time again that the team is the most important aspect in winning. It isn't basketball, there are more than 5 starters.

You and you alone keep throwing out that winning is the only stat, and that somehow Brady is solely responsible for his teams wins.

[Abu3baid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

Not for me. I'll always consider wins and losses a team stat, not a QB stat. I don't even consider it when talking about who is a better QB. Too much goes on in the game to say one position is the primary reason a team wins.

Just a couple quotes for you and I won't say who said them.

Quote:

"It doesn't matter how often you throw, if you're throwing and having great success ... that's a determining factor," ***** said. "There are times in every game when you have to throw the ball, and if you're throwing it efficiently, you're going to win most of the time."

Gee coach.. you really think that if your QB is throwing the ball efficiently you are going to "win most of the time"?

Quote:

"Yards per pass attempt has one of the most direct correlations to the won-loss record," ******* said. "It covers a wide range (pass attempts, completions, sacks, net yardage) and it reflects on a lot of different things."

Really?  So, you are saying that something that the QB does, which is yards per pass attempt has the most direct correlation to the win-loss record?

Quote:

"I know most people look at rushing (yardage) and the number of rushes," ***** said. "We didn't want to be where we were, but there are times that can be misleading ... In the long run, you're going to have to throw the ball efficiently to win in the NFL. That's just how the game is now.

I wonder what kind of QB this coach had to make him think that winning circles around the performance of the QB.. he must be looking at a different tape than the rest of us!

My opinion from all the football I have watched in my life is that QBs play the primary role in a team winning or losing.. forget about the handful of times a great defense won superbowls for QBs like Trent Dilfer and as long as you don't build rules on exceptions you will come to the same conclusion as my self.  A great QB can't be considered great unless he wins games period.. Jim Kelly is a great QB even though he lost 4 SB in a row, but in the end that is just won game.. How many games was he winning??  That is how I measure QBs greatness.. winning.. if you don't win then take your stats and go home, because I'm going to find me a QB that wins..

[ilikefishes]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abu3baid


Your better than that... just to prove a point they ripped the whole league and just dumb luck that they didn't win the sb.. video camera ppfffhhhtt

Have to agree.  I went back and looked it all up (because I wanted evidence to support my disagreement ;)) and all I found was:

Quote:

In 2012, nearly five years removed from the incident, former Jets head coach Eric Mangini stated that "I think when you look at the history of success that [the Patriots] had after that incident, it’s pretty obvious that it didn’t play any type of significant role in the victories [the Patriots] had or the success that [the Patriots] had." ^[16] As of the conclusion of the 2011 NFL season, the Patriots had the best record in the NFL since Spygate, compiling a 48-16 record from 2008-11 (the Pittsburgh Steelers and New Orleans Saints were second best over that span at 45-19). ^[29]

The dudes went to the Super Bowl undefeated and lost on the flukiest of flukes, and have proceeded to maintain the best overall record in the league since.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

If you are talking 2007 when they went 16-0 in the regular season,

It wasn't dumb luck. The NYG manhandled New England Patriots. They probably could have been hearing the calls on a direct feed and still lost that game

I don't do memes, but if I did this is where I'd throw in the Joker one where he says "I can't tell if you're being serious or not??"  Manhandled??  You are talking about the game where the Giants won by 3 points and needed some nobody to catch a ball with one hand and his helmet during the final drive to do it.

It's not quite dumb luck, but it's not far from it.

Yeah, and I remember the Pats won all theirs by 3 as well. Far from dominant and anybody that says the video taping didn't help them doesn't understand football. Just typical Boston antics. You guys think you ate the Yankees and you aren't even in the same planet.

[dsc123]

Since 2004, Peyton has won 2 Super Bowls.  Brady has won 0.  Therefore, Peyton has been the better player for the last 10 years.

[Slice of Life]

Since 2004, Peyton has won 2 Super Bowls.  Brady has won 0.  Therefore, Peyton has been the better player for the last 10 years.

Peyton has 1 Super Bowl win.

[dsc123]

Peyton has 1 Super Bowl win.

But 1>0, too.

[dfreuter415]

For a second, let's forget the stats and rely on the "Eye Test."  Simply put, the eye test is a way to judge an athlete as they compete within their sport based upon your own observations.

The first TV game I remember sitting down and watching as a kid was the 1958 NFL championship game won by the Colts and Johnny Unitas. After that I was hooked on the NFL.  As I reflect over the last 50+ years of watching the NFL here are my best observations as most dominant quarterback.

Early on I felt that no one was better than Johnny Unitas, but Bart Starr and the Packers never seemed to lose. Then came Roger Staubach, Terry Bradshaw and Kenny Stabler dominating the scene. Following them came perhaps the greatest era of quarterbacks led by Joe Montana, John Elway, Dan Marino and Jim Kelly. And now we have Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Brett Favre.  Also, the future look bright with the likes of Andrew Luck.  Plus, my dad always said that there were none better than Sammy Baugh and Otto Graham.  Using the "eye test", you can make a case for any of these quarterbacks to be the best of their era, and thus for the best ever. The fun part of this was having seen all of them play except Baugh and Graham.

Just a quick note. I can't figure out why Ken "The Snake" Stabler hasn't been inducted into the Hall of Fame, unless it was his alleged association with known gamblers (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/30/sports/pro-football-s-ken-stabler-is-linked-to-a-gambler.html).  Anyone who saw him play knows that he should be there.

I also want to say that my favorite all-time quarterback was Bobby Layne.  This guy was a swashbuckler and the last quarterback without a facemask. And then there was the time he was hit by a streetcar... http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat;=19861202&id;=BU8NAAAAIBAJ&sjid;=5W0DAAAAIBAJ&pg;=5519,302307

Here is a list of the the Hall of Fame quarterbacks along with Tom Brady, Brett Favre and Peyton Manning, (undoubtedly first ballot shoo-ins).

Troy Aikman 1989-2000, Sammy Baugh 1937-1952, George Blanda 1949-1975, Terry Bradshaw 1970-1983, Tom Brady 2000-2014, Len Dawson 1957-1975, John Elway 1983-1998, Brett Favre 1991-2010, Dan Fouts 1973-1987, Otto Graham 1946-1955, Bob Griese 1967-1980, Sonny Jurgensen 1957-1974, Jim Kelly 1986-1996, Bobby Layne 1948-1962, Sid Luckman 1939-1950, Peyton Manning 1998-2014, Dan Marino 1983-1999, Joe Montana 1979-1994, Warren Moon 1984-2000, Joe Namath 1965-1977, Bart Starr 1956-1971, Roger Staubach 1969-1979, Fran Tarkenton 1961-1978, Y.A. Tittle 1948-1964, Johnny Unitas 1956-1973, Norm Van Brocklin 1949-1960, Bob Waterfield 1945-1952, Steve Young 1985-1999

[Golfingdad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfreuter415

For a second, let's forget the stats ...

Yeah.  Here's a good article explaining why stats are hard to interpret when comparing OB's ... http://grantland.com/the-triangle/tom-brady-peyton-manning-cheating/

Quote:

So why does it SEEM like Peyton Manning is still “ascending,” as Collinsworth said? Because the rules kept drifting in his favor, yet another sports topic that was pummeled into the ground and now gets taken for granted. You can’t hit QBs high, you can’t hit QBs low, you can’t hit QBs within 0.25 seconds after they’ve released the football, and it’s unclear whether you can even make a mean face at them. Remember when QBs were injured all the time? Remember when you NEEDED a backup QB? These are better and safer times — and they should be — but quarterbacks don’t get injured anymore unless it’s a freak injury (RG3 earlier this season), a freak hit (Romo on Monday night) or an unexpected concussion (which we’re diagnosing much better these days). You also can’t handcheck receivers, touch them after five yards, head-hunt over the middle or hit them when they’re defenseless. It’s much, much, much easier to throw and catch the football.

...

The performances of 38-year-old Barry Bonds and so many other baseball stars from that era were enhanced because, you know, they took performance enhancers. Maybe it didn’t totally make sense in the moment. And maybe we were worried someone was going to grow Jay Leno’s chin or break out the first ever size-12 baseball cap. But it certainly makes sense after the fact.

The recent performances of Manning and Brady (one year younger) have been enhanced in a different way. Passing rules changed so dramatically that it threw everyone’s numbers out of whack. Imagine figuring out the last eight years of NBA numbers if, in 2006, the league moved the 3-point line to 20 feet, allowed offensive goaltending and made it legal to take three steps after a dribble. (Well, MORE legal.) That’s basically what happened in the NFL.

[MS256]

Since we are throwing out stats, winning games, how it used to be legal to take the quarterback's head off, and taking into account the awfulness of the teams a quarterback played on, I will take Archie Manning.

Just half joking because he really could play. It was a shame that he was always on absolutely awful teams.

Watch these defensive lineman going for his head in this video. Funny thing is that the word was that most defensive players liked Archie and took it easy on him (thank goodness).

[dfreuter415]

Since we are throwing out stats, winning games, how it used to be legal to take the quarterback's head off, and taking into account the awfulness of the teams a quarterback played on, I will take Archie Manning.

Manning sure got beat up, but, to me, the definitive quarterback sack of that era was Joe "Turkey" Jones' on Terry Bradshaw.

[meenman]

Have to agree.  I went back and looked it all up (because I wanted evidence to support my disagreement ;)) and all I found was:

The dudes went to the Super Bowl undefeated and lost on the flukiest of flukes, and have proceeded to maintain the best overall record in the league since.

I don't do memes, but if I did this is where I'd throw in the Joker one where he says "I can't tell if you're being serious or not??"  Manhandled??  You are talking about the game where the Giants won by 3 points and needed some nobody to catch a ball with one hand and his helmet during the final drive to do it.

It's not quite dumb luck, but it's not far from it.

weak, weak and weak at best.

Do not forget that the Giants played belicheat and crew during week 17 when the g-mens playoff seed was cemented and almost made everyone not have to worry about the patsies going 18-1.

And do not overlook Eli as one of the elite QBs that happens to play on some bad teams (kind of like his dad)

[saevel25]

weak, weak and weak at best.

Do not forget that the Giants played belicheat and crew during week 17 when the g-mens playoff seed was cemented and almost made everyone not have to worry about the patsies going 18-1.

And do not overlook Eli as one of the elite QBs that happens to play on some bad teams (kind of like his dad)

Eli is not an elite QB. Not when you lead the league in INT's every other year. Only Brett Farve can get away with that, but Eli is no Brett Farve.

[meenman]

but Eli is no Brett Farve.

you are right, i am pretty sure that Eli beat Farve on the way to the super bowl

[Gunther]

Since 2004, Peyton has won 2 Super Bowls.  Brady has won 0.  Therefore, Peyton has been the better player for the last 10 years.

18>14? Really?