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

[Aso]

Career postseason rating;

Favre - 86.3

Steve Young - 85.8
Peyton Manning - 87.6
Tom Brady - 85.5
John Elway - 79.7
Dan Marino - 77.1
Troy Aikman - 88.3
Warren Moon - 84.9
Jim Kelly - 72.3

I'd say you're overstating his playoff failures as well considering he's on par with all of his contemporaries sans Kurt Warner.

.. and Favre is supposed to be merely a great regular season QB, yet his postseason passer rating (86.3) is higher than his regular season passer rating (86.0)

Passer rating has nothing to do really with what's being said. He might play three and a half great quarters but when you absolutely need a play from him more often than not he'll screw up.

 

[shag773]

Let me try and spell this out for people that think Montana was a "shell" of himself in KC and played a bit part in the "rousing" success Schottenheimer had while coaching there.

He was 3-7 in the playoffs as KC coach. He was 2-2 with Montana with an AFC Championship appearance.

While again, I am not saying Montana was anywhere near his prime when he got there, but let's not pretend he went there to play out the string. Because it's 100% not true.

As far as Elway, he had an interesting career because you can make a case the he takes too much blame for the 3 SB losses in the 80's, and gets too much credit for the 2 SB wins in the 90's.

For me, I think Elway is underappreciated as a whole. What people have to realize is the Broncos were underdogs in all three SB losses, offensive SB records were broken in all three of those losses from his opponents, and the coaches on the other sidelines were Bill Parcells, Joe Gibbs, and Bill Walsh, the three best coaches of that decade.

The two SB wins cemented his place as a top 5 quarterback of all time. I know, I know, Terell Davis was the best back in the league and had the best offensive line in football, but for anyone that watched Elway during that time knew he still played at a very high level and took over when he had too.

 

[FirstTimer]

Did Joe Montana not do the same for the 49ers in 81 and 84

No.

Either know what the hell you are talking about or quit talking.

Those 49ers teams were not terrible and nowhere near as bad as those Bronco's teams were.

as well as in KC in '93

Please show me the Super Bowl stat line for Montana for KC in 1993.

He still put up pretty good numbers.

Elways last 4 years were some of the best of his career. Montana's numbers in KC were not.

So no it's not a "moot point."

Part of the more stats career wise is because Montana was always injured for a couple games a year which is a knock against him, yes,

Ok.

Then shut the hell up about it.

but if you wanna look at it just performance wise, career stats doesn't reflect that.

And yearly stats obviously don't either since in 5 of those first 10 years for Elway he dragged terrible Bronco teams to three Super Bowls.

Way to overlook the point yet again.

Dumbass

I did go back and read.

Good for you.

Did you understand it this time?

I guess you think that if they didn't put up empty seasons then that means every stat they made...?

Apparently not.

Try again.

They were good years "for Favre"? But 2007 Derek Anderson-esk to everyone else right? '03 and '04 weren't great. Don't pull that shit. How is '98 not a bad season. Come the fuck on, 23 interceptions. That's not 7/20 thats 10/20.

You are fucking terrible at reading.

I never called 03 and 04 "great".

Try reading...again.

In 1998 he threw 31 fucking touchdown passes.Lead the NFL in completions, completion percentage and yards. The Packers went 11-5 and went to the playoffs. That's how 1998 wasn't a "bad season".

Was it his most impressive or efficient season? No. Was it "bad"? No.

For fuck sakes you are so simple minded it's hilarious.

 

[Aso]

Favre led the League in td passes in 2003.

4000+ yards and 30 more tds in 2004 is poor??

.. as for 1998, yeah, a step back from his MVP seasons. But poor? You're really reaching. 30 tds.. again.. and he led the League in completion percentage and passing yards.

.... guess I'd have to ask you to define a 'good' season for a QB?!

You're missing the most important part... All of his interceptions. A "good" season for a QB is all those yards and touchdowns while limiting your mistakes. Throwing 21 interceptions or 23 interceptions in a season isn't doing that. A "good" season for Peyton Manning is all those same stats minus about 10 interceptions.

Well, first you would have to establish when Montana played with less talent than Elway...

'81 and '84??... nope.

So in 84 Montana played with less talent than what Elway did in 98. That's my point. Less talent, better stats.

Really?

Then how did they win a Franchise record 13 games in both 1995 and 1997 without him???..

It was a different Chiefs team... and again they were one and done in the playoffs. If Montana was starting they would have had a chance at a Superbowl. If Montana was healthy all 16 games who says the Chiefs don't go 13-3 in 1993.

 

[FirstTimer]

It was a different Chiefs team... and again they were one and done in the playoffs. If Montana was starting they would have had a chance at a Superbowl. If Montana was healthy all 16 games who says the Chiefs don't go 13-3 in 1993.

Well maybe if Montana doesn't lay an egg (9-23 125 yards 1 INT) against the Bills in the 1993 Conference Championship the Chiefs win?

The Chiefs in 1994 went 9-5 with Montana as QB in his last season. And were one and done in the playoffs. Wow. I'm impressed.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Starr = great clutch QB.

Look at Starr's playoff performances. Especially the two SB years, when the GB running game declined and Starr carried much of the offensive burden. Compare those playoff performances with Brett's.

Regular season stats are great, but playoff performances mean much more to me.

Compare the two playoff performances and you see that Starr was much better in the playoffs then Brett. Hands down. No argument.

Starr also played behind one of the GOAT OL's in history. Smith and Aikman get discredited for playing behind the aircraft carriers of the Cowboys in the early 90's...those Packer teams were jacked up on the OL. Forrest Gregg (Hall of Famer), Jerry Kramer (should be in the Hall of Fame), Jim Ringo, Fuzzy Thurston, Bob Skoronski...what an All-Time OL.

 

[shag773]

Well maybe if Montana doesn't lay an egg (9-23 125 yards 1 INT) against the Bills in the 1993 Conference Championship the Chiefs win?

In Joe's defense, he came into the game hurt. Secondly, this was smack dab in the middle of the Bills super bowl run where they were blowing everyone out at home in their AFC championship games. Thirdly, the game was in Buffalo in late January. Kelly only threw for 160 yards. They won that game behind their defense and Thurman Thomas (160 yds).

BTW, Elway played an AFC championship game in Buffalo 2 years earlier. He went 11-21 126 yds 0 TD 1 INT. Not bashing Elway, just saying not an easy place to play under those conditions.

 

[Aso]

In Joe's defense, he came into the game hurt. Secondly, this was smack dab in the middle of the Bills super bowl run where they were blowing everyone out at home in their AFC championship games. Thirdly, the game was in Buffalo in late January. Kelly only threw for 160 yards. They won that game behind their defense and Thurman Thomas (160 yds).

BTW, Elway played an AFC championship game in Buffalo 2 years earlier. He went 11-21 126 yds 0 TD 1 INT. Not bashing Elway, just saying not an easy place to play under those conditions.

Also somewhat in Joe's defense he stupidly decided to wear gloves for the first and only time in his career and started the game like 0/7 passing before taking the gloves off. Then of course Montana got injured again. Montana's constant injuries are definitely his biggest fault. I put that game on the Chiefs defense mostly though. They, in the 2nd quarter decided to use a dime defense against the Bills 3 wide and gave up a ton of yards to Thurman Thomas. I've watched this game like 3 times.

 

[FirstTimer]

In Joe's defense, he came into the game hurt.

Didn't seem to matter the two previous games.

Secondly, this was smack dab in the middle of the Bills super bowl run where they were blowing everyone out at home in their AFC championship games. Thirdly, the game was in Buffalo in late January. Kelly only threw for 160 yards. They won that game behind their defense and Thurman Thomas (160 yds).

But the GOAT should overcome all that! He's the GOAT!!!%&^%^

Also somewhat in Joe's defense he stupidly decided to wear gloves for the first and only time in his career and started the game like 0/7 passing before taking the gloves off.

The GOAT wore gloves?

What a pussy.

 

[shag773]

Also somewhat in Joe's defense he stupidly decided to wear gloves for the first and only time in his career and started the game like 0/7 passing before taking the gloves off. Then of course Montana got injured again.

I do vaguely remember that. The only thing I really remember during his playoff run in '93 was the cameras fixated on his elbow during their win in the House of Pain. I have no idea how he was playing through that.

Montana's constant injuries are definitely his biggest fault.

I guess? While he certainly not in the Manning/Farve mold of durability, he certainly wasn't Chris Chandler either. He really only had the back thing in 86 and the Leonard Marshall hit that knocked him out of football for 2 years. If his injuries are the biggest argument against Joe being the GOAT, it's a little flimsy IMO.

 

[shag773]

Didn't seem to matter the two previous games.

No, it didn't. It's amazing how far he went in his condition. A testament to his fortitude and on the field prowess.

But the GOAT should overcome all that! He's the GOAT!!!%&^%^

I know right? He couldn't get a Marty Schottemheimer coached team into the Super Bowl. Montana blew.

The GOAT wore gloves?

What a pussy.

You got me there..

 

[Aso]

I guess? While he certainly not in the Manning/Farve mold of durability, he certainly wasn't Chris Chandler either. He really only had the back thing in 86 and the Leonard Marshall hit that knocked him out of football for 2 years. If his injuries are the biggest argument against Joe being the GOAT, it's a little flimsy IMO.

No, it eventually became year in and year out he had some sort of injury. In one of those playoff games they showed that I think he missed 55 games total over his career and actually showed the games he missed because of what injury over the years. I'll find it later.

 

[Senser81]

A lot going on in this thread. Here are my comments:

*Bart Starr was a very good QB. Was he better than Favre? In the postseason. But Favre had less help, had a much longer "prime", and really was the key player on every team he's been on. I'd say Favre was "better" than Starr.

*Those Broncos teams under Dan Reeves played a very archaic style of football, which hurt John Elway's QB rating. Lots of running between the tackles, throwing on 3rd downs, and throwing to WRs downfield. I don't think Elway's QB rating really captures how good he was. Comparing Elway to Montana and basing it on rating would be like comparing Terry Bradshaw to Ken Anderson...Anderson was in a system that was designed to have a high QB rating, Bradshaw wasn't.

*That said, I think Montana is better than Elway. And Montana might not have had the mobility or big-play ability on the Chiefs that he once had, but he was still a very good QB.

 

[packersfan4eva]

What defines the "best" quarterback. Wins, stats, both? Bart Starr or Joe Montana would be the best if winning was what mattered, Dan Marino if stats were the factor. With a mix of both, idk.

 

[bucky]

*Bart Starr was a very good QB. Was he better than Favre? In the postseason. But Favre had less help, had a much longer "prime", and really was the key player on every team he's been on. I'd say Favre was "better" than Starr.

If Favre doesn't throw so many playoff ending ints I would agree with you. Prime is longer, much better regular season stats, but Favre was careless with the football at the most crucial times. Starr was at his best at the most crucial times.

My one and only knock on Favre is being so careless at the most important times. You can throw picks in the regular season, have the brain cramp moments in the regular season, and still have great regular season stats. You CAN NOT be that careless in the playoffs. You have those brain cramp games and brain cramp moments in the playoffs and your team is done. I have to downgrade Favre for this.

 

[bucky]

What defines the "best" quarterback. Wins, stats, both? Bart Starr or Joe Montana would be the best if winning was what mattered, Dan Marino if stats were the factor. With a mix of both, idk.

To me it's how you play when it matters the most. In games that get you to the playoffs, in playoff games, in championship games. Not necessarily if your teams wins those games or not, but how does the QB play in those games and how do they play at the most crucial times in those games. Brett had a history of consistently making huge mistakes in the playoffs at the most crucial times. If GB loses those same playoff games with Brett not making the mistakes he made, then I don't hold him at all responsible for the loses. But the fact is, he did END playoff games with ints.

 

[citizenerased]

It's already easy to see that Rodger's makes better decisions. That kick 6 as you call it was a great play by the pass rusher, and a bad block by College. That wasn't a bad decision on Rodgers part. Brett's playoff ints were BAD CARELESS DECISIONS.

We will see if Rodgers continues to make better decisions in upcoming playoffs, or if he ends up as careless as Brett was. Either way, GB is still in good shape at QB and has been since the early 90's. Still hoping Aaron keeps showing to be smarter than Brett. Jesus, can you imagine having a smart Brett.

I don't have to imagine, you just have to watch Farve during the Holmgren years once he tamed his hick ass and preety much all of 2009 with his 33 TDs to 7 picks.

 

[shag773]

Sure it does.

bucky was blathering on and on that Brett is merely a great regular season QB. I'd say it's quite relevant that his POST season QB rating is actually higher than his regular season rating.

.. sorry that facts had to interrupt another bucky Favre-hatefest though.

If the D could only have stopped Terrell Davis..

If Sharper would have squeezed off T.O.'s route...

If Mike Sherman didn't fold like a cheap deck chair in the playoffs....

If the D didn't give up 17 unanswered points to Atlanta.....

If only the D could have made a stop on 4th-and-26......

.. blame Favre all you want, but the bottom line is, the Packers weren't up to the task post-1996.

Not taking sides here, but I thought these numbers might be interesting. Here are Favre's postseason numbers post 1996.

Yr W/L Cmp Att Cmp % Yds TD Int Rate
1997 W 15 28 53.6% 190 1 2 57.1
1997 W 16 27 59.3% 222 1 0 98.1
1997 L 25 42 59.5% 256 3 1 91
1998 L 20 35 57.1% 292 2 2 79.7
2001 W 22 29 75.9% 269 2 1 112.6
2001 L 26 44 59.1% 281 2 6 53.5
2002 L 20 42 47.6% 247 1 2 54.4
2003 W 26 38 68.4% 319 1 0 102.9
2003 L 15 28 53.6% 180 2 1 82.4
2004 L 22 33 66.7% 216 1 4 55.4
2007 W 18 23 78.3% 173 3 0 137.6
2007 L 19 35 54.3% 236 2 2 70.7
2009 W 15 24 62.5% 234 4 0 134.4
2009 L 28 46 60.9% 310 1 2 70
Total 6W-8L 287 474 60.5% 3425 26 23 80.7

 

[bucky]

bucky was blathering on and on that Brett is merely a great regular season QB. I'd say it's quite relevant that his POST season QB rating is actually higher than his regular season rating.

.. sorry that facts had to interrupt another bucky Favre-hatefest though.

Not blathering or hating. I watched every game Brett played for GB. He ended to many playoff games with ints. Games GB could have won with a FG or at least tied with a FG. That's not hate, that's not blathering, that's just fact. Brett's style of gun-slinging worked well in the regular season, but didn't project nearly as well in the playoffs were you are one loss and done.

Like I said, I don't blame Brett for the playoff loses on his own, but I do blame him for being the QB throwing the playoff game ending picks that ended the teams chances of winning. That is far from GOAT to me.

All of you can make as many excuses as you want, but no one can prove that wrong. Brett is what he is. Thrilled we had him in GB for those 16 years. But he was careless with the football at the most crucial times.

You can say GB wasn't up to the task, but they were in a position to WIN those playoff games when those ints happened.

 

[bucky]

If the D could only have stopped Terrell Davis..
If Sharper would have squeezed off T.O.'s route...
If Mike Sherman didn't fold like a cheap deck chair in the playoffs....
If the D didn't give up 17 unanswered points to Atlanta.....
If only the D could have made a stop on 4th-and-26......
.. blame Favre all you want, but the bottom line is, the Packers weren't up to the task post-1996.

And none of those excuse the playoff game ending ints from your GOAT HOF QB. Make all the excuses you want to try and dismiss Brett's poor decisions at the most crucial times, but it still doesn't take away those poor decisions.

How many times do I have to say that I DON'T blame Favre alone for the playoff losses. He didn't lose those games on his own. What we should be blaming Brett is for those horrible decisions and playoff game ending ints that ended any chance of GB winning those playoff games. That's not unfair, it's just accurate.