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

[KoRnStARr]

I'm confused. People are making it seem as if Manning doesn't have a SB ring. He's won a SB, so obviously he's proven that he can lead a team to a SB win, so all of this talk of career playoff record being one game below .500 is pointless. Generally, these discussions are about one thing and that is "have you won a championship" and nothing more and Manning has won one.

This is why this ranking QB's based on SB talk is so retarded, because people convienently slide the scale where they want it to be to fit an argument.

The year he DID win the SB his D/run game carried him. He had 3 TDs, 7INTs that year during his SB run. Awful.

He's also the only "GREAT" NFL QB to pitch a SHUTOUT LOSS in a playoff game...0 points against the Jets in 2001. My god.

[ralaw]

The year he DID win the SB his D/run game carried him. He had 3 TDs, 7INTs that year during his SB run. Awful.

He's also the only "GREAT" NFL QB to pitch a SHUTOUT LOSS in a playoff game...0 points against the Jets in 2001. My god.

He wouldn't be the first SB winning QB to be complimented by a great defense....would he? Ae we now downgrading guys for being on good teams? Actually, I can't think of a single QB that exemplifies the "carried his team to a championship" aura.

[Bear Pand]

I'd take Brady over Manning instantly if those i got those Superbowl defenses and Belichick with him. That's the only way though.

He wouldn't be the first SB winning QB to be complimented by a great defense....would he? Ae we now downgrading guys for being on good teams? Actually, I can't think of a single QB that exemplifies the "carried his team to a championship" aura.

Me either.

The year he DID win the SB his D/run game carried him. He had 3 TDs, 7INTs that year during his SB run. Awful.

He's also the only "GREAT" NFL QB to pitch a SHUTOUT LOSS in a playoff game...0 points against the Jets in 2001. My god.

Meanwhile you'll rant and rave about how Big Ben is on pace to be the best QB of all time while conveniently ignoring how bad he was in that Seahawks Superbowl.

[Warner2BruceTD]

The year he DID win the SB his D/run game carried him. He had 3 TDs, 7INTs that year during his SB run. Awful.

He's also the only "GREAT" NFL QB to pitch a SHUTOUT LOSS in a playoff game...0 points against the Jets in 2001. My god.

If you are going to knock him for a lackluster postseason when he won the SB, then you have to praise him for his outstanding performances in the playoffs nullified by his kicker or other factors blowing what would have been great comebacks.

Be consistant.

[JeremyHight]

I'm confused. People are making it seem as if Manning doesn't have a SB ring. He's won a SB, so obviously he's proven that he can lead a team to a SB win, so all of this talk of career playoff record being one game below .500 is pointless. Generally, these discussions come down to one thing and that is "have you won a championship" and nothing more and Manning has won one, so he's proven himself.

This is why this ranking QB's based on SB talk is so retarded, because people convienently slide the scale where they want it to be to fit an argument.

When you are splitting hairs by trying to pick between several amazing QBs to decide who is the best ever, you are going to look at their post-season accomplishments and downfalls with a microscope. Yes, he's won a championship, he is easily a hall of famer, but saying he is the best ever is a whole different leap.

Again, all of these QBs being mentioned are great, but when you have to pick one, yes, people are going to nitpick every last thing because that is just how close all of these guys are.

[Bear Pand]

Here's a stat for you JHight.

If you look at QBs who've won multiple superbowls:

Big Ben's Steelers (during their SB runs)
ran for 115 yards / gm
gave up 18 points / gm

Aikman's Cowboys (during their SB runs)
ran for 128 yards / gm
gave up 17 points / gm

Brady's Pats (during their SB runs)
ran for 126 yards / gm
gave up 17 points / gm

Elway's Broncos (during their SB runs)
ran for 187 yards / gm
gave up 15 points / gm

Montana's 49ers (during their SB runs)
ran for 152 yards / gm
gave up 13 points / gm

Bradshaw's Steelers (during their SB runs)
ran for 166 yards / gm
gave up 14 points / gm

Manning is undefeated in the post season anytime his team has run for over 115 yards (lowest on this list), or his defense has given up under 18 points.(highest on this list)

Not surprisingly during Indy's SB run the Colts
ran for 151 yards / gm
gave up 16 points / gm

------------------

This stat is misleading because it doesn't take into account things like QB turnovers that lead to points, game winning drives, and a bunch of other game situations. I'm also not a fan on using playoff stats cause it's a small sample and a couple of games can skew things.

But I'm not a big fan of ranking QBs by how many rings they have. It's a team game and rarely is a team going to win without defense and a running game. Plus having other things go their way like FG kicks. Too many factors to throw it all on the QB.

[KoRnStARr]

you HAVE to rank QBs on their rings when they're on a level playing field of how great they are..

in the regular season, all those stats are also just as misleading. but the great players step up in the big games.

[Deviant]

you HAVE to rank QBs on their rings when they're on a level playing field of how great they are..

in the regular season, all those stats are also just as misleading. but the great players step up in the big games.

Terry Bradshaw and Troy Aikman are better than Peyton Manning then, right? Dan Marino is worse than all of the other greatest then? Regular season stats are nowhere near as misleading as something as general and vague as a QB's W-L record.

[Esjay]

Terry Bradshaw and Troy Aikman are better than Peyton Manning then, right? Dan Marino is worse than all of the other greatest then? Regular season stats are nowhere near as misleading as something as general and vague as a QB's W-L record.

Exactly. When are people going to realize how overrated an argument rings are? It's gotten to the point I don't understand how anyone still believes in it. This isn't basketball.

Besides, he has a ring.

[Woy]

you HAVE to rank QBs on their rings when they're on a level playing field of how great they are..

in the regular season, all those stats are also just as misleading. but the great players step up in the big games.

Does Trent Dilfer have a better Madden rating than Drew Brees cause he has a ring?

That's basically what you're saying, dumbass.

[Bear Pand]

you HAVE to rank QBs on their rings when they're on a level playing field of how great they are..

in the regular season, all those stats are also just as misleading. but the great players step up in the big games.

If you want to put the emphasis on posteason then Kurt Warner > Brady.

Warner's postseason stats 3368 yards, 28 total tds, 98.9 QB Rating
Brady's postseason stats 3894 yards, 28 total TDs, 93.3 QB Rating

And Warner did this despite playing in 6 less games, and on teams that ran for less and gave up more points on average. He's gone to the SB 3/4 of the times he made the postseason. And even though he's 1-2 in the SB he led a late drive to tie or give his team a lead in both of his losses...it just so happens his defense gave up points right after he did that.

[JeremyHight]

This is something many of you are missing and constantly bringing up stupid arguments about...

The reason people bring up rings and post-season performance is because when you are comparing the top 3-5 players at a position, their stats are so similar, that you have to compare just about everything under a microscope.

No one is saying that Dilfer is a better QB than Brees because he has a ring, but when you are comparing two amazing QBs who rank in the top 3 all time at the position, yes, how they do in the playoffs and the amount of rings that they have is going to be factored in.

When you are splitting hairs about who is better: Manning or Montana, you better believe that every performance is going to come under scrutiny and none more than playoff performances. People expect to see amazing top 3 players at their position of all time raise their game and play to a very high level when everything is on the line.

So far, Manning has not done that nearly as well as Montana. That is why people are saying Manning isn't the greatest. They are not saying he is a bad QB, average, or even just plain very good. Everyone is saying he is among the top QBs of all time, but not the best.

Also, being a great post-season QB doesn't make you one of the best all-time and being a great regular season QB doesn't make you one either. The best of all time is great all the time for a long amount of time.

Is it really that hard to understand?

[Warner2BruceTD]

If you want to put the emphasis on posteason then Kurt Warner > Brady.

Warner's postseason stats 3368 yards, 28 total tds, 98.9 QB Rating
Brady's postseason stats 3894 yards, 28 total TDs, 93.3 QB Rating

And Warner did this despite playing in 6 less games, and on teams that ran for less and gave up more points on average. He's went to the SB 3/4 of the times he made the postseason. And even though he's 1-2 in the SB he a late drive to tie or give his team a lead in both of his losses...it just so happens his defense gave up points right after he did that.

Tremendous post.

It's easier to just count rings, but there are always mitigating factors.

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

Why on earth was JHight forced to explain that AGAIN ?

Did everyone else skip the 38003459840598 that already answered the "ring importance" question ?

I cant fathom why its so hard to understand.

[ralaw]

This is something many of you are missing and constantly bringing up stupid arguments about...

The reason people bring up rings and post-season performance is because when you are comparing the top 3-5 players at a position, their stats are so similar, that you have to compare just about everything under a microscope.

No one is saying that Dilfer is a better QB than Brees because he has a ring, but when you are comparing two amazing QBs who rank in the top 3 all time at the position, yes, how they do in the playoffs and the amount of rings that they have is going to be factored in.

When you are splitting hairs about who is better: Manning or Montana, you better believe that every performance is going to come under scrutiny and none more than playoff performances. People expect to see amazing top 3 players at their position of all time raise their game and play to a very high level when everything is on the line.

So far, Manning has not done that nearly as well as Montana. That is why people are saying Manning isn't the greatest. They are not saying he is a bad QB, average, or even just plain very good. Everyone is saying he is among the top QBs of all time, but not the best.

Also, being a great post-season QB doesn't make you one of the best all-time and being a great regular season QB doesn't make you one either. The best of all time is great all the time for a long amount of time.

Is it really that hard to understand?

I understand the ring argument, but don't understand why some people put the emphasis on it, because it isn't as simple as just comparing number of rings and ranking players. I could understand that argument if all the factors were even, but they aren't as the circumstances are different. There is a difference between an Kurt Warner lead Cardinals team that most didn't even expect to be there and a 1989 49ers team lead by Montana.

IMO ranking guys by SB rings rewards players for simply playing on better teams or having more favorable matchups. Take Elway.... who early in his career basically carried his Broncos teams to the SB, yet lost to better teams. During this time people claimed Elway was an all-time talent, but didn't have what it took to lead a team to a SB win. Yet, in 1997 while being surrounded by better players and a more balanced team won two SB's. Are we to assume that Elway for the last two years of his career all of a sudden learned how to be a winner?