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

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

I'm not so big on "big game performance", especially when the sample size for QB's is usually so small (and even THAT fact isn't usually their fault). But to your point on bringing up Manning not being "on-par" with Montana and Elway I don't necessarily agree.

Montana is a great QB, no doubt, and his post-season numbers reflect that, with a 62.7% completion %, 45:21 TD:INT and a 95.6 rating. Now, Peyton certainly doesn't have numbers THAT good, but his completion % is close (61.7% in the post-season), but truth be told, his TD:INT ratio and QB rating are not equal to Montana's.

Elway, on the other hand, has a 54.5 completion % in the post-season (worse than Manning's), a 27:21 TD:INT ratio (worse than Manning's) and a 79.7 QB Rating in the post-season (worse than Manning's)

Go look up the team's Elway led to the Super Bowl in the late 80's.

 

[Senser81]

Jesus, how does anyone on VSN deal with you? You contribute...NOTHING. You sit back and make blanketing comments about someone's posts and make arbitrary rulings on the legitimacy of said posts based on...nothing. No matter what kind of argument someone formulates, if you don't agree with it, it's "wrong" and they're "retarded". Stop being such a pudwhack-troll.

I don't get it. I assume you are in high school, and right now you are taking a rhetoric class, so that is why you use the term "straw-man" so often, even when it doesn't apply to the situation at hand.

 

[DoubleDeuce]

Jesus, how does anyone on VSN deal with you? You contribute...NOTHING. You sit back and make blanketing comments about someone's posts and make arbitrary rulings on the legitimacy of said posts based on...nothing. No matter what kind of argument someone formulates, if you don't agree with it, it's "wrong" and they're "retarded". Stop being such a pudwhack-troll.

You're biting so hard, lmao!

 

[Senser81]

Uhh...what do rings and sample sizes have to do with each other? I say the "rings" argument holds little to no weight because it is improper to blame or credit a QB for the overall accomplishments of his team, a good portion of which he has no control over (these being the special teams and defense).

We are talking about the greatest of all-time. We are splitting hairs amongst a select few QBs. Rings would hold weight, because it can be a factor that separates the players. That is why Bobby Layne is in the HOF and Ken Anderson isn't. To completely ignore it is ridiculous.

Now, the sample size problem when people try to extrapolate meaning from data generated from a small sample size.

I can't believe you posted the above sentence.

 

[Senser81]

Sorry, straw-man was the wrong phrase, I meant "Stockdalian Inference" which, while it shares some things with the straw-man, it is a different thing entirely.

Yes, it was the wrong phrase. Next time, use the Glossary.

 

[Aso]

Your team is down by four at the two minute warning and you're starting at your own 20. Who do you want at QB?

Montana
Unitas
Elway
Marino
Staubach
Bradshaw
Brady
P.Manning
Favre

lol

and

Favre failed in the two minute offense with the game on the line a lot more times than he succeeded.

 

[jeffx]

As for Peyton Manning, his career isn't over so we can't really judge him against guys who have already retired. I would say he and Brady are clearly #1 and #2 of their era. If they both retired today, I would think that Brady would be regarded as the greater QB of the two, because he accomplished more. That said, IMO Manning is the better QB. If I were a GM, I'd rather have Manning than Brady. It would be like saying Emmitt Smith was a greater RB than Earl Campbell because Smith accomplished more, but Campbell was the better RB. Hope that made sense.

Gotcha.

 

[Aso]

I don't know why when i clicked on this thread it took me to page 8... weird.

 

[Senser81]

I don't know why when i clicked on this thread it took me to page 8... weird.

Because thats when I started posting in this thread...thus, the beginning of the thread.

 

[Aso]

I go ten posts per page, lol.

 

[Senser81]

What? Really? You know what else separates players, even the ones we are talking about? Height, weight, helmet size, etc. Now, SB rings are a bit different than the difference in height between John Elway and Peyton Manning, but that doesn't mean that they should be used to differentiate good from bad, top 10 from top 5, etc.

What a horrible statement. Truly. Helmet size? Differentiate good from bad?

Its like whenever anyone argues with you, they have to start over from Square One with each post because your response is something equivalent to the "dumbest common denominator". As I have said before, its like arguing with a "smart" retard....they are smart enough to comprehend what you are saying, but their response is just completely illogical.

So, out of all of your posting, the only relevant statement is "We shouldn't use SB rings to differentiate top 10 from top 5"....unfortunately, this gives no reasoning or logic, its merely your unsubstantiated opinion.

Fail

 

[DSpydr84]

If you really step back and ask yourself "what do I want in a quarterback", I think Peyton Manning fits your exact criteria. It's unfair to look at things like playoff wins and statistics because really, there's a lot more going on around Peyton Manning that effects those two things.

If your ideal quarterback is 6'5", has exceptional football knowledge, outstanding pocket presence and feet in the pocket, a quick release, great touch and timing, great velocity, can read/diagnose a defense with precision and adjust your offense to get in the right play, has unbelievable work ethic, and is constantly motivating and leading your team during practice and in games... you've just described Peyton Manning. I don't know what else you would want in a quarterback.

Just bumping this back up because... well... I think it's the best post in this thread.

:shifty:

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Just bumping this back up because... well... I think it's the best post in this thread.

:shifty:

My prototype quarterback is one that will, despite everything else going on around him, will take the ball and win the football game when it matters most.

Don't care how tall he is. Don't care how big his arm is. Don't care what fancy things he does in the huddle or at the line of scrimmage.

Win me a football game when it matters.

John Elway, Joe Montana, Tom Brady...those guys do that.

 

[Senser81]

My prototype quarterback is one that will, despite everything else going on around him, will take the ball and win the football game when it matters most.

Don't care how tall he is. Don't care how big his arm is. Don't care what fancy things he does in the huddle or at the line of scrimmage.

Win me a football game when it matters.

John Elway, Joe Montana, Tom Brady...those guys do that.

Among current QBs, where do you rate Ben Roethlisberger? To me, he can look horrible at times, but he usually can make the plays to win games. He might not look great statistically, but he's a guy you have to actually see play to understand his worth. The opposite is true of Jon Kitna. Some nice stats, but always ready to throw that game-killing INT.

 

[Senser81]

What are you talking about? Countless times I have explained to you why using SB rings as a metric to measure QB's (or any other player, for that matter). Stop being dense. I mean Jesus, I explained it logically in the post you quoted!!

I'm talking about you comparing Tom Brady's Super Bowl rings to JaMarcus Russell's helmet size....what else would I be talking about? Was it really that unclear in my previous posting?

Its not a metric, its looking at the entire body of work of a QB. Its not "well, Terry Bradshaw has 4 rings and Roger Staubach has 2, so Bradshaw is better than Staubach". Its looking at a QB's career, seeing Staubach and Ken Anderson were great in the regular season, but then seeing that Staubach came through with big plays many times in the postseason, played in 5 SBs and won 2. Anderson only made the postseason a couple times in his career, played in 1 SB and won 0. This might be an oversimplification, but I need to adjust my posting to fit my audience (you).

 

[Senser81]

That's the entire POINT! To include rings in a QB's body of work is to effectively punish guys that played on teams that could not get to a Super Bowl. It's preposterous to credit/discredit any player (especially a QB) that was unfortunate enough to play on a team that couldn't take care of the things the player has no control over. To even bring up SB rings in the discussion of two players (the have and the have-not) is to credit those that have rings with things outside of their control, and discredit the other guys for NOT having control over those things. Don't you get it yet? I really don't know how else to say this so you can understand it.

I understand that if we were comparing David Woodley (1 SB) to Archie Manning (0 SB), but we aren't. We are talking about the greatest of all-time. If we ignore postseason achievements because it penalizes QBs who played on bad teams, then aren't you also penalizing the QBs who did well in the postseason? Its like you want to play "what-if" games, as in "what if Ken Anderson was on the 1970's Cowboys? He would have been great." Well, he wasn't, Roger Staubach was, and Staubach accomplished a lot more than Anderson. If you think you are smarter than reality and what actually happened, then so be it, but to ignore it is tantamount to retardation, which you obviously suffer from.

I love your comment "It's preposterous to credit/discredit any player (especially a QB)"...HUH? Doesn't the QB have the greatest impact on the outcome of the game? WTF are you talking about? Or are you just a dumb person trying to sound smart?

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Among current QBs, where do you rate Ben Roethlisberger? To me, he can look horrible at times, but he usually can make the plays to win games. He might not look great statistically, but he's a guy you have to actually see play to understand his worth. The opposite is true of Jon Kitna. Some nice stats, but always ready to throw that game-killing INT.

I think we spoke about this back on MM before I left...I think Roethlisberger is on that level, right now, historically, of a Phil Simms...a winner, on good teams, going to be a top guy at his position in comparison to his peers, but numbers aren't necessarily there and the accolades aren't either...there aren't many QBs left out of the Hall with two rings...Simms is one of them, but if Ben can get to THREE rings, I'd be close to saying he doesn't need a MVP, Passing Record or gaudy stats, to go to the Hall...there isn't a QB with three or more rings that isn't in the Hall and I am unsure if voters would set the precedent for not including Ben considering he is a Steeler (Hall love'em some Steelers).

With that said...I'd probably put him Top 5 in the league at any given point. I might be tempted to put him as high as 3 if I wanted a guy to win a game for me.

Another QB sneaking up on my list is Eli Manning...not flashy, no accolades yet...but I think they'll come.

I'm intrigued to see, when its all said and done, how Ben Roethlisberger, Eli Manning, and Philip Rivers stack up against the Marino, Elway, Kelly class...need to see everyone's career play out, but you have three quarterbacks, from the same draft class, in the Top 7 QBs in the league...I don't think since that class, that you can say you have such a stacked QB class. FWIW, the youngins already have more rings.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

How come in a game where you always hear "defense wins championships"and "ultimate team sport" QBs get measured by how many rings they have?

Defenses are built on stopping QBs. If a QB can perform in these big games the team usually wins.

"ultimate team sport" is a catch phrase not a fact. Noone on the "team" has a more clear and direct impact than a QB. This isnt Dilfer vs Brady. All the QBs we're discussing had teams built around them...they had the teams success hinge on them completing passes and not turning the ball over.

Being able to throw 40 tds during the regular season , and making the playoff means theres no excuse for under performing during the playoffs.
Defenses dont become nuclear powered in January. The biggest difference is that theres more pressure on guys to win there individual matchups. For a QB hes the only player that before every snap has to account for all 11 guys. Hes the only guy that handles the ball every offensive play. His is the pressure that is increased the most.

History with few exceptions has shown who can rise and perform in those situations and who cant.

Marino notoriously flopped in playoff games against teams he did well against in the regular season. Never the less his body of work is so amazing you rarely see him excluded in any top QB list.
Montana was nearly flawless in big games. Youll never hear him excluded. At worst theres maybe 2-3 other names seperating them.

I dont think anyone getting slighted by mentioning superbowls...I mean you go from greatest of all time to what...#2 ...#4 ?
When you look at the guys squeezed ahead is it that big a difference ?

Playoffs and SBs make a difference no matter what announcers feed you.

Your team is down by four at the two minute warning and you're starting at your own 20. Who do you want at QB?

Montana
Unitas
Elway
Marino
Staubach
Bradshaw
Brady
P.Manning
Favre

I find it interesting that the 2 guys being harped as GOAT the last few weeks are arguably some of the last guys I want with the ball.

Montana , Elway Only guys Im willing to bet the rent money Im coming up on top.

Anyone up for a Elway v Montana MNF viewing ?

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Defenses are built on stopping QBs. If a QB can perform in these big games the team usually wins.

"ultimate team sport" is a catch phrase not a fact. Noone on the "team" has a more clear and direct impact than a QB. This isnt Dilfer vs Brady. All the QBs we're discussing had teams built around them...they had the teams success hinge on them completing passes and not turning the ball over.

Being able to throw 40 tds during the regular season , and making the playoff means theres no excuse for under performing during the playoffs.
Defenses dont become nuclear powered in January. The biggest difference is that theres more pressure on guys to win there individual matchups. For a QB hes the only player that before every snap has to account for all 11 guys. Hes the only guy that handles the ball every offensive play. His is the pressure that is increased the most.

History with few exceptions has shown who can rise and perform in those situations and who cant.

Marino notoriously flopped in playoff games against teams he did well against in the regular season. Never the less his body of work is so amazing you rarely see him excluded in any top QB list.
Montana was nearly flawless in big games. Youll never hear him excluded. At worst theres maybe 2-3 other names seperating them.

I dont think anyone getting slighted by mentioning superbowls...I mean you go from greatest of all time to what...#2 ...#4 ?
When you look at the guys squeezed ahead is it that big a difference ?

Playoffs and SBs make a difference no matter what announcers feed you.



I find it interesting that the 2 guys being harped as GOAT the last few weeks are arguably some of the last guys I want with the ball.

Montana , Elway Only guys Im willing to bet the rent money Im coming up on top.

Anyone up for a Elway v Montana MNF viewing ?

Maybe because he is a current player, and in some odd way, its tough to appreciate a player who is currently playing, but I'd throw Brady into that grouping as well...maybe its just me.

 

[ram29jackson]

there is no such thing as greatest of all time. There is only greatest/ or one of the greats of every 10 to 20 years.

right now Manning and Brady are right up there. Favre is the most recent -greatest of all time- for a 15 to 20 year period because he owns all the stats.

Superbowl rings and appearances are a team accomplishment. Not an individual accomplishment. so , I dont believe they affect whether an individual QB is /should be considered that good or better than another.

Montana was a great QB in the right place at the right time. the 49ers were a freakin all star organization from top to bottom at the time. But , as an individual talent he was no better, no worse than Elway, Marino etc.-