Peyton Manning the Greatest QB?

[Slice of Life]

I love how you discount stats that don't fit your argument.  The other 10 players on offense have something to do with Peyton's stats, don't they?  He didn't catch the ball too, did he?Besides, Bart Starr is the best of all time.  The regular season means nothing.  Peyton doesn't even make the list

Wrong, you're biased. I'm a Browns fan...I don't care about either one of them.

I did not discount the stats, I rebutted them with stats that explain that the correlation between the stats you posted and the QB are not directly related...thus making them irrelevant.

What I posted were the stats that are directly connected to the QB's play.

Let's throw out a hypothetical...

Team A's QB throws for 400 yards and 4 TDs with no INTs. However, his defense gives up 35 points, and they lose the game.

Team B's QB throws for 250 yards, 2 TDs and an INT. His defense only gives up 10 points, and they win the game.

In what fantasy world is team B's QB better because they won?

By the way, Trent Dilfer has an 83.3% playoff winning percentage, so this argument is moot...since he's clearly better than Manning and Brady. (And obviously a better QB than Marino...what with that ring and all)

[saevel25]

By the way, Trent Dilfer has an 83.3% playoff winning percentage, so this argument is moot...since he's clearly better than Manning and Brady. (And obviously a better QB than Marino...what with that ring and all)

Kinda helps when you have that 2000 Baltimore Raven's Defense that terrorized the league

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

I love how you discount stats that don't fit your argument.  The other 10 players on offense have something to do with Peyton's stats, don't they?  He didn't catch the ball too, did he?  Besides, Bart Starr is the best of all time.  The regular season means nothing.  Peyton doesn't even make the list

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/166734-the-10-greatest-postseason-quarterbacks-in-nfl-history

2) Bart Starr, Green Bay Packers.

Career postseason record: 8-1

Career postseason statistics: 130-213, 1753 yards, 15 TD, 3 INT; 104.8 passer rating

BTW, this is of course, tough and cheek.  It is such a semantic argument.    Except the Bart Starr part!!!

, question was best QB NOT best Post-Season QB. Bart Starr had a near 1-1 TD to INT ratio. His Passer Rating 20 points lower on his career. Sorry, but NO!

Guess you missed the "tough in cheek" line.   (Dang, I said "and", bad grammar!)

However, your comments could be considered irrelevant from a different point of view. The regular season is only important when it comes to making the playoffs.  The playoffs are far more important because it is against tougher competition.  Regular season stats are skewed because of the weaker competition.  Only winning counts and winning is most important in the playoffs.

It would be like saying the stats leader in the PGA was the best player even if he didn't win anything.  You have to win tournaments and majors to be considered GOAT.  You have to win football games and in the NFL and it is all about the playoffs.  Peyton is a tremendous QB stats-wise, but falters in the playoffs.  Whether it has to do with the other 21 is debatable.

[Patch]

I'd say he's been pretty good, and one of the best the past 10-12 years. However, like golfers who define their success on the number of majors won, Super bowl rings define quarterbacks. That alone means Brady has some claim to the best of this era.

Now if you just go by stats, then yes Manning is at the top of heap for the past decade. Not many are even close to the numbers he has put up.

Criteria always throws a wrench in things.

[Golfingdad]

Let's throw out a hypothetical...

Team A's QB throws for 400 yards and 4 TDs with no INTs. However, his defense gives up 35 points, and they lose the game.

Team B's QB throws for 250 yards, 2 TDs and an INT. His defense only gives up 10 points, and they win the game.

In what fantasy world is team B's QB better because they won?

Not a fantasy world, necessarily.  If Team B's QB is smart enough to recognize that his defense is not the best and the only way for them to win the game is to manage the clock, AND he's basically his own offensive coordinator, recognizes that they need to play a field position type game, calls a lot of running plays and really short passes, and happens to be playing against a good defense, I can see a situation where a lot of the credit for his defense only giving up 10 points, and thus his team winning, can go to Team B's quarterback.

Of course, the only QB in the league that currently would be capable of something like that, IMO, is Peyton Manning, so ... ;)

Another non-fantasy scenario where that would be true is the one where Team B races to an early lead, thanks to 2 quick TD passes by the quarterback, a punt return TD, and two fumble recoveries that led to running touchdowns.  By halftime, it's 35-10 and Team A has no choice but to fling it around the yard.  When all is said and done, it's 42-31 Team B.  Just because Team A's QB racked up some gaudy stats down the stretch doesn't mean he was better than Team B's QB by any means.

Basically, I'm agreeing with you, by the way ... by showing that stats just don't show the whole story, no matter how you look at them.

[saevel25]

Guess you missed the "tough in cheek" line.   (Dang, I said "and", bad grammar!)

However, your comments could be considered irrelevant from a different point of view. The regular season is only important when it comes to making the playoffs.  The playoffs are far more important because it is against tougher competition.  Regular season stats are skewed because of the weaker competition.  Only winning counts and winning is most important in the playoffs.

It would be like saying the stats leader in the PGA was the best player even if he didn't win anything.  You have to win tournaments and majors to be considered GOAT.  You have to win football games and in the NFL and it is all about the playoffs.  Peyton is a tremendous QB stats-wise, but falters in the playoffs.  Whether it has to do with the other 21 is debatable.

Yet if you are not a competent team or QB then you will not even make the playoffs. Heck there are some really good QB's who don't make the playoffs and it has nothing to do with how they played.

Weaker competition really? I am sure it balances out. Some teams play a very easy schedule, and some play a brutal on. To say regular season makes it weak is not true.

PGA is different because it is individual. What if Adrian Peterson became the greatest Running Back of all time and never won a supper bowl. Do you discredit him, or do only QB get judged by the win stat. What about Barry Sanders. Was on some HORRIBLE Detroit teams. No one denies his greatness because of the team he was on.

I'd say he's been pretty good, and one of the best the past 10-12 years. However, like golfers who define their success on the number of majors won, Super bowl rings define quarterbacks. That alone means Brady has some claim to the best of this era.

Now if you just go by stats, then yes Manning is at the top of heap for the past decade. Not many are even close to the numbers he has put up.

Criteria always throws a wrench in things.

Which is crap because NFL is a team sport. Why don't O-lines get ranked by rings, why not WR, why not RB's, why just QB's?

Brady only has claim because he was on the Patriots. Which means anybody who claims a QB is great because of how many rings is agreeing that that the QB's greatness is inflated because of the team they are on. Basically you are agreeing that great QB's get to ride the coat-tails of the teams they played for.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

Let's throw out a hypothetical...

Team A's QB throws for 400 yards and 4 TDs with no INTs. However, his defense gives up 35 points, and they lose the game.

Team B's QB throws for 250 yards, 2 TDs and an INT. His defense only gives up 10 points, and they win the game.

In what fantasy world is team B's QB better because they won?

Not a fantasy world, necessarily.  If Team B's QB is smart enough to recognize that his defense is not the best and the only way for them to win the game is to manage the clock, AND he's basically his own offensive coordinator, recognizes that they need to play a field position type game, calls a lot of running plays and really short passes, and happens to be playing against a good defense, I can see a situation where a lot of the credit for his defense only giving up 10 points, and thus his team winning, can go to Team B's quarterback.

Of course, the only QB in the league that currently would be capable of something like that, IMO, is Peyton Manning, so ... ;)

Another non-fantasy scenario where that would be true is the one where Team B races to an early lead, thanks to 2 quick TD passes by the quarterback, a punt return TD, and two fumble recoveries that led to running touchdowns.  By halftime, it's 35-10 and Team A has no choice but to fling it around the yard.  When all is said and done, it's 42-31 Team B.  Just because Team A's QB racked up some gaudy stats down the stretch doesn't mean he was better than Team B's QB by any means.

Basically, I'm agreeing with you, by the way ... by showing that stats just don't show the whole story, no matter how you look at them.

Stats are for losers!! Put it this way, if the Super Bowl was on the line, you had 1:49 seconds and no time outs, who would you want at QB?  That is easy for me, Joe Montana.  If I wanted to put money on winning a playoff game and had to pick one QB, Bart Starr.  If it had to be an active QB, Brady.  If I wanted to put money on a regular season game and extra money on the stats like passing TDs, yards and completion %, Peyton Manning.

Again, I am being half serious here.  These arguments can go around in circles kind of like the Jack and Tiger thread.

[saevel25]

Stats are for losers!!   Put it this way, if the Super Bowl was on the line, you had 1:49 seconds and no time outs, who would you want at QB?  That is easy for me, Joe Montana.  If I wanted to put money on winning a playoff game and had to pick one QB, Bart Starr.  If it had to be an active QB, Brady.  If I wanted to put money on a regular season game and extra money on the stats like passing TDs, yards and completion %, Peyton Manning.

Again, I am being half serious here.  These arguments can go around in circles kind of like the Jack and Tiger thread.

Yet Peyton has more fourth quarter comebacks than both Montana, Brady and Starr. Just saying, Peyton was REALLY solid with the game on the line. He made up for a lot of his teams short comings, and when you have a higher occurrence then you have more times as well when he might fail. He succeeded WAY more than he failed. Yet his team, especially his team's defenses were not at all elite. The time they were, he won the Super Bowl.

Not really because the argument on playoffs and superbowl wins is way weaker than the Jack and Tiger thread

[Golfingdad]

What if Adrian Peterson became the greatest Running Back of all time and never won a supper bowl. Do you discredit him, or do only QB get judged by the win stat.

That depends on whether or not he won any breakfast bowls or lunch bowls.

It's silly to put so much weight on playoff and Super Bowl wins when comparing QB's in a league known (especially today) for its parity.  The quality of the teams top-to-bottom is so close that you have teams like the Seahawks who beat the Broncos and then lose to the Rams, or the Chiefs who lose at home to Tennessee and then beat the Chargers on the road, etc, etc.  The you get to the playoffs, where every game comes down to a play here or a play there, and many of them are not controlled by each QB.  A perfectly thrown ball is dropped, a kickoff is returned, a field goal is missed, and those types of plays swing games.

If winning Super Bowls was so important, how come I never hear anybody talk about Terry Bradshaw when the topic of greatest ever comes up?

Stats are for losers!!   Put it this way, if the Super Bowl was on the line, you had 1:49 seconds and no time outs, who would you want at QB?  That is easy for me, Joe Montana.  If I wanted to put money on winning a playoff game and had to pick one QB, Bart Starr.  If it had to be an active QB, Brady.  If I wanted to put money on a regular season game and extra money on the stats like passing TDs, yards and completion %, Peyton Manning.

Again, I am being half serious here.  These arguments can go around in circles kind of like the Jack and Tiger thread.

If you asked me those questions a couple of years ago, I'd probably have answered similarly:

Montana, Montana, Brady Eli Manning , Peyton.

However, in all seriousness, if I'm asked those four questions now, without hesitation, my answers are:

Peyton Manning, Peyton Manning, Peyton Manning, Peyton Manning.

[newtogolf]

The QB is the leader of the offense so it makes sense that the overall success of his team falls heavily on his shoulders.  Part of what makes a great QB is the ability to deal with the pressure of a big game and performing at the best of his ability.

IMO Joe Namath would never be discussed as a great QB or have been as famous if the Jets lost against the Colts.  Stats are part of the story, leadership is the other.  Peyton needs to lead the Bronco's to a Super Bowl win and his critics will be less likely to bring up Brady or Montana as GOAT.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Stats are for losers!!   Put it this way, if the Super Bowl was on the line, you had 1:49 seconds and no time outs, who would you want at QB?  That is easy for me, Joe Montana.  If I wanted to put money on winning a playoff game and had to pick one QB, Bart Starr.  If it had to be an active QB, Brady.  If I wanted to put money on a regular season game and extra money on the stats like passing TDs, yards and completion %, Peyton Manning.

Again, I am being half serious here.  These arguments can go around in circles kind of like the Jack and Tiger thread.

Yet Peyton has more fourth quarter comebacks than both Montana, Brady and Starr. Just saying, Peyton was REALLY solid with the game on the line. He made up for a lot of his teams short comings, and when you have a higher occurrence then you have more times as well when he might fail. He succeeded WAY more than he failed. Yet his team, especially his team's defenses were not at all elite. The time they were, he won the Super Bowl.

Not really because the argument on playoffs and superbowl wins is way weaker than the Jack and Tiger thread

Not in Super Bowls! Just saying!  I love how when Peyton wins, it is because of Peyton.  But when his teams lose, it is because of the rest of the team.

[MS256]

, question was best QB NOT best Post-Season QB. Bart Starr had a near 1-1 TD to INT ratio. His Passer Rating 20 points lower on his career. Sorry, but NO!

SMH. Going back to Bart Starr is just something to show how impossible it is to use statistics to judge quarterbacks from different eras. It's an entirely different game.

Defenses could do everything short of homicide both on the quarterback and the receivers back when Starr played. The quarterbacks of today would have nowhere close to the stats they have if they and their receivers weren't so protected. I'm pretty sure Manning and Brady would say the same thing.

We can never know who was best in football between eras judging by stats because football is less hesitant to change rules than most sports.

Nothing wrong with that and many rule changes have not only been necessary to protect players but have increased fan appeal because fans like to see offense. Throwing away the historical importance of stats is something that football has been willing to do.

[Golfingdad]

Not in Super Bowls!   Just saying!  I love how when Peyton wins, it is because of Peyton.  But when his teams lose, it is because of the rest of the team.

Well, I'm hoping to be able to say in a few weeks that "when he loses, it's because of the OTHER team (read: Chargers ;))

[saevel25]

That depends on whether or not he won any breakfast bowls or lunch bowls.

That new Peyton Commercial for Nationwide right?

"chicken-parm, you taste so good"

SMH. Going back to Bart Starr is just something to show how impossible it is to use statistics to judge quarterbacks from different eras. It's an entirely different game.

Sure it is, they actually have Passer Rating for him. Which is an all inclusive stat.

Not in Super Bowls!   Just saying!  I love how when Peyton wins, it is because of Peyton.  But when his teams lose, it is because of the rest of the team.

Well I can say that with Indy because they had an average to below average defense.

[Slice of Life]

Not in Super Bowls!   Just saying!  I love how when Peyton wins, it is because of Peyton.  But when his teams lose, it is because of the rest of the team.

The defensive stats I posted paint the picture.

I'm saying he isn't solely responsible for either. Again, the fact that the Patriots went 11-5 with Cassel under center says it all...

[meenman]

.

I'm a little biased, but Tom Brady has to be in the conversation.

And seriously, you sound like an uninformed, jaded Patriot hater to bring up the "Belicheat" stuff. Move on, that argument hasn't had any merit in forever.

It has a ton of merit - tommy boy and belicheat have ZERO rings since being caught in spygate.

Why were the tapes destroyed so fast?. Goodell has a lot more to answer for other than Ray Rice. Not only should he be fired, he should probably be locked up for a few years also.

I would put peyton as the 2nd greatest QB over the last 7 -8 years. Second to his brother who is the only QB with 2 Super Bowl rings in that time.

[Jakester23]

I'm pretty sure Big Ben has 2 rings in the last 8 years.

[meenman]

I'm pretty sure Big Ben has 2 rings in the last 8 years.

technically, his first was over 8 years ago - but definitely someone with more than tommy boy in that period