PDA

View Full Version : Testing Neo's theory


neko4
06-09-2007, 07:38 PM
Which of these QB's is the best
Peyton Manning
Joe Montana
John Elway
Johnny U

Neo believes that the logical man would pick Manning so i will now test his theory
Please dont be a homer

cunningham06
06-09-2007, 07:38 PM
I'd say Dan Marino, but off that list Joe Montana.

niel89
06-09-2007, 07:40 PM
elway for me

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
06-09-2007, 07:40 PM
I would be okay with him saying that Manning is the best ever. It's the way he says that it's not even an argument that makes him intolerable. 2/3 of Montana, WOW.

yourfavestoner
06-09-2007, 07:56 PM
Unitas. (10)

Phrost
06-09-2007, 08:00 PM
All about da U. Unitas that is.

broncs2bowl
06-09-2007, 08:18 PM
Elway: since people talk about a QB being the one position where he can do things by himself for the team without having help from his supporting cast(hitting the receiver in the hands because NFL receiver will catch those, escaping pressure the line gives up, running for yards when the receivers dont get open, etc.) John Elway was the one that could do that the best. He singlehandedly took them to three superbowls they didnt have buisness being in. He has the most 4th quarter come backs ever and of course "The Drive". Also come of those comebacks were flat out amazing like the KC one. He just took over and won the game down from a large margin.

You put Peyton on the first three superbowl teams Elway had and he sux. He would rly only have one decent WR, not much protection. Not very good defense. And he would suck. Montana had an incredible suporting cast during his career.

Now dont say Elway cant win without TD and all that crap. Payton could not have won his without a Hall of Fame Receier, a Pro Bowl 2nd receiver, a very good 1st round RB, a defense that came alive to rly good form in the playoffs, one of the best if not the best pass protection line in the league.........You put Elway on the Colts the past 3 years I can gaurantee you he has 2 superbowl rings during that span. He would not have choked against the like of the Patriots and Steelers. Now dont get me wrong Manning would be the second QB I would take after Elway on that list. BUT I would take Marino second after Elway and then Manning third.

Phrost
06-09-2007, 08:36 PM
Elway: since people talk about a QB being the one position where he can do things by himself for the team without having help from his supporting cast(hitting the receiver in the hands because NFL receiver will catch those, escaping pressure the line gives up, running for yards when the receivers dont get open, etc.) John Elway was the one that could do that the best. He singlehandedly took them to three superbowls they didnt have buisness being in. He has the most 4th quarter come backs ever and of course "The Drive". Also come of those comebacks were flat out amazing like the KC one. He just took over and won the game down from a large margin.

You put Peyton on the first three superbowl teams Elway had and he sux. He would rly only have one decent WR, not much protection. Not very good defense. And he would suck. Montana had an incredible suporting cast during his career.

Now dont say Elway cant win without TD and all that crap. Payton could not have won his without a Hall of Fame Receier, a Pro Bowl 2nd receiver, a very good 1st round RB, a defense that came alive to rly good form in the playoffs, one of the best if not the best pass protection line in the league.........You put Elway on the Colts the past 3 years I can gaurantee you he has 2 superbowl rings during that span. He would not have choked against the like of the Patriots and Steelers. Now dont get me wrong Manning would be the second QB I would take after Elway on that list. BUT I would take Marino second after Elway and then Manning third.

This might all be true, but you failed to ackonwledge Unitas.

broncs2bowl
06-09-2007, 08:40 PM
This might all be true, but you failed to ackonwledge Unitas.

Unitas was beast but I would still take Elway over him because he had a much better career. Unitas rly should not be in this conversation IMO. He should be replaced with Marino on the poll

ricky bobby
06-09-2007, 08:41 PM
It's hard to pick seeing how i've only seen one of those guys play. I've heard a lot about Elway so I picked him.

BTW, you would recieve more accurate results if you didn't mention what the purpose of this experiment was. Making it a private poll would also yield different results.

Phrost
06-09-2007, 08:41 PM
Unitas was beast but I would still take Elway over him because he had a much better career. Unitas rly should not be in this conversation IMO. He should be replaced with Marino on the poll

You should read up on Johnny U. A LOT.

neko4
06-09-2007, 08:42 PM
It's hard to pick seeing how i've only seen one of those guys play. I've heard a lot about Elway so I picked him.

BTW, you would recieve more accurate results if you didn't mention what the purpose of this experiment was. Making it a private poll would also yield different results.

I make all my polls public, Im very snoopy
And if anyone read the other thread for 3 mins they would realize what this is about

GB12
06-09-2007, 08:44 PM
Whoops, I hit Montana but I meant Elway.

neko4
06-09-2007, 08:45 PM
Whoops, I hit Montana but I meant Elway.

Im suprised the guy only has 5 votes

TheChampIsHere
06-09-2007, 08:54 PM
I gotta go with Joe Montana. Let Peyton Manning get another ring or two or maybe some more MVPs and we can talk about it.

sweetness34
06-09-2007, 08:59 PM
Haha I didn't even read the poll question I just saw Manning's name and figured it was a current QB poll. Whoops!

Btw Elway for me.

broncs2bowl
06-09-2007, 09:00 PM
You should read up on Johnny U. A LOT.

No I know about how great Johnny U was and all his accomplichments. But he is not a top 3-4 QB of all time. He is top 10 definatly but the best or even top 4 I dont think so. The only Qbs that can be mentioned as best ever and actually have a good argument are Elway, Montana, Marino(yet not having a ring always gets him thrown out), and Manning

Edit: here is a poll where people rank the top QBs ever and Unitas is at #7
http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/listranker?id=662 (just do the rankings and submit it to see the final results of the whole poll)

broncs2bowl
06-09-2007, 09:02 PM
Haha I didn't even read the poll question I just saw Manning's name and figured it was a current QB poll. Whoops!

Btw Elway for me.

lol so it should be

Manning: 1
Montana: 6(the guy who said accidently clicked Montana over Elway)
Elway: 11
Johnny U: 7

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
06-09-2007, 09:13 PM
These arguments never have a right answer, just wrong ones. Like saying someone's the best by miles, or saying someone ridiculous.

Paul
06-09-2007, 09:16 PM
Elway was so talented it was scary. The Arm, the mobility, the play under pressure, ridiculous.

Go_Eagles77
06-09-2007, 09:23 PM
I'd take Elway, perfect blend of size, arm strength/ accuracy, and athleticism.

HoopsDemon12
06-09-2007, 09:24 PM
joe montana!!!!... but ofcourse it would jim kelly if he was on there because yes i am a homer

TacticaLion
06-09-2007, 09:26 PM
The problem with this comparison is that Manning's career isn't over. He may not be the best now, but could definitely have that title when he's done in the NFL.

Which is why I wont vote.

Ewing
06-09-2007, 09:34 PM
Unitas, he changed the way quarterback was played and was arguably the toughest quarterback of all-time. If you look at his numbers then and compare them to now they aren't that impressive but he retired holding almost every record for a quarterback. He finished in the top ten for completions ten times, yards ten times, and touchdowns five times. The first quarterback ever to throw for 40,000 despite playing in twelve and fourteen game seasons. The record of 47 straight games with a touchdown pass will never be broken. He's the greatest of all-time in my eyes.

reese
06-09-2007, 09:35 PM
id vote for marino but since he isnt on there i voted elway...which to me is about half a step behnd marino anyway...so no biggie

Phrost
06-09-2007, 09:36 PM
Unitas, he changed the way quarterback was played and was arguably the toughest quarterback of all-time. If you look at his numbers then and compare them to now they aren't that impress but he retired holding almost every record for a quarterback. He finished in the top ten for completions ten times, yards ten times, and touchdowns five times. The first quarterback ever to throw for 40,000 despite playing in twelve and fourteen game seasons. The record of 47 straight games with a touchdown pass will never be broken. He's the greatest of all-time in my eyes.

This is the explanation I that I couldn't think of.

Ewing
06-09-2007, 09:36 PM
Unitas was beast but I would still take Elway over him because he had a much better career. Unitas rly should not be in this conversation IMO. He should be replaced with Marino on the poll

Somebody hold me back or I'm going to get another infraction...

Paul
06-09-2007, 09:38 PM
Somebody hold me back or I'm going to get another infraction...

LOL. Tear into him if you want, it's where this thread would inevitably go. just don't make anybody cry. People will always have difference in opinion, they just got to back it up.

Phrost
06-09-2007, 09:45 PM
LOL. Tear into him if you want, it's where this thread would inevitably go. just don't make anybody cry. People will always have difference in opinion, they just got to back it up.

Agreeed. BTW, your sig is mesmerizing. The blue lighting is amazing.

neko4
06-09-2007, 09:45 PM
No I know about how great Johnny U was and all his accomplichments. But he is not a top 3-4 QB of all time. He is top 10 definatly but the best or even top 4 I dont think so. The only Qbs that can be mentioned as best ever and actually have a good argument are Elway, Montana, Marino(yet not having a ring always gets him thrown out), and Manning

Edit: here is a poll where people rank the top QBs ever and Unitas is at #7
http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/listranker?id=662 (just do the rankings and submit it to see the final results of the whole poll)

And the voters at ESPN said GB should take a WR.
I dont see how cant even say hes top 2

Chief49er
06-09-2007, 10:03 PM
In all honesty, I would want Steve Young.

Paul
06-09-2007, 10:04 PM
In all honesty, I would want Steve Young.

Hmmm. I wonder why.

Ewing
06-09-2007, 10:08 PM
In all honesty, I would want Steve Young.

Wonderful but those are the only four options. It relates to a post Neo made saying Manning was by far the greatest quarterback ever and Elway, Montana, and Unitas couldn't even hold his jockstrap.

DeathbyStat
06-09-2007, 10:11 PM
Elway baby

TigerBait45
06-09-2007, 10:12 PM
Of those in the poll, I'll go with Elway. Elway had freak athletic ability. His arm may well have been the strongest ever in the NFL (Russell not withstanding) and he could move in the pocket.

He single handedly took the Broncos to the Super Bowl a few times when they otherwise would've been mediocre at best.

All things considered, I think Dan Marino's the best ever, but Elway is really really close for me.

The Legend
06-09-2007, 10:27 PM
Joe Montana

neko4
06-09-2007, 10:31 PM
Sporting New's Top 10 (They made a top 50 Greatest QB's Magazine once)
1-Johnny U
2-Montana
3-Otto Graham (3Time MVP)
4-John Elway
5-Sammy Baugh (Threw 25 TD's, huge for his day)
6-Dan Marino
7-Brett Favre
8-Terry Bradshaw
9-Roger Staubach
10-Bart Starr

CC.SD
06-10-2007, 12:46 AM
If you don't choose Joe Cool, you are on crack.

Dam8610
06-10-2007, 01:52 AM
Sad that Unitas isn't running away with this. I guess it's a reflection of who people here have seen play though, which is why Elway is slightly edging Montana. Give Manning 5 more years, and he'll be close to every single passing record, and for those to whom it matters, he has a championship. With his current numbers, Manning is already in the "team photo" for best QB ever, and that's after only 9 years in the NFL, which is pretty impressive to me. That said, I don't think anyone can surpass Johnny U.

Dam8610
06-10-2007, 01:55 AM
Sporting New's Top 10 (They made a top 50 Greatest QB's Magazine once)
1-Johnny U
2-Montana
3-Otto Graham (3Time MVP)
4-John Elway
5-Sammy Baugh (Threw 25 TD's, huge for his day)
6-Dan Marino
7-Brett Favre
8-Terry Bradshaw
9-Roger Staubach
10-Bart Starr

Bradshaw 8th? WOW. Bradshaw is basically the proof that Peyton Manning is not a product of his surrounding talent, and it's a disgarce that he's a HOFer.

fenikz
06-10-2007, 03:56 AM
Montana & Brady over Manning for active players

duckseason
06-10-2007, 04:24 AM
Sad that Unitas isn't running away with this. I guess it's a reflection of who people here have seen play though, which is why Elway is slightly edging Montana. Give Manning 5 more years, and he'll be close to every single passing record, and for those to whom it matters, he has a championship. With his current numbers, Manning is already in the "team photo" for best QB ever, and that's after only 9 years in the NFL, which is pretty impressive to me. That said, I don't think anyone can surpass Johnny U.
It's unfair to both Unitas and the players of this generation to compare them to each other. They don't even play the same game. Yeah, it's football, but the game has evolved to the point that it is completely different than it was in Unitas's era. It can be fun to compare players from different eras for arguments sake, but in reality there is really no way to definitively say a guy like Unitas was any better than Montana or Marino. Or even Drew Bledsoe, for that matter. I'd imagine that a guy like Carson Palmer would be completely unstoppable if he had played in the '60s. But that's just my imagination. In the realm of reality, there's really no basis for a meaningful comparison.

Addict
06-10-2007, 06:36 AM
If you don't choose Joe Cool, you are on crack.

:o and what if I do both :o

Raiderz4Life
06-10-2007, 10:25 AM
its Elway for me, dude was gifted. Maning did not deserve the MVP, Rhodes or Addai or someone on defense did.

Ewing
06-10-2007, 10:26 AM
How the **** is Unitas only one vote ahead of Manning? You people really need to learn your football history.

broncs2bowl
06-10-2007, 11:04 AM
Bradshaw 8th? WOW. Bradshaw is basically the proof that Peyton Manning is not a product of his surrounding talent, and it's a disgarce that he's a HOFer.

Bradshaw deserves at least top ten. HE WON 4! SUPERBOWLS! Lets see if Manning can ever get close to that

ks_perfection
06-10-2007, 11:37 AM
How the **** is Unitas only one vote ahead of Manning? You people really need to learn your football history.

Reading about what a player did isn't nearly as effective as it would have been to watch him live for years.

neko4
06-10-2007, 12:43 PM
It's unfair to both Unitas and the players of this generation to compare them to each other. They don't even play the same game. Yeah, it's football, but the game has evolved to the point that it is completely different than it was in Unitas's era. It can be fun to compare players from different eras for arguments sake, but in reality there is really no way to definitively say a guy like Unitas was any better than Montana or Marino. Or even Drew Bledsoe, for that matter. I'd imagine that a guy like Carson Palmer would be completely unstoppable if he had played in the '60s. But that's just my imagination. In the realm of reality, there's really no basis for a meaningful comparison.

Great point
An old friend of mine (And I mean he's old, he actually met Johnny U) believes the same thing

CC.SD
06-10-2007, 01:49 PM
:o and what if I do both :o

Then you're ok by me.

Chief49er
06-10-2007, 02:02 PM
Wonderful but those are the only four options. It relates to a post Neo made saying Manning was by far the greatest quarterback ever and Elway, Montana, and Unitas couldn't even hold his jockstrap.

Well thats pretty insane, Manning is a great QB and will go down as one of the top 5. But when you start tring to really compare and argue who is better its an endless fight. To claim they (Elway, Montana and Unitas) can't hold his jockstrap is reaching a point of gayness in its own right, it seems maybe he justs needs some reason to think of Manning's jockstrap.

tylerb929
06-10-2007, 02:21 PM
I could never pick Elway, just like Eli, he had to cry about who picked him until he was traded. Of course that has nothing to do with the way he played the game(or how Eli plays it), I just think its ****** of him. Of all people, I would think the people at nfl DRAFT countdown would understand my opinion on that. Whats the point in the draft if a QB can just cry about having to go play for Indy(Elway) or San Diego (Eli), until their traded to a team that's acceptable to them, if every great player did this ALL small market teams would fail (like Indy did after they were forced to trade Elway) because none of the greats would want to play there.

Ewing
06-10-2007, 04:03 PM
Manning is ahead of Unitas. I hope everyone who voted for him never posts on this forum again.

Paul
06-10-2007, 04:07 PM
I could never pick Elway, just like Eli, he had to cry about who picked him until he was traded. Of course that has nothing to do with the way he played the game(or how Eli plays it), I just think its ****** of him. Of all people, I would think the people at nfl DRAFT countdown would understand my opinion on that. Whats the point in the draft if a QB can just cry about having to go play for Indy(Elway) or San Diego (Eli), until their traded to a team that's acceptable to them, if every great player did this ALL small market teams would fail (like Indy did after they were forced to trade Elway) because none of the greats would want to play there.

WOW. Tell us how you really feel.

Severe Punishment
06-10-2007, 04:16 PM
The problem with this comparison is that Manning's career isn't over. He may not be the best now, but could definitely have that title when he's done in the NFL.

Which is why I wont vote.
That's a large part of the problem.
To say right now that Manning's career matches Elways is stupid.

For me it goes
1) Elway
2) Montana
3) Favre
4) Marino
5) Montana
6) Manning
7) Unitias
8) Staubach
9) Tarkenton
10) Jim Kelly

Severe Punishment
06-10-2007, 04:18 PM
I could never pick Elway, just like Eli, he had to cry about who picked him until he was traded. Of course that has nothing to do with the way he played the game(or how Eli plays it), I just think its ****** of him. Of all people, I would think the people at nfl DRAFT countdown would understand my opinion on that. Whats the point in the draft if a QB can just cry about having to go play for Indy(Elway) or San Diego (Eli), until their traded to a team that's acceptable to them, if every great player did this ALL small market teams would fail (like Indy did after they were forced to trade Elway) because none of the greats would want to play there.
hahahahaha..funny.
I'm curious, as to whether or not you got to choose where you work (go to school) and what city, state you live in.
Perhaps we should all live under a government that tells us what to do all the time and sit back and shut our mouths if we don't like it, would that be okay with you too ?

I understand the "fans" belief that "it'd be a privilage to play anywhere in the NFL" but when you hold all the cards...why not determine where you want to work. Every other American has that right.

Paul
06-10-2007, 04:19 PM
Aikman never gets no love.

JK17
06-10-2007, 04:21 PM
hahahahaha..funny.
I'm curious, as to whether or not you got to choose where you work (go to school) and what city, state you live in.
Perhaps we should all live under a government that tells us what to do all the time and sit back and shut our mouths if we don't like it, would that be okay with you too ?

I understand the "fans" belief that "it'd be a privilage to play anywhere in the NFL" but when you hold all the cards...why not determine where you want to work. Every other American has that right.

Except it's been discussed in another thread a couple months ago I think that the NFL can choose to locate players where it wants to increase equality in its different regions, just like a business can choose to relocate productive members of the company in order to increase prodcutivy in less productive regions.

But anyway back onto topic, I voted for Montana based off the accomplishments he had throughout his career, his postseason success, etc.

bearfan
06-10-2007, 04:25 PM
I went w/ Manning b/c I have never seen anyone be able to pick apart a defense like him. I also havent seen the others play, and will not go based on stats, but Manning has to be one of the, if not the best ever.

Paul
06-10-2007, 04:26 PM
I went w/ Manning b/c I have never seen anyone be able to pick apart a defense like him. I also havent seen the others play, and will not go based on stats, but Manning has to be one of the, if not the best ever.

You've never seen Elway play?

neko4
06-10-2007, 04:30 PM
I seriously wanna see Manning break Unitas' record for most consecutive games w/ a TD pass (47)
Plus he threw 40,000 yards in an age where 25,000 was a feat

Severe Punishment
06-10-2007, 04:31 PM
Aikman never gets no love.
I thought Aikman was a better version of Brad Johnson.
Neither is prolific in their own right, they're more "proficient" they
make very few mistakes, don't fumble ...throw stupid balls and always
knew where to be on the field. Decent vision and were (for Johnson was only "at times) surrounded by elite talent on all sides.

The 90's Dallas Cowboys were the most dominant / talented teams ever.
Also their coaching staffs were unbelievable great.

princefielder28
06-10-2007, 04:33 PM
john elway

Severe Punishment
06-10-2007, 04:33 PM
Except it's been discussed in another thread a couple months ago I think that the NFL can choose to locate players where it wants to increase equality in its different regions, just like a business can choose to relocate productive members of the company in order to increase prodcutivy in less productive regions.

But anyway back onto topic, I voted for Montana based off the accomplishments he had throughout his career, his postseason success, etc.
Fine, but here's the problem I have with that.
If a buisnessman (say "John") gets relocated then it's his call whether
or not to accept the position and move there.
This guy is taking that decision out of players hands and saying "what's good for the buisness should be followed without so much as a word"
For christs sake this isn't China.

JK17
06-10-2007, 04:41 PM
Fine, but here's the problem I have with that.
If a buisnessman (say "John") gets relocated then it's his call whether
or not to accept the position and move there.
This guy is taking that decision out of players hands and saying "what's good for the buisness should be followed without so much as a word"
For christs sake this isn't China.

If they don't like the business though, then they can look for other jobs in similar areas (AFL, CFL, etc.) Those businesses don't pay as well though, so you either deal with the circumstances for the higher pay, or look for work elsewhere. For example, I work at Commerce Bank as a teller. We are open more hours then other banks, and a lot of times I don't like working late. I can choose to go work in another bank, but the pay is better with Commerce, so I choose not to.

neko4
06-10-2007, 04:42 PM
By Decade
40's-Sammy Baugh/Graham
50's-Otto Graham/Johnny U
60's-Johnny U/Starr/Jurgenson
70's-Bradshaw/Staubach/Tarkenton
80's-Montana/Marino/Elway
90's-Elway/Favre/Aikman
00's-Manning/Brady/Favre

bearfan
06-10-2007, 04:46 PM
You've never seen Elway play?

I wasnt a big football fan when I back in those days when I was under 10yrs old. I really didnt start paying attention till about 11/12 years old (6th - 7th grade). But whenever I watch manning, I am just awestruck by his ability to make plays happen every single play. He is just so smart, and so talented that I think he is the best QB...maybe even ever

elway777
06-10-2007, 04:47 PM
The fact that Elway dominated in 2 decades is amazing by itself.
Manning deserves "some" hype but it will take him a good 5 years IMO to put him over Elway.

Severe Punishment
06-10-2007, 04:49 PM
If they don't like the business though, then they can look for other jobs in similar areas (AFL, CFL, etc.) Those businesses don't pay as well though, so you either deal with the circumstances for the higher pay, or look for work elsewhere. For example, I work at Commerce Bank as a teller. We are open more hours then other banks, and a lot of times I don't like working late. I can choose to go work in another bank, but the pay is better with Commerce, so I choose not to.
Why would "they" have to look for work in other area's when other teams are offering them jobs. This is one of the worst arguments I've ever read on here. You're saying that if the team that drafts them doesn't come to an agreement with these "prospects" then those prospects should be kicked out of the league ??? This is stupidity at its finest.

If you don't like your crappy teller job, guess what ? You can find work at ANOTHER bank, that's willing to pay you more. You are NOT obligated to remain at a job where you don't want to be.....welcome to America !

PLUS, you're making my point without even realizing it with your last 2 statements.
"I CHOOSE to work for X bank, I could make more elsewhere but I CHOOSE not to"
You have the choice to select where you work.
Just like Eli and John did. They had choices...just because the NFL says "This team retains your rights" doesn't mean they're obligated to go there and have no say on it.

Severe Punishment
06-10-2007, 04:55 PM
The fact that Elway dominated in 2 decades is amazing by itself.
Manning deserves "some" hype but it will take him a good 5 years IMO to put him over Elway.
The fact that he took 3 teams to the bowl with the 3 very average WR's known as "the 3 amigo's" and a RB called Sammy Winder should be enough to put him at the top. Talent, determination, knowlege, drive, leadership
The guy had everything. and he wasnt afraid to put himself (physcially) on the line all the time regardless of whether or not it was the "safe" thing to do. ...plus I'm happy he crushed those over rated "dirty birds" in 98.

JK17
06-10-2007, 04:57 PM
Why would "they" have to look for work in other area's when other teams are offering them jobs. This is one of the worst arguments I've ever read on here. You're saying that if the team that drafts them doesn't come to an agreement with these "prospects" then those prospects should be kicked out of the league ??? This is stupidity at its finest.
If you don't like your crappy teller job, guess what ? You can find work at ANOTHER bank, that's willing to pay you more. You are NOT obligated to remain at a job where you don't want to be.....welcome to America !

PLUS, you're making my point without even realizing it with your last 2 statements.
"I CHOOSE to work for X bank, I could make more elsewhere but I CHOOSE not to"
You have the choice to select where you work.
Just like Eli and John did. They had choices...just because the NFL says "This team retains your rights" doesn't mean they're obligated to go there and have no say on it.

Hm, okay calm down buddy...its a relatively insignificant argument that is off-topic for the thread anyway so relax.

First of all the other "teams" that are offering them jobs are part of the same company. How often do separate branches compete against each other and try to steal their employees? Almost never, because they are all part of a larger company, in this case the NFL. The teams aren't the businesses the NFL is. Who said they should be kicked out of the league also, they can sign the offer that the business gives them, or look for work with another business (another leauge, not team, as the teams are just part of the overall business)...

Second of all, you missed the point on my bank analogy. Not only do I not care what you think of my job, being as a bank teller is as good a job as seventeen year olds are going to come by, but the point is the places that pay more often demand more out of you. In the NFL case, the demanding more, is deciding where you will play, and what team you will play for.

Yeah, I'm sure that's one of the worst arguments you've ever read on here.
And as far as me making my point for you, I wasn't, you misunderstood. I would be making your point for you if I said a differnet Commerce Branch would pay me more or less, but I'm not I'm talking about another bank altogether, or "league".

duckseason
06-10-2007, 04:59 PM
Let's not forget Steve Young. As a Cowboy fan, I grew up hating him and the 9ers with a passion, but he deserves mention as one of the greats of this generation. And I think a solid argument can be made that he was the very best. I don't want to start any unnecessary arguments, but I'd take him before some of the other guys mentioned. Sure he benefited greatly from playing in the WCO, but the same can be said for Joe. And Joe was in it before defenses began to come up with an answer for it.

Chief49er
06-10-2007, 05:05 PM
Let's not forget Steve Young. As a Cowboy fan, I grew up hating him and the 9ers with a passion, but he deserves mention as one of the greats of this generation. And I think a solid argument can be made that he was the very best. I don't want to start any unnecessary arguments, but I'd take him before some of the other guys mentioned. Sure he benefited greatly from playing in the WCO, but the same can be said for Joe. And Joe was in it before defenses began to come up with an answer for it.

amen dude!

Vikes99ej
06-10-2007, 05:19 PM
I said Joe Montana.

Severe Punishment
06-10-2007, 06:00 PM
Hm, okay calm down buddy...its a relatively insignificant argument that is off-topic for the thread anyway so relax. First off, you have no idea what kind of mental state I'm in.
I'm laughing at you...so , while your intentions could be seen as a good
natured suggestion. Trust me , I'm just fine.

First of all the other "teams" that are offering them jobs are part of the same company. Nope, wrong again.
There are 32 buisnesses operating under 1 league. The league sets rules
as do each team. The rules of the league are designed (theoretically) to
give balance to all 32 buisness competing for the same goal, while at the same time trying to generate as much money as possible.
Each team though is seperate from all other 31 teams. Make no mistake of that.

How often do separate branches compete against each other and try to steal their employees?
Ummm every single day. "steal" might not be the operative word..however
if your company could let you go and hire someone else to do the same job at exactly the same production yet at 1/2 the cost , you sir would be fired. There are no loyalties in todays buisness except with the decision makers and their lust for power.
and we're not talking about 1 team here having power over all other 31 teams...even the league doesn't do that. We're talking about A and B and C companies. To think that company A isn't trying to lure company "b"'s top employees...guess again.

Almost never, because they are all part of a larger company, This doesn't even translate to our discussion.

in this case the NFL. The teams aren't the businesses the NFL is.
Good lord how can you not get this ????
The NFL is a buisness that "hired" 32 seperate buisnesses. The league
has ultimate power over how things are run...but teams are free to deal
with their own buisness as they see fit.
Unless you honestly believe that Roger Goodell cares whether or not Jamarcus Russell signs with Oakland..if you do then I can just label you insaine and move on to other topics.

Who said they should be kicked out of the league also,
You did when you offered up the CFL arena league and europe NFL as the alternatives to not signing with the team that drafted the player.

they can sign the offer that the business gives them, or look for work with another business (another leauge, not team, as the teams are just part of the overall business). Horribly wrong.
The players have and will continue to push to play for who they feel most comfortable playing for. Most of these 22 year old kids just don't undestand they have that right. When this belief becomes more "common" and sense takes over...they will have to put "buisness law" or more rules
to eliminate that. Until then the Eli Mannings and John Elway's of life will continue to have control over themselves and where they choose to work.

Second of all, you missed the point on my bank analogy. Not only do I not care what you think of my job, being as a bank teller is as good a job as seventeen year olds are going to come by, but the point is the places that pay more often demand more out of you.
This wasn't a point.....unless you meant to better defend my statement as a fact. You Choose to work there...just as you could choose to quit, as for more money, fewer hours...blah blah blah. Then your employer would have to make a decision based on the fairness of your request.
However no one...no buisness and no league can tell you where you "must" work. To think so is sillly.


In the NFL case, the demanding more, is deciding where you will play, and what team you will play for. wrong again batman.
The league can tell a kid who his rights are held by (for 3 years) however
no kid MUST play for said team.
I think you're failing to realize that Eli Manning's trade was in part because
San Diego KNEW they couldn't force him to play ,...but they could dictate
what they could recieve in return.
They had no intentions of ever signing him...but it was smart buisness to take him , and "acution his rights" away to the highest bidder.
NY was just stupid enough to give the Chargers what they felt was adequate compensation.


Yeah, I'm sure that's one of the worst arguments you've ever read on here. I have no intention of trying to prove my feelings to you.
But , I stand by what I said.

And as far as me making my point for you, I wasn't, you misunderstood. I would be making your point for you if I said a differnet Commerce Branch would pay me more or less, but I'm not I'm talking about another bank altogether, or "league".
Well sense each "branch" in this league is a seperate entity..then yes, you are. Keep trying to convince yourself you aren't though.

Severe Punishment
06-10-2007, 06:01 PM
Let's not forget Steve Young. As a Cowboy fan, I grew up hating him and the 9ers with a passion, but he deserves mention as one of the greats of this generation. And I think a solid argument can be made that he was the very best. I don't want to start any unnecessary arguments, but I'd take him before some of the other guys mentioned. Sure he benefited greatly from playing in the WCO, but the same can be said for Joe. And Joe was in it before defenses began to come up with an answer for it.
If you include his USFL days then sure, he could be included as "one of" the best QB's ever. His days in Tampa were a waste and then his years north of the boarder limited the production he could've had in the NFL...but he had everything you look for in a franchise style QB.

JK17
06-10-2007, 06:25 PM
Okay, wow. You're wrong right now and your arrogance is mind-blwing.

First off, you have no idea what kind of mental state I'm in.
I'm laughing at you...so , while your intentions could be seen as a good
natured suggestion. Trust me , I'm just fine.

Laugh all you want, Its not like I'm making a ridiculous argument or an argument that most people would have a problem with so fine. Whatever you want, your posts carry an insulting matter for a discussion that really is not that important, but okay, if it makes you feel bigger to "talk down to me" be my guest.

Nope, wrong again.
There are 32 buisnesses operating under 1 league. The league sets rules
as do each team. The rules of the league are designed (theoretically) to
give balance to all 32 buisness competing for the same goal, while at the same time trying to generate as much money as possible.
Each team though is seperate from all other 31 teams. Make no mistake of that.

No, I'm not wrong. The NFL is the business, with the teams being set up in differnet regions as part of that business. I don't really know why you bring league and team rules into the discussion that really doesn't make much sesne anyway. A large business, like the NFL may have general rules, whereas the smaller subdivisions, or regions (the teams), have more specific rules. They are not separate businesses but part of the same overall business, the NFL. Yes each team is trying to generate as much money as possible, but they work through the NFL.


Ummm every single day. "steal" might not be the operative word..however
if your company could let you go and hire someone else to do the same job at exactly the same production yet at 1/2 the cost , you sir would be fired. There are no loyalties in todays buisness except with the decision makers and their lust for power.
and we're not talking about 1 team here having power over all other 31 teams...even the league doesn't do that. We're talking about A and B and C companies. To think that company A isn't trying to lure company "b"'s top employees...guess again.

No, your wrong here too. Companies hiring and firing is synonymous with free agency. If the individual branch doesn't feel a player is doing the right job he can be "cut" and picked up somewhere else. I don't know where in the NFL you will find someone doing the same production for 1/2 the cost anyway. Besides, all of that is free agency business when the original discussion was about the draft and players not being able to choose where they wanted to go, like Eli and Elway. So none of that really applies to the discussion anyway.

This doesn't even translate to our discussion.
It did, because I was explaining that the branches/teams are part of the larger company, the NFL.

Good lord how can you not get this ????
The NFL is a buisness that "hired" 32 seperate buisnesses. The league
has ultimate power over how things are run...but teams are free to deal
with their own buisness as they see fit.
Unless you honestly believe that Roger Goodell cares whether or not Jamarcus Russell signs with Oakland..if you do then I can just label you insaine and move on to other topics.
No the NFL is a business taht operates in 32 separate locations. Yes they have ultimate power in how things are run. Teams are free to deal with their own business how they deem fit, except for the players introduction to the business. Players are offered a starting position and can choose to accept or decline it. No one forces these players to come into the league, there are other professional football options out there for them if they do not like the NFL's policy of the draft. The draft is one of the burdens placed on players that they wouldn't have to experience elsewhere, but with the prestige and higher pay offered they can choose to deal with it, wait another year for another draft, or move onto another league. You made such a big deal in talking about how "This is America, not China", referring to capitalsim vs communism I assume, but players don't only have one option for professional football.


You did when you offered up the CFL arena league and europe NFL as the alternatives to not signing with the team that drafted the player.
They are the alternatives to not signing with a team. Those are other professioanl football businesses. That's why this isn't a "communist organization" because there are other choices if they do not like the NFL Draft policy.

Horribly wrong.
The players have and will continue to push to play for who they feel most comfortable playing for. Most of these 22 year old kids just don't undestand they have that right. When this belief becomes more "common" and sense takes over...they will have to put "buisness law" or more rules
to eliminate that. Until then the Eli Mannings and John Elway's of life will continue to have control over themselves and where they choose to work.

No. It's not there right to choose where they want to play initially. The NFL's policy is that it will offer them jobs in these locations or situations, and they can choose to accept or decline. If they accept they can do whatever they want to "demand a trade" or ask to be cut/released, but they do not have the right to choose exactly where they want to work, no one does even in real businesses, it depends what is offered to you.


This wasn't a point.....unless you meant to better defend my statement as a fact. You Choose to work there...just as you could choose to quit, as for more money, fewer hours...blah blah blah. Then your employer would have to make a decision based on the fairness of your request.
However no one...no buisness and no league can tell you where you "must" work. To think so is sillly.

They can tell you where you must work if you want a job with that business. Like I said, the reason Player A might not want to work in the NFL is because they tell him where he is going to be located. If they do not like that, then they can play in a differnet professioanl leauge, where they can choose their location. They can quit the NFL, or never join if they want, but the NFL has the right to assign players where they want to.


wrong again batman.
The league can tell a kid who his rights are held by (for 3 years) however
no kid MUST play for said team.
I think you're failing to realize that Eli Manning's trade was in part because
San Diego KNEW they couldn't force him to play ,...but they could dictate
what they could recieve in return.
They had no intentions of ever signing him...but it was smart buisness to take him , and "acution his rights" away to the highest bidder.
NY was just stupid enough to give the Chargers what they felt was adequate compensation.

Easy Robin, no need for the name-calling...
And exactly why did SD have the access to his "rights"? Because they are granted them by the larger business for having the worst production in the past year. Eli Manning did not have to sign with SD, which is why he could have sat out the year, or played in another leauge if he so desired. It's very simple like that, its not communism or any other ridiculous idea like that, it's that the NFL is allowed to allocate players where they wish when they first enter the league. No one MUST play for that team, but their rights are given to that team initially....

I have no intention of trying to prove my feelings to you.
But , I stand by what I said.
Fine, we both know its not a ridiculous argument but feel free to disagree. Your opinion is not worth much.


Well sense each "branch" in this league is a seperate entity..then yes, you are. Keep trying to convince yourself you aren't though.
And this is where the disagreement begins....but you're wrong on this one, since the Leauge is the business, and the temas are the branches, they are not independent of each other, they are bound together by the league.

What were your other points? Or did you just want to reply by using condesending talk in an attempt to shadow over the fact that your arguments may not have as much weight as you think they do.

SenorGato
06-10-2007, 06:38 PM
Manning: This guy is leaving the game as either the first or second best pure passer ever.

Ewing
06-10-2007, 06:44 PM
To everyone who is voting Manning ahead of Unitas let his career finish first and then you can discuss him among the likes of Johnny U. Until then, go watch some film and read some stories and stats about Unitas because you clearly know nothing about anything that took place before 1980.

JK17
06-10-2007, 06:50 PM
To everyone who is voting Manning ahead of Unitas let his career finish first and then you can discuss him among the likes of Johnny U. Until then, go watch some film and read some stories and stats about Unitas because you clearly know nothing about anything that took place before 1980.

QFT, look some day Manning may be the best QB there ever was. Maybe. But at this point in his career, compared with all the greats there were, over all the different eras, especially guys like Unitas, its way to early to say anything like that. Wait it out, and when its all said and done, then bring him up in that conversation. Now is too soon though for him.

SenorGato
06-10-2007, 07:51 PM
To everyone who is voting Manning ahead of Unitas let his career finish first and then you can discuss him among the likes of Johnny U. Until then, go watch some film and read some stories and stats about Unitas because you clearly know nothing about anything that took place before 1980.

So you're saying theres NO argument for Manning being an all-time great right now? I mean right now, the dude is busy trying to re-write the record books, of COURSE he should be in the conversation. The only reason he isn't is because he's only 31 and he has at least 3-5 years left.

Why?

I'm a relative football n00b, but I learn quick you know.

tjpackers
06-10-2007, 08:01 PM
for all the people sayin johny u. U got problemsthere is no way he or the others are better then montana.Montana all the way

Ewing
06-10-2007, 08:06 PM
So you're saying theres NO argument for Manning being an all-time great right now?

Why?

I'm a relative football n00b, but I learn quick you know.

Is he on his way to being one of the top five quarterbacks of all-time? Yes. Is he already there? No. If Manning were to get hit by a bus tomorrow and forced to retire would you say he was the greatest of all-time? No, because he hasn't played long enough to be considered the greatest of all-time. It's fine to say he's one of the top twenty of all-time, everyone will agree with that but to say he's better than Unitas, Marino, Elway, Montana, or Favre ever were at this point is completely moronic and far too focused on how current players preform.

Ewing
06-10-2007, 08:08 PM
for all the people sayin johny u. U got problemsthere is no way he or the others are better then montana.Montana all the way

Why? Give me a reason other than "U got problemsthere is no way".

neko4
06-10-2007, 08:10 PM
So you're saying theres NO argument for Manning being an all-time great right now? I mean right now, the dude is busy trying to re-write the record books, of COURSE he should be in the conversation. The only reason he isn't is because he's only 31 and he has at least 3-5 years left.

Why?

I'm a relative football n00b, but I learn quick you know.

And Unitas ended his career with tons of records

for all the people sayin johny u. U got problemsthere is no way he or the others are better then montana.Montana all the way

Im fine w/ people saying Montana>Unitas
Its very close IMO

49ersfan_87
06-10-2007, 08:41 PM
Let's not forget Steve Young. As a Cowboy fan, I grew up hating him and the 9ers with a passion, but he deserves mention as one of the greats of this generation. And I think a solid argument can be made that he was the very best. I don't want to start any unnecessary arguments, but I'd take him before some of the other guys mentioned. Sure he benefited greatly from playing in the WCO, but the same can be said for Joe. And Joe was in it before defenses began to come up with an answer for it.

Steve Young is my favorite QB, and maybe my favorite player (tied with jerry rice) of all time. I grew up watching him play and loved his style. If he could stay healthy i think he could have been the GOAT.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PHO/AAGS009~Steve-Young-Rolling-Out-Posters.jpg

neko4
06-10-2007, 08:45 PM
Steve Young is my favorite QB, and maybe my favorite player (tied with jerry rice) of all time. I grew up watching him play and loved his style. If he could stay healthy i think he could have been the GOAT.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PHO/AAGS009~Steve-Young-Rolling-Out-Posters.jpg

He always had Rice to throw to
TOugh life

reese
06-10-2007, 08:51 PM
for all the ppl sayin montana is the greatest ever...can u give some reasons?

Shiver
06-10-2007, 08:57 PM
He always had Rice to throw to
TOugh life

Peyton's had Marvin Harrison his whole career.

neko4
06-10-2007, 09:08 PM
for all the ppl sayin montana is the greatest ever...can u give some reasons?

Montana:
Doesnt choke
Calm, collected, good leader
Great Technique, I've seen analysts break down his play, he definitly had great mechanics

neko4
06-10-2007, 09:09 PM
Peyton's had Marvin Harrison his whole career.

Im not debating that at all. I dont even think Peyton should have had a single vote in this and if we were all 25-40 years older then Unitas would be running away with this

reese
06-10-2007, 09:09 PM
Montana:
Doesnt choke
Calm, collected, good leader
Great Technique, I've seen analysts break down his play, he definitly had great mechanics

all those are good...but is what u just said really enuf to make him the single best qb ever?

Paul
06-10-2007, 09:10 PM
Montana - Taylor,Rice and clark
Manning - Harrison, Wayne and Edge
Elway - Sharpe, Rod Smith and T Davis
Young - Rice, Taylor and Waters
Aikman - Irvin, Novacek and Emmitt
Johnny U - I'm not even going to try and pretend I know the players around him this time

All great QB's are going to have a great cast around them, that helped them to there successes, which warrants there name's into the this discussion. But the argument will always be was it the cast around them that made the QB great, or was it the QB that made the cast great.

reese
06-10-2007, 09:12 PM
Montana - Taylor,Rice and clark
Manning - Harrison, Wayne and Edge
Elway - Sharpe, Rod Smith and T Davis
Young - Rice, Taylor and Waters
Aikman - Irvin, Novacek and Emmitt
Johnny U - I'm not even going to try and pretend I know the players around him this time

All great QB's are going to have a great cast around them, that helped them to there successes, which warrants there name's into the this discussion. But the argument will always be was it the cast around them that made the QB great, or was it the QB that made the cast great.


u put aikman in that and not marino?

Paul
06-10-2007, 09:19 PM
u put aikman in that and not marino?

You see where I put the word successes, to me that means championships and Superbowl rings. Dan Marino great QB, probably one of the best pure passers ever, but the list was list for comparison.

And don't take it like I offended you. Marino could care less if some guy on a NFL forum didn't include him on some list. So you shouldn't be so uptight about it.

reese
06-10-2007, 09:23 PM
i wasnt uptight...i just wondered y....and marino having the competitive nature that he does...it just might bother him...lol..oh yea and ring or no ring...marino's career was very sucessfull

neko4
06-10-2007, 09:26 PM
Johnny U had Raymond Berry and Lenny Moore.
Two HOFers
But you can make a case that anyone of the other top QB's had two HOFers aside from Favre
Though Sterling couldve had he played longer

neko4
06-10-2007, 09:27 PM
all those are good...but is what u just said really enuf to make him the single best qb ever?

Yes. It was how well he did them. Quality>Quanity

49ersfan_87
06-10-2007, 09:34 PM
He always had Rice to throw to
TOugh life

What about that year rice missed 13 games?

reese
06-10-2007, 09:34 PM
my top 3 is

1. marino
2. elway
3. favre

those guys i think in any system on any team and in any era would be the best

manning, when he is done will be up close to the top but he isnt there yet...if he is pressured alot he screws up...marino while not being able to run had a great pocket presence that manning doesnt have...favre & elway= playmakers...they put up numbers...they are leaders...they lead comebacks...those 3 are hands down the best to me....i leave montana out only becuz i dont think that he would be who he is had it not been for the situation he played in...look at it this way...put my 3 in montana's shoes..do they win those 4 super bowls? i think yes....put montana in any of there shoes and would he have had the careers that they did? i dont think so..but thats just my humble opinion

neko4
06-10-2007, 09:38 PM
What about that year rice missed 13 games?

he made the pro bowl, but nothing spectacular
19TD's
barely 3000yds
And they didnt go to the SB that year either

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
06-10-2007, 10:59 PM
The way I see it is: In 20 years, the mainstream will view Peyton Manning as the best QB ever, unless someone soon proves to be better(*cough*Cutler*cough*),simply because less and less people will be around to have seen the others. It's the same with Unitas, what percentage of football fans really remembers seeing him play? Probably not a whole lot. To a lot of them, I'm sure he is the best ever. It's like the NBA GOAT situation. Ask almost anyone, it's MJ. But a lot of older people who saw Wilt play would disagree. But since there aren't a lot of people except old curmudgeons who saw him play, most people ignore them. By the time I'm middle aged, LeBron will probly be the "best ever" and when my kids are middle aged, it will be whoever the next great player is. It just goes with the times, and who people have seen recently.

SenorGato
06-11-2007, 12:13 AM
The way I see it is: In 20 years, the mainstream will view Peyton Manning as the best QB ever, unless someone soon proves to be better(*cough*Cutler*cough*),simply because less and less people will be around to have seen the others. It's the same with Unitas, what percentage of football fans really remembers seeing him play? Probably not a whole lot. To a lot of them, I'm sure he is the best ever. It's like the NBA GOAT situation. Ask almost anyone, it's MJ. But a lot of older people who saw Wilt play would disagree. But since there aren't a lot of people except old curmudgeons who saw him play, most people ignore them. By the time I'm middle aged, LeBron will probly be the "best ever" and when my kids are middle aged, it will be whoever the next great player is. It just goes with the times, and who people have seen recently.

Exactly.

Football is just "that sport." Stats only bring a guy into the argument, but people tend to highly value aura/team success/leadership ability etc. Why? Because football is so team oriented you very rarely find a all time great on a bad team, like you would in baseball or something.

Paul
06-11-2007, 12:22 AM
Nice post Chris.

But this brings up a question I always had. The other primary sports all have one significant legendary figure. Someone who's name, when uttered is instantly recognizable by hardcore sports fans and and non-sport fans alike. They are Icons who epitomize the essence of there sport. You mention the sport and there name coinsides with. And vice-versa. For basketball it is Jordan, baseball it's Babe Ruth, and NHL it's Gretzky. Does football have this one significant figure? Or is football to much of a team sport to even narrow it down just to one guy? Just something I always thought about.

And for what it's worth I think it's would Vince Lombardi.

Ewing
06-11-2007, 09:39 PM
Nice post Chris.

But this brings up a question I always had. The other primary sports all have one significant legendary figure. Someone who's name, when uttered is instantly recognizable by hardcore sports fans and and non-sport fans alike. They are Icons who epitomize the essence of there sport. You mention the sport and there name coinsides with. And vice-versa. For basketball it is Jordan, baseball it's Babe Ruth, and NHL it's Gretzky. Does football have this one significant figure? Or is football to much of a team sport to even narrow it down just to one guy? Just something I always thought about.

And for what it's worth I think it's would Vince Lombardi.

Jim Brown. He's the greatest player of all-time and dominated the game like no other. Plus, he retired early which adds to his mystique and he crossed over into movies which made him even more popular.

Raiderz4Life
06-11-2007, 10:13 PM
Nice post Chris.

But this brings up a question I always had. The other primary sports all have one significant legendary figure. Someone who's name, when uttered is instantly recognizable by hardcore sports fans and and non-sport fans alike. They are Icons who epitomize the essence of there sport. You mention the sport and there name coinsides with. And vice-versa. For basketball it is Jordan, baseball it's Babe Ruth, and NHL it's Gretzky. Does football have this one significant figure? Or is football to much of a team sport to even narrow it down just to one guy? Just something I always thought about.

And for what it's worth I think it's would Vince Lombardi.

I would say OJ Simpson, even though people recognize him for something negative instead of his NFL greatness.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
06-11-2007, 10:20 PM
You could probably list an insane amount of names who would instantly trigger "NFL" in someone's head.

Montana
Deion
Elway
Marino
Rice
Cutler
Unitas
etc.

And I've held the belief for a while now that football is THE ultimate team sport. Think about it, on every single play, everyone has to do exactly what they're supposed to do. Every lineman has to block, the receivers need to run the right routes, even ones who wont get the ball, in order to draw the defense away and stuff. Even QBs need to get the ball to the right spot, RBs have to find the hole, pick up blitzes, etc. On D, if one DL isnt pulling his weight, that's a big hole to run through, and on pass plays they dont need to devote 2 blockers to the guy. If linebackers arent in their gaps or in the right coverage, you're screwed. DBs need to cover, or it's aTD.

Compare to hockey: A team can be playing the worst hockey imaginable, but they might win because their goalie is playing like a man possessed and they got a lucky bounce.

Baseball: Pitchers can dominate a game, even a hitter can by dictating the kinds of pitches the people hitting around him get.

Basketball: The Cavs made the finals with such starters as Larry Hughes and Zydrunas Ilgauskas.

Paul
06-11-2007, 10:22 PM
You could probably list an insane amount of names who would instantly trigger "NFL" in someone's head.

Montana
Deion
Elway
Marino
Rice
Cutler
Unitas
etc.

;) *shakes head*

Dam8610
06-11-2007, 11:35 PM
It's unfair to both Unitas and the players of this generation to compare them to each other. They don't even play the same game. Yeah, it's football, but the game has evolved to the point that it is completely different than it was in Unitas's era. It can be fun to compare players from different eras for arguments sake, but in reality there is really no way to definitively say a guy like Unitas was any better than Montana or Marino. Or even Drew Bledsoe, for that matter. I'd imagine that a guy like Carson Palmer would be completely unstoppable if he had played in the '60s. But that's just my imagination. In the realm of reality, there's really no basis for a meaningful comparison.

I understand what you're saying, but we were asked to choose the best QB of the bunch. In my estimation, the best way to compare players is to compare their performance to the average performance of the players of their generation. In that regard, Unitas is vastly superior to the others in my opinion, as he was 2 generations ahead of his time, and brought innovations such as the no huddle offense, the audible, and the 2 minute drill to the game, and was on the winning end of what is called by most NFL historians "The Greatest Game Ever Played", the 1958 NFL Championship, which is credited for putting the NFL "on the map" nationally.

Bradshaw deserves at least top ten. HE WON 4! SUPERBOWLS! Lets see if Manning can ever get close to that

He won 4 Super Bowls? Don't make me laugh. The Steel Curtain won 4 Super Bowls and took Terry Bradshaw along for the ride. Winning a championship is a TEAM accomplishment, not an INDIVIDUAL accomplishment for which the QB is solely responsible, as far too much of the populus of the NFL fanbase seems to think.

BlindSite
06-11-2007, 11:51 PM
Peyton Manning, he's smarter and a better passer than any of those above him, sure the others were great in their own right, but I'm one of the few who believe Manning is the best of all time at his position.

Oaktown1981
06-12-2007, 12:09 AM
Right now Montana but Elway was a very close 2nd. But when Manning is done with football there is no doubt in my mind he will be the best QB to ever play the game.

johbur
06-12-2007, 12:23 AM
From that list, I'd take Unitas. Off the list, there's Otto Graham from the classics. Due to durability, and not having to worry about a position for 16 or so years, I'd still take Favre.

Paul
06-12-2007, 09:55 AM
it's somewhat annoying how often this garbage is repeated. how long has manning had harrison? how long did montana/young have rice? how long did elway have sharpe? i mean, gosh, sterling sharpe played in green bay, so favre must've played with hall of fame talent his entire career so it's totally ok to mention that in the same sentence that we talk about how manning has had harrison. i don't buy that supporting cast is an end-all, be-all here, but it's completely dishonest to present it in this way.

I don't see where your going or how your annoyed by my statement. If you read some of the post before that post, people were downplaying Montana's and Young's successes and accomplishments, because of Rice and Taylor, and the players around them. I was simply putting into perspective that all great QB's have a cast and team that helped them accomplish some of the things they did. So they shouldn't take away anything from Montana and Young.

neko4
06-12-2007, 10:12 AM
it's somewhat disgusting to me that, at this point in manning's career, he's beating anyone on that list, let alone unitas. but then i remember that most people on this board are 15-17.

Please dont bunch all of us 15 year olds with the Manning lovers
But I completly agree though, no one is thinking outside the 21st century

Shiver
06-12-2007, 11:00 AM
I didn't vote for Manning, yet I'm in njx's demographic for Manning voters...

Ewing
06-12-2007, 11:34 AM
Peyton Manning, he's smarter and a better passer than any of those above him, sure the others were great in their own right, but I'm one of the few who believe Manning is the best of all time at his position.

I don't know what's worse; your overrating of the Panthers or your overrating of Manning.

neko4
06-12-2007, 11:41 AM
Peyton Manning, he's smarter and a better passer than any of those above him, sure the others were great in their own right, but I'm one of the few who believe Manning is the best of all time at his position.

Montana had to be the smartest QB ever.
And Unitas threw for 40,000 yards in a daywhere 25,000 was big deal

From that list, I'd take Unitas. Off the list, there's Otto Graham from the classics. Due to durability, and not having to worry about a position for 16 or so years, I'd still take Favre.

Huray another Otto Graham fan

neko4
06-12-2007, 11:42 AM
http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10391
Redirect attention to here

neko4
06-12-2007, 02:54 PM
that's because you actually think outside of the sportscenter/madden/lack of hindsight box. as much as ea might disagree with that.

In other words he has brain

BlindSite
06-12-2007, 06:11 PM
that's because you actually think outside of the sportscenter/madden/lack of hindsight box. as much as ea might disagree with that.

I don't know whats worse, the old school lovers who think players like Unitas, Montana, Elway and the like have no weaknesses and can't possible be bettered by players in the modern day or the madden/sportscentre crowd as you dubbed everyone, using a gross generalisation, I might add.

JK17
06-12-2007, 06:14 PM
I don't know whats worse, the old school lovers who think players like Unitas, Montana, Elway and the like have no weaknesses and can't possible be bettered by players in the modern day or the madden/sportscentre crowd as you dubbed everyone, using a gross generalisation, I might add.

I don't think anyone would say Unitas, Montana, Elway have no weaknesses and can't be passed by any of the "modern day" players. At this point in their careers though if you think players such as Tom Brady and Peyton Manning have surpassed them, you really have no respect for history of the game. They had flaws, but their accomplishments in their respective eras outshined anything that Manning, Brady, etc. have accomplished. It's not as much a generalization then a truth, that the people who view manning as a better QB are those more heavily influenced by the modern media and madden games. They would have to be, as few people who have seen the others play/reserached enough about them, would agree with that sentiment.

And I would say those people are worse.

badgerbacker
06-12-2007, 09:16 PM
the ONLY things you've supported him with so far are that he's a great passer and really smart.
I'm not going to say Manning is the best QB of all time as of now, but those are two pretty important factors with quarterbacks...

badgerbacker
06-12-2007, 09:25 PM
For the record, I voted Elway. His ability to carry his team on his back to Superbowls that those Broncos had no business being in is what did it for me. I do however feel that Manning is the best passer of all-time, slightly edging Marino. However, while I don't agree with it, I can understand how somebody could say that the best passer is the best QB if that is the measurement they are using.

Dam8610
06-12-2007, 10:39 PM
in all honesty? because listing rod smith/john elway next to steve young/jerry rice or peyton manning/marvin harrison is ridiculous and yet people constantly repeat that elway had davis/mccaffrey/smith as if they were in denver for elway's entire career, instead of just at the very end of it. elway/anyone is in no way whatsoever comparable to manning/harrison or even most of the other players you listed.

He had Smith and McCaffery for 5 years, Sharpe for 10, and prior to that (even by your own admission), Elway wasn't that great of a numbers QB, and as for your claims of "willing" teams to Super Bowls, it's a team sport, and 2 of those 3 teams had great defenses, while the other was there as a result of "The Drive", which admittedly was a great moment in Elway's career, but all the other guys you mentioned there have similar moments in their respective careers as well.

dan marino is the only other all time great nfl quarterback who had as little talent early in his career (although marino continued to have no talent on that offense later in his career as well).

The Marks Brothers? Duper and Clayton were a pretty good duo. He didn't have a running game, but he had two Pro Bowl caliber WRs for nearly his entire first decade in the NFL.

BlindSite
06-12-2007, 11:02 PM
You're going to penalise manning for having a good supporting cast. Awesome argument there.

neko4
06-13-2007, 12:16 AM
The Marks Brothers? Duper and Clayton were a pretty good duo. He didn't have a running game, but he had two Pro Bowl caliber WRs for nearly his entire first decade in the NFL.

Duper and Clayton are two Reggie Waynes, now lets do some math

Duper+Clayton<Harrison+Wayne
or
Harrison+Wayne>Duper+Clayton

Dam8610
06-13-2007, 12:17 AM
wow! five whole years! at the end of his career! *yawn*

During his best production seasons. Do you not see the corrolation there?

and shannon sharpe for two ineffective years, then 7 productive ones (elway had him for 9 seasons, not 10)? wow. so for 7/16 years he had a receiver? gosh. yeah, i should just shut up. clearly he played with comparable talent to manning.

He clearly had comparable numbers to Manning as well. :rolleyes: Again, note when Elway had great production. You really don't see the corrolation between Sharpe, McCaffery, and Smith, and Elway's best performance? You must be blind if that's the case.

but yeah, it was that DEFENSE that brought the team back from a 21-6 deficit against houston in 1992?

I didn't realize that got them to the Super Bowl. If you want a great comeback from each of the other QB's respective careers, I'm sure you could easily find that information.

it was the DEFENSE that engineered the most 4th quarter comebacks of any QB ever at the time he retired? are you bloody insane?

When did I say Elway was not a great QB? All I'm saying is you, like a lot of other people, put far too much into certain QBs' respective supporting casts. The best case for why it's far less relevant than a lot of people seem to think is Terry Bradshaw. John Stallworth, Lynn Swann, and Franco Harris for basically his whole career, and he barely threw for 25000 yards and had only 2 more TDs than INTs. You'd think with 2 HOF WRs and a great RB, any QB could put up better numbers than that, but Bradshaw is proof to the contrary.

how many 4th quarter comebacks does peyton have in the playoffs? it's a simple question, but i'm sure you'll try to dodge it anyways.

One, as seen being capped off here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCDRHPiTwB4). Of course, that doesn't count the two times Mike Vanderjagt blew games for him, but I'm sure that's more than you thought.

i don't recall saying anything about elway's numbers, however, it's interesting to me that manning gets praised for having great numbers with a hall of fame wideout who's been there for his entire career and elway gets dumped on for putting up some great lifetime numbers in spite of not having had anything vaguely resembling a top receiver for the vast majority of his career.

Supporting cast, while important, isn't as important as you're making it out to be. If it were Terry Bradshaw would probably be considered the best QB ever. That said, Steve Watson seemed to have a couple good seasons early on in Elway's career, and if you notice, as Elway's supporting cast improved, so did his numbers. Obviously if a player has better players around them, their performance will improve, but it's not something that can turn a bad QB into a great one, and if you look at Peyton Manning's numbers, you'll see that while he has a great supporting cast, he also unbelieveable career averages. His average season in terms of yardage and TDs, for example, is 4176 and 31. How many QBs in NFL history even come close to that?

yeah... a combined 9 1000 yard seasons out of a possible 21 seasons with the most prolific quarterback in nfl history? hot. a combined 6 10+ td seasons playing with the all time td pass leader? wow. yeah, these dudes were clearly the force behind marino's talent. they're very comparable to harrison (6 straight 1000 yard seasons) and wayne (3 straight) and a combine 9/17. i can definitely see how they're worth including in this discussion.

Duper missed 7, 5, 4, and 3 games in various seasons, and Clayton missed 6, 4, and 3 games in seperate seasons and played one season in GB, Whereas Harrison has missed 4 games in one season with Peyton Manning (Manning's rookie year), and Wayne has missed 3 games in his career. Still, 9/21 (counting Clayton's season in GB) vs. 9/17 and 8 Pro Bowls vs. 9 Pro Bowls. There's not a ton of difference there. Why do you want to take away from what Manning has done so badly? He's a great QB, and if he continues on his current paces, there's going to be a very strong case for him at the end of his career as the best QB ever.

Dam8610
06-13-2007, 12:23 AM
at least you responded to the full argument. awesome. manning had a superior supporting cast and still consistently chokes in the playoffs. elway took an awful supporting cast and WILLED them to the super bowl. you clearly don't belong in this discussion.

Yeah, that #1 scoring defense in 1989 sure was awful. Same goes for that #7 scoring defense in 1987. I guess you could say Elway "willed" the 1986 Broncos to the Super Bowl, but then you'd have to be willing to admit that Peyton Manning "willed" the 2006 Colts to the Super Bowl.

BlindSite
06-13-2007, 05:01 AM
at least you responded to the full argument. awesome. manning had a superior supporting cast and still consistently chokes in the playoffs. elway took an awful supporting cast and WILLED them to the super bowl. you clearly don't belong in this discussion.

Consistently chokes in the playoffs, last I checked he's got something on his finger that says otherwise? 25/38 for 247 yards and 1td and 1 INT is pretty good against the bears.

He's also on track to kill montana's career statistics with his own and will be ahead of him in yards and TDs and completion percentage by this time next year.

He just needs time, when he's finished he'll have all the records and he'll have a superbowl ring, what more can you ask for? He hasn't had to WILL a team to victory like you think Elway did.

Which is BS anyway, did he block for elway as well as catch passes for elway? It was a team effort, not all Elway, he made a lot of great plays and was a pivotal part, but that's what he was, part of a team. So lets not get to sounding like a homer and screaming he willed a team to do anything.

awfullyquiet
06-13-2007, 05:17 AM
Consistently chokes in the playoffs, last I checked he's got something on his finger that says otherwise? 25/38 for 247 yards and 1td and 1 INT is pretty good against the bears.

He's also on track to kill montana's career statistics with his own and will be ahead of him in yards and TDs and completion percentage by this time next year.

He just needs time, when he's finished he'll have all the records and he'll have a superbowl ring, what more can you ask for? He hasn't had to WILL a team to victory like you think Elway did.

Which is BS anyway, did he block for elway as well as catch passes for elway? It was a team effort, not all Elway, he made a lot of great plays and was a pivotal part, but that's what he was, part of a team. So lets not get to sounding like a homer and screaming he willed a team to do anything.

wait wait. njx wasn't talking the superbowl
consistantly over the past four years in the playoffs
think about that.
every time vs the pats.
how about the game vs the ravens this year?
he has lackluster games during the post season.

elway, johnny u. either or. i had a hard time choosing.
but for the love of god. peyton manning doesn't have anything on them.
elway made productive receivers. marino made productive receivers.
i don't think manning or montana can really claim that. montana was great, but bill walsh was greater.

Dam8610
06-13-2007, 05:32 AM
every time vs the pats.

Really? (http://www.superbowl.com/gamecenter/live/NFL_20070121_NE@IND)

how about the game vs the ravens this year?

He threw 2 INTs, had a TD dropped by Moorehead, but made the big plays that were needed to get the Colts in FG range and score enough points to get the job done against the #1 scoring defense (by a WIDE margin) in the NFL. Most people would agree that any other QB wouldn't have even done that well against the Ravens' defense the way they played that day.

he has lackluster games during the post season.

I can think of 1, but you're welcome to provide examples other than the 2003 AFC Championship game if you'd like.

elway, johnny u. either or. i had a hard time choosing.
but for the love of god. peyton manning doesn't have anything on them.

Do you have a reason for this, or is this something you expect to be taken as unquestionable fact, when in reality, it's merely your opinion?

elway made productive receivers. marino made productive receivers. i don't think manning or montana can really claim that.

You should really look at Harrison, Pollard, and Stokely prior to having Manning as their QB, and having Manning as their QB. He just about doubled each of their production levels. But you're right, Elway and Marino are the only ones that can make a WR. :rolleyes:

duckseason
06-13-2007, 07:00 AM
You should really look at Harrison, Pollard, and Stokely prior to having Manning as their QB, and having Manning as their QB. He just about doubled each of their production levels. But you're right, Elway and Marino are the only ones that can make a WR.
Wow. So how do you explain your persistent claim that Marvin is the best WR in the game?
Gotta love how people craft their posts to put as much weight as possible behind their argument, while ignoring the fact that they are talking outta both sides of their neck at the same time. Sadly, what was originally an effort to come up with a strong argument backfires into a loss of credibility. Get your story straight.

Paranoidmoonduck
06-13-2007, 07:11 AM
I don't think that Manning has a leg up on any of these gentlemen at this point in time. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to see him be widely considered the all-time great by the time he hangs up the cleats, but what exactly would make him better than Montana right now?

3 less Superbowls, 2 more touchdowns, and substantially less impressive rushing stats? Come on now.

As for Elway and Unitas, that is another matter. Unitas is tough, because the two eras really aren't comparable. No one can deny what he meant to the game, but it is terribly difficult to place him in any sort of quarterback ranking. Elway, while a very good quarterback who ended his career like a storybook, has little basis to say that he was better than Manning. The first 10 seasons of his career were underwhelming to say the least, and while the next 6 were impressive (especially considering his age), they don't completely wipe away what was a very mediocre career before he turned the age of 32.

Montana is better, Elway is a bit overrated, and Unitas is from another time.

Dam8610
06-13-2007, 07:35 AM
what the bloody hell are you talking about? 1993 was elway's most productive year. rod smith was not on the team. terrell davis was not on the team. mike shanahan was not on the team. but yeah, the immortal derek russell at wr. awesome.

1995-1998 is by far the best run of Elway's career. I agree that 1993 was his best year (he did have Sharpe at the time though), but the other 4 of his 5 best years came with all of those players I mentioned. That's my point.

i'm waiting for the actual counter argument here. "manning has amazing passing numbers OMFG!!!!!1" is a worthless argument. i'm telling you why. "but elway had rod smith and shannon sharpe" is a worthless argument. i'm telling you why. but gosh. yeah. too bad elway didn't have them in the actual prime of his career so we could just ignore the numbers argument as well. it'd be much easier than dealing with this "but omg manning will break records" garbage.

They're not worthless arguments, because the fact that Manning puts up unbelieveable numbers is proof that he's a great QB (my argument, I'm certainly not arguing that he's the greatest at this point), and the fact that Elway had 4 of his 5 best years with Smith, McCaffery and Sharpe is proof that Elway had most of his best years with a great supporting cast.

a? as in one? elway consistently did it with worse talent than any modern qb you'd like to offer up, period.

One to match the one you provided. Manning has something in the neighborhood of 30 4th quarter comebacks in his career, including making up 21 points on the road against the defending champs in 4 minutes, and I'm not sure how many Montana has, but based on his reputation, I'd say he has quite a few more than one as well.

*shrug* i think terry bradshaw was trent dilfer with a better offense, but that's neither here nor there. i'm NOT putting too much stock in a qb's supporting cast. i'm ticked off because someone mentioned rod smith next to elway as if it were at all similar to marvin harrison and peyton manning. i'm further ticked off because people think that, at this point in his career, peyton manning has any vague claim at best ever.

I can't really disagree with any of that.

finally! someone stopped dodging the question! figures it would be a colts fan who's actually watched peyton instead of a panthers fan who likely hasn't, but whatever. which two games?

The Wild Card Game against the Dolphins in 2000 and the Divisional Game against the Steelers in 2005. Manning put the Colts in position to win the first and to tie the second, and Vanderjagt missed both FGs horribly.

dan marino is pretty close with almost nothing worth throwing to. again, my entire argument does NOT hinge on supporting cast. but it's massively annoying when people act as though elway's or marino's numbers are comparable to peyton's. i'm not looking at quarterbacks solely through a statistical filter (as many of the peyton supporters seem to be doing) because it's clearly a worthless argument on its own.

3609 yards and 25 TDs are Marino's averages, 3759 yards and 26 TDs if you take out 1993, in which he only played 5 games. Still, he's about 400 yards and 5 TDs short per year, and he had the Marks brothers for a decade. Obviously there is more to a QB than simply statistics, but the point I was trying to make there was that Manning's numbers are amazing regardless of supporting cast. He has more than just numbers in his favor (for making the case that he is a great QB), as I'm sure you know, but I think that the ridiculously high averages Manning puts up show that while he has a great supporting cast, he also makes the most out of them, which is part of what a great QB does.

i'm taking nothing away, and if nothing changes in the next 5-6 years, i will be right there talking about peyton in the top 3. but a ninth year vet has absolutely no business whatsoever in this discussion. it strikes me as talking about larry fitzgerald as one of the best wr's ever. while it may end up being true, it's completely ridiculous to bring it up this early, and it's even worse that anyone agrees with it. again. in 5 or 6 years? sure. if his production doesn't drop too badly, i'm all in for revisiting this.

I see your point, and I agree. He's not there yet, and I've said that even on this thread. That said, I don't think a very strong case could be made for him being any less than a Top 10 QB at this point, and that's a feat in itself considering he hasn't even played a decade in the NFL yet.

Wow. So how do you explain your persistent claim that Marvin is the best WR in the game?
Gotta love how people craft their posts to put as much weight as possible behind their argument, while ignoring the fact that they are talking outta both sides of their neck at the same time. Sadly, what was originally an effort to come up with a strong argument backfires into a loss of credibility. Get your story straight.

Loss of credibility? When have I not claimed that Manning and Harrison help each other? Of course, that means that Manning makes Harrison better, and Harrison makes Manning better, both of which are true. It's the same with Montana/Young and Rice. When you have great players playing together, they make each other better.

BlindSite
06-13-2007, 07:45 AM
so you pointed out one OK game? christ, you really don't belong in this discussion.

I must have missed him being benched during the other playoff games, like against the scrub team, new england.


hot! who cares? that's not what we're talking about, but since you were losing the playoff performance argument, you decided to switch up. killer.

I'm losing an argument about playoff ability when he's won a superbowl? Go to dictionary.com and search for "logic" your argument is severely lacking in it.

Oh and as for "who cares" it adds weight to my argument, the fact that if he is the best, he'll be among the best statistically years ahead of the people I'm saying he's better than.


oh, right. that's why he has ONE super bowl ring, right? because he didn't really want to win the other years, so he didn't put the team on his back.

You expect him to play cornerback and linebacker? Last time I checked Elway didn't play either of those positions either, or are you really going to grasp at straws and try to say that Indianapolis has had a championship defense every year previous to this one?


what the hell does that have to do with anything? why on bloody planet earth would you think peyton should blockor receive for elway? what the hell are you talking about? further, you did NOT watch those games. you have NO idea what you're talking about in regards to elway. so stop talking about it. he put the team on his back against the browns and oilers (for two examples) and made them win. period.
Elway helped them win with excellent personal performances, but that's not to say that he's made more of a contribution to the Broncos overall than Peyton has made to Indianapolis.

For you to even make sense in this vein of argument you'd need to flatly come out and say "Peyton has not done anything any other QB couldn't have done" because right now, no QB in the NFL means more to their team than Peyton Manning. I'd say, he's comparable to Elway in that facet.


look, i'm sick of this. don't bother posting again until you have something worth saying to put up. dam at least knows something about the colts. you have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. your arguments are terrible. the structure of your argument is terrible. the information you present is terrible. i'm sick of it.

I'm terrible, at least I type legibly and use correct punctuation. Furthermore, the substance of my arguments is apt, its accurate and its correct, yours on the other hand have just been typing in big letters "FACT" where your opinion is inserted, then declaring yourself victorious. I'm yet to see any reason Elway's better than Manning...

duckseason
06-13-2007, 07:50 AM
Loss of credibility? When have I not claimed that Manning and Harrison help each other? Of course, that means that Manning makes Harrison better, and Harrison makes Manning better, both of which are true. It's the same with Montana/Young and Rice. When you have great players playing together, they make each other better.
By saying that Manning "makes" Harrison what he is, you're saying that Harrison is far from being the best WR in the game. The fact that you've previously stated that Marvin is the best in the game would make this a contradiction.

Of course they help each other. That's the way it works in football. Which is why it's ridiculous to say that Manning "doubled" Harrison's production level. Like I said, you're double talking in an attempt to strengthen your argument. The end result is a much weaker argument and a loss of credibility. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that.


You should really look at Harrison, Pollard, and Stokely prior to having Manning as their QB, and having Manning as their QB. He just about doubled each of their production levels. But you're right, Elway and Marino are the only ones that can make a WR.

Dam8610
06-13-2007, 07:58 AM
By saying that Manning "makes" Harrison what he is, you're saying that Harrison is far from being the best WR in the game. The fact that you've previously stated that Marvin is the best in the game would make this a contradiction.

Of course they help each other. That's the way it works in football. Which is why it's ridiculous to say that Manning "doubled" Harrison's production level. Like I said, you're double talking in an attempt to strengthen your argument. The end result is a much weaker argument and a loss of credibility. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

I never said Manning "makes" Harrison, but the fact is, Harrison's production levels have nearly doubled since Manning's arrival in Indianapolis. Does that mean any WR could consistently perform on the same level Marvin does given the same oppurtunity? No. That simply means that Marvin's production level has nearly doubled with Peyton Manning throwing to him, as opposed to other QBs throwing to him, which, at least in some small part, has to be a result of having Peyton Manning throwing the ball to him.

duckseason
06-13-2007, 08:36 AM
I never said Manning "makes" Harrison, but the fact is, Harrison's production levels have nearly doubled since Manning's arrival in Indianapolis. Does that mean any WR could consistently perform on the same level Marvin does given the same oppurtunity? No. That simply means that Marvin's production level has nearly doubled with Peyton Manning throwing to him, as opposed to other QBs throwing to him, which, at least in some small part, has to be a result of having Peyton Manning throwing the ball to him.

So re-word your post. Like I said, you overstated Manning's impact on the Colts' receivers in order to strengthen your argument. You DID imply that Manning somehow makes Harrison what he is, and you did in fact say that Manning just about doubled Harrison's production.

Dam8610
06-13-2007, 08:42 AM
Like I said, you overstated Manning's impact on the Colts' receivers in order to strengthen your argument.

I did no more overstating of my argument than awfullyquiet did of his argument. Do you really think Duper, Clayton, Sharpe, and/or Smith would've been nothing without Elway/Marino? I certainly don't.

duckseason
06-13-2007, 08:55 AM
I did no more overstating of my argument than awfullyquiet did of his argument. Do you really think Duper, Clayton, Sharpe, and/or Smith would've been nothing without Elway/Marino? I certainly don't.

I disagree. She didn't say anything about those guys. She merely stated that Marino and Elway made productive WR's, and then questioned whether Montana and Manning did the same. While I think that was a blanket statement that I don't necessarily agree with, at least she didn't contradict herself.

I chose to specifically respond to you because I thought it was odd that you would make such a post. My BS-dar was sending an amber alert to my temple. I've seen you talk about how Marvin is the best WR in the game, and then here I was reading a post written by you, that was grossly minimizing Harrison's talents in an effort to boost your argument about Manning.

Dam8610
06-13-2007, 09:14 AM
I disagree. She didn't say anything about those guys. She merely stated that Marino and Elway made productive WR's, and then questioned whether Montana and Manning did the same. While I think that was a blanket statement that I don't necessarily agree with, at least she didn't contradict herself.

In stating such, she implied that those players would not have been good without their respective QBs.

I chose to specifically respond to you because I thought it was odd that you would make such a post. My BS-dar was sending an amber alert to my temple. I've seen you talk about how Marvin is the best WR in the game, and then here I was reading a post written by you, that was grossly minimizing Harrison's talents in an effort to boost your argument about Manning.

It's all a poor wording choice basically. If I'd said "Each of those 3 has seen their production level nearly double while playing with Manning" instead of "He just about doubled each of their production levels", that would likely have better conveyed my point. That said, I don't think any player "makes" any other player. If that's your mentality though, it is difficult to argue against Manning "making" receivers when he has played with 3 pass catchers (Harrison, Pollard, Stokley) who had NFL careers prior to playing with him, and while playing with him as opposed to prior to doing so, their production levels at least nearly doubled (more than doubled in the cases of Stokley and Pollard). I do believe that Manning did improve the performance and hence production of all 3 of those players though.

yourfavestoner
06-14-2007, 01:47 AM
John Elway played on a team that was coached and run by Dan Reeves and was still successful. 'Nuff said.

duckseason
06-14-2007, 04:20 AM
It's all a poor wording choice basically.
Exactly my point. Your choice of words was geared towards trumping up your homer-centric Manning argument. I'm glad to see that you recognize that fact. Hopefully you'll refrain from making such farcical statements in the future.

If I'd said "Each of those 3 has seen their production level nearly double while playing with Manning" instead of "He just about doubled each of their production levels", that would likely have better conveyed my point.
I still would have responded to you if you in any way implied that Manning deserved the majority of the credit for Harrison's increased production. If he's the best WR in the game, then he's the best regardless of who his QB is.

That said, I don't think any player "makes" any other player. If that's your mentality though, it is difficult to argue against Manning "making" receivers when he has played with 3 pass catchers (Harrison, Pollard, Stokley) who had NFL careers prior to playing with him, and while playing with him as opposed to prior to doing so, their production levels at least nearly doubled (more than doubled in the cases of Stokley and Pollard). I do believe that Manning did improve the performance and hence production of all 3 of those players though.
Ok. #1, that is not my mentality at all. Don't put words in my mouth. It appears to be your own personal mentality. Don't blame me for your faulty logic. You're the one who said these things.

#2, you still seem to be giving Manning a ton of credit for Harrison's greatness. While I agree that Manning is the primary reason for the Colts success in the passing game, I don't believe that Harrison is the single best WR in the game today. You do. Seems odd for you to claim that Manning plays such a huge role in Harrison's success. Wouldn't Harrison be just as great if he played for the Rams or Cardinals?

My point remains that you are talking out of both sides of your neck. You're going to the extreme to defend both of these players. Manning "makes" his WR's who they are. Yet Harrison is the best WR in the game. The truth lies in the middle. Manning is a great QB, and Harrison is a great WR. Together, they are nearly unstoppable. Although they do both have their flaws. Is Manning the greatest QB ever? I don't think so. I think he has his strengths and weaknesses. I've seen other QB's with lesser weaknesses. Is Harrison the best WR in the game? Not in my opinion. Same with Manning, I think there are a few other players who have lesser weaknesses. They, and the rest of the Colts make for a prolific offense. They are both beneficiaries of playing for the COLTS. And they are a big part of that, as the rest of the team certainly benefits from playing with them too. That is a well crafted team, and it is obvious that management has taken great care to ensure that their players form as cohesive a unit as possible. They don't necessarily go for the best athletes. They seem to go for guys that will fit their team, first and foremost. Manning and Harrison seem to be made for each other. I just don't see how anybody in their right mind can sit there and say that Harrison is the best WR in the game, and also believe that Manning is primarily responsible for the guy's production. You're exaggerating the greatness of both players, and playing them off each other in order to do so. That is what I take issue with. Just keep it real. They are both great players, and as a Colts fan, you should feel lucky to have seen the stars align in much the same way they did in '80s frisco. There is absolutely no need at all to overstate the value of either of them. The numbers they end up posting will do that for them. In other words, it's questionable whether either of them would be in this conversation if it weren't for each other and the team they play for. I know you know this, so just act accordingly.

Dam8610
06-15-2007, 12:01 AM
Exactly my point. Your choice of words was geared towards trumping up your homer-centric Manning argument. I'm glad to see that you recognize that fact. Hopefully you'll refrain from making such farcical statements in the future.

Homer-centric Manning argument? If you honestly believe my argument consists of nothing more than homerism, I'd like you to compile a list of 10 QBs in NFL history that would be regarded as better than Peyton Manning, because that's the only claim I've made about him on this thread.

I still would have responded to you if you in any way implied that Manning deserved the majority of the credit for Harrison's increased production. If he's the best WR in the game, then he's the best regardless of who his QB is.

What you're saying there would imply that QB play makes absolutely no difference in the level of a WR's production, something which you have already stated on this thread is not true. Apparently you can contradict yourself?

Ok. #1, that is not my mentality at all. Don't put words in my mouth. It appears to be your own personal mentality. Don't blame me for your faulty logic. You're the one who said these things.

Actually, it's awfullyquiet's mentality, not mine, and if you'll notice (though you may not notice this, as was your mistake here), I said "If that's your mentality...", because it did appear from your previous statements that that in fact was not the case for you.

#2, you still seem to be giving Manning a ton of credit for Harrison's greatness. While I agree that Manning is the primary reason for the Colts success in the passing game, I don't believe that Harrison is the single best WR in the game today. You do. Seems odd for you to claim that Manning plays such a huge role in Harrison's success. Wouldn't Harrison be just as great if he played for the Rams or Cardinals?

Depends on what you mean by "great". Would he still have his amazing route running skills, speed, and ability to make tough catches? Yes. Would CBs still say he's the toughest WR in the NFL to cover? Yes. Would he have the same level of production? I doubt it, because the performance level of the QB would be lesser, and thus his production levels would suffer.

My point remains that you are talking out of both sides of your neck. You're going to the extreme to defend both of these players.

No I'm not, I'm simply stating facts. Do you honestly think that playing with Montana, Young, and Gannon (in his MVP caliber years) didn't help Jerry Rice at all? Do you think he'd have anywhere near the career numbers he has now had he played with Phil Simms, Chris Chandler, and Brad Johnson? Obviously a WR has to be talented to be productive, but having a great QB will always help.

Manning "makes" his WR's who they are.

Who's putting words in whose mouth?

That said, I don't think any player "makes" any other player.

Yet Harrison is the best WR in the game.

Torry Holt is the only WR in the NFL currently that comes close to his consistent production levels (though Holt doesn't catch as many TDs), and the best CBs of the NFL say he's the toughest WR to cover. If you don't agree with my opinion, that's fine, but there's substantial evidence to back it.

Is Manning the greatest QB ever? I don't think so.

Did I say he was? No. Could he be by the end of his career? It's possible.

You're exaggerating the greatness of both players, and playing them off each other in order to do so. That is what I take issue with. Just keep it real. They are both great players, and as a Colts fan, you should feel lucky to have seen the stars align in much the same way they did in '80s frisco. There is absolutely no need at all to overstate the value of either of them. The numbers they end up posting will do that for them. In other words, it's questionable whether either of them would be in this conversation if it weren't for each other and the team they play for. I know you know this, so just act accordingly.

They make each other better. I acknowledge that. Does that mean they aren't great players seperately? No. If you think that playing together is the only reason Manning and Harrison are great players, do you rate Rice lower for playing with Montana, Young, and Gannon, or Montana lower for playing with Rice? You should if you rate Manning and Harrison lower for playing with each other.

duckseason
06-15-2007, 01:32 AM
Wow. It would require far too much of my time to properly respond to all that. I'll just remind you of the post that I originally took issue with-


You should really look at Harrison, Pollard, and Stokely prior to having Manning as their QB, and having Manning as their QB. He just about doubled each of their production levels. But you're right, Elway and Marino are the only ones that can make a WR. :rolleyes:

You said that. I responded. If you'd like to rescind those comments, that's fine.
Otherwise, I stand by everything I've said.

Dam8610
06-15-2007, 02:26 AM
Wow. It would require far too much of my time to properly respond to all that.

Then why bother responding at all? Everything else you said in this post has already been addressed earlier in the thread, so you can go find it if you'd like attempt to continue a circular discussion on that particular comment, but I've already addressed that, so I doubt I'll be continuing any discussion about it.