Peyton Manning the Greatest QB?

[saevel25]

If I had to vote now, I think I'd take a coin and put Joe Montana's face on one side and Tom Brady's on the other and flip it.  I couldn't go wrong.

On this note, I still think making claims like Superbowl wins is the ultimate way to identify who is best at a position is completely wrong. I personally think that looking at how they actually were as a QB combined with wins, consistency, clutch moments is a better way. In that regard I can see QB's who have NO rings are better QB's than those who have rings.

The ultimate case is Dan Marino. Holder of many NFL records, yet his TEAM never was able to get a win in the Superbowl. In no way will anyone EVER consider Flacco a better QB than Marino. No one will EVER consider Hasselbeck is a better QB than Marino.

Also I think the whole, "Oh he's finally won 4 he's the best" is just a stupid way to think about it.

In reality, Tom Brady was a better QB than Montana a while ago.

Here is why Tom would be greater than Montana, even before this year's Superbowl.

1) Tom never had Jerry Rice to throw to every year. He had Randy Moss one year (who is in Jerry's calibur of WR) and Tom's stats went through the ceiling.

2) Tom had to be on teams that had to deal with the Salary Cap. The 49ers could team the core of their team together for YEARS! Tom has had to deal with the revolving door of skill position players.

In terms of winning, QB play, consistency, Tom has done more with less than Montana has. He has reached the Superbowl more times than Montana and only had 1 less win not including this season.

[Yukari]

Would you have said that if Pete Carroll decided to give the ball to the best back in the league and the seahwaks won the Super Bowl?

I don't know why you would bring up these hypothetical q's.  It is totally irrelevant to the fact.

As for Manning, I don't think he's that exceptional.  He seems to choke on big games.  I always thought he was a good QB, but never a great one like Joe Montana, Tom Brady, Terry Bradshaw, etc.

[dsc123]

I don't know why you would bring up these hypothetical q's.  It is totally irrelevant to the fact. As for Manning, I don't think he's that exceptional.  He seems to choke on big games.  I always thought he was a good QB, but never a great one like Joe Montana, Tom Brady, Terry Bradshaw, etc.

I explained exactly why I mention the hypotheticals. Judging someone's career by a handful of plays that occurred with them on the sidelines is silly.

[dsc123]

On this note, I still think making claims like Superbowl wins is the ultimate way to identify who is best at a position is completely wrong. I personally think that looking at how they actually were as a QB combined with wins, consistency, clutch moments is a better way. In that regard I can see QB's who have NO rings are better QB's than those who have rings.

The ultimate case is Dan Marino. Holder of many NFL records, yet his TEAM never was able to get a win in the Superbowl. In no way will anyone EVER consider Flacco a better QB than Marino. No one will EVER consider Hasselbeck is a better QB than Marino.

Also I think the whole, "Oh he's finally won 4 he's the best" is just a stupid way to think about it.

In reality, Tom Brady was a better QB than Montana a while ago.

Here is why Tom would be greater than Montana, even before this year's Superbowl.

1) Tom never had Jerry Rice to throw to every year. He had Randy Moss one year (who is in Jerry's calibur of WR) and Tom's stats went through the ceiling.

2) Tom had to be on teams that had to deal with the Salary Cap. The 49ers could team the core of their team together for YEARS! Tom has had to deal with the revolving door of skill position players.

In terms of winning, QB play, consistency, Tom has done more with less than Montana has. He has reached the Superbowl more times than Montana and only had 1 less win not including this season.

I think you're a bit off base with the Montana comparisons.  For one, sure, maybe the 49ers could keep guys longer than the Pats, but Montana didn't play his whole career there.  He got hurt and they got rid of him.  So its not like he benefited from that for his entire career.  Also, what's important is consisentcy relative to their competition.  Yes, the 49ers didn't have a cap, but neither did the other good teams of the 80s.  That's where Tom actually matches him.  He has the modern equivalent of that with Belicheck.  What other QB has played his entire career under one coach?

One stat that I really like is QBR, since its context dependent.  Unfortunately, they only have it from 2006 or so.  I understand it as basically measuring how much each thing the QB does during a game actually improved his team's odds of winning, so its sort of a mix of traditional stats but still emphasizing winning, not just tallying fantasy stats.  Brady's 2007 with Randy Moss is #2 all time.  Peyton is #1 and Rodgers is right behind him.  Brady's next best was 2012, 14th best overall.  Peyton topped that 6 times.  Aaron Rodgers twice.  Drew Brees twice.  Romo and Rivers once.  Brady is damn good, one of the best ever.  But even among his peers, I think he's #2 at best.  Which is great!  But no, not #1 all time.  Not because Vinitiri made some good kicks and Pete Carroll preferred Wilson to be the hero rather than Marshawn (just kidding about that!)

[Jakester23]

On this note, I still think making claims like Superbowl wins is the ultimate way to identify who is best at a position is completely wrong. I personally think that looking at how they actually were as a QB combined with wins, consistency, clutch moments is a better way. In that regard I can see QB's who have NO rings are better QB's than those who have rings.  The ultimate case is Dan Marino. Holder of many NFL records, yet his TEAM never was able to get a win in the Superbowl. In no way will anyone EVER consider Flacco a better QB than Marino. No one will EVER consider Hasselbeck is a better QB than Marino.  Also I think the whole, "Oh he's finally won 4 he's the best" is just a stupid way to think about it.  In reality, Tom Brady was a better QB than Montana a while ago.

This is how I judge qb as well. I think right now I'd put Brady #1 for now(which is hard for me to say I can't stand him) Montana #2 Elway #3 and Marino #4. That being said I think the best of all time is playing for GB right now. If you compare numbers Rodgers is better than all of the above. He just hasn't played that many years. After the packers win super bowl L he will start creeping into the GOAT conversation.

[meenman]

After the events of the last 6 weeks or so, I'd like to take back anything I said in this thread that might hint towards me believing that Peyton is the greatest ever. If I had to vote now, I think I'd take a coin and put Joe Montana's face on one side and Tom Brady's on the other and flip it.  I couldn't go wrong. :beer:

Eli still has both beat.

[boogielicious]

Each generation is going to improve at the game.  For all we know, Wilson and Luck will surpass everyone's numbers.  The game is evolving and so it the position of QB.  Bradshaw and Montana (two of my favorites BTW) didn't throw as much as they do now.  Ten years from now, it may be different again.

[dsc123]

Each generation is going to improve at the game.  For all we know, Wilson and Luck will surpass everyone's numbers.  The game is evolving and so it the position of QB.  Bradshaw and Montana (two of my favorites BTW) didn't throw as much as they do now.  Ten years from now, it may be different again.

This is exactly why I think these sort of discussion, though fun and interesting, are kind of pointless.  The game changes so much between generations that its impossible to compare players who didn't play at the same time.  The guys that play today enjoy rules that make it easier than ever to throw the ball.  I was looking at the stats of some of the guys who played in the 60s who are often in the conversation for best ever and they've got nearly as many interceptions as TDs.  And less than half the number of TDs as guys like Peyton.

[phan52]

Montana

Brady

Everybody else

[Golfingdad]

This is exactly why I think these sort of discussion, though fun and interesting, are kind of pointless.  The game changes so much between generations that its impossible to compare players who didn't play at the same time.  The guys that play today enjoy rules that make it easier than ever to throw the ball.  I was looking at the stats of some of the guys who played in the 60s who are often in the conversation for best ever and they've got nearly as many interceptions as TDs.  And less than half the number of TDs as guys like Peyton.

But since this argument has spent a good portion of its time discussing Brady and Peyton ... then it's not pointless (for that reason, I mean).

I mean, it is pointless, cuz it's just stupid sports, but at least it's an argument that could have some merit. :)

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

This is exactly why I think these sort of discussion, though fun and interesting, are kind of pointless.  The game changes so much between generations that its impossible to compare players who didn't play at the same time.  The guys that play today enjoy rules that make it easier than ever to throw the ball.  I was looking at the stats of some of the guys who played in the 60s who are often in the conversation for best ever and they've got nearly as many interceptions as TDs.  And less than half the number of TDs as guys like Peyton.

But since this argument has spent a good portion of its time discussing Brady and Peyton ... then it's not pointless (for that reason, I mean).

I mean, it is pointless, cuz it's just stupid sports, but at least it's an argument that could have some merit. :)

But what if Ditka was a QB?

[Patch]

The best QBs play on the best teams, who have the most rings.

[Jakester23]

;-) The best QBs play on the best teams, who have the most rings.

That such a short sited way to judge the best qb. Most people would say Barry Sanders,OJ, Eric Dickerson, Jim Brown, and Walter Payton are all as good if not better than Emmitt even though he has 3 rings and the 5 guys combined have one super bowl and one championship.

[iacas]

If I had to vote now, I think I'd take a coin and put Joe Montana's face on one side and Tom Brady's on the other and flip it.  I couldn't go wrong.

You forgot Terry Bradshaw. :)

[Patch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patch

The best QBs play on the best teams, who have the most rings.

That such a short sited way to judge the best qb. Most people would say Barry Sanders,OJ, Eric Dickerson, Jim Brown, and Walter Payton are all as good if not better than Emmitt even though he has 3 rings and the 5 guys combined have one super bowl and one championship.

I was trying to remember one QB who won a SB all by himself. I don't think any have accomplished that task on their own. It's a team sport. P. Manning is a pretty decent QB, but not the best, because he only has one SB ring when compared with other teams who's QB has multiple rings. I judge players in all sports by the number of championships the have won. Most sports are team oriented. I also think that all the great championship teams, also needed a little luck at some point, which should not be forgotten.

[Golfingdad]

You forgot Terry Bradshaw. :)

You're right ... I did forgot to consider the 70's.  Let me revise:

If I had to vote now, I think I'd take a coin and put Joe Montana's face on one side and Tom Brady's on the other, and Jim Plunkett's face on the other other ... and flip it.  I couldn't go wrong.

---

BTW, in the sub-argument that we were previously having of Peyton vs. Brady, I feel like I could tie it to golf fairly well.  Like majors, the pinnacle of the sport is the Super Bowl, but everything else also matters.  In fact, somewhat unlike golf, you could argue that everything else (stats) matters quite a bit more due to the nature of it being a team sport.  So you can't say 4>1 and wipe your hands clean, but you certainly can say that 4 + slightly less in the regular season stats department > 1 + slightly more in the regular season stats department.

[dsc123]

I was trying to remember one QB who won a SB all by himself. I don't think any have accomplished that task on their own. It's a team sport. P. Manning is a pretty decent QB, but not the best, because he only has one SB ring when compared with other teams who's QB has multiple rings. I judge players in all sports by the number of championships the have won. Most sports are team oriented. I also think that all the great championship teams, also needed a little luck at some point, which should not be forgotten.

So.....

You'd put about 40 QBs higher than Dan Marino?

You'd rank Phil Rizzutto as the third best baseball player of all time, ahead of Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle?

You put about 4,000 players ahead of Ted Williams, Carl Yastremski, Ernie Banks, and Ken Griffey Jr.?

Scott Brosius was better than Mike Schmidt?

Hideki Irabu, aka, the Fat Toad, was better than Pedro Martinez?

[billchao]

I judge players in all sports by the number of championships the have won. Most sports are team oriented. I also think that all the great championship teams, also needed a little luck at some point, which should not be forgotten.

This seems to be a little contradictory. You judge individual players by the number of championships they've won, which you admit is both a team effort and involves a bit of luck?