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

[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?

 

[KoRnStARr]

IT IS THAT SIMPLE.

There's a difference between QB's who go out and win these big games when the game is HANGING IN THE BALANACE, and those who lose these close games.

It's their legacy, people. Jesus.

 

[KoRnStARr]

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.

Difference was, in close Superbowls, Brady made the plays to win the game when the game was hanging in the balance, Kurt did not.

Kurt had ample opportunites to win both SBs he lost.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Difference was, in close Superbowls, Brady made the plays to win the game when the game was hanging in the balance, Kurt did not.

Kurt had ample opportunites to win both SBs he lost.

WTF are you talking about?

"While the game was hanging in the balance", Warner took him team down the field vs. Pittsburgh, and got into the endzone. What else can he do from the sideline?

"With the game hanging in the balance", he put the Rams in the end zone vs. NE, and again, watched from the sideline as Lovie Smith curled up in a ball and played prevent.

Vinetieri misses a few kicks, and all of a sudden would you be saying Brady didnt make the plays to win the game?

Mitigating factors, but again, its easier for people's minds to just count up rings. It requires less analytical thinking.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

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.

Everybody gets it.

What the ring crowd dosent understand, and something I keep repeating over and over, is that if Manning didnt have a SB I wouldnt have started a thread. You gotta get at least one. And even though he only has one, he is so much better than everyone else at everything else, that that's enough for me.

Ranking these guys by rings, even as a "splitting hairs" measure, is a disservice to the players IMO. Too simplistic. The scope of the entire career needs to be evaluated.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

You know, i'm watching Peyton Manning right now, and every throw he makes is exactly where it needs to be, and I can tell you, 90% of the QB's in the league wouldnt have completed some of them because the WR's were well covered. Manning completes passes to whoever he wants, even when they are covered.

The way he feels pressure is amazing. You cant sack the guy. Leonard Little is owning his man, and twice, he ended up not getting anywhere near Manning, who calmly zips he ball to someoen who's covered.

Of course, non of this counts. It's "just" a regular season game, against a bad team. No ring at stake.

I can tell you right now, the Colts are not up 14-3 with anyone else at QB in this game. Watch the guy play, and you can see what sets him apart from the other elite guys.

 

[Bear Pand]

Difference was, in close Superbowls, Brady made the plays to win the game when the game was hanging in the balance, Kurt did not.

Kurt had ample opportunites to win both SBs he lost.

How could you even pretend this is true?

I guess we can act like he didn't lead a 3 play 55 yard TD drive (all passes) to tie the Pats with 1:30 to go.

And I guess we can act like he didn't lead a 2 play 64 yard drive (all passes) to take the lead over the Steelers with like 2:30 to go.

It's not his fault and doesn't make him any less of a player just because his D didn't hold.

I guess we can also act like Warner doesn't have a better QB Rating, 1 less TD and more passing yards in the Superbowl despite only playing in 3 compared to Brady's 4.

You just subjectively assign praise and blame and don't use the same criteria for every player.

Everybody gets it.

What the ring crowd dosent understand, and something I keep repeating over and over, is that if Manning didnt have a SB I wouldnt have started a thread. You gotta get at least one. And even though he only has one, he is so much better than everyone else at everything else, that that's enough for me.

Ranking these guys by rings, even as a "splitting hairs" measure, is a disservice to the players IMO. Too simplistic. The scope of the entire career needs to be evaluated.

This

 

[Deviant]

Everybody gets it.

What the ring crowd dosent understand, and something I keep repeating over and over, is that if Manning didnt have a SB I wouldnt have started a thread. You gotta get at least one. And even though he only has one, he is so much better than everyone else at everything else, that that's enough for me.

Ranking these guys by rings, even as a "splitting hairs" measure, is a disservice to the players IMO. Too simplistic. The scope of the entire career needs to be evaluated.

Ding, ding, ding. Championships are a team accomplishment, not just the QB. Thus why players like Trent Dilfer can be called Super Bowl champions (and why the greatness of a QB shouldn't be in measurement of the rings on his finger). This isn't basketball where literally one player can take over a game in all aspects of the game (which is why MJ is labeled as one of/the greatest of all time). Last I checked, QBs don't play on defense.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

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.

Kurt Warner is a Hall of Famer, too...

I wouldn't rank him ahead of Brady, because his body of work is a bit lopsided...but he is a HoF'r. One of the more exotic cases, but a HoF'r nonetheless.

 

[Esjay]

You know, i'm watching Peyton Manning right now, and every throw he makes is exactly where it needs to be, and I can tell you, 90% of the QB's in the league wouldnt have completed some of them because the WR's were well covered. Manning completes passes to whoever he wants, even when they are covered.

The way he feels pressure is amazing. You cant sack the guy. Leonard Little is owning his man, and twice, he ended up not getting anywhere near Manning, who calmly zips he ball to someoen who's covered.

Of course, non of this counts. It's "just" a regular season game, against a bad team. No ring at stake.

I can tell you right now, the Colts are not up 14-3 with anyone else at QB in this game. Watch the guy play, and you can see what sets him apart from the other elite guys.

Thank you.

 

[ram29jackson]

Difference was, in close Superbowls, Brady made the plays to win the game when the game was hanging in the balance, Kurt did not.

Kurt had ample opportunites to win both SBs he lost.

Is Brady a great Qb in this era? For the most part yes. But in a majority of their biggest games it wasnt Brady who won the game. it was Adam Nougatary's foot haha