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

[Glenbino]

Joe Montana is 16-7 in the playoffs, threw 45 touchdowns (still think that is a playoff record, btw), and still has a QBR that places him fourth all-time in the playoffs. Only Brady has more #winz in the playoffs at this point.

Len can post singular game stats all he wants, unfortunately, the #statz say that no one was a better playoff QB than Super Joe.

And while you can point to QBs like Troy Aikman and Ben Roethlisberger as QBs who have great playoff success and generate a ton of post season points...they also had some of the best starting field position...unlike Peyton Manning, who was one of the worst...but Montana, too, like, Manning, had pretty shitty starting field position and had to constantly lead scoring drives of 70+ yards. I believe, only Favre had more scoring drives in the playoffs of 70+ yards.

With Montana, too, he often had the lead, and rarely let a team come back on him. The 49ers, under Montana, unlike Manning with the Colts, IMPROVED their offensive output during the playoffs...the Colts with Manning decreased. Almost a touchdown difference between the two.

*Supporting cast argument*

John Elway is and always will be #1.

Sent from my HTC6500LVW using Tapatalk

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

I am starting to question if Montana is even the best of all-time. What's the argument for him? Undefeated in Super Bowls?

1985 - Loses to Giants 17-3, throws 1 pick and passes 26 for 47 no TD's
1986 - Loses to Giants 49-3, throws 8 for 15 with 2 picks no TD's
1987 - Loses to Vikings 36-24, throws 12 for 26 with 1 pick no TD's
1993 - Loses to Bills 30-13, throws 1 pick no TD's

People are completely illogical with their arguments. Based on what people say, it's better that he lost these games earlier and didn't lose in the Super Bowl. Super Bowl losses should be more impressive than losing like he did in four seasons. WELL HEY AS LONG AS HE IS PERFECT IN SUPER BOWLS WHO CARES IF HE LOSES BEFORE THAT!

Brady/Montana both have 7 losses in the post-season. It's completely illogical to punish Brady for losing his FURTHER in the playoffs just because of this 'mystique' that is the Super Bowl.

I'm getting to the point where I'd take Manning and Brady over Montana because of the false hype built up around 'Joe Cool'. When a QB can take over your team and go 14-2 and win a Super Bowl within three years after you left, that says a lot.

Only Manning has had as much command of an offense , a system , and been as technically perfect as Montana. He won a SB without the surrounding talent , he dominated the position in the most QB rich era in NFL history. He won 3 more with the talent everyone remembers. He had arguably the greatest drive in NFL history , he was the best player on the field in 3 of those superbowls.
Aged , beaten and nearly washed up he led a different team deeper into the playoffs then they've ever been before or since.
Bradys not in the conversation , Manning is but not for too long.
Lol @ false hype.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

*Supporting cast argument*

John Elway is and always will be #1.

Sent from my HTC6500LVW using Tapatalk

Montana won Super Bowls with Ricky Patton and Wendell Tyler running the football and Freddie Solomon catching footballs.

:kanye:

 

[Villain]

 

View attachment 1795
View attachment 1796

View attachment 1799
View attachment 1797










View attachment 1798

Maybe these two things aren't mutually exclusive...

:dead:

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Peyton Manning and Dan Marino are the only quarterbacks in the discussion by most people of "GOAT" with playoff win % that are sub-.500. Everyone else...Brady, Montana, Unitas, Elway...all over .600 in the playoffs.

Manning and Marino, considered the two best passers of all-time...but when push comes to shove, there is a ceiling to how high you can rank someone that doesn't deliver come playoff time.

With that said, Manning is a better playoff performer than Marino, but when it comes to his contemporary (Brady - who I do knock a bit at this point for Spygate), and his peers (other great QBs)...he just doesn't stack up.

We're talking about all of these players that are considered "great"...if we can't start splitting hairs in the playoffs, where are we to start splitting hairs?

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Shtick aside, I can accept arguments for Montana, Manning, Marino, Unitas. Brady has taken a hit for post spygate lack of similar success. Otto Graham if you want to go back that far. Favre is a notch below and takes a hit for his late career mishaps.

 

[Maynard]

Shtick aside, I can accept arguments for Montana, Manning, Marino, Unitas. Brady has taken a hit for post spygate lack of similar success. Otto Graham if you want to go back that far. Favre is a notch below and takes a hit for his late career mishaps.

spygate....lol....like teams were not cheating since the dawn of time. your arguments are so stupid

 

[Len B]

He won a SB without the surrounding talent , he dominated the position in the most QB rich era in NFL history. He won 3 more with the talent everyone remembers. He had arguably the greatest drive in NFL history , he was the best player on the field in 3 of those superbowls.
Aged , beaten and nearly washed up he led a different team deeper into the playoffs then they've ever been before or since.
Bradys not in the conversation , Manning is but not for too long.
Lol @ false hype.

Because having the second best defense in the NFL and allowing 15.6 points per game is having 'nothing' around him that year? Throwing three picks vs Dallas is considered elite, that year?

Montana is a phenomenal QB, but he is also the only QB to have any negative connotations thrown away. If he played in the NFL during a media rich era it'd be a different story. He has made just as many mistakes as Brady and Manning but it gets overlooked.

It is false hype because in the public eye Joe Montana is Mr. Flawless in the playoffs, which is not true. He lost games earlier in the post-season and people pretend they don't exist. Tom Brady loses 2 Super Bowls and suddenly he falls behind Joe Montana. Why? At least he got there more times than Joe did. Then again, losing in the regular season and in the divisional round is way more valiant apparently.

In his first 10 career playoff games, Brady threw 3 interceptions and had 14 touchdowns with Troy Brown, David Patten, David Givens, Christian Fauria, Antowain Smith, Jermaine Wiggins, Deion Branch and then Corey Dillon for the final one. Say what you want about his defense and how he wasn't the 'leader' of that team, but the Patriots went from a losing team to an unbeatable team once he entered the conversation.

Brady has a better post-season WL record than Montana, a superior regular season record, has better stats than Montana and has been to more Super Bowls than Montana. The only thing Montana has on Brady is the mystique of being flawless in the Super Bowl.

 

[Len B]

Shtick aside, I can accept arguments for Montana, Manning, Marino, Unitas. Brady has taken a hit for post spygate lack of similar success. Otto Graham if you want to go back that far. Favre is a notch below and takes a hit for his late career mishaps.

This is my least favorite argument against Brady.

So, if Asante Samuel picks off a pass he's supposed to, or David Tyree doesn't make the best catch in post season history, Brady is now elite again? I don't get how we can say Manning is the best for having god like passing stats and sucking in the playoffs, and then say Brady sucks because he has god like passing stats and then sucks in the playoffs.

Define post spygate success. QB rating over 100 three times, QB rating never below 87.3, 16-0 season, a record breaking passing season, two Super Bowl appearances and an extra AFC title game, 2 MVP's, comeback player of the year.

The fact of the matter is the law of averages got to Tom Brady. It's impossible to destroy NFL playoff-caliber defenses over the course of 25 games. If Brady was flawless post spygate we'd be looking at a QB who was 33-2 career in the playoffs with 5 championships. It's just not possible.

Yet, if Samuel gets the interception than the spygate thing goes away. Makes zero sense to me.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

Because having the second best defense in the NFL and allowing 15.6 points per game is having 'nothing' around him that year? Throwing three picks vs Dallas is considered elite, that year?

Montana is a phenomenal QB, but he is also the only QB to have any negative connotations thrown away. If he played in the NFL during a media rich era it'd be a different story. He has made just as many mistakes as Brady and Manning but it gets overlooked.

It is false hype because in the public eye Joe Montana is Mr. Flawless in the playoffs, which is not true. He lost games earlier in the post-season and people pretend they don't exist. Tom Brady loses 2 Super Bowls and suddenly he falls behind Joe Montana. Why? At least he got there more times than Joe did. Then again, losing in the regular season and in the divisional round is way more valiant apparently.

In his first 10 career playoff games, Brady threw 3 interceptions and had 14 touchdowns with Troy Brown, David Patten, David Givens, Christian Fauria, Antowain Smith, Jermaine Wiggins, Deion Branch and then Corey Dillon for the final one. Say what you want about his defense and how he wasn't the 'leader' of that team, but the Patriots went from a losing team to an unbeatable team once he entered the conversation.

Brady has a better post-season WL record than Montana, a superior regular season record, has better stats than Montana and has been to more Super Bowls than Montana. The only thing Montana has on Brady is the mystique of being flawless in the Super Bowl.

Lol. Only Patriot fans claim Montana has this flawless mystique. I've never once heard that uttered outside of pro Brady or Manning fans on message boards.
Tom Brady losing with an undefeated team and another with a clearly superior team makes the guy who went 4-0 more impressive yeah. Driving teams down to FG range less impressive than driving them 90+ for a touchdown in the 1st or 2nd most well known drive in history.
Throwing 2td/3picks then throwing the most famous and clutch pass in NFL history > setting up a nice FG.
4 times in the biggest game of the season throws 11 TD's and not a single pick so in Super Bowls he actually made no statistical mistakes.
Montana was always the guy asked to win games and was never a game manager. Brady was in the Bradshaw/Aikman class of QB those first 3 SBs. Montana had what twice as many TD passes those first 3 SBs. Did Brady even throw a TD pass that first run ?

Once the team philosophy changed and he was asked to be the focal point the way Manning/Montana were he wins nothing. Not a coincedence. He puts up stellar regular season numbers but can't seem to win the big one. Sound familiar ? He's elevated him self from that previous class to Favre/Elway teir so it's not being dismissed.
If you don't understand the philosophical differences between being asked to win and asked not to lose then don't waste time with a response. Call Bradshaw god and move on.

Shit happens over the course of a football game. And over the course of a career. At the end of the day you are what you are. Flukes even out , mishaps even out. Manning and Brady hold little to no regular season advantage over Montana and zero in the playoffs. His resume is GOAT.

The soundest argument I can make against is regarding Manning and his 5 MVPs.The fact his game management made him more valuable than any QB of non leather helmet eras.
He didn't need an all time great coach (Walsh/Belly) , has put up HOF all time record MVP performance in a different uniform w/ different coach. And has single handedly changed the way QB has been played. QBs today are doing FAR more at the LOS than they were prior to 1998.
No modern QB can match those accomplishments and can easily be be argued as more important than a SB.

 

[ram29jackson]

aahh yesss, the Brady need's his kicker to win factor. I almost forgot that one

 

[seaplus]

agree on a point system so we can give a value to each accomplishment. i want this resolved and on my desk by the New Year

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

15 years ago, this same thread would have existed with Dan Marino's name in the thread title. History had a way of putting Dan Marino in his rightful place. The same will happen with Manning, I assume. If he ascends to that #1 spot...awesome...I think he needs another #RINGZ before he is in the discussion of #1, but everyone else has different criteria.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I hate the ring argument and think it's the most mindless, lazy, vacant talking point in existence, but I do believe a QB needs at least one to be in this sort of conversation.

Expanding on Len's point, I also don't consider lost SB's as a negative (unless the guy completely shits the bed), which oddly many people do.

Manning is so other worldy good that one SB win and another SB appearance is more than enough for me. If he wins another SB, lock the thread, it's over. If he wins two more, I can't fathom any sort of argument against him, even from a contrarian point of view.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

I hate the ring argument and think it's the most mindless, lazy, vacant talking point in existence, but I do believe a QB needs at least one to be in this sort of conversation.

Expanding on Len's point, I also don't consider lost SB's as a negative (unless the guy completely shits the bed), which oddly many people do.

Manning is so other worldy good that one SB win and another SB appearance is more than enough for me. If he wins another SB, lock the thread, it's over. If he wins two more, I can't fathom any sort of argument against him, even from a contrarian point of view.

In today's game its never been easier for a QB to carry a team to victory. There are no dominant defenses to face off against and nearly every game comes down to which QB is the 'hottest' and makes the least mistakes. If anything the last few years have made it more dependent on SBs to determine who's better and made it much easier to compare peers. If either want to be goat they can't afford to be outgunned by guys named Flacco and Eli.
If we start giving credit for Championship game and SB losses Jim Kelly is gonna throw a parade.

 

[ram29jackson]

Manning is a step above Brady for one key reason. Aside from his stats and the common fan's Super Bowl argument- I agree with WarnerTB is bull crap. Many things have changed about how QBs play the position purely because of what Peyton does. He worked with Howard Mudd and made the silent count common place

Then, around 1998--99, something made the problem go away. That something was the silent snap count. Its first master practitioners were Peyton Manning, Jeff Saturday and the Colts. Its architect? The man who had experimented with it during that ill-fated Browns game in '86, the man Manning calls "a philosopher of football, an honest-to-God guru": Howard Mudd.

I'm sure theres some smaller and unknown ways that are known in only NFL circles where he has changed how the position is played as well. He was number 1 out of high school and number 1 out of college. And since his college days, the name Peyton has gone up in great numbers for both male and female newborns. ( anyone can name a kid "Tom" )

http://tracking.si.com/2012/09/16/peyton-manning-rule-false-start-refs-nfl/

Manning influenced rule changes and the possibility of rule changes because he does something better than others. Brady influenced a rule change because he screwed up and got lucky (tuck rule)

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

I hate the ring argument and think it's the most mindless, lazy, vacant talking point in existence, but I do believe a QB needs at least one to be in this sort of conversation.

Expanding on Len's point, I also don't consider lost SB's as a negative (unless the guy completely shits the bed), which oddly many people do.

Manning is so other worldy good that one SB win and another SB appearance is more than enough for me. If he wins another SB, lock the thread, it's over. If he wins two more, I can't fathom any sort of argument against him, even from a contrarian point of view.

When you are comparing players...peers, essentially...what else are you supposed to use to cross compare? Joe Montana and Peyton Manning are awesome...how are you going to separate them if not #RINGZ...or playoff performance?

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

In today's game its never been easier for a QB to carry a team to victory. There are no dominant defenses to face off against and nearly every game comes down to which QB is the 'hottest' and makes the least mistakes. If anything the last few years have made it more dependent on SBs to determine who's better and made it much easier to compare peers. If either want to be goat they can't afford to be outgunned by guys named Flacco and Eli.
If we start giving credit for Championship game and SB losses Jim Kelly is gonna throw a parade.

When you are comparing players...peers, essentially...what else are you supposed to use to cross compare? Joe Montana and Peyton Manning are awesome...how are you going to separate them if not #RINGZ...or playoff performance?

It's all context.

In all three SB's he played in, Kurt Warner stuck the ball in the end zone (no hokey FG's) to take the lead or tie on his final possession, then stood on the sideline and watched his legacy determined by what the other QB did because he never got the ball back. That makes absolutely no sense, but that's how some people judge these things because they are too lazy to think a little deeper.

Warner went 1-2 in the SB, and I would think no differently of him had he went 2-1 or 3-0. Nothing about his performance would have changed had Big Ben overthrown Santonio Holmes by 2 inches or Holmes didn't drag his toe in bounds. Either way he never gets back on the field. He did his job in all three games "in the clutch" on his final drives. Warner is one of the best postseason & Super Bowl QB's ever, regardless of those outcomes.

I don't even know what i'm ranting about. Context, is what i'm getting at.

 

[ram29jackson]

When you are comparing players...peers, essentially...what else are you supposed to use to cross compare? Joe Montana and Peyton Manning are awesome...how are you going to separate them if not #RINGZ...or playoff performance?

its just 4 other games...sure, you get shiny accolades for it but its for a bunch of fan and one-up-manship talk. When you produce more wins than losses you are great. There isn't really different levels of great. You are great or you aren't Montana/manning/Brady are great ! always will be. You get 13-3 records every year and play in 20 playoff games = you are great !

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

When you are comparing players...peers, essentially...what else are you supposed to use to cross compare? Joe Montana and Peyton Manning are awesome...how are you going to separate them if not #RINGZ...or playoff performance?

In the case of Manning, his other worldy regular season performance, combined with his 5 MVP's, combined with the fact that he has one SB ring and another SB appearance already in the bag, combined with the Atlas EYE TEST, all of these things, to me, put him ahead of Montana and everybody else.

I get the Montana argument and won't fight too hard. I really don't buy an argument for anybody else. Manning is inhuman. I'm not going to downgrade him for "only" one SB win & two SB's in an era of parity where #6 seeds cut through three road games like a knife through butter on a consistent basis. The playoffs are a crapshoot more that ever.