Enough is enough. Peyton Manning is the greatest QB of all time.

[Liquidrob]

And if you think I place no value on the Super Bowl, you are wrong.

This thread would not exist had he not won a SB. He's been to two more since I made it, won two more MVP's, and had the greatest single season for a QB in NFL history. He's done nothing but add to the resume.

I value the Super Bowl, I just don't let it overpower everything else like a tidal wave. That's silly, and honestly it's the kind of analysis that needs to go away is sports debate.

Don't be dramatic, no one is saying he goes from GOAT to one ranking above Trent Dilfer

The dude is a all time great, just not the greatest

[Youk]

Serious question. I swear i'm not trolling.

Do you have any learning or mental disabilities?

Quoted again since this question wasn't answered.

[Tailback U]

There is truth to mannings struggles in the Super Bowl.

I think it's because teams have 2 weeks to prepare for him and the offense.

There's no question that manning changes the plays at the LOS depending on what look the D is giving. Good Ds know what's coming and stop it. How many draws and screens did the broncos run tonight? The Seahawks made them look very predictable by dominating the LOS and playing aggressive.

[dave]

Manning flops in the playoffs a lot, he just does, you can throw all the stats you want at me, I am a fan and have routed for him every time he has been in the super bowl and big games against the Pats, Steelers, etc...

My eyes don't lie, its always Manning throwing a pick, getting flustered and having that defeated look on his face

That 3rd and 10 draw play down 29 past the fifty was his "big game" legacy in one play, good job Peyton, way to mail in

You're playing word games with us, right?

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Manning flops in the playoffs a lot, he just does, you can throw all the stats you want at me, I am a fan and have routed for him every time he has been in the super bowl and big games against the Pats, Steelers, etc...

My eyes don't lie, its always Manning throwing a pick, getting flustered and having that defeated look on his face

That 3rd and 10 draw play down 29 past the fifty was his "big game" legacy in one play, good job Peyton, way to mail in

[spursup]

Manning didn't have that bad of a game tonight. No, he wasn't great, but he wasn't bad when you consider that his offensive line kept letting the Seahawks get pressure time and time again, and then Demaryius Thomas fumbling in Seattle territory. He had one bad play, the first INT. That was it. This loss can't really be pinned on Manning alone. He still threw for 280 yards! This was a Broncos loss, not a Peyton Manning loss.

[dave]

Segal didn't choke in Under Siege or Under Siege: Dark Territory.

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

This entire thread reminds me of a discussion I had with a Dolphins fan friend a few years ago.

There is a distinct divide between being a "passer" and "quarterback". They are not one in the same. The discussion I had, was in reference to Dan Marino, until Peyton Manning, considered the greatest passer of all-time. When it comes to throwing the football...no one was better than those two players and as a result, they became the statistical monsters of their era and the "prototype" of their position. However, the difference between a passer and a quarterback are un-quantifiable (or loosely quantifiable) attributes, even looser statistics and results.

The game of football has so many variables, simply using statistics to qualify your argument of being the best misses the point. Even in the same era, there are numerous variables that make comparisons via statistics or even worse, advanced passing metrics that normalize cross era comparisons just miss the point of being a quarterback and dismiss the variables of the game. Between offensive style, unit variables, among countless other statistic altering variables, being able to normalize or cross compare generationally, nevermind within their own era is very difficult to do based on statistics.

Manning passes the SHOE SNIFF as a statistically great passer...but as a quarterback...he's great (mostly based on his success as a passer, similarly to Marino...but better, of course)...but when it comes down to the loosely quantifiable measures that make a great QUARTERBACK, he falls short. Despite his lack of success in the playoffs, he's still considered a great, Top 5 QB of all time...that is how strong his ability as a passer is (similarly to Marino, who is floating around 10, IMO)...but as a QB, you have to split hairs and as this Super Bowl has proven, he isn't THERE with Joe Montana and it is what brings the gap as a passer between Brady and Manning much closer then those that side with Manning would like you to believe.

He's great...but not THE greatest. Top 5...and I think he'll hold firm in the Top 5 until his days come to an end.

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Manning didn't have that bad of a game tonight. No, he wasn't great, but he wasn't bad when you consider that his offensive line kept letting the Seahawks get pressure time and time again, and then Demaryius Thomas fumbling in Seattle territory. He had one bad play, the first INT. That was it. This loss can't really be pinned on Manning alone. He still threw for 280 yards! This was a Broncos loss, not a Peyton Manning loss.

You aren't the only one that has spouted this narrative, and you won't be last...regardless, stop it.

Bottom 10 worst Super Bowl performance of all-time.

Neil O'Donnell in Super Bowl XXX, Billy Kilmer in Super Bowl VII quality performance.

It was bad...historically bad.

[Liquidrob]

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

It's weird that being no.2-3 all time can be so offensive.

[dave]

You aren't the only one that has spouted this narrative, and you won't be last...regardless, stop it.

Bottom 10 worst Super Bowl performance of all-time.

Neil O'Donnell in Super Bowl XXX, Billy Kilmer in Super Bowl VII quality performance.

It was bad...historically bad.

OK. Let's play a game. Look at these stats without knowing the score of the game:



Historically bad? No.

If you're a fan of this team without knowing the score, do you think you may have won this game? Maybe.

This was not a historically bad game, it was just a bad game. Putting all of this on Manning is unfair. He absolutely deserves his share of the blame, but comparing this performance to Neil O'Donnell or calling it a bottom 10 performance is just having a "I'm gonna post this on Twitter or VSN!" moment. It was a bad game, but if you put those stats in perspective and the fact that both INTs had O-Line blame, again you can't blame Manning entirely. And you can't blame him for the stupid fumbles, Harvin return (I thought the Denver kicker was capable of kicking out of the end zone?) or all those stout Seattle tackles that changed the tone of this game quickly.

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

OK. Let's play a game. Look at these stats without knowing the score of the game:



Historically bad? No.

If you're a fan of this team without knowing the score, do you think you may have won this game? Maybe.

This was not a historically bad game, it was just a bad game. Putting all of this on Manning is unfair. He absolutely deserves his share of the blame, but comparing this performance to Neil O'Donnell or calling it a bottom 10 performance is just having a "I'm gonna post this on Twitter or VSN!" moment. It was a bad game, but if you put those stats in perspective and the fact that both INTs had O-Line blame, again you can't blame Manning entirely. And you can't blame him for the stupid fumbles, Harvin return (I thought the Denver kicker was capable of kicking out of the end zone?) or all those stout Seattle tackles that changed the tone of this game quickly.

Looks a lot like...

28/49, 239 yards, 1 TD, 3 INT, 51.3 Passer Rating

With that game now over...the rest of your post is shit...look up the worst games by a quarterback in the Super Bowl...its not as bad as Charlie Morton or Tony Eason, but its in the Top 10 worst games played by a QB in the Super Bowl of all-time.

If you don't agree...fuck you, you're wrong. Get some historical perspective.

[spursup]

OK. Let's play a game. Look at these stats without knowing the score of the game:



Historically bad? No.

If you're a fan of this team without knowing the score, do you think you may have won this game? Maybe.

This was not a historically bad game, it was just a bad game. Putting all of this on Manning is unfair. He absolutely deserves his share of the blame, but comparing this performance to Neil O'Donnell or calling it a bottom 10 performance is just having a "I'm gonna post this on Twitter or VSN!" moment. It was a bad game, but if you put those stats in perspective and the fact that both INTs had O-Line blame, again you can't blame Manning entirely. And you can't blame him for the stupid fumbles, Harvin return (I thought the Denver kicker was capable of kicking out of the end zone?) or all those stout Seattle tackles that changed the tone of this game quickly.

My point exactly, said more verbosely. 280 yards is not historically bad, in fact its not even bad. 280 yards is more than most quarterbacks can achieve in three games, and he did it in one and gets called historically bad? His teammates were awful, defense couldn't stop anything, Demaryius Thomas made some bad decisions, it wasn't just the fumble but there were a number of times he had open field ahead of him and didn't takeit. The O-line was the main reason for both of the picks. The center snapping the ball early leading to the safety. Not a great game from Manning, but not a bad one by any stretch of the imagination.

[Warner2BruceTD]

You aren't the only one that has spouted this narrative, and you won't be last...regardless, stop it.

Bottom 10 worst Super Bowl performance of all-time.

Neil O'Donnell in Super Bowl XXX, Billy Kilmer in Super Bowl VII quality performance.

It was bad...historically bad.

lol, no it wasn't, c'mon larry.

He played a perfectly average game. One horrendous pick, a couple of inaccurate throws when the game was already in hand.

"Historically bad" is way over doing it, and not even close to bottom 10. Elway had three games worse than that alone. Tony Eason. Big Ben in the first Steelers win. Craig Morton. David Woodley. That's seven off the top of my head that you didn't mention that qualify as "historically bad" and way, way worse than Manning tonight.