PDA

View Full Version : Your Top Five Quarterbacks of Each Decade.


Ness
05-14-2011, 01:18 AM
I'll just do 00's and 90's for obvious reasons.

90's:

1. Brett Favre
2. Steve Young
3. John Elway
4. Dan Marino
5. Jim Kelly

I know I left Troy Aikman off the list. And he was a good quarterback for sure. I just thought those guys above him were better as pure passers. I'll probably get flamed for Kelly. So be it.


00's:

1. Tom Brady
2. Peyton Manning
3. Drew Brees
4. Brett Favre
5. Kurt Warner

2000's were kind of difficult. I feel like we really had some megastars during the earlier part of the decade with folks like Rich Gannon, Jeff Garcia, and Steve McNair among others. Towards the second half of the decade it really changed. If I had a sixth spot it's probably go to McNabb. See what you will about him, but during the majority of the 2000's he was a good quarterback.

CJSchneider
05-14-2011, 08:36 AM
80's

Joe Montana
Dan Marino
John Elway
Warren Moon
Phil Simms

Shane P. Hallam
05-14-2011, 09:06 AM
70s:

Staubach
Tarkenton
Bradshaw
Stabler
Griese

jrdrylie
05-14-2011, 09:26 AM
2000s:

1. Peyton Manning
2. Tom Brady
3. Brett Favre
4. Donovan McNabb
5. Drew Brees

The five spot was hard. I thought about going Warner there, but his best season was actually 1999. 2001 was pretty good, and then he was very bad for 5 years.

1990s:

1. Brett Favre
2. Dan Marino
3. Steve Young
4. John Elway
5. Troy Aikman

Jim Kelly, Drew Bledsoe, and Warren Moon just missed out. But Aikman just left a more lasting impression on me than the other three. It doesn't hurt that he has three Super Bowl Rings.

Saints-Tigers
05-14-2011, 12:22 PM
Someone explain why Drew Brees isn't a lock for 3 this decade?

J255979-11nine
05-14-2011, 02:49 PM
Someone explain why Drew Brees isn't a lock for 3 this decade?

Because it was only for half a decade

Saints-Tigers
05-14-2011, 04:41 PM
Because it was only for half a decade

Even if that were true, which it isn't, how many guys have more than 6 elite years, and the ones that do, how close were they to Brees in those 6 years?

Brees' list of accomplishments and statistical feats literally dwarfs 4th best.

McNabb, Favre, Warner, were not better than Brees this decade.

King Carls 5 Year Plan
05-14-2011, 08:50 PM
00's 2000-2009

1) Tom Brady - the very best, period.
2) Peyton Manning - could be 1st fiddle, but Brady stole it from him
3) Drew Brees - very effective once given the chance to start
4) Brett Favre - had some amazing seasons during this time period
5) Donovan McNabb - started all 16 games only 4 times in the decade. only picked him because we're naming top 5. otherwise would have had only 4.

90's 1990-1999

1) Steve Young - efficient and made the most of every opportunity
2) Brett Favre - 3x NFL MVP during this decade
3) Dan Marino - yes, it was the twilight of his career, but he still was the man
4) Warren Moon - dude thrived in the Fun 'N Gun offense that dominated the early '90s
5) John Elway - finally got his much deserved rings

80's 1980-1989

1) Joe Montana - duh. the original Tom Brady. winner
2) Dan Marino - absolute stats hog! deserved at least 1 ring
3) John Elway - took 3 teams to SB during this decade
4) Dan Fouts - was throwing for 4k & 30 TDs before it was in vogue to do so.
5) Phil Simms - pretty consistent and did win 1 SB in the decade along with a SB MVP and a NFL MVP

just missed the list for one reason or another Jim Kelly (came in '86 left '96 and didn't dominate either half decade quite enough to make my list), Troy Aikman (would be #6 in the '90s) and Boomer Esiason (had some big seasons for the competitive Bengals in the mid-late '80s)

FUNBUNCHER
05-15-2011, 01:01 AM
Kelly over Simms for the '80s. That's not even really debatable.

Simms was an at times good QB on great football teams. Kelly was a great QB on teams who couldn't get over in the SB.

There has to be a place for Kelly on the all decade team of the '80s or '90s.

Dam8610
05-15-2011, 06:37 AM
For those other than me ranking the 2000s, I just thought I'd throw the following accomplishments of Peyton Manning out there, all of which occurred in the 2000s:

4 time NFL MVP, most ever, all in the 2000s
Most wins of any QB in any decade (124)
Only QB to throw for over 40,000 yards in a decade (42,254)
Only QB to throw for over 300 TDs in any decade (314)
Only QB to lead a decade in wins, yardage, TDs, and passer rating (no other QB has ever led a decade in two of these categories)

The above five accomplishments are proof positive that if there ever was a decade where the QB position was dominated by a single player, the decade was the 2000s and the player was Peyton Manning.

So, without further ado:

2000s
1) Peyton Manning - See above





2) Tom Brady - Proved he was more than a game manager in the second half of the decade, thus earning the second spot
3) Drew Brees - From the brink of busthood, came back to become one of the most dominant QBs of the 2000s, and brought a championship with him.
4) Donovan McNabb - He was a 6 time Pro Bowler and threw for over 200 TDs in the 2000s.
5) Brett Favre - That he has to be included on two all-decade lists is a testament to his ability

1990s
1) Brett Favre - 3 time NFL MVP was the best QB of the 90s
2) Steve Young - Very close second to Favre
3) Dan Marino - One is left to wonder what could've been for Marino in the 90s had he not been injured so many times
4) John Elway - His best and most productive years came in the 90s, and of course there couldn't be a more storybook ending to a career
5) Troy Aikman - Barely edges out Jim Kelly by virtue of playing the entire decade, making more Pro Bowls in the 90s, and winning the most games of any QB in the 90s.

CJSchneider
05-15-2011, 08:08 AM
60's

Johnny Unitas
Bart Starr
Len Dawson
Joe Namath
George Blanda

King Carls 5 Year Plan
05-15-2011, 11:05 AM
Kelly over Simms for the '80s. That's not even really debatable.

Simms was an at times good QB on great football teams. Kelly was a great QB on teams who couldn't get over in the SB.

There has to be a place for Kelly on the all decade team of the '80s or '90s.

it's plenty debatable, cause it is a matter of opinion. it isn't like anyone said 1+1=3. furthermore, my opinion is based on stats and how i interpret them.
Kellys stats in the '80s:
12,901 yards, 81 TDs, 0 SB appearances
Simms stats in the '80s:
24,492 yards, 143 Tds, 1 SB win, 1 SB MVP, 1 NFL MVP

how could that be a slam dunk for Kelly over Simms? i can see where some pick Kelly because he had a great career, but as i stated in my original post
just missed the list for one reason or another Jim Kelly (came in '86 left '96 and didn't dominate either half decade quite enough to make my list)
this isn't Kellys fault for falling into the middle of 2 different decades. he wasn't near the QB in the 80's that he became in the 90's and if he had more time in the 90's, he easily could have made my list. it's unfortunate for him that the 90's had some GREAT HoF QBs that played alot more time and had brilliant seasons. like i said, he just missed my list.

TheFinisher
05-15-2011, 01:00 PM
00's

1. Tom Brady
2. Peyton Manning
3. Drew Bress
4. Kurt Warner
5. Steve McNair

90's

1. Troy Aikman
2. Steve Young
3. Brett Favre
4. John Elway
5. Warren Moon

80's

1. Joe Montana
2. Dan Marino
3. Jim Kelly
4. Joe Theisman
5. Dan Fouts

70's

1. Terry Bradshaw
2. Roger Staubach
3. Bob Griese
4. Kenny Stabler
5. Fran Tarkenton

Jimmy
05-15-2011, 02:46 PM
2010's

1. Andrew Luck
2. Peyton Manning
3. Tom Brady
4. Matt Ryan
5. Matt Stafford

Saints-Tigers
05-15-2011, 04:33 PM
King Carl, Simms was not NFL MVP. He was Pro bowl MVP in 1 of his 2 appearances though.

NIN1984
05-15-2011, 04:43 PM
2010's

1. Andrew Luck
2. Peyton Manning
3. Tom Brady
4. Matt Ryan
5. Matt Stafford

I would put Josh Freeman on that list for sure.

Cudders
05-15-2011, 05:41 PM
For those other than me ranking the 2000s, I just thought I'd throw the following accomplishments of Peyton Manning out there, all of which occurred in the 2000s:

4 time NFL MVP, most ever, all in the 2000s
Most wins of any QB in any decade (124)
Only QB to throw for over 40,000 yards in a decade (42,254)
Only QB to throw for over 300 TDs in any decade (314)
Only QB to lead a decade in wins, yardage, TDs, and passer rating (no other QB has ever led a decade in two of these categories)

The above five accomplishments are proof positive that if there ever was a decade where the QB position was dominated by a single player, the decade was the 2000s and the player was Peyton Manning.

So, without further ado:

2000s
1) Peyton Manning - See above





2) Tom Brady - Proved he was more than a game manager in the second half of the decade, thus earning the second spot

Proof positive? Of what? No one debates Manning's impressive statistical credentials. It's no secret that he'll own most passing records before he retires and gets enshrined in Canton. If we're measuring and ranking these quarterbacks based purely on a quantitative basis, then Manning deserves the top spot considering he has Brady beat in most categories. Except in, you know, the only ledger that really matters in NFL circles. In that regard, Brady has the edge on Manning three to one.

Furthermore, if the spacing was an attempt to tier the rankings, then there isn't a rational justification for that kind of gap. I can at least see the argument for Manning over Brady. I can't see that big of a difference either way. And Brady was hardly a game-manager for New England's first two Super Bowl wins. He was a true field general. Game-managers coordinate a supremely talented supporting cast and ride them all the way to the finish line. Brady didn't have playmakers on the offensive side of the ball during those runs. He had pieces like Antowain Smith, Troy Brown, David Patten, Jermaine Wiggins, Deion Branch, David Givens, Christian Fauria, and Daniel Graham to work with. Not one of those pass-catchers comes close to striking fear in an NFL defensive coordinator. Not one. Yet Brady still elevated their play to, at the very least, a respectable level.

More to the point of the thread, here is my list for the best of the 2000's, since it is the decade I feel most comfortable ranking.

1.) Tom Brady - The quarterback and captain of the only team to win three rings during the decade. Thrived in three distinct offensive systems and often shined his brightest on the biggest stages.

2.) Peyton Manning - The most prolific passer in the NFL and a rare student of the game. In-depth understanding of defenses that rivals most coordinators. Lackluster postseason performances keep him from being number one.

3.) Drew Brees - The signal-caller that sometimes gets lost in the shuffle despite flirting with that elite tier over the past few seasons. An invaluable component of the Saints' explosive offense after getting off to a slow start at the beginning of the decade.

4.) Brett Favre - It's easy to remember all the playoff disasters and the ugly finish, but Favre played the entire decade and put together more quality seasons than any other player at this spot, cementing his status as a surefire first-ballot Hall of Famer.

5.) Ben Roethlisberger - Sure, he's had his fair share of help en route to two Super Bowl victories. And sure, his backyard style of quarterbacking isn't exactly aesthetically pleasing. But he is incredibly effective in his own right and the Steelers have been a consistent contender ever since Big Ben has taken over under center.

Honorable Mention: Philip Rivers - A bit of a darkhorse pick here, but Rivers is a championship-caliber quarterback that has flown under the radar and performed so well that San Diego hasn't thought twice about letting ex-Charger Drew Brees walk.

King Carls 5 Year Plan
05-15-2011, 08:47 PM
King Carl, Simms was not NFL MVP. He was Pro bowl MVP in 1 of his 2 appearances though.

you're right. he wasn't named MVP by the AP. in 1986 he was named NFL MVP by the Newspaper Enterprise Association. every other MVP voting group gave it to LT in 1986.

Dam8610
05-15-2011, 09:15 PM
Proof positive? Of what? No one debates Manning's impressive statistical credentials. It's no secret that he'll own most passing records before he retires and gets enshrined in Canton. If we're measuring and ranking these quarterbacks based purely on a quantitative basis, then Manning deserves the top spot considering he has Brady beat in most categories. Except in, you know, the only ledger that really matters in NFL circles. In that regard, Brady has the edge on Manning three to one.

Furthermore, if the spacing was an attempt to tier the rankings, then there isn't a rational justification for that kind of gap. I can at least see the argument for Manning over Brady. I can't see that big of a difference either way. And Brady was hardly a game-manager for New England's first two Super Bowl wins. He was a true field general. Game-managers coordinate a supremely talented supporting cast and ride them all the way to the finish line. Brady didn't have playmakers on the offensive side of the ball during those runs. He had pieces like Antowain Smith, Troy Brown, David Patten, Jermaine Wiggins, Deion Branch, David Givens, Christian Fauria, and Daniel Graham to work with. Not one of those pass-catchers comes close to striking fear in an NFL defensive coordinator. Not one. Yet Brady still elevated their play to, at the very least, a respectable level.

Put it this way: Manning accomplished things in the 2000s that no QB has ever accomplished in any decade before. Brady's biggest accomplishment, ignoring the fact that it was a team accomplishment for the moment, was achieved by Aikman in the 90s, Montana in the 80s, Bradshaw in the 70s, Starr in the 60s, etc. Manning's performance in the 2000s was something that has never happened before and may never happen again, while Brady's team did something that some team seems to do every decade, and none of the previous ones were caught cheating to do it.

J-Mike88
05-15-2011, 09:54 PM
2010's

1. Andrew Luck
2. Peyton Manning
3. Tom Brady
4. Matt Ryan
5. Matt Stafford
Those guys are almost 40 already..... That's funny with Luck #1.
Sneaky-Hilarious here, especially discluding Rodgers who's like 9 years younger than Peyton.

Ness
05-16-2011, 12:24 AM
Put it this way: Manning accomplished things in the 2000s that no QB has ever accomplished in any decade before. Brady's biggest accomplishment, ignoring the fact that it was a team accomplishment for the moment, was achieved by Aikman in the 90s, Montana in the 80s, Bradshaw in the 70s, Starr in the 60s, etc. Manning's performance in the 2000s was something that has never happened before and may never happen again, while Brady's team did something that some team seems to do every decade, and none of the previous ones were caught cheating to do it.

Manning was the new millenium Warren Moon and Dan Marino in my eyes. A stat hound, but when it came the playoffs him and the team usually crumbled. They should have won more than one Super Bowl during all of these years. Especially if you have a man that eventually became the 4x MVP.

I commend him for all that's he's done and you're right it may be never be done again. For me that isn't enough to put him number one. He's had some bad performances in the playoffs...along with his teammates.

Cudders
05-16-2011, 08:11 AM
Put it this way: Manning accomplished things in the 2000s that no QB has ever accomplished in any decade before. Brady's biggest accomplishment, ignoring the fact that it was a team accomplishment for the moment, was achieved by Aikman in the 90s, Montana in the 80s, Bradshaw in the 70s, Starr in the 60s, etc. Manning's performance in the 2000s was something that has never happened before and may never happen again, while Brady's team did something that some team seems to do every decade, and none of the previous ones were caught cheating to do it.

I'm not arguing or belittling Manning's regular season brilliance. Like I alluded to before, his credentials in that department are as close to impeccable as we've seen in the NFL. Dude has straight beasted it for over a decade. There's no room to even debate that. But the fact remains that football is more than a regular season game and those transcendent performances we've seen from Manning haven't always carried over to the postseason.

However, it is important to put some of these eye-popping numbers in context. We are currently in the midst of the most passer-friendly era of all-time. Recent rule changes heavily favor more wide-open offensive play and the passing game has unquestionably been the biggest benefactor of that. Now, that's not to denigrate Manning for what he's accomplished in his career or suggest that he's a product of an era, but simply to illustrate a blanket caveat. Because even operating under that supposition, Manning still has nearly 5500 yards and 50 touchdowns more than his closest peers from this generation, which is a testament to his remarkable ability as a passer.

AntoinCD
05-16-2011, 08:39 AM
Put it this way: Manning accomplished things in the 2000s that no QB has ever accomplished in any decade before. Brady's biggest accomplishment, ignoring the fact that it was a team accomplishment for the moment, was achieved by Aikman in the 90s, Montana in the 80s, Bradshaw in the 70s, Starr in the 60s, etc. Manning's performance in the 2000s was something that has never happened before and may never happen again, while Brady's team did something that some team seems to do every decade, and none of the previous ones were caught cheating to do it.

If you're stating that Brady's biggest accomplishment was winning the Superbowl 3 times then that's fine. A lot of people would argue Peyton Manning's biggest achievement was winning the Superbowl once. How about we look at it a bit differently.

Peyton Manning until the last two years has been surrounded by all world talent in the same offense his whole career.

Tom Brady with the exception of two years has had a cast of over-achievers and no names. When he did get himself some real weapons he broke Peyton Manning's TD record. He has also had success in a number of offensive systems.

If you want to talk about impressive statistical feats then how about absolutely shattering his own and the NFL TD:INT ratio last year. And he did this in a brand new offensive system, with at least 3 starting offensive linemen missing at least 9 games, two rookie TEs, two cast offs at RB, multiple glorified slot WRs and one extremely raw young WR.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
05-16-2011, 09:11 AM
Surprised it took this long for it to turn into Brady V Manning 52590571

fear the elf
05-16-2011, 10:17 AM
Surprised it took this long for it to turn into Brady V Manning 52590571

Yeah, after about four posts I started wondering when it was going to happen...

Saints-Tigers
05-16-2011, 10:28 AM
Honestly, my biggest thing is, since Brady has stepped up into a more "Manning like" role, where he's forced to be a prolific passer all the time, he hasn't won like they used to either.

Coincidence? Brady is a better player now than he was during the superbowl wins, I don't think anyone here would debate that, and that's why it's kind of stupid to just use superbowl wins.

2 Live Crew
05-16-2011, 12:30 PM
There was football played before 1990. Learn some history

1960's

1. Unitas - The first star QB, the prototype. 10x Pro Bowler, 3xMVP, 2xNFL Champ, 1xSuper Bowl Champ. 47 straight games with a TD pass. In an era where it was very tough to pass the ball.

2. Bart Starr - The Winner. 4x Pro bowl, 5x NFL champ, 2x Super Bowl Champ, 1xMVP

3. Sonny Jurgensen - One of the most underrated QB's ever. 5xPro Bowl, 5x All-Pro in 60's. 26,000+ yds, 207 TD's in 60's. Lombardi had said he was the best QB he had ever seen.

4. Len Dawson - 3x AFL Champ, 1x Super Bowl Champ, 6x AFL All-Star. 19000+ yds and 183 TDs in 60's

5. Fran Tarkenton - The original scrambler. 5x Pro Bowl (in 60's). 23000+ yds, 186 TDs in 60's. 2600+ rush yds, 20 rush TD's in 60's

1950's

1. Otto Graham - NFL record 57-13-1, 3 NFL championships. 3xMVP. Led Browns to 10 straight championship berths! And won 7 of those. (3 NFL, 4 AAFC). A forgotten great.

2. Norm Van Brocklin - 9x Pro Bowl, 2x NFL Champ
3. Bobby Layne - 5x Pro Bowl, 151 TDs most of 1950's
4. YA Tittle - Awesome name, 4x Pro Bowl, 1xMVP in 50's

Pre 1950's

Sammy Baugh - Made the forward pass integral to the offense. The first to play the position like you see it played today. Also played DB and punter. 1943 led the league in passing, punting, and interceptions (11!). Pre 1950's had 168 TDs. If you don't think that's a lot then compare it to his peers at the time. 2nd place with 136 TDs, 3rd place with only 88 TDs.

Also played DB for 6 years and had 31 ints and still holds the league record for single season punting (51.4 avg). Hall of fame charter member.

Cudders
05-16-2011, 12:50 PM
Honestly, my biggest thing is, since Brady has stepped up into a more "Manning like" role, where he's forced to be a prolific passer all the time, he hasn't won like they used to either.

Coincidence? Brady is a better player now than he was during the superbowl wins, I don't think anyone here would debate that, and that's why it's kind of stupid to just use superbowl wins.

A fair criticism.

Look, I don't think Brady is the perfect quarterback. In fact, I think Brady gets an undeserved pass for his Super Bowl XLII loss to New York. Heading into and throughout that game, everyone understood the most dangerous aspect of that Giants team was their fearsome pass rush. All season long those horses up front put their hand in the ground, pinned their ears back, and devoured opposing protections as soon as the ball was snapped. There was no reason to believe the Super Bowl would be different.

So how did New England respond? They called mostly five- and seven-step drops. They played right into the Giants' greatest strength. They let Osi, Strahan, Tuck, and the rest of the rushers eat their overrated offensive line alive. They couldn't handle the obscene heat the G-Men generated. Yet, despite that obvious fact, they never tailored their gameplan to account for it. As an elite quarterback and leader of that huddle, it was Brady's responsibility to take command of the offense and make better calls at the line, like incorporating more three-step drops. Anything that would've made the Giants adapt. I'm not saying they would've won had they done that. I'm just saying they never forced the Giants to abandon their comfort zone or revert to Plan B. There's a chess match inside every game of football. And Brady was definitely outmaneuvered in Super Bowl XLII.

As for his Wild Card loss to the Ravens a couple seasons ago, I don't remember it too clearly, but from what I recall Brady played pretty badly in that game. Others probably remember it better than me.

In his most recent loss against the Jets, his receivers were just flat-out outclassed. Whenever a defensive back got his hands on a receiver at the line of scrimmage, it was game over. Not one of those receivers burned the Jets for pressing. And the creative pressure in front of that tight coverage flustered Brady. Really, the Jets were hungrier than the Pats. Plain and simple. No excuse for that.

And I agree that championship wins can't be the sole barometer of a quarterback's merit. But Brady has generally elevated the performance of the players around him in the playoffs, whereas Manning has faltered more consistently despite being surrounded by the superior offensive weapons for much of their respective careers.

Dam8610
05-16-2011, 06:21 PM
Manning was the new millenium Warren Moon and Dan Marino in my eyes. A stat hound, but when it came the playoffs him and the team usually crumbled. They should have won more than one Super Bowl during all of these years. Especially if you have a man that eventually became the 4x MVP.

I commend him for all that's he's done and you're right it may be never be done again. For me that isn't enough to put him number one. He's had some bad performances in the playoffs...along with his teammates.

I'm not arguing or belittling Manning's regular season brilliance. Like I alluded to before, his credentials in that department are as close to impeccable as we've seen in the NFL. Dude has straight beasted it for over a decade. There's no room to even debate that. But the fact remains that football is more than a regular season game and those transcendent performances we've seen from Manning haven't always carried over to the postseason.

However, it is important to put some of these eye-popping numbers in context. We are currently in the midst of the most passer-friendly era of all-time. Recent rule changes heavily favor more wide-open offensive play and the passing game has unquestionably been the biggest benefactor of that. Now, that's not to denigrate Manning for what he's accomplished in his career or suggest that he's a product of an era, but simply to illustrate a blanket caveat. Because even operating under that supposition, Manning still has nearly 5500 yards and 50 touchdowns more than his closest peers from this generation, which is a testament to his remarkable ability as a passer.

And I agree that championship wins can't be the sole barometer of a quarterback's merit. But Brady has generally elevated the performance of the players around him in the playoffs, whereas Manning has faltered more consistently despite being surrounded by the superior offensive weapons for much of their respective careers.

Brady really hasn't been a better postseason performer, when you stack the numbers up.

Postseason Games: Manning 19 Brady 19
Postseason Completion Percentage: Manning 63.1% Brady 62.2%
Postseason Touchdowns: Manning 32 Brady 32
Postseason Interceptions: Manning 19 Brady 16
Postseason Yards Per Attempt: Manning 7.51 Brady 6.46
Postseason QB Rating: Manning 88.4 Brady 85.7
Postseason 3+ TD games: Manning 5 Brady 3
Postseason 4+ TD games: Manning 2 Brady 0
Postseason 5+ TD games: Manning 1 Brady 0
Postseason 100+ QBR games: Manning 5 Brady 5
Postseason Perfect QBR Games: Manning 1 Brady 0

The only difference between Manning and Brady in the postseason is that Brady had excellent defenses that won him three championships, whereas Manning won his only championship with the worst ranked defense to ever win a championship.

If you're stating that Brady's biggest accomplishment was winning the Superbowl 3 times then that's fine. A lot of people would argue Peyton Manning's biggest achievement was winning the Superbowl once.

A lot of people would be wrong then, because 30+ QBs have won the Super Bowl, Manning has done several things that no QB has ever done.

Peyton Manning until the last two years has been surrounded by all world talent in the same offense his whole career.

That he helped to make all-world talent. Did you see Reggie Wayne in his first three years? He didn't get really good until he started working more closely with Manning. Marvin Harrison's production nearly doubled under Manning, as did Marcus Pollard's, Brandon Stokley's, and Ken Dilger's. It's not like he walked into a situation where he had 5 Pro Bowlers at skill positions on offense, he was part of all of those players being all world talent.

Tom Brady with the exception of two years has had a cast of over-achievers and no names.

Ah, this old argument. Because the Patriots didn't invest the 7th pick in Terry Glenn the same year the Colts invested the 19th pick in Marvin Harrison. Because for the Reggie Wayne's and Dallas Clark's of the Colts, the Patriots didn't invest in Daniel Graham and Ben Watson. For Anthony Gonzalez, the Pats drafted Chad Jackson, For Joseph Addai, Lawrence Maroney. Just because Tom Brady wasn't able to turn a similar level of investment in his supporting cast into similar results, that shouldn't be a negative on Peyton Manning. In fact, if anything, it should show how effective Manning has been at developing the players around him.

When he did get himself some real weapons he broke Peyton Manning's TD record. He has also had success in a number of offensive systems.

Yes, when the Pats redoubled their efforts and added proven veterans as the core supporting cast, Brady had excellent success, and broke Manning's TD pass record of 49 achieved in 14 1/2 games by playing nearly every single down of the 2007 season, and throwing his 50th TD pass in the fourth quarter of the 16th game.

If you want to talk about impressive statistical feats then how about absolutely shattering his own and the NFL TD:INT ratio last year. And he did this in a brand new offensive system, with at least 3 starting offensive linemen missing at least 9 games, two rookie TEs, two cast offs at RB, multiple glorified slot WRs and one extremely raw young WR.

How about those things I mentioned before? You know, being the ONLY QB in NFL history to be a 4 time NFL MVP (all in the 2000s), and lead a decade in wins, yardage, TDs, and passer rating, categories that no other QB has led two of over a given decade, or throwing for essentially Hall of Fame numbers (42,254 yards, 314 TDs) in a decade. Comparatively, one looks far better than the other, at least to me.

Complex
05-16-2011, 06:49 PM
Its not like the colts D sucked in the playoff, If i remember right they gave more than 24 points in only 2-3 playoff games. Also Peyton got carried in the playoffs that year he won the superbowl, what did he throw 3 TDs and 8 Ints. Yeah I know he played great against the pats in the conference championship game finally.

Cudders
05-16-2011, 09:23 PM
Brady really hasn't been a better postseason performer, when you stack the numbers up.

Postseason Games: Manning 19 Brady 19
Postseason Completion Percentage: Manning 63.1% Brady 62.2%
Postseason Touchdowns: Manning 32 Brady 32
Postseason Interceptions: Manning 19 Brady 16
Postseason Yards Per Attempt: Manning 7.51 Brady 6.46
Postseason QB Rating: Manning 88.4 Brady 85.7
Postseason 3+ TD games: Manning 5 Brady 3
Postseason 4+ TD games: Manning 2 Brady 0
Postseason 5+ TD games: Manning 1 Brady 0
Postseason 100+ QBR games: Manning 5 Brady 5
Postseason Perfect QBR Games: Manning 1 Brady 0

The only difference between Manning and Brady in the postseason is that Brady had excellent defenses that won him three championships, whereas Manning won his only championship with the worst ranked defense to ever win a championship.

Statistics really don't tell the whole story though. Regardless, let's evaluate those numbers a little more in-depth. Manning's two best postseason games, which account for a good portion of his production, both came against the Denver Broncos in '03 and '04, if I recall correctly. The Broncos ran a rather vanilla 4-3 with a pretty bare cupboard in terms of talent in the secondary. They were trotting out bodies like Lenny Walls and Kelly Herndon at corner and Kenoy Kennedy and Nick Ferguson at safety. Of course Manning was going to destroy those defenses. Don't get me wrong, it's still impressive he threw for nine touchdowns in two games and posted a perfect rating in one of them, but he was supposed to dominate the Broncos. Which brings me to my second point...

His problem was never against bland, 4-3 defenses that he could accurately diagnose pre-snap. His problem was against defenses (3-4 in particular) that disguised themselves well, especially those that mixed up their coverage shells from pre-snap to post-snap. That's where Manning got confused and flustered. Making head-scratching decisions with the football, sensing pressure that was never there, etc. Belichick's defenses made Manning look very, very mortal in those games. He threw four interceptions in a 10-point loss where the Patriots scored 24 points and didn't rise to the occasion in a blowout in the following postseason where New England only put 20 on the board. With a stud quarterback and a slew of offensive weapons around him, those are games you expect to compete in if you're the Colts. Manning didn't answer the bell though. And, fair or not, we judge quarterbacks largely by how they perform in their biggest moments. His playoff duels against Brady were national spectacles and, for the most part, he was a disaster in them.

It's also unfair to paint Brady as a stablehand that simply rode the coattails of all-time great defenses to three titles. He had to shoulder his fair share of the load in order for the Patriots to reach the pinnacle of the NFL three times, including orchestrate six fourth quarter comebacks or game-winning drives in the postseason, half of which came in the Super Bowl. Mind you, Manning has notched just one in the playoffs to this point. And let's not forget, in 2006, Manning didn't exactly put the team on his back like a Greg Jennings do. He got plenty of help from a resurgent running game and a defense that played above their heads down the stretch. Both of which got the Colts through some pedestrian performances by Manning.

A lot of people would be wrong then, because 30+ QBs have won the Super Bowl, Manning has done several things that no QB has ever done.

No. Just no. Manning's greatest accomplishment is undoubtedly capturing that elusive Super Bowl ring and I'm confident he'd admit that himself. Without winning that Lombardi Trophy, he shares the same legacy as Dan Marino at best.

Ah, this old argument. Because the Patriots didn't invest the 7th pick in Terry Glenn the same year the Colts invested the 19th pick in Marvin Harrison. Because for the Reggie Wayne's and Dallas Clark's of the Colts, the Patriots didn't invest in Daniel Graham and Ben Watson. For Anthony Gonzalez, the Pats drafted Chad Jackson, For Joseph Addai, Lawrence Maroney. Just because Tom Brady wasn't able to turn a similar level of investment in his supporting cast into similar results, that shouldn't be a negative on Peyton Manning. In fact, if anything, it should show how effective Manning has been at developing the players around him.

So Brady is responsible for the personnel decisions of the front office now? The fact is that some players are going to succeed no matter what and some players will fail regardless of their situation. Brady can't help that Ben Watson had hands of stone during his tenure in New England. Brady can't help that Chad Jackson was a no-show his entire career. Brady can't help that Laurence Maroney plays below his athletic measurables and severely lacks instincts as a runner. By that logic, should Philip Rivers be penalized for not developing Buster Davis? Should Drew Brees be docked because Reggie Bush isn't the All-Pro running back he was projected to be coming out of USC? What about Limas Sweed? Is it Big Ben's fault that he can't even sniff the field?

Yes, when the Pats redoubled their efforts and added proven veterans as the core supporting cast, Brady had excellent success, and broke Manning's TD pass record of 49 achieved in 14 1/2 games by playing nearly every single down of the 2007 season, and throwing his 50th TD pass in the fourth quarter of the 16th game.

We're splitting hairs by arguing over how impressive record-breaking performances were or weren't. One could make a compelling argument that Dan Marino's '84 season trumps them both. But guess what? All of them were legendary seasons. Yes, Manning threw a touchdown every 9.9 pass attempts compared to Brady's 8.7, but Manning also threw a pick on 2% of his total passes while Brady only did so on 1.4%. See how trivial arguing over minute stat differences can be? The point stands that Brady produced at a historic level when surrounded by elite talent.

Ness
05-16-2011, 11:54 PM
Manning's stats against Brady's stats during the postseason are kind of meaningless. The thing is Brady capitalized on the majority of the chances he got...instead of getting sacked or throwing an interception at a crucial time. And the Colts have had decent defenses in the playoffs before, so that's not really an excuse. In fact, a lot of times their defense has kept them in games during the postseason giving Manning and co. more opportunities to amend for their mistakes.

I don't care what anyone says. Manning and the Colts early on had some really terrible chemistry issues for whatever reason in the playoffs during the majority of the decade. And that was back when their window was at it's peak. Whether it was New England, Pittsburgh, San Diego, or even Tennessee at one point in time (where it started). And it's not like we haven't seen this picture before. It happened to San Diego in the eighties, the Oilers later on, and then Kansas City. For all of the regular season dominance they strung together with the best regular season quarterback, all they have to show is one Lombardi trophy. They should have won at least two.

AntoinCD
05-17-2011, 04:21 AM
Brady really hasn't been a better postseason performer, when you stack the numbers up.

Postseason Games: Manning 19 Brady 19
Postseason Completion Percentage: Manning 63.1% Brady 62.2%
Postseason Touchdowns: Manning 32 Brady 32
Postseason Interceptions: Manning 19 Brady 16
Postseason Yards Per Attempt: Manning 7.51 Brady 6.46
Postseason QB Rating: Manning 88.4 Brady 85.7
Postseason 3+ TD games: Manning 5 Brady 3
Postseason 4+ TD games: Manning 2 Brady 0
Postseason 5+ TD games: Manning 1 Brady 0
Postseason 100+ QBR games: Manning 5 Brady 5
Postseason Perfect QBR Games: Manning 1 Brady 0

Ok passer rating is a pretty useless stat. It doesnt take situation or anything into account. QBs who stay in the pocket longer and take more sacks tend to have better passer ratings than QBs who will throw the ball away. So the only stats there that have any relevance is Manning has a slightly better completion percentage, has thrown 3 more INTs and by my count has thrown 28 of his 32 TDs in 8 games. Which then means he has thrown 4 TDs in 11 games which defines what Manning is in the postseason-inconsistent.


A lot of people would be wrong then, because 30+ QBs have won the Super Bowl, Manning has done several things that no QB has ever done.

And Tom Brady has done several things that no other QBs have done, plus he has won 3 Superbowls. The best thing a player can do in his career is win the Superbowl. If you rack up individual stats then all well and good but that's not the point of a team sport.


That he helped to make all-world talent. Did you see Reggie Wayne in his first three years? He didn't get really good until he started working more closely with Manning. Marvin Harrison's production nearly doubled under Manning, as did Marcus Pollard's, Brandon Stokley's, and Ken Dilger's. It's not like he walked into a situation where he had 5 Pro Bowlers at skill positions on offense, he was part of all of those players being all world talent.

What you mean Marvin Harrison didn't become great as a first or second year pro??? Shocking!!! Most WRs have historically hit their stride in their 3rd or 4th year. Sure Manning significantly helped but the talent was there. 4 1st round RBs, 1 1st round OT, 1 1st round TE and 3 1st round WRs have all played under Peyton Manning. He didn't turn them into pro bowl caliber players from scrubs.


Ah, this old argument. Because the Patriots didn't invest the 7th pick in Terry Glenn the same year the Colts invested the 19th pick in Marvin Harrison. Because for the Reggie Wayne's and Dallas Clark's of the Colts, the Patriots didn't invest in Daniel Graham and Ben Watson. For Anthony Gonzalez, the Pats drafted Chad Jackson, For Joseph Addai, Lawrence Maroney. Just because Tom Brady wasn't able to turn a similar level of investment in his supporting cast into similar results, that shouldn't be a negative on Peyton Manning. In fact, if anything, it should show how effective Manning has been at developing the players around him.

Or it could maybe show that the Colts are better at drafting skill positions than the Patriots. For all the draft footage you see you know Ive never once seen Tom Brady in the Patriots war room. Daniel Graham and Ben Watson havent exactly become great players elsewhere. Im not even sure if Chad Jackson is still in the league. The less said about Maroney the better.



Yes, when the Pats redoubled their efforts and added proven veterans as the core supporting cast, Brady had excellent success, and broke Manning's TD pass record of 49 achieved in 14 1/2 games by playing nearly every single down of the 2007 season, and throwing his 50th TD pass in the fourth quarter of the 16th game.

Yes and as I also mentioned I don't belive that record is as impressive as his season last year when for every one INT he threw he threw for 9 TDs.



How about those things I mentioned before? You know, being the ONLY QB in NFL history to be a 4 time NFL MVP (all in the 2000s), and lead a decade in wins, yardage, TDs, and passer rating, categories that no other QB has led two of over a given decade, or throwing for essentially Hall of Fame numbers (42,254 yards, 314 TDs) in a decade. Comparatively, one looks far better than the other, at least to me.

I dont think anyone is questioning Peyton Manning's numbers or his hall of fame credentials.

Why should Peyton Manning get credit for leading the decade in wins but Tom Brady gets less credit for leading the decade in Superbowl wins?



It's clearly not going to end in agreement here. Peyton Manning has his merits to be named the best QB of the decade. Tom Brady has his. Clearly you are valuing stats and media-given accolades to back up your assumption that Manning is the clear-cut winner.

Here's Tom Brady's stats if you would like:

Fewest starts to achieve 100 regular-season wins as a starter (131 starts)
Most consecutive wins, postseason: 10 (2001, 2003, 2004, 2005)
Most consecutive wins, regular season and postseason: 21 (2003–2004)
Most consecutive wins in regular-season home games: 28 (2006–present)
Most seasons finishing 8–0 at home: 5 (2003, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010)
Only quarterback to start and win 3 Super Bowls before his 28th birthday

Most passing touchdowns, regular season: 50 (2007)
Most passing touchdowns, regular season and postseason combined: 56 (2007)
Most touchdown passes, month: 20 (October 2007)
Most passing touchdowns, quarter: 5 (second quarter vs. Tennessee, October 18, 2009)
Largest touchdown to interception differential: +42 (2007)
Highest touchdown to interception ratio, season: 9.0 to 1 (36 TD/4 INT, 2010)
Most games with 3+ touchdown passes, regular season: 12 (2007)
Most consecutive games with 3+ touchdown passes, regular season: 10 (2007)
Most consecutive games with 2+ touchdown passes and no interceptions: 9 (2010, October 24–present
Most games with 1 touchdown pass and no interceptions, season: 14 (2010)
Most games with 2 touchdown passes and no interceptions, season: 11 (2010)
Most games with 3 touchdown passes and no interceptions, season: 8 (2007)
Most games with 4 touchdown passes and no interceptions, season: 5 (2007)
Most games with 4 touchdown passes and no interceptions, career: 12 – tied with Brett Favre
Most games with 5 touchdown passes and no interceptions, season: 3 (2007)
Most games with 5 touchdown passes and no interceptions, career: 4 – tied with Peyton Manning
Most games with 6 touchdown passes and no interceptions, career 2 – tied with Peyton Manning
Most games with 20 completions and no interceptions, season: 10 (2007)
Most games with 30 completions and no interceptions, career: 9 – tied with Drew Brees
Most games with 30 completions and no interceptions, season: 5 (2007)
Most games with 50 pass attempts and no interceptions, career: 3

Highest single-game completion percentage, postseason: 92.9% (vs. Jacksonville, January 12, 2008)[66]
Tied for most completions in a Super Bowl: 32 (XXXVIII)
Most career Super Bowl completions: 100 (XXXVI, XXXVIII, XXXIX, XLII)

Most consecutive pass attempts to start a career without an interception: 162 (2000–2001)
Most consecutive pass attempts without an interception, regular season: 338 (2010, October 24–present)
Third-lowest interception percentage (interceptions per attempt), career: 2.19% (Aaron Rodgers ranks first @ 1.99%; Neil O'Donnell is second @ 2.11%)


Stats arent even close to telling the whole story but see how easy it is to make someone sound good by throwing up a few

7DnBrnc53
05-18-2011, 05:40 PM
2000's

1. Peyton Manning
2. Tom Brady
3. Big Ben
4. Donovan McNabb
5. Brett Favre

1990's

1. John Elway
2. Brett Favre
3. Steve Young
4. Warren Moon
5. Troy Aikman

1980's

1. Joe Montana
2. Dan Marino
3. John Elway
4. Dan Fouts
5. Boomer Esiason

1970's

1. Roger Staubach
2. Terry Bradshaw
3. Ken Stabler
4. Fran Tarkenton
5. Bob Griese

1960's

1. Johnny Unitas
2. Bart Starr
3. Joe Namath
4. Sonny Jurgensen
5. Len Dawson

Predictions for 2010's:

1. Aaron Rodgers
2. Big Ben
3. Andrew Luck
4. Sam Bradford
5. Tim Tebow

Iamcanadian
05-19-2011, 11:49 AM
Manning was the new millenium Warren Moon and Dan Marino in my eyes. A stat hound, but when it came the playoffs him and the team usually crumbled. They should have won more than one Super Bowl during all of these years. Especially if you have a man that eventually became the 4x MVP.

I commend him for all that's he's done and you're right it may be never be done again. For me that isn't enough to put him number one. He's had some bad performances in the playoffs...along with his teammates.

I totally agree, stats mean nothing in the end if you cannot win championships. Peyton won 1 but his overall playoff performance is a huge disappointment. Ditto for Marino. Neither would ever get a #1 ranking from me but in the fantasy football generation where championships don't count, it doesn't surprise me that many fans look at these 2 stat hounds as being the best.

Dam8610
05-25-2011, 11:31 AM
Statistics really don't tell the whole story though. Regardless, let's evaluate those numbers a little more in-depth. Manning's two best postseason games, which account for a good portion of his production, both came against the Denver Broncos in '03 and '04, if I recall correctly. The Broncos ran a rather vanilla 4-3 with a pretty bare cupboard in terms of talent in the secondary. They were trotting out bodies like Lenny Walls and Kelly Herndon at corner and Kenoy Kennedy and Nick Ferguson at safety. Of course Manning was going to destroy those defenses. Don't get me wrong, it's still impressive he threw for nine touchdowns in two games and posted a perfect rating in one of them, but he was supposed to dominate the Broncos.

This is weak, you can't simply discount a postseason performance because it hurts your argument. If that's the case, let's take away the second two Super Bowls and the Jaguars game away from Brady and see how his postseason numbers look. The fact of the matter is that the numbers bear out what I've said for a long time: Manning and Brady aren't a whole lot different in the postseason, the difference is that Brady had 3 great defenses (led by Ernie Adams's wonderful signal stealing via video tape) that carried him to the promised land while Manning was part of a team that had the worst defense ever to win a Super Bowl.

Which brings me to my second point...His problem was never against bland, 4-3 defenses that he could accurately diagnose pre-snap. His problem was against defenses (3-4 in particular) that disguised themselves well, especially those that mixed up their coverage shells from pre-snap to post-snap. That's where Manning got confused and flustered. Making head-scratching decisions with the football, sensing pressure that was never there, etc. Belichick's defenses made Manning look very, very mortal in those games. He threw four interceptions in a 10-point loss where the Patriots scored 24 points and didn't rise to the occasion in a blowout in the following postseason where New England only put 20 on the board. With a stud quarterback and a slew of offensive weapons around him, those are games you expect to compete in if you're the Colts. Manning didn't answer the bell though. And, fair or not, we judge quarterbacks largely by how they perform in their biggest moments. His playoff duels against Brady were national spectacles and, for the most part, he was a disaster in them.

Ernie Adams and his signal stealing played a big part in that, and the one time he didn't, due to Polian banning cameras from the sidelines in that game (2006 AFC Championship Game), it was Manning who led the game winning TD drive and Brady who threw the game losing INT. Even factoring those two games you're referring to in, Manning and Brady are frighteningly similar postseason QBs.

It's also unfair to paint Brady as a stablehand that simply rode the coattails of all-time great defenses to three titles. He had to shoulder his fair share of the load in order for the Patriots to reach the pinnacle of the NFL three times, including orchestrate six fourth quarter comebacks or game-winning drives in the postseason, half of which came in the Super Bowl. Mind you, Manning has notched just one in the playoffs to this point. And let's not forget, in 2006, Manning didn't exactly put the team on his back like a Greg Jennings do. He got plenty of help from a resurgent running game and a defense that played above their heads down the stretch. Both of which got the Colts through some pedestrian performances by Manning.

By "comeback or game winning drives", do you mean the FG drives he's led that half of the QBs in the NFL could've led? Has ANY of those drives actually been a TD drive where a TD was needed? Because that's what Peyton Manning did, against Brady's Patriots. As for "pedestrian performances" in the 2006 postseason by Peyton Manning, they may have been pedestrian on the stat sheet, but on the field, they were exactly what was needed. Against KC, Manning threw 3 INTs, and was nearly perfect for the rest of the game, allowing the running game to star en route to an easy win. Against Baltimore, the stat sheet looked terrible, but anyone who watched the game knows that no other QB would have had a better day that day, and furthermore I doubt any other team would have come away with a win, Baltimore's defense was brutal. Against New England, obviously Manning's line doesn't look spectacular, but he put up more points on a Belichick defense in a half than they had allowed in a postseason game to that point (or possibly still, have they allowed 32+ points in a game since?) and led the largest comeback in AFC Championship Game history, including the aforementioned game winning TD drive. In the Super Bowl, Manning's statline was unspectacular again, but it was his 52 yard TD bomb to Reggie Wayne that made Rivera back off of blitzing for the entirety of the rest of the game, which opened holes for the running game, who proceeded to exploit them for well over 200 yards and a TD. Taking what the defense gives is not a crime, and in fact is actually the hallmark of a smart QB. You could argue Brady did the same over the years, but I'd argue that the difference is that the running game opened up for the Colts in several games because the other teams did not want Manning to beat them, whereas Brady did not inspire the same fear in opponents, and their running game succeeded as a continuation of their regular season success when they had a good running game.

No. Just no. Manning's greatest accomplishment is undoubtedly capturing that elusive Super Bowl ring and I'm confident he'd admit that himself. Without winning that Lombardi Trophy, he shares the same legacy as Dan Marino at best.

I disagree, regardless of who says it. Peyton Manning has done many, many things that no other QB in NFL history has ever done. 30+ other QBs have hoisted the Lombardi Trophy. No other player has ever been recognized as the NFL's Most Valuable Player 4 times, nor led a decade in two of the four categories Manning led the 00s in, which, by the way, includes wins.

So Brady is responsible for the personnel decisions of the front office now? The fact is that some players are going to succeed no matter what and some players will fail regardless of their situation. Brady can't help that Ben Watson had hands of stone during his tenure in New England. Brady can't help that Chad Jackson was a no-show his entire career. Brady can't help that Laurence Maroney plays below his athletic measurables and severely lacks instincts as a runner. By that logic, should Philip Rivers be penalized for not developing Buster Davis? Should Drew Brees be docked because Reggie Bush isn't the All-Pro running back he was projected to be coming out of USC? What about Limas Sweed? Is it Big Ben's fault that he can't even sniff the field?

No, this is more pointing out that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either Brady isn't as good of a good QB because he couldn't develop talent from a similar talent investment that the Colts gave Manning, OR draft position doesn't matter and Manning helped those players develop into good players. I'll let you pick.

Manning's stats against Brady's stats during the postseason are kind of meaningless. The thing is Brady capitalized on the majority of the chances he got...instead of getting sacked or throwing an interception at a crucial time.

You mean like the time he threw what should have been a game losing INT against the Chargers, only to have Marlon McCree fumble the ball right back to him? Or the time he threw the game losing INT against the Colts? Or the time he took a sack down 3 points with a chance to tie the game in Super Bowl XLII? "Majority" is stretching it, and it took cheating along with historically major breaks (Tuck Rule) to make it happen.

And the Colts have had decent defenses in the playoffs before, so that's not really an excuse.

You mean like when they were the worst defense to ever win a Super Bowl?

In fact, a lot of times their defense has kept them in games during the postseason giving Manning and co. more opportunities to amend for their mistakes.

And a lot of times, the defense had a terrible day (Jets 2002) or Manning bailed their asses out (Chiefs 2004, Patriots 2006). Your point?

I don't care what anyone says. Manning and the Colts early on had some really terrible chemistry issues for whatever reason in the playoffs during the majority of the decade. And that was back when their window was at it's peak. Whether it was New England, Pittsburgh, San Diego, or even Tennessee at one point in time (where it started). And it's not like we haven't seen this picture before. It happened to San Diego in the eighties, the Oilers later on, and then Kansas City. For all of the regular season dominance they strung together with the best regular season quarterback, all they have to show is one Lombardi trophy. They should have won at least two.

I love how everyone thinks it's over every year. That's been happening since at least 2004, and it has yet to work out. Keep believing though, someday you'll be right.

Ok passer rating is a pretty useless stat. It doesnt take situation or anything into account. QBs who stay in the pocket longer and take more sacks tend to have better passer ratings than QBs who will throw the ball away. So the only stats there that have any relevance is Manning has a slightly better completion percentage, has thrown 3 more INTs and by my count has thrown 28 of his 32 TDs in 8 games. Which then means he has thrown 4 TDs in 11 games which defines what Manning is in the postseason-inconsistent.

You mean he performed better in wins than losses? Who would've thought? I wonder if the same trend would emerge with Brady.

And Tom Brady has done several things that no other QBs have done, plus he has won 3 Superbowls. The best thing a player can do in his career is win the Superbowl. If you rack up individual stats then all well and good but that's not the point of a team sport.

I agree that stats aren't the point of a team sport, but they are the best available measure of individual performance. That doesn't make them perfect, and they especially become twisted when (most) people get their hands on them, but they're still the best available measure. By the same token, Brady is no more responsible for those three championships than any other Patriot, because, as previously stated, teams win championships, not individuals, so I fail to see the relevant resume boost from such a thing.

What you mean Marvin Harrison didn't become great as a first or second year pro??? Shocking!!! Most WRs have historically hit their stride in their 3rd or 4th year. Sure Manning significantly helped but the talent was there. 4 1st round RBs, 1 1st round OT, 1 1st round TE and 3 1st round WRs have all played under Peyton Manning. He didn't turn them into pro bowl caliber players from scrubs.

Or it could maybe show that the Colts are better at drafting skill positions than the Patriots. For all the draft footage you see you know Ive never once seen Tom Brady in the Patriots war room. Daniel Graham and Ben Watson havent exactly become great players elsewhere. Im not even sure if Chad Jackson is still in the league. The less said about Maroney the better.

As I said before, this point was only argued to illustrate that you can't have your cake and eat it too, so pick: is Manning better at developing players than Brady, and thus is a better QB in that aspect, or does draft position not matter, and Manning merely helped to make the players around him better? The choice is yours.

Why should Peyton Manning get credit for leading the decade in wins but Tom Brady gets less credit for leading the decade in Superbowl wins?

Simply put: Ernie Adams and the Law of Large Numbers. Those are the two biggest reasons.

It's clearly not going to end in agreement here. Peyton Manning has his merits to be named the best QB of the decade. Tom Brady has his. Clearly you are valuing stats and media-given accolades to back up your assumption that Manning is the clear-cut winner.

I'm valuing things that No other QB has ever done in NFL history, over the course of that decade, which is the relevant time period here. 42,254 yards (led decade), 314 TDs (led decade), 124 wins (led decade), and 4 NFL MVPs (led decade) would be more than enough to get a QB into the Hall of Fame for a career, the Super Bowl win is merely icing on the cake, and that's what Manning accomplished in the 00s.

Here's Tom Brady's stats if you would like:

Fewest starts to achieve 100 regular-season wins as a starter (131 starts)
Most consecutive wins, postseason: 10 (2001, 2003, 2004, 2005)
Most consecutive wins, regular season and postseason: 21 (2003–2004)
Most consecutive wins in regular-season home games: 28 (2006–present)
Most seasons finishing 8–0 at home: 5 (2003, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010)
Only quarterback to start and win 3 Super Bowls before his 28th birthday

Most passing touchdowns, regular season: 50 (2007)
Most passing touchdowns, regular season and postseason combined: 56 (2007)
Most touchdown passes, month: 20 (October 2007)
Most passing touchdowns, quarter: 5 (second quarter vs. Tennessee, October 18, 2009)
Largest touchdown to interception differential: +42 (2007)
Highest touchdown to interception ratio, season: 9.0 to 1 (36 TD/4 INT, 2010)
Most games with 3+ touchdown passes, regular season: 12 (2007)
Most consecutive games with 3+ touchdown passes, regular season: 10 (2007)
Most consecutive games with 2+ touchdown passes and no interceptions: 9 (2010, October 24–present
Most games with 1 touchdown pass and no interceptions, season: 14 (2010)
Most games with 2 touchdown passes and no interceptions, season: 11 (2010)
Most games with 3 touchdown passes and no interceptions, season: 8 (2007)
Most games with 4 touchdown passes and no interceptions, season: 5 (2007)
Most games with 4 touchdown passes and no interceptions, career: 12 – tied with Brett Favre
Most games with 5 touchdown passes and no interceptions, season: 3 (2007)
Most games with 5 touchdown passes and no interceptions, career: 4 – tied with Peyton Manning
Most games with 6 touchdown passes and no interceptions, career 2 – tied with Peyton Manning
Most games with 20 completions and no interceptions, season: 10 (2007)
Most games with 30 completions and no interceptions, career: 9 – tied with Drew Brees
Most games with 30 completions and no interceptions, season: 5 (2007)
Most games with 50 pass attempts and no interceptions, career: 3

Highest single-game completion percentage, postseason: 92.9% (vs. Jacksonville, January 12, 2008)[66]
Tied for most completions in a Super Bowl: 32 (XXXVIII)
Most career Super Bowl completions: 100 (XXXVI, XXXVIII, XXXIX, XLII)

Most consecutive pass attempts to start a career without an interception: 162 (2000–2001)
Most consecutive pass attempts without an interception, regular season: 338 (2010, October 24–present)
Third-lowest interception percentage (interceptions per attempt), career: 2.19% (Aaron Rodgers ranks first @ 1.99%; Neil O'Donnell is second @ 2.11%)


Stats arent even close to telling the whole story but see how easy it is to make someone sound good by throwing up a few

That's mostly individual game or season statistics. Manning led the decade in every statistically significant positive category for a QB. The bolded statement is why I don't understand how anyone could not have Manning as their best QB of the 00s.

2 Live Crew
05-25-2011, 12:24 PM
Dam8610 is Cooper Manning.

YAYareaRB
05-25-2011, 12:30 PM
Someone should start a college thread.

YAYareaRB
05-25-2011, 12:31 PM
Also.. Steve Young > You!

descendency
05-25-2011, 02:14 PM
Manning led the decade in every statistically significant positive category for a QB.

Unanimous MVPs?

Brady - 1
Manning - 0. (granted, neither Favre nor Vick deserved votes that year)

nepg
05-25-2011, 03:14 PM
Unanimous MVPs?

Brady - 1
Manning - 0. (granted, neither Favre nor Vick deserved votes that year)
Plus, you know, the whole 3 Super Bowl rings and a perfect regular season in which Brady set just about every single season mark there is... But Manning definitely wins out in every category that matters...


...

Ness
05-25-2011, 03:16 PM
Dam8610 is Cooper Manning.

Apparently nothing can be Peyton Manning's fault. Four time MVP yet one trophy.

Dam8610
05-26-2011, 10:58 AM
Unanimous MVPs?

Brady - 1
Manning - 0. (granted, neither Favre nor Vick deserved votes that year)

Actually, since it's the 00s, and that was 2010, it's 0-0, but nice try.

TACKLE
05-26-2011, 11:03 AM
lol another manning vs. brady debate. how originial. this should be a productive and non-repetive discussion.

diabsoule
05-26-2011, 11:16 AM
Hasn't there been enough Manning vs. Brady threads? What NEW arguments can be presented? Some people prefer Brady, some prefer Manning. Can we get back on topic?

SativaDominant
05-26-2011, 11:29 AM
I remember my first Brady/Manning argument.

wicket
05-26-2011, 12:25 PM
That's mostly individual game or season statistics. Manning led the decade in every statistically significant positive category for a QB. The bolded statement is why I don't understand how anyone could not have Manning as their best QB of the 00s.

well thats pretty easy with manning being the only elite qb spending the entirety of the decade in the prime of his career. (ommitting his first two seasons)

I would still say manning is 1 but Brady is mighty close and brees has been more productive in the last 5 years. I would just say that Mannings 04 season is unrivaled

FUNBUNCHER
05-26-2011, 03:25 PM
i cannot believe terry bradshaw was listed as a top 5 anything, ever. he was a mediocre qb in the best situation ever. it's a joke that he's in the hall of fame and it's a joke that he's in a top 5 list on this site.


Maybe in hindsight, but during the '70s Bradshaw was regarded as an elite QB.

It's difficult to imagine the Steelers winning 4 SBs without Bradshaw, or a lesser talented QB at the helm.

Yes the 1970s Steelers team were allstar squads, but Bradshaw was a key component IMO.

In the biggest games, most high pressure situations, Bradshaw was at his best.

SativaDominant
05-26-2011, 03:48 PM
Maybe in hindsight, but during the '70s Bradshaw was regarded as an elite QB.

It's difficult to imagine the Steelers winning 4 SBs without Bradshaw, or a lesser talented QB at the helm.

Yes the 1970s Steelers team were allstar squads, but Bradshaw was a key component IMO.

In the biggest games, most high pressure situations, Bradshaw was at his best.

Also, it's not like he's vastly inferior statistically than his contemporaries, either (sans Staubach and Tarkenton). If the Immaculate Reception doesn't happen, Ken Stabler probably goes to the HoF over Bradshaw, and they're essentially the same guy (from a numbers standpoint). As far as undeserving Steelers who made the HoF from the 70s goes, I think Lynn Swann is far more undeserving - especially in comparison to Cliff Branch (another Raider snub from that era). But, like Bradshaw, Swann's biggest moments on the biggest stage.

I have a feeling kids in 10-20 years will look back and say things like, "why is John Elway considered one of the best quarterbacks of all-time? His numbers reflect a wildly inconsistent player and he lost Superbowls until the end of his career when he was a caretaker for one of the best running games in NFL history." Would that be a correct argument? Sure. Is it a true reflection of how great Elway's career was? Absolutely not.

SativaDominant
05-26-2011, 03:55 PM
i intensely disagree. bradshaw on any other team is a forgotten name. he won those titles because he was on one of the greatest teams of all time, not the other way around. and i'm not sure what hindsight has to do with anything. this is *all* hindsight.

Meh. Could say the same thing about Steve Young. Jerry Glanville has said Favre would have partied his career away had he traded him to New York instead of Green Bay. How does Troy Aikman stand historically if he played for Arizona instead of Dallas?

So much of legacy is determined by situation, and I don't know how you can hold that against a player. "If this, if that"...if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

Cudders
05-27-2011, 03:12 PM
This is weak, you can't simply discount a postseason performance because it hurts your argument. If that's the case, let's take away the second two Super Bowls and the Jaguars game away from Brady and see how his postseason numbers look. The fact of the matter is that the numbers bear out what I've said for a long time: Manning and Brady aren't a whole lot different in the postseason, the difference is that Brady had 3 great defenses (led by Ernie Adams's wonderful signal stealing via video tape) that carried him to the promised land while Manning was part of a team that had the worst defense ever to win a Super Bowl.

These are the kinds of arguments that arise from purely statistical analysis though. Performances against better defenses and in bigger moments should be weighted heavier. And, if we want to play that game, you can't simply discount that the Colts defense played a lot better than you're giving them credit for during their Super Bowl run.

Ernie Adams and his signal stealing played a big part in that, and the one time he didn't, due to Polian banning cameras from the sidelines in that game (2006 AFC Championship Game), it was Manning who led the game winning TD drive and Brady who threw the game losing INT. Even factoring those two games you're referring to in, Manning and Brady are frighteningly similar postseason QBs.

Care to explain why Manning wasn't spectacular in the first half of that game then? You know, when the offense was sputtering and the Colts were getting blown out, culminated with Manning making a mind-numbingly poor throw to Marvin Harrison when Asante Samuel was clearly baiting him? You can't chalk that one up to Ernie Adams' camcorder. Which, by the way, the reason there was such a stark difference between the first half and second half had nothing to do with Ernie Adams. It had everything with Bill Belichick going into prevent mode and abandoning his aggressive coverage shells. He stopped playing to win and instead played to protect his lead. Manning made him pay. Kudos to Peyton. That's what great quarterbacks do. But let's not act like one half vindicates him and cleanses the demons of previous performances.

By "comeback or game winning drives", do you mean the FG drives he's led that half of the QBs in the NFL could've led? Has ANY of those drives actually been a TD drive where a TD was needed? Because that's what Peyton Manning did, against Brady's Patriots. As for "pedestrian performances" in the 2006 postseason by Peyton Manning, they may have been pedestrian on the stat sheet, but on the field, they were exactly what was needed. Against KC, Manning threw 3 INTs, and was nearly perfect for the rest of the game, allowing the running game to star en route to an easy win. Against Baltimore, the stat sheet looked terrible, but anyone who watched the game knows that no other QB would have had a better day that day, and furthermore I doubt any other team would have come away with a win, Baltimore's defense was brutal. Against New England, obviously Manning's line doesn't look spectacular, but he put up more points on a Belichick defense in a half than they had allowed in a postseason game to that point (or possibly still, have they allowed 32+ points in a game since?) and led the largest comeback in AFC Championship Game history, including the aforementioned game winning TD drive. In the Super Bowl, Manning's statline was unspectacular again, but it was his 52 yard TD bomb to Reggie Wayne that made Rivera back off of blitzing for the entirety of the rest of the game, which opened holes for the running game, who proceeded to exploit them for well over 200 yards and a TD. Taking what the defense gives is not a crime, and in fact is actually the hallmark of a smart QB. You could argue Brady did the same over the years, but I'd argue that the difference is that the running game opened up for the Colts in several games because the other teams did not want Manning to beat them, whereas Brady did not inspire the same fear in opponents, and their running game succeeded as a continuation of their regular season success when they had a good running game.

There's a whole lot of useless speculation to sift through in this paragraph. Namely, the fact that we don't know that half of the QB's in the NFL could have lead all six game-winning drives, three of those coming in the Super Bowl. And, if you're really looking for a situation where he engineered a touchdown drive when it was needed, he did so against the Giants in the Super Bowl. By your logic, as it applies to Manning and the Colts at least, that shouldn't count against him because his defense let him down, right?

Plus, we don't know that no other quarterback could've performed better than Manning against Baltimore. I actually think there are QB's out there that could've put up performances on par with his. (For the record, to me, that was one of his better postseason games despite the statline because he largely did take what the defense gave to him, which is something he really didn't do earlier in his career.)

Also, were you watching Super Bowl XLI through Manning-colored glasses? Because that's a very, very distorted view of what happened in that game. First off, that 2006 Bears defense rarely blitzed. The vast majority of its pressure was generated on the backs of their four down lineman. Even though they were highly-regarded, they never came at you with exotic blitzes or formations. They played pretty simple, fundamental football. They knew they had to get to you with their four-man rush in three to four seconds or their seven defenders in coverage would be exposed.

Secondly, I specifically remember the bomb to Wayne you're referring to, and you're mistaken if you think it was the result of an ill-timed blitz. It was a typical four-man rush (a successful one, at that, seeing how Manning had to step up) with a busted coverage on the back end. Charles Tillman let Wayne by thinking he had help over the top. Mike Brown thought his responsibility was underneath. I don't know who was wrong or right, but I know the issue was miscommunication. That's all there was to it. It's not like Rivera dialed up a safety blitz and Manning signaled Wayne into a hot seam route. Nor did that specific play have any effect on whether Rivera did or did not blitz for the rest of that game. (As a sidenote, the kind of "traditional" blitzing you're referring to actually opens up holes for the running game. So, even hypothetically, Rivera eliminating standard blitz packages wouldn't have made their run defense weaker, it would've made it stronger because of increased gap integrity.)

Truth is, the running game played above their heads down the stretch and gashed the Bears defense, which had the added disadvantage of poor field conditions to combat. Manning did a good job of converting the manageable third-downs his running game left him and demoralized the defense.

And, on the subject of Brady and his running attack, he's had a great ground game behind him for exactly one of those Super Bowl runs. The one with Corey Dillon in '04. The others? They all featured mediocre backs or role players. In fact, their "success" was entirely by design and a byproduct of teams looking to take away the Brady-led short spread. Please, you can't honestly be telling me that guys like Antowain Smith, Kevin Faulk, and Laurence Maroney inspired more fear in defenses than Tom Brady, right?

I disagree, regardless of who says it. Peyton Manning has done many, many things that no other QB in NFL history has ever done. 30+ other QBs have hoisted the Lombardi Trophy. No other player has ever been recognized as the NFL's Most Valuable Player 4 times, nor led a decade in two of the four categories Manning led the 00s in, which, by the way, includes wins.

But doesn't include Super Bowl wins. We could go round-and-round on this point. And again, I'd like to stress that the 00's were the most passer-friendly era bar none. It shouldn't come as a surprise anyone that Manning surpassed names like Unitas, Staubach, Tarkenton, Montana, Marino, Elway, and Favre. He played in the perfect environment to put up eye-popping numbers.

No, this is more pointing out that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either Brady isn't as good of a good QB because he couldn't develop talent from a similar talent investment that the Colts gave Manning, OR draft position doesn't matter and Manning helped those players develop into good players. I'll let you pick.

OR, even more likely, Bill Polian places a greater premium on acquiring talent for the perimeter than Bill Belichick and does a much better job targeting skill players that fit their system. Like I said, some players are going to bust regardless of their situation. Some players are going to thrive. Even with those busts, Brady still has quite the track record for getting the most out of the talent he's given.

You mean like the time he threw what should have been a game losing INT against the Chargers, only to have Marlon McCree fumble the ball right back to him? Or the time he threw the game losing INT against the Colts? Or the time he took a sack down 3 points with a chance to tie the game in Super Bowl XLII? "Majority" is stretching it, and it took cheating along with historically major breaks (Tuck Rule) to make it happen.

I've already listed what I feel are Manning's postseason shortcomings, so there's no point in repeating them here. But, as long as we're arguing historic breaks and rules, how about the time Reche Caldwell dropped two big catches in the 2006 AFC Championship Game? Or the numerous times Bill Polian has modified the rules to benefit the Colts? Or the fact that Colts have pumped artificial noise into the RCA Dome? That's cheating too, you know.

I agree that stats aren't the point of a team sport, but they are the best available measure of individual performance. That doesn't make them perfect, and they especially become twisted when (most) people get their hands on them, but they're still the best available measure. By the same token, Brady is no more responsible for those three championships than any other Patriot, because, as previously stated, teams win championships, not individuals, so I fail to see the relevant resume boost from such a thing.

Give me an eyeball over a box score as a barometer any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Statistics in football, even more so than other major sports, are so misleading because things are so subjective. Scheme, supporting cast, situation, etc. The list goes on and on. But I know what I see on the field at the end of the day.

And the argument that Brady is no more responsible than any other Patriot is ridiculous. Brady plays arguably the most important position in all of sports and inarguably the most important position in his sport. Not to mention, he played it historically well, laying the foundation to a surefire Hall of Fame career. That's why it's such a relevant resume boost.

i cannot believe terry bradshaw was listed as a top 5 anything, ever. he was a mediocre qb in the best situation ever. it's a joke that he's in the hall of fame and it's a joke that he's in a top 5 list on this site.

From what I've seen, I agree completely. I've only caught old tape of the 70's Steelers, but I haven't been overly impressed with his play in those. Especially if we're talking about him as one of the best quarterbacks of the decade. Even watching his highlight reels, he fails to jump off the screen. It's a ton of sensational, acrobatic catches by Stallworth and Swann. I don't like to judge players I haven't seen a lot of, but I really haven't seen what everyone else did/does in Bradshaw. Sure, he had a strong arm to push the ball downfield to a pair of brilliant receivers, but is that enough to make him an all-time great?

SativaDominant
05-27-2011, 04:52 PM
i don't see how any of these things are relevant. terry bradshaw was, by every measure except rings on his fingers, mediocre. 3 pro bowls? 1 all pro? dude wasn't a top player of his era as determined by people playing in that era.

It's about as relevant as stating any mediocre quarterback plays for Pittsburgh and leaves the same legacy Bradshaw did. You proposed a hypothetical situation we can only speculate on. I juxtaposed it with other hypothetical situations that we can only speculate on.

but you can certainly hold situation against a player, when situation is the primary driver behind the reason why most people think the guy is good. every argument for bradshaw begins and ends with the rings. the steelers win every one of those super bowls with just about any other qb of that era on the team.

if you'd like to find a different argument for why bradshaw was more than mediocre, then situation might be less relevant. until then? he was trent dilfer with a hall of fame offense.

Strawman, of sorts. The clear top quarterbacks for that era were Staubauch, Griese, and Tarkenton in some order, and I don't think you'd find anyone who would argue Bradshaw above those guys. After that, you have a pretty steep dropoff into a different tier with Bradshaw, Stabler, and Ken Anderson.

I think you're vastly overstating the level of good quarterback play from that era. Who was better? Steve Grogan? Archie Manning? Len Dawson wasn't much more than an old caretaker by that point and retired by 75. Same goes for Roman Gabriel.

Food for thought: Of the five quarterbacks studied from the 1970s era, only two had a touchdown-to-interception ratio of greater than one, meaning that only two men threw more touchdowns than interceptions during their careers.

Those men were Roger Staubach and Terry Bradshaw.

Dam8610
05-31-2011, 07:41 PM
These are the kinds of arguments that arise from purely statistical analysis though. Performances against better defenses and in bigger moments should be weighted heavier. And, if we want to play that game, you can't simply discount that the Colts defense played a lot better than you're giving them credit for during their Super Bowl run.

My point is dropping performances when analyzing a body of work is just about the most ignorant thing that can be done, unless of course it's an extreme outlier. That said, considering Manning has had several postseason performances like that, you can't exactly call them outliers.

Care to explain why Manning wasn't spectacular in the first half of that game then? You know, when the offense was sputtering and the Colts were getting blown out, culminated with Manning making a mind-numbingly poor throw to Marvin Harrison when Asante Samuel was clearly baiting him?

Yes, actually, he didn't figure out until the end of the first half to gas their aging defense. The no huddle sparked the FG drive that gave them momentum going into the half, and the continuance of this strategy in the second half led to the Colts wearing out the Patriots defense for 32 second half points.

You can't chalk that one up to Ernie Adams' camcorder.

You're right, because Polian banned it from the sidelines, as he did all cameras. He sure is a dick about the rules, not letting the Patriots cheat and all.

Which, by the way, the reason there was such a stark difference between the first half and second half had nothing to do with Ernie Adams. It had everything with Bill Belichick going into prevent mode and abandoning his aggressive coverage shells. He stopped playing to win and instead played to protect his lead.

Or that the Colts started running a no huddle offense, gassing the Patriots defense, not allowing them to make substitutions. This led to 32 points and a game winning TD drive for Manning and the Colts offense.

Manning made him pay. Kudos to Peyton. That's what great quarterbacks do. But let's not act like one half vindicates him and cleanses the demons of previous performances.

Except that that's what the entire media perception was at the time, and since realistically. The knock on him was that he couldn't win the big game or get past the Patriots in the playoffs...until he won the big game by getting past the Patriots in the playoffs.

There's a whole lot of useless speculation to sift through in this paragraph. Namely, the fact that we don't know that half of the QB's in the NFL could have lead all six game-winning drives, three of those coming in the Super Bowl. And, if you're really looking for a situation where he engineered a touchdown drive when it was needed, he did so against the Giants in the Super Bowl.

Well if (bolding this to clarify that this is not in fact what I'm implying, just something I've seen implied before) you hold Kurt Warner and Jake Delhomme responsible for leaving too much time on the clock in Super Bowls XXXVI and XXXVIII, then you have to hold Brady responsible for leaving too much time on the clock in Super Bowl XLII.

By your logic, as it applies to Manning and the Colts at least, that shouldn't count against him because his defense let him down, right?

Are you talking about the 2006 AFC Championship Game or Super Bowl XLII? Because in either case, the fact that his defense allowed the other team to score and take the lead is not his fault. The fact that he threw the game clinching INT against the Colts? His fault. The fact that he took a sack that ate up most of the remaining time he had to move the ball down the field against the Giants? His fault.

Plus, we don't know that no other quarterback could've performed better than Manning against Baltimore. I actually think there are QB's out there that could've put up performances on par with his. (For the record, to me, that was one of his better postseason games despite the statline because he largely did take what the defense gave to him, which is something he really didn't do earlier in his career.)

Did you watch that game? They were the only team that year that seemed to be capable of covering every single one of the Colts receivers. That was, in my opinion, one of the best defensive performances I've ever seen, and while it is a hypothetical to say that no other QB would have performed as well, the way that Ed Reed and Ray Lewis flew around that field, I can't see how any other QB would have even gotten his team into field goal range 5 times in the game.

Also, were you watching Super Bowl XLI through Manning-colored glasses? Because that's a very, very distorted view of what happened in that game.

I've watched the game several times, for obvious reasons. In the first quarter, the Bears were being highly aggressive, blitzing early and often. It resulted in the interception on the first Colts drive. Then Manning made them pay on the 2nd drive with a 52 yard TD bomb, and after that, they played deep 2 coverage the rest of the game. On the first two series, they blitzed 4-5 times, the rest of the game, they didn't blitz on as many plays. It's not coincidence, the Bears didn't want Manning to beat them.

First off, that 2006 Bears defense rarely blitzed. The vast majority of its pressure was generated on the backs of their four down lineman. Even though they were highly-regarded, they never came at you with exotic blitzes or formations. They played pretty simple, fundamental football. They knew they had to get to you with their four-man rush in three to four seconds or their seven defenders in coverage would be exposed.

In most games, you're absolutely right about how they played, however, that's not what they did in that game. They blitzed early, got burned, and backed off into deep coverage.

Secondly, I specifically remember the bomb to Wayne you're referring to, and you're mistaken if you think it was the result of an ill-timed blitz. It was a typical four-man rush (a successful one, at that, seeing how Manning had to step up) with a busted coverage on the back end. Charles Tillman let Wayne by thinking he had help over the top. Mike Brown thought his responsibility was underneath. I don't know who was wrong or right, but I know the issue was miscommunication. That's all there was to it.

It was Chris Harris, but yes, it was a blown coverage on the back end. Also, they did send a blitzer on the play, which was in part what allowed the rush to get to Manning (it was also an excellent rush by that DT, can't remember the name off the top of my head), and after that play, they didn't blitz again in the game. You simply don't get as wide open as Wayne was without a blown coverage, but the Bears did blitz on that play.

It's not like Rivera dialed up a safety blitz and Manning signaled Wayne into a hot seam route.

No, Rivera blitzed a LB on the play, and the blown coverage left Wayne wide open.

Nor did that specific play have any effect on whether Rivera did or did not blitz for the rest of that game.

They had blitzed a handful of times in the 5-10 plays prior to that, and blitzed less in the remaining 70+ plays the Colts ran on offense. Call me crazy, but that sounds like causation to me.

(As a sidenote, the kind of "traditional" blitzing you're referring to actually opens up holes for the running game. So, even hypothetically, Rivera eliminating standard blitz packages wouldn't have made their run defense weaker, it would've made it stronger because of increased gap integrity.)

The Bears blitzed less for the rest of the game, going into deep coverage, and leaving underneath stuff wide open. There's a reason Addai holds the reception record in a game for RBs in a Super Bowl. It's because the Bears were giving up the short stuff to prevent the deep stuff after Wayne burned them in the first quarter. That meant the run and the short pass were available to the Colts for practically the remainder of the game.

Truth is, the running game played above their heads down the stretch and gashed the Bears defense, which had the added disadvantage of poor field conditions to combat. Manning did a good job of converting the manageable third-downs his running game left him and demoralized the defense.

The Colts running game actually wasn't playing "above their heads" in that game. Because of the past three years, people have forgotten how good the Colts OL was with Glenn and Saturday anchoring it. The running game got a whole lot of opportunities in that game, but that's because, like I said, after the Bears got burned deep, they refused to let the deep ball beat them again, and backed off into deep coverages, leaving the running game and short passing game as the most open and best options for the Colts offense to use.

But doesn't include Super Bowl wins. We could go round-and-round on this point. And again, I'd like to stress that the 00's were the most passer-friendly era bar none. It shouldn't come as a surprise anyone that Manning surpassed names like Unitas, Staubach, Tarkenton, Montana, Marino, Elway, and Favre. He played in the perfect environment to put up eye-popping numbers.

Super Bowl wins are team accomplishments, so unless you would really put Terry Bradshaw, Troy Aikman, and Joe Namath on the same level of quarterback play as guys like Fran Tarkenton, Norm Van Brocklin, Dan Fouts, Bert Jones, Roger Staubach, Dan Marino, Warren Moon, Jim Kelly, Steve Young, Brett Favre, etc., then I don't see how that is really relevant. By the same token, Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson won Super Bowls in the 00s, does that make them candidates for Top 5 consideration in the 00s? Anyone who watched them play would laugh at the suggestion, and Trent Green dwarfs both of them as a performer in the 00s, despite minimal postseason success. If "but Brady won more Super Bowls" is the best argument there is against Manning's unprecedented resume during the 00s, then you simply don't have a real argument.

Oh, and by the way, when I speak of Manning being the first ever to lead a decade in those four categories, each decade has its own decade specific leaders, so it's not like Manning just shot up because of a passer friendly era. It shows that Manning dominated the position of quarterback in the 2000s like no other player ever has in a decade. He was the best passer with the most wins and 4 Most Valuable Player awards, there's not a whole lot more he could have done as a quarterback in that time.

OR, even more likely, Bill Polian places a greater premium on acquiring talent for the perimeter than Bill Belichick and does a much better job targeting skill players that fit their system. Like I said, some players are going to bust regardless of their situation. Some players are going to thrive. Even with those busts, Brady still has quite the track record for getting the most out of the talent he's given.

Name a high Colts draft pick invested in the offense prior to the 2007 draft. I can then name you a similar investment in the Patriots offense during that time period (and it has continued since, in fact the Patriots have invested more in recent years). Again, it's not like the Pats weren't investing in their offense, so the argument that Manning is a product of the talent around him via investment is either hogwash, or shows that it's yet another category that Manning is better than Brady in, as Brady did worse with similar investment in his offense.

But, as long as we're arguing historic breaks and rules, how about the time Reche Caldwell dropped two big catches in the 2006 AFC Championship Game?

Doesn't compare to the Tuck Rule, or the (at minimum) nine teams the Patriots swindled out of a chance at a title by cheating.

Or the numerous times Bill Polian has modified the rules to benefit the Colts?

You mean the fact that he was on the competition committee that approved the re-emphasis of the defensive holding rule that had been in place since 1984? Or the fact that he banned cameras from the sidelines in the 2006 AFC Championship Game, not allowing the Patriots to cheat their way to another Super Bowl and ensuring the game was played fairly? Yeah, he sure did modify the rules to benefit the Colts.

Or the fact that Colts have pumped artificial noise into the RCA Dome? That's cheating too, you know.

I'd absolutely agree with that...if it was the case. The difference is the NFL investigated it, found nothing, and went on about their business. The NFL investigated the Patriots, found bunches and bunches of evidence of their cheating, and levied the harshest punishment in NFL history. See the difference between innocent and guilty?

Give me an eyeball over a box score as a barometer any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Statistics in football, even more so than other major sports, are so misleading because things are so subjective. Scheme, supporting cast, situation, etc. The list goes on and on. But I know what I see on the field at the end of the day.

Football Outsiders seems to put together some pretty solid predictor statistics for this to be true. I understand that to some extent the statistics don't tell the whole story, but to completely discredit them as useless is ridiculous. If teams felt that way, STATS Inc. wouldn't exist and be able to sell so much product to NFL teams. Furthermore, if your team didn't believe in statistical studies and research as it pertains to football, Belichick wouldn't go for it so often on 4th down, and that has paid off at times, and made him pay at times.

And the argument that Brady is no more responsible than any other Patriot is ridiculous. Brady plays arguably the most important position in all of sports and inarguably the most important position in his sport. Not to mention, he played it historically well, laying the foundation to a surefire Hall of Fame career. That's why it's such a relevant resume boost.

Any QB has control over no more than 50% of the game. Offense is at most one half of the game (In my opinion, it's more like roughly 40%, with roughly 40% being defense, and roughly 20% being special teams, obviously varying on a game by game basis), and no team has ever won a championship with a defense that was performing poorly. So to say that because his team won three Super Bowls, that makes his resume better, rather than his team's, is not only ludicrous, but is basically arguing that you believe that three football games are more important than the entire rest of the decade.

From what I've seen, I agree completely. I've only caught old tape of the 70's Steelers, but I haven't been overly impressed with his play in those. Especially if we're talking about him as one of the best quarterbacks of the decade. Even watching his highlight reels, he fails to jump off the screen. It's a ton of sensational, acrobatic catches by Stallworth and Swann. I don't like to judge players I haven't seen a lot of, but I really haven't seen what everyone else did/does in Bradshaw. Sure, he had a strong arm to push the ball downfield to a pair of brilliant receivers, but is that enough to make him an all-time great?

You say this after arguing Brady over Manning? Wow, just wow. If your argument is that Brady is a better QB than Manning in the 00s because he won two more titles, which is a team accomplishment, and was worse in every other category, then there's no way you can argue anything about Bradshaw being mediocre, after all, he won four superbowls.

Cudders
06-01-2011, 06:55 AM
My point is dropping performances when analyzing a body of work is just about the most ignorant thing that can be done, unless of course it's an extreme outlier. That said, considering Manning has had several postseason performances like that, you can't exactly call them outliers.

And it's a fair enough point. Along those lines, my point is you can't continue to ignore the performance of the Colts defense down the stretch that season. You've mentioned multiple times that it's statistically the worst defense to ever win a championship. That may be true, but they also improved drastically when the second season began. They gave up a lackluster average of 332.3 yards per game during the regular season. Split down, they surrendered 159.3 yards per game through the air and a staggering 173 yards per game on the ground. During the postseason, they knocked down their total yards per game to 238.5, 155.75 of those coming through the air and 82.75 coming on the ground. That's definitely a marked improvement.

Yes, actually, he didn't figure out until the end of the first half to gas their aging defense. The no huddle sparked the FG drive that gave them momentum going into the half, and the continuance of this strategy in the second half led to the Colts wearing out the Patriots defense for 32 second half points.

The adjustment to the no-huddle was brilliant and Manning ran it to absolute perfection. He capitalized on their mistakes. I've admitted that again and again and again. But Belichick let off the gas that game as well. He shifted gears from proactive to reactive and that's a death sentence against truly great quarterbacks. By the time he tried to flip the switch back and turn the tides, the Colts had all the momentum in the world on their side.

You're right, because Polian banned it from the sidelines, as he did all cameras. He sure is a dick about the rules, not letting the Patriots cheat and all.

Again, Manning was very average in the first half up until the last drive. Why was that? As you've reminded us, cameras were not allowed on the sideline that game. If it wasn't the bogeyman, then what was it?

Or that the Colts started running a no huddle offense, gassing the Patriots defense, not allowing them to make substitutions. This led to 32 points and a game winning TD drive for Manning and the Colts offense.

Yes, that strategy was certainly a big part of it. But you're also conveniently leaving out the other side of the story here.

Except that that's what the entire media perception was at the time, and since realistically. The knock on him was that he couldn't win the big game or get past the Patriots in the playoffs...until he won the big game by getting past the Patriots in the playoffs.

So I should just listen to the media then? Take their word for it? Forget the fact that the media is full of an inordinate number of loudmouth morons who shouldn't be given a platform to espouse their "analysis"? No, the media is full of sensationalist garbage, prisoners of the moment, and experts on revisionist history. Media perception is the last criteria I use when judging a player.

Are you talking about the 2006 AFC Championship Game or Super Bowl XLII? Because in either case, the fact that his defense allowed the other team to score and take the lead is not his fault. The fact that he threw the game clinching INT against the Colts? His fault. The fact that he took a sack that ate up most of the remaining time he had to move the ball down the field against the Giants? His fault.

I never said Tom Brady was the epitome of a perfect quarterback. Not once. In fact, I actually place plenty of blame on Brady for their Super Bowl XLII loss, as I've already stated in this thread. But it's ludicrous to pretend Brady has this long list of faults and Manning gets off the hook because he had the worse defense. That's not how it works.

Did you watch that game? They were the only team that year that seemed to be capable of covering every single one of the Colts receivers. That was, in my opinion, one of the best defensive performances I've ever seen, and while it is a hypothetical to say that no other QB would have performed as well, the way that Ed Reed and Ray Lewis flew around that field, I can't see how any other QB would have even gotten his team into field goal range 5 times in the game.

Yes, I did watch the game. I even said I was impressed with what Manning did. Especially with their fifth scoring drive, which ate up almost half the fourth quarter. He had a pretty nice pass to Clark through a tight window to convert a big third-and-five on that drive, if I recall correctly. That said, Baltimore coughed up the ball to Indianapolis three or four times that game too and I'm positive one of them basically gift-wrapped a Colts field goal. As far as whether anyone else could have done it, we'll ultimately never know. But I personally don't believe what Manning did was so special it was impossible to replicate.

I've watched the game several times, for obvious reasons. In the first quarter, the Bears were being highly aggressive, blitzing early and often. It resulted in the interception on the first Colts drive. Then Manning made them pay on the 2nd drive with a 52 yard TD bomb, and after that, they played deep 2 coverage the rest of the game. On the first two series, they blitzed 4-5 times, the rest of the game, they didn't blitz on as many plays. It's not coincidence, the Bears didn't want Manning to beat them.

No. Just no. I don't know what game you were watching, or have watched since, but the Bears DID NOT blitz early and often. And certainly not at the moments you're suggesting. Please watch this YouTube video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LpCKxdGH_U

At 0:54 seconds you'll see Manning's interception. Notice the four down lineman and no blitzers. There might have been a DE/DT stunt called, but that's about it and that isn't a blitz. And of course the Bears didn't want Manning to beat them. That's the reason Rivera dropped seven into coverage routinely. It's the reason the box is so empty on that particular play.

It was Chris Harris, but yes, it was a blown coverage on the back end. Also, they did send a blitzer on the play, which was in part what allowed the rush to get to Manning (it was also an excellent rush by that DT, can't remember the name off the top of my head), and after that play, they didn't blitz again in the game. You simply don't get as wide open as Wayne was without a blown coverage, but the Bears did blitz on that play.

It was Mike Brown. And there wasn't a blitz. Refer back to the same YouTube video. You're first going to see the formation in real-time at 1:08, but there's a slow motion view at 1:20 or so. If you stop it, you can see both Briggs (#55) and Urlacher (#54) SHOWING blitz in the A-gaps, but fall back into coverage as soon as the ball is snapped. After that, it's a standard rush. Mark Anderson (#97) burns the edge and forces Manning to step up into Tank Johnson (#99). When the ball is in the air, you can see Mike Brown (#30) come toward the line of scrimmage and Charles Tillman (#33) let Wayne past him.

No, Rivera blitzed a LB on the play, and the blown coverage left Wayne wide open.

The blown coverage left Wayne wide open. There was no blitzing linebacker.

They had blitzed a handful of times in the 5-10 plays prior to that, and blitzed less in the remaining 70+ plays the Colts ran on offense. Call me crazy, but that sounds like causation to me.

It would've been causation if the blitz cost them, but they weren't overly aggressive at any point in time.

The Bears blitzed less for the rest of the game, going into deep coverage, and leaving underneath stuff wide open. There's a reason Addai holds the reception record in a game for RBs in a Super Bowl. It's because the Bears were giving up the short stuff to prevent the deep stuff after Wayne burned them in the first quarter. That meant the run and the short pass were available to the Colts for practically the remainder of the game.

Yes, but the Bears played predominantly two deep coverage all season long. That wasn't a new wrinkle or anything. And yes, they conceded the underneath stuff, just look at the linebacker depth in some of those plays. I'm willing to bet their gameplan going into that Super Bowl was to bend but not break. Allow the short throws and give the running game some holes. See if they could get Peyton frustrated. And, if he took what they gave them, play great redzone defense and hold them to field goals because the Cover 2 gets infinitely harder to attack when the field gets shorter.

The Colts running game actually wasn't playing "above their heads" in that game. Because of the past three years, people have forgotten how good the Colts OL was with Glenn and Saturday anchoring it. The running game got a whole lot of opportunities in that game, but that's because, like I said, after the Bears got burned deep, they refused to let the deep ball beat them again, and backed off into deep coverages, leaving the running game and short passing game as the most open and best options for the Colts offense to use.

The running game got a whole lot of opportunities that game, but it's because the Bears were willing to sacrifice their run defense for greater zone depth from the get-go. Manning realized it from the start and let his backs shine. Again, a trademark of a smart quarterback.

Super Bowl wins are team accomplishments, so unless you would really put Terry Bradshaw, Troy Aikman, and Joe Namath on the same level of quarterback play as guys like Fran Tarkenton, Norm Van Brocklin, Dan Fouts, Bert Jones, Roger Staubach, Dan Marino, Warren Moon, Jim Kelly, Steve Young, Brett Favre, etc., then I don't see how that is really relevant. By the same token, Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson won Super Bowls in the 00s, does that make them candidates for Top 5 consideration in the 00s? Anyone who watched them play would laugh at the suggestion, and Trent Green dwarfs both of them as a performer in the 00s, despite minimal postseason success. If "but Brady won more Super Bowls" is the best argument there is against Manning's unprecedented resume during the 00s, then you simply don't have a real argument.

Nope. This argument is a stretch and you know it. Namely, because no one will ever argue the quarterbacks in your first list over most of those in your second. Then you throw-in two true outliers who essentially rode all-time great defenses all the way to the finish line.

Show me where I've said that Super Bowl victories are the be-all, end-all measurment of a quarterback's merit. Because I've never once said that. What I have maintained is that it's a huge resume boost and a deciding edge when given two comparable players. How you do it still matters a tremendous deal. Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson were career journeymen that landed in jobs with unbelievable, historically amazing defenses behind them. Joe Namath's overall career doesn't come close to holding a candle to Tom Brady's. Troy Aikman was surrounded with a lot more offensive talent. Terry Bradshaw stumbled into literally the perfect situation of all-time by many accounts.

The argument isn't simply Brady has more rings, so therefore he's better. The argument is Brady has performed better in the bigger moments and produced on par with Manning when given a similar supporting cast. To top that off, Brady also has two more rings than Manning.

Oh, and by the way, when I speak of Manning being the first ever to lead a decade in those four categories, each decade has its own decade specific leaders, so it's not like Manning just shot up because of a passer friendly era. It shows that Manning dominated the position of quarterback in the 2000s like no other player ever has in a decade. He was the best passer with the most wins and 4 Most Valuable Player awards, there's not a whole lot more he could have done as a quarterback in that time.

Since you piqued my curiosity, I did some digging and put some numbers in a spreadsheet. From 1983 to 1992, Dan Marino led the NFL in passing yardage, touchdowns, wins, completions, and attempts. He was second in passer rating. That's actually mighty similar dominance.

Name a high Colts draft pick invested in the offense prior to the 2007 draft. I can then name you a similar investment in the Patriots offense during that time period (and it has continued since, in fact the Patriots have invested more in recent years). Again, it's not like the Pats weren't investing in their offense, so the argument that Manning is a product of the talent around him via investment is either hogwash, or shows that it's yet another category that Manning is better than Brady in, as Brady did worse with similar investment in his offense.

You continue to gloss over the biggest part. The fact that a ton of player development comes down to whether or not they fit your system and if they have the will to work hard and get better. Those things are decided by franchise scouts in war rooms, not franchise quarterbacks in between the hashmarks.

You mean the fact that he was on the competition committee that approved the re-emphasis of the defensive holding rule that had been in place since 1984? Or the fact that he banned cameras from the sidelines in the 2006 AFC Championship Game, not allowing the Patriots to cheat their way to another Super Bowl and ensuring the game was played fairly? Yeah, he sure did modify the rules to benefit the Colts.

Or the fact that he only whined and complained about the rules AFTER Ty Law absolutely erased Marvin Harrison in the 2003 AFC Championship Game in a humiliating loss for the Colts?

I'd absolutely agree with that...if it was the case. The difference is the NFL investigated it, found nothing, and went on about their business. The NFL investigated the Patriots, found bunches and bunches of evidence of their cheating, and levied the harshest punishment in NFL history. See the difference between innocent and guilty?

Oh, you mean the overnight investigation the NFL conducted? You know, the one where they cleared the Colts of any wrongdoing the very next morning despite skipping soundtracks and completely nonexistant coach-to-quarterback communication for New England? See how it could be a little suspicious to those on the outside?

Football Outsiders seems to put together some pretty solid predictor statistics for this to be true. I understand that to some extent the statistics don't tell the whole story, but to completely discredit them as useless is ridiculous. If teams felt that way, STATS Inc. wouldn't exist and be able to sell so much product to NFL teams. Furthermore, if your team didn't believe in statistical studies and research as it pertains to football, Belichick wouldn't go for it so often on 4th down, and that has paid off at times, and made him pay at times.

My team? Hardly. I'm a Browns fan. I don't have a horse in this race. In fact, I actually root for Manning over Brady on Sunday. But that doesn't cloud my judgment. Not to mention, the kind of metrics that NFL teams employ and the kind of statistics you're using are different. Like, vastly different.

Any QB has control over no more than 50% of the game. Offense is at most one half of the game (In my opinion, it's more like roughly 40%, with roughly 40% being defense, and roughly 20% being special teams, obviously varying on a game by game basis), and no team has ever won a championship with a defense that was performing poorly. So to say that because his team won three Super Bowls, that makes his resume better, rather than his team's, is not only ludicrous, but is basically arguing that you believe that three football games are more important than the entire rest of the decade.

Quarterbacks can also help their defense by keeping them fresh and leading long, back-breaking drives. Like Brady has done many times. Like Manning did against Baltimore and Chicago in '06. And it's not ludicrous. It's the truth. Tom Brady was the MVP of the Patriots dynasty. That carries more weight on a resume than say, Larry Izzo, for example.

You say this after arguing Brady over Manning? Wow, just wow. If your argument is that Brady is a better QB than Manning in the 00s because he won two more titles, which is a team accomplishment, and was worse in every other category, then there's no way you can argue anything about Bradshaw being mediocre, after all, he won four superbowls.

First of all, I specifically put the fact that I have never seen Bradshaw live into context, which you ignored. I used qualifiers like "from what I've seen" or "I don't like to judge players I've seen a lot of." And, I'd like to reiterate once again, HOW you does it matters. Brady was the best player on his team. I don't think you'll find many people that will argue Bradshaw as the best player on the 70's Steelers.