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

[Warner2BruceTD]

I cannot argue with W2B. I don't see how someone can say "Oh, those games in the playoffs, the ones that are the most important and pit you against teams who are equally talented, those don't count. Did you see what Manning did to the 0-5 Titans!!!11!!!one!! Manning is teh greatest!"

Montana went into those games and didn't just stay consistent, he actually IMPROVED his numbers from the regular season. His career statistics are almost identical to Manning's. I don't see how this is even an argument, just look at the stats.

As for today not being a pass friendly era... ya right. Nearly every offensive record has been broken in the last 10 years and QBs are protected more than ever. Ugh, this is like arguing with a five year old.

In addition to "in the grasp", how about the CROWD NOISE rule, where the home team was penalized if the home crowd CHEERED TOO LOUD, making it hard for the opposing QB to call out his signals? Remember that one? That was the heart of Montana's playing days, btw.

Look, the point is, anything after 1978 is the "passer friendly era". Rule changes are part of the ebb & flow of the sport, but Montana & Manning are playing under essentially the same rules. It's a bad argument. This isnt Manning vs. YA Tittle.

And you clearly haven't paid much attention to anything i've posted, because i've conceded time and time again that Montana has a better post season resume. That dosent sway my opinion that Manning is the better player. I can't discount the fact that Manning has carried the Colts on his back for a decade, a team that likely would be a margnal playoff contender without him, and will probably retire owning almost every major record, and at minimum, one SB, with the book yet to be finished.

I'm not sure what the point is at debating you anymore, becsause you've slipped into name calling territory and we are repeating the same points.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Can neither of you grasp that people aren't just saying Montana>>>Manning because of rings? I showed tons of stats proving that Montana was basically equal to Manning in a much less pass friendly era and that Montana's post season statistics (not just record) absolutely destroyed Manning's.

Bullshit in bold.

If you discount rings, Manning beats Montana and it isnt even close.

More passing yards by a wide margain, something like 70 more TD's, a higher QB Rating, a higher completion percentage...across the board, Manning has better numbers.

Oh, and in less seasons.

Take away his rings, and you wouldnt even be arguing with me. Don't try to sell me that shit.

Get this through your skulls, how are you going to say a QB with an 85 QB Rating in the most important games of the year is the best of the best?

Wait, I thought this wasnt about postseason?

You contradicted yourself IN THE SAME POST, numbnuts.

You're better than that.

[JeremyHight]

Bullshit in bold.

If you discount rings, Manning beats Montana and it isnt even close.

More passing yards by a wide margain, something like 70 more TD's, a higher QB Rating, a higher completion percentage...across the board, Manning has better numbers.

Oh, and in less seasons.

Take away his rings, and you wouldnt even be arguing with me. Don't try to sell me that shit.



Wait, I thought this wasnt about postseason?

You contradicted yourself IN THE SAME POST, numbnuts.

You're better than that.

... no, I didn't. I said Montana's post season stats were far better than Manning's. No one would be shitting on Manning if he was even close to the same QB in the post season as he was in the regular season, but he isn't. His QB rating drops dramatically, his Interception Percentage increases, his TD percentage decreases, his completion percentage decreases, and etc. Those are POST SEASON STATS! If he was playing great, but didn't get wins, he would be fine and a definite argument for best QB ever, but he doesn't play great.

Again, read my posts, this has nothing to do with rings and everything to do with his dramatic drop off in the games that matter most.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Let me ask you this. He is in the midst of yet another MVP season, this time with WR's named Garcon and Collie, and a rookie RB.

If he wins another SB, this year or otherwise, where will you stand? It's not a loaded question. I'm not looking for an "I told you so".

You know where I stand. He's had postseason comebacks thwarted by a kicker on multiple occasions. He's had stinkers, just like Montana had stinkers (all of which I pointed out earlier in the thread). I'd take him over Montana if he retired right now, i've made that clear. Another ring and it's a slam dunk.

[Tailback U]

In addition to "in the grasp", how about the CROWD NOISE rule, where the home team was penalized if the home crowd CHEERED TOO LOUD, making it hard for the opposing QB to call out his signals? Remember that one? That was the heart of Montana's playing days, btw.

Look, the point is, anything after 1978 is the "passer friendly era". Rule changes are part of the ebb & flow of the sport, but Montana & Manning are playing under essentially the same rules. It's a bad argument. This isnt Manning vs. YA Tittle.

And you clearly haven't paid much attention to anything i've posted, because i've conceded time and time again that Montana has a better post season resume. That dosent sway my opinion that Manning is the better player. I can't discount the fact that Manning has carried the Colts on his back for a decade, a team that likely would be a margnal playoff contender without him, and will probably retire owning almost every major record, and at minimum, one SB, with the book yet to be finished.

I'm not sure what the point is at debating you anymore, because you've slipped into name calling territory and we are repeating the same points.

I understand what you are getting and I agree with pretty much everything you have said, but I can't get over the fact that the same reasons you use to defend Peyton Manning are the same reasons you use to bash Drew Brees.

I know that Drew Brees does not have the win/loss record that Manning does, but if you want to ignore Montana's playoff statistics and records when comparing him to Manning then why can't you do the same when comparing Manning and Brees?

I know that Manning is better than Brees, but I just find it funny that you love to bash Brees as often as you can when he and Manning have so many similarities statistically.

[MrBill]

Mike Vanderjagt missed a bunch of clutch kicks, and Adam Vinetieri made all of his.

For that, we "punish" Peyton Manning, and "reward" Tom Brady.

I agree completely with this. I think Tom Brady has gotten way to much love for winning 3 Superbowls by a combined 9 points. At least one of his games should have been a blowout if he was that great. Every single one shouldn't come down to being able to get his kicker in range to win the game. Manning has a ton of those games where his liquored up kicker screwed the team.

Understood that argument is a slippery slope though, because Favre gets punished over his defense giving up 4th and 26 in Philly and letting Plaxico have 11/155 in Green Bay a few years ago. If the Giants kicker had not missed about 3 FG's in the 4th quarter, the story of that game is the Packers defense getting their ass handed to them, not Favre's INT in OT.

The buck stops with the QB even though it shouldn't always be that way to reasonable fans watching the game. Like people always say, the QB gets too much credit for winning and too much blame for losing.

[Tailback U]

It's funny how John Elway is considered one of the best big game QB's of all time but everyone forgets that Elway was flat out embarrassed and god awful in the first 3 Super Bowls he played in.

Not to mention Elway's TD/INT ratio was pretty horrid the first 10 seasons of his career.

[Warner2BruceTD]

I understand what you are getting and I agree with pretty much everything you have said, but I can't get over the fact that the same reasons you use to defend Peyton Manning are the same reasons you use to bash Drew Brees.

I know that Drew Brees does not have the win/loss record that Manning does, but if you want to ignore Montana's playoff statistics and records when comparing him to Manning then why can't you do the same when comparing Manning and Brees?

I know that Manning is better than Brees, but I just find it funny that you love to bash Brees as often as you can when he and Manning have so many similarities statistically.

Comparing Brees to Manning is insulting to Manning IMO.

In addition to being statistically superior to almost every QB to ever play the game, Peyton Manning leads his team to the playoffs every year, wins big games every year, has 3 MVP's, is a 4 time All Pro (not Pro Bowl, ALL PRO) and won a SB.

Drew Brees has led his team to the playoffs twice, and has ONE playoff win. His late season play in crucial situations has been well documented by me, and less elequently by Nuke. His 4th Q and "late & clutch" numbers drop off dramatically. I'mnot going to repost all of that stuff, because I assume everyone knows by now how ugly those numbers are.

He was a slightly better than above average player when he was with SD, and for all the talk of his big passing numbers, he only has one 30+ TD season. Drew Brees has 3 big statistical years on his resume, and almost nothing else. Manning has been a dominant player for a decade.

EDIT: The player most similar to Brees at this point is Jim Everett, who had three monster statistical years from 88-90, and was marginal the rest of his career. Everett really fell off the shelf after '90, and Brees probably won't, but at this point in his career, they are the same player.

Although, to be fair, Everett won two playoff games in three trips. So yeah.

SECOND EDIT: But to answer your question, with Manning/Montana we are talking about all time greats who have won SB's. With Brees, we are talking about a guy who barely ever makes the playoffs. At least I have some ammo when I defend Manning vs. Montana, as opposed to when people defend Brees, all they have is a 5,000 yard passing season.

[Tailback U]

Comparing Brees to Manning is insulting to Manning IMO.

In addition to being statistically superior to almost every QB to ever play the game, Peyton Manning leads his team to the playoffs every year, wins big games every year, has 3 MVP's, is a 4 time All Pro (not Pro Bowl, ALL PRO) and won a SB.

Drew Brees has led his team to the playoffs twice, and has ONE playoff win. His late season play in crucial situations has been well documented by me, and less elequently by Nuke. His 4th Q and "late & clutch" numbers drop off dramatically. I'mnot going to repost all of that stuff, because I assume everyone knows by now how ugly those numbers are.

He was a slightly better than above average player when he was with SD, and for all the talk of his big passing numbers, he only has one 30+ TD season. Drew Brees has 3 big statistical years on his resume, and almost nothing else. Manning has been a dominant player for a decade.

Actually, Drew Brees has had 5 great passing seasons.

2004: 3159 yards, 27 TDs, 7 INT. 104.8 QBR.

2005: 3576 yards, 24 TD, 14 INT. 89.2 QBR.

2006: 4418 yards, 26 TD, 11 INT. 96.2 QBR.

2007: 4423 yards, 28 TD, 18 INT. 89.4 QBR.

2008: 5069 yards, 34 TD, 17 INT. 96.2 QBR.

Brees played in just 1 game his rookie season and struggled for his first 2 seasons as a starter.

The last 5 seasons are comparable to Manning's. Manning has just done it twice as long. Brees is 3 years younger than Manning, but if he continues at his current pace for 5 more seasons (which is likely) and wins 1 Super Bowl the two will be comparable statistically speaking.

[Warner2BruceTD]

I disagree.

Manning has nine 4,000+ yard seasons (out of eleven), and his career low is 3,739 (his rookie year). Brees has three (out of eight).

As for the last five years, Brees has one 30+ TD season (the only one of his career, btw) while Manning has three, including a year where he threw 49.

Over those five years, Manning lead the league in rating 3 times , and has three 100+ seasons. Brees has never led the league, and has one year over 100.

Again, Brees is closer to Jim Everett at this point than Peyton Manning.

[Tailback U]

I disagree.

Manning has nine 4,000+ yard seasons (out of eleven), and his career low is 3,739 (his rookie year). Brees has three (out of eight).

As for the last five years, Brees has one 30+ TD season (the only one of his career, btw) while Manning has three, including a year where he threw 49.

Over those five years, Manning lead the league in rating 3 times , and has three 100+ seasons. Brees has never led the league, and has one year over 100.

Again, Brees is closer to Jim Everett at this point than Peyton Manning.

I'm not arguing that Brees is better than Manning, only that you use statistics to proclaim Manning as the greatest of all time but when anybody brings up how good Brees' is you are quick to label his statistics "empty."

Manning has 1 Super Bowl win. If he hadn't of won that SB, would all of his stats be "empty," too? Or are his regular season statistics so good that that his post-season record and statistics don't matter?

And it's easy to see that Brees is just getting into his prime. His stats have gotten better every year so we haven't even seen his peak yet.

[Warner2BruceTD]

I'm not arguing that Brees is better than Manning, only that you use statistics to proclaim Manning as the greatest of all time but when anybody brings up how good Brees' is you are quick to label his statistics "empty."

His stats are empty. He's accomplished nothing aside from a few seasons of big numbers.

Manning has 1 Super Bowl win. If he hadn't of won that SB, would all of his stats be "empty," too? Or are his regular season statistics so good that that his post-season record and statistics don't matter?

I addressed this about 3 or 4 times in this thread already. This thread wouldnt exist if Manning didnt win a SB.

However. he'd still be light years beyond Brees, because he at least wins his division/makes the playoffs every year, and would still have some postseason success. On top of the fact he still has better numbers than Brees, and everyone else, too.

He'd be lumped with the big numbers/no titles group of Dan Marino & Fran Tarkenton, which is still great company. Company Brees dosen't keep (yet?).

And it's easy to see that Brees is just getting into his prime. His stats have gotten better every year so we haven't even seen his peak yet.

Unlike the irrational Nuke, I don't completely write off Brees.

All of this Brees "bashing" started last year on MM when I made a thread decrying his MVP talk. I found it baffling that a QB who finished in last place and choked away a playoff birth (again) was being called an MVP contender.

He's a good player, and he may end up being a great one. Right now, no. He hasnt done enough to be called a great player.

[Tailback U]

I gotcha.

I'd say he is a great player in today's NFL.

All time great? Not yet.

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

Coupla things...

1. Im not sure why people are adamant on setting Montana's place in stone. Hes the greatest ever but its not some forever placement. Peyton really isnt that far off from accomplishing something that can garner him that spot. As mentioned hes still playing anything can happen.

2. Im sorry but cant underscore Montana winning a SB with none of the "dynasty" players.
His consistency with and without great players , reg to post season is extremely rare.

3. Tailback Needs to read through a thread before commenting from now on.

4. Theres no question whatsoever that the passing is infinitely easier now. Who cares if the defenses are faster and stronger ? The offensive lineman are also 30-50 lbs heavier , a shit ton stronger ,and .3 faster than anyone that protected Montana. WRs dont get touched the first 5 yards at all. What good is being fast and strong if you cant hit or cover anyone ?
TD passing record immediately fell twice after further rule "Adjustments". Im sorry but Im not looking at Peyton or Bradys inflated numbers and being awed by them.
I will however reiterate that Mannings game management and knowledge and control of his offense is nothing short of legendary. Far as Im concerned he IS the offensive genius on that team. Where as Montana knew and executed the WCO better than any QB has done with any offense..but Manning with no disrespect to Moore is as close to a self contained offensive system as we've ever seen.
It does seem to be a hindrance in some games. Bellyflop was able to frustrate Manning over and over. Manning offenses have always contained "soft" players. Having that entire system on his shoulders may have been too much pressure for him in games where someone like Walsh could have eased that off of him.

For the record. Im pretty sure someone on Atlanta confess to intentionally clubbing Montana in the head intentionally..thus he was in fact getting clubbed in the pocket.

[Bear Pand]

Manning takes all the credit in the regular season, yet shoulders none of the blame for the most part when his team fails to put up points in the playoffs. It's my biggest gripe.

He has a 7-8 record in the playoffs, which is atrocious, especially when his team relies on him that much.

The "what if" game is something that can't really be argued or even truly speculated. All we know is Brady has 3 rings, the RECORD for most TD passes in a single season, led his team to an 18-0 record, led the most prolific offense of all time, and has a staggering amount of playoff success as well as regular season.

Peyton's holding himself back in history, IMO, because of his playoff failures. They're well-documented, hell -- he got bashed here last year in the Indianapolis Star because of his failure last year in the post-season, where his defense got him many stops, yet that offense only put up 17 points on the NFL's 32nd ranked pass D in the league. What gives?

*Remembers Kornstar arguing that Manning couldn't get it done without James and Harrison*

*Looks at Manning's numbers this year*

*Burns the Indy Star*