This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
My bad. Reading comprehension down. Just glanced and thought they were 'raw' numbers. My point stands though. None of them have him ahead of Montana. None of them have him as the #1 or #2. To have him at 6 or 7 seems closer than calling him the Greatest of All-Time.
Not sure what you are saying here... Brady gets credit for that YAC in his passing yards.Look at their splits
ass Thrown: Behind line - QB rating 95.5Pass Thrown: 1-10 yds. - QB rating 96.2Pass Thrown: 11-20 yds. - QB rating 62.5Pass Thrown: 21-30 yds. - QB rating 80.4Pass Thrown: 31-40 yds. - QB rating 71.9Pass Thrown: 41+ yds. - QB rating 79.2How about Manning?Pass Thrown: Behind line - QB rating 70.1Pass Thrown: 1-10 yds. - QB rating 99.4Pass Thrown: 11-20 yds. - QB rating 120.3Pass Thrown: 21-30 yds. - QB rating 75.0Pass Thrown: 31-40 yds. - QB rating 123.0Pass Thrown: 41+ yds. - QB rating 115.5
On par with Trent Dilfer.Brady is the deadliest passer I've ever seen on those underneath routes.
Right, but the Patriots have no deep threat, and nobody to find the hole in the seem like Harrison and Wayne can. Of course you'd expect that the intermediate and deep stuff is where a quality (or even decent) receiver would help most.Not sure what you are saying here... Brady gets credit for that YAC in his passing yards.Look at their splits
This post actually makes me feel better. Now I know the rest of your responses in this thread have just been shtick.On par with Trent Dilfer.Brady is the deadliest passer I've ever seen on those underneath routes.
Passer rating really isn't the data needed. My point was about situational play calling. Not sure if its even possible to find how many passes by each QB attempted on 3rd & 8 and how far they threw them.Not sure what you are saying here... Brady gets credit for that YAC in his passing yards.Look at their splits
That type of behavior should be encouraged more around here. Keep up the good work!
This is a great backpedal.
As soon as Favre breaks Marino's records, he'll shoot up that list. Same with Manning when his career is complete. As I have said all along, Favre is a no brainer to be ahead of Marino, and obviously this poll reflects that.Montana will always be mentioned in GOAT conversations, probably Unitas, too. When Favre's career is complete, he'll be the third that must be included in the discussion. He's accomplishments will be too lofty to ignore. People excluding him now are ignoring the inevitable. Elway will be in the mix, too, but he didn't have the most rings or best stats in this tiny group of elite, but he is good enough to warrant mention. Manning will be there if he keeps going like he is.....he is almost there now.
I had to change my comment on that list...I read it wrong. But my two main points have NOT changed or been backed away from.This is a great backpedal.
Certainly that was not my intent.
DY, I know, but it goes there nearly every time. It is a shame that a real discussion can't be had on these boards without:a) until this year, every thread turning into a "Manning is a choker" threador b) "Brady is as good or better than Manning" threadJust sad.
Much resistance on this board to giving Manning any credit. Heavily represented by the New England states, coincidentally.
The question was which coordinator helps teh QB more and my answer is BB. I never said the Colts "HAVE BEEN" playing from behind, you did. I only gave an example of why I would choose BB as someone who helps the QB more. The Colt offense is stacked and that helps the situation more than anything else. But, I think we have seen that Manning has not played that well against BB and part is the scheme and part is him not playing with a lead.Sure if you are behind you can put up more points and yards, but you will also throw more picks.
HK, you would be almost tolerable if you would try and search for the truth instead of trying to prove a point. Just so you are aware, your "argument" is way off base because you are saying a stat guy will get all these stats but lose because his defense stinks, yet if a player had a great defense he will win titles and not need to throw much and therefore is better than the stat guy who had the crappy defense? Dude you are lost! Just go back to all those other posts we had, if your defense is so good you don't need to throw much, then wouldn't it make sense than you could win with a mediocre QB as long as the team around you was studly? If so, then why are titles so important for YOU to rank a QB. Why was Manning a choker and not worthy to be discussed with the great title guys like Bradshaw and Aikman, but after a mediocre playoffs, Manning is now in that elite group? You should look at how the guy played the game, who was around him AND look at the stats to make an educated analysis of who is better. Just looking at titles is ignorant.Here is a perfect example from the past four years:The 2005 Colts were #2 in Points Against, the highest ever with Manning at QB. This caused Manning to have the fewest passing attempts in his career with only 453. The result was 3,743 yards passing, 2nd lowest in his career (only 8 yards higher than his rookie season). In 2003, 2004, & 2006, the Colts were 20, 19, & 23rd respectively in PA. So the Colts needed to score more to win, so Manning threw much more when his D was worse.Conversely, the 2005 Patriots were 17th in Points Against, and Tom Brady passed for 4,110 yards the most in his career. In 2003, 2004, & 2006, the Patriots were 1st or 2nd in PA. This means the Patriots needed to score less to win, so Brady had fewer attempts in those years.LMFAO at people who rank "stat" guys over champions on the premise that if they played for a better team they would have had won titles, too. Of course, in this flawed conjecture they fail to mention that their "stat" guy's numbers would have been worse because winning teams aren't usually going to be throwing the ball all over the field for 60 minutes. Amazing how many people miss this concept.
Poor argument. First you can look at the numbers and average it all out for any single number you want so that it is equal. That being said No one is saying Manning is better because he throws for more yards and TD's (if they did it is not worth continuing)Let's look at the last 5 years as both players played EVERY game.
Terry Bradshaw at 6 shows that these experts don't have a clue. the guy had almost as many picks as TD's as just ONE of the many argumnents against a ranking in the top 20, let alone 10Is it not impossible to make a legitimate argument that none of the 5 greatest QB's of all time are currently active players? The NFL's been around 87 years.This is laughable or
It takes great stats, great skill AND great results. You can't dismiss any of them. To ignore the playoff records and just go by stats is dumb. To just go by playoff stats and ignore all the other games is dumb. To not take into account the skill of the player and the situation/time he played in is dumb.
By the way...an ESPN poll of experts shows that NONE of them picked Favre or Manning as the Greatest of All-Time. In fact, nobody has either of them as the #2 even.http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1930076
EDIT: to add that this was before Manning won the Super Bowl...it's very possible a few of those guys would move him up into the top 5 if they re-did the poll.
Re-EDIT: to correct the stupidity factor of drinking while posting
Exactly the reason why looking at rings is a neophytes why of justifying someone's greatness.
Classic.Peyton can't win with some of you who've just made up your minds, already. He was criticized for NOT taking what the defense gave him and being impatient during the string of playoff losses (a valid critique), and now his SB winning performance is downgraded because he took what the defense gave him.Have a good offseason, Grid.
I agree, and would also add that some people need to move on to another whipping boy. How about Eli?
Check out 2004, the year that most people believe was the strongest of the Patriots dynasty. Brady had his fewest passes, but most touchdowns, and had his best passer rating. That's also the only year he's gotten a pro bowl performance from his running back. Look at 2002 and 2005, the years that the Patriots had their worst struggles on run defense and pass defense, respectively. In 2002, Brady led the league in passing TDs, and the fact that teams were running all over them probably contributed to this. In 2005, Brady led the league in passing yards, in large part because Dillon had a bad year. Look at 2006. Brady had his fewest yards, his second fewest TDs, and his second fewest yards per attempt. This is in large part due to the fact that New England had no receivers. None of this should be all that surprising. It seems intuitive that Brady's numbers would be better when the running game was working well, and that he would be asked to do more when the defense was struggling, and that he would have trouble when he didn't have good receivers. Similarly, Manning had his worst numbers in 2001 and 2002 when Edgerrin was hurt and recovering from his ACL injury, respectively. By comparison, Harrison had his best numbers during those years, setting his personal career best in TDs in 2001 and the NFL record for receptions in 2002. So when Manning didn't have a running game, he was able to rely heavily on his Hall of Fame receiver. When we compare the two QBs on their statistics, it's relevant to discuss how Brady doesn't have a Hall of Fame receiver. It's relevant to discuss how Brady hasn't had the benefit of the running game that the Colts have had. It's relevant to discuss that Manning's stats may be inflated by the quality of their respective defenses. The statistics bear this out. That's not to take anything away from Manning. I don't care how good your receivers are, a 100 passer rating is very impressive. Averaging over 100 for your career is legendary. I don't care how many weapons you have, 49 TDs is an incredible accomplishment. My only argument against Manning in the past was about his struggles in the playoffs, and as I have said, I think he showed this year that he is past that.
I disagree with Grid, and even more than usual. The most important thing Manning did this year is to take what the defenses gave him. If you want to be critical of the Colts' Superbowl run, talk about the picks and near-picks, and how they took advantage of a Chiefs team that simply didn't come out ready to play, a Ravens team that didn't come out ready to play offense, a Patriots team that was decimated by injuries and the flu and a Bears team that might not even have made the playoffs in the AFC. It's still very difficult to win a Superbowl, but their road was much easier than any year they've tried in the past. But don't be critical of Manning for taking what the defenses gave them. I think he made a huge leap in how he played in this year's playoffs by not trying to force things, and on the other side of the spectrum, not playing scared or losing his composure when he made mistakes.
Very
One of the downsides to the ignore feature is being able to still see my stalker's posts when they are quoted by someone else. I just learned that today.
BostonFred, I agree with most everything you write here. I would say that the NE defense in 2002 and 2005 was middle of the pack in terms of points allowed and while not great, is something that you can work with. Dan Marino would have killed to have his worst defenses to be mediocre defenses like NE had those years
My point was not to compare Brady and Manning and say who is better (That may seem odd because I posted their numbers as a comp), it was more to point to the incorrect comment made by HK who said Manning throws more than Brady so of course his numbers are better.QB's get wins because they have great talent around them or they have decent talent around them and they are great (of course there are other variations as well). However, if you don't have a lot of talent as a team, you will not win, no matter how good your QB is. Part of the talent around you is coaching and BB is arguably the best ever. The 1990 NY Giants SB team was the best coaching job I ever saw.
phillzphan said:
Bottom line: Manning has passed more than Brady. Carving out a small segment and comparing attempts for a select time period is asinine. Look at their stats since their careers started and Manning has thrown 2 passes more per game played. Over 16 game seasons, it adds up. Also, purely from a statistical standpoint, it fails to compare schemes and surrounding talent, etc, etc.
Ok, so add it up. Take Brady's YPA, and multiply that by 32 attempts per year. He still won't reach Manning's numbers.You're right about scheme and surrounding talent. We'll never be able to tease that one apart. However, I find it interesting that Brady's receivers historically gather more YAC than Manning's receivers. While NE receivers clearly aren't on the same level as Harrison/Wayne, they certainly have helped out Brady's stats after the catch, and those stats still aren't on par with Manning.phillzphan said:
Agreed. My problem is the statement that they both "throw about the same".Here is all the data, sorted by attempts per season. I'll let people determine for themselves which QB actually throws more:
The whole point of the screen pass is to get yards after the catch. You don't throw a ball two yards behind the line of scrimmage and then hope that the receiver stops there. Play action passing is usually geared towards throwing the ball deep, by which time the safety can usually either get to the receiver but can't break it up, or the pass is already close to or in the end zone. It takes a unique skillset to set up the screen, just like it takes a unique skill set to set up the play action. Brady is better at the former, while Manning is better at the latter. Brady has great footwork, which is critical when you're setting up the screen because you need to make the pass rusher think he has a chance to get to you or they'll move out and cover the receiver. Brady's very good at rolling right and then throwing the screen left, and he's very good at faking the ball left on a double screen while setting up the screen to the right. That's an artifcat of the offense. Manning can also throw screens, but unlike the New England offense, in which any eligible receiver may catch a screen pass at any time, the Colts offense doesn't use as many short passes and when they do it's mostly to the running back. When he does throw the screen, Manning doesn't sell it as well, he doesn't delay the throw as much, and I can't remember ever seeing him throw a double screen. That doesn't mean he couldn't if the offense called for it, but that's an example of the different skillset Manning has. What Manning is very good at is the play action pass. He disguises the handoff very well and continues past the fake handoff as if he had let the ball go. This makes it very difficult for the safety to read the play and defend the open receiver instead of heading towards the running play. Manning is also very good at reading the defense, and then audibling to the play action, audibling to a run, or fake audibling to confuse the defense. This means that the safety can't cheat towards the run or stay deep without worrying that Manning will audible into a play that takes advantage of their presnap placement. Brady can also throw the play action pass, but he generally hasn't had a receiver who had the deep speed to get there, and the guys he has had generally haven't had the hands to make the catch. The best deep receiver Brady has had was Patten, and he was old and really hasn't been any good on any team but the Patriots. Manning's also very good at identifying the defensive package and running a play to take advantage of the biggest defensive mismatch. There have been plenty of times where Manning has reeled off three or four straight passes to Harrison or Wayne or, in the Superbowl, you might remember him throwing nonstop to Addai because he could take advantage of the defensive package that was in. Brady doesn't have the luxury of defensive mismatches very often, because his receivers aren't that good. Instead, he attacks the weak link in the defense, or looks for holes in the defense. Manning does that, too, but he doesn't have to worry about his receiver getting to where they're supposed to go as often as Brady does, or being able to do as much once they're there. Both players throw a good quick slant, both have a strong arm and a fast throwing motion, although Manning's arm is almost certainly stronger. Brady does some things like jump up and fake a bad snap while the center direct snaps to the running back, or pretend to throw a quick pass after the handoff on a play action pass, that help those plays to be more successful. While Manning and Brady are probably 1-2 in the league in terms of having the authority to call or change the play at the line, Manning certainly does it more often and has a more convincing scheme, while a lot of Brady's presnap adjustments are for extra protection or to change the play because the opponent's got the right defense in for the play they called. Manning has the luxury of exploiting mismatches because a couple of his offense's players are almost always better than their defensive counterparts. The Patriots, on the other hand, are not better on offense than most other teams. But they're good at just about everything, so their offense is designed to exploit whatever weakness they can find in their opponent's defense. If the team is fast, then you run on them. If they've got a great pass rush and great corners, you run screens and quick slants. If they're defending against the screen, you try the double screen and then pressure them deep. For that offense to work, Brady has to be good at just about everything. On the other hand, the Colts' offense is consistently elite because Manning is good at just about everything, too, and has the offensive weapons to play to his team's strengths instead of his opponents' weaknesses. Both are impressive. But using YAC or passing statistics alone as an argument for why one player is better than the other is simply wrong.Ok, so add it up. Take Brady's YPA, and multiply that by 32 attempts per year. He still won't reach Manning's numbers.You're right about scheme and surrounding talent. We'll never be able to tease that one apart. However, I find it interesting that Brady's receivers historically gather more YAC than Manning's receivers. While NE receivers clearly aren't on the same level as Harrison/Wayne, they certainly have helped out Brady's stats after the catch, and those stats still aren't on par with Manning.phillzphan said:Bottom line: Manning has passed more than Brady. Carving out a small segment and comparing attempts for a select time period is asinine. Look at their stats since their careers started and Manning has thrown 2 passes more per game played. Over 16 game seasons, it adds up. Also, purely from a statistical standpoint, it fails to compare schemes and surrounding talent, etc, etc.
:X Yeah, it is real asinine to use the last 5 years of data when it is the most recent data and they are the only years where each of them played the entire 16 games for each year. If you would rather go back more than 5 years to try and prove a point that is fine, but BOTH players are different than they were 5 years ago. Using the last 5 years as a data point is about as realistic and accurate as possible and YES they have thrown about the same the last 5 years.You wonder why I have issues with your posts?phillzphan said:Bottom line: Manning has passed more than Brady. Carving out a small segment and comparing attempts for a select time period is asinine. Look at their stats since their careers started and Manning has thrown 2 passes more per game played. Over 16 game seasons, it adds up. Also, purely from a statistical standpoint, it fails to compare schemes and surrounding talent, etc, etc.
Reaper, this is what many younger people don't understand. Here you are a Jet fan talking about how amazing Marino was. The entire defense was geared to stop Marino and they had a lot of trouble. Only the best defenses could play him tough and that was only because they didn't have to worry about the running game at all. Manning had the luxury of Edge and that makes a huge difference.Favre had very good RB's as well. Brady has had a pretty solid running game, or at least a reliable one on short yardage.
Everything you wrote above this line was spot-on, and I agree with pretty-much all of it. I just don't want the point of YAC to get misconstrued here. I was using it more as a demonstration of what the receivers in the NE offense contribute to the overall body of their offensive efficiency. While the RBs often contribute to that, it was '04, I believe, where the WRs for NE led the entire league in YAC. In no way, though, do I make any link between YAC and QB ability. I couldn't even fabricate a logical connection between the two and keep a straight face.Nevertheless, these are entirely different offensive philosophies. My personal opinion is that Indy's philosophy imposes greater risks and, when rolling, can be deadlier than what New England has installed. The risk-reward is greater for Indy, I guess (imo, of course). Do I elevate Manning a touch because of that perception? I guess I do.
That seems reasonable. I look at Indy and I see at least five guys contributing to Manning's numbers. Then I look at New England, and I look at what Brady's done in New England and think, why hasn't the league figured it out? It seems so obvious what they're doing. Either the rest of the league should be copycatting this offense, or someone should have figured out how to stop it. But the fact that nobody's running this offense and nobody's figured out how to stop it tells me that it's not just the offense. It wasn't David Patten. It wasn't Troy Brown. It wasn't even Deion Branch and David Givens. It's the guy running it.Everything you wrote above this line was spot-on, and I agree with pretty-much all of it. I just don't want the point of YAC to get misconstrued here. I was using it more as a demonstration of what the receivers in the NE offense contribute to the overall body of their offensive efficiency. While the RBs often contribute to that, it was '04, I believe, where the WRs for NE led the entire league in YAC. In no way, though, do I make any link between YAC and QB ability. I couldn't even fabricate a logical connection between the two and keep a straight face.Nevertheless, these are entirely different offensive philosophies. My personal opinion is that Indy's philosophy imposes greater risks and, when rolling, can be deadlier than what New England has installed. The risk-reward is greater for Indy, I guess (imo, of course). Do I elevate Manning a touch because of that perception? I guess I do.
The receivers you mention may not be great, but they are decent or solid. Other teams gave up some bucks for them. I do not think Brady made them, I do think the system is excellent as it allows receivers to get open by running picks and running behind clear outs. Brady is excellent, but Pennington hits wide open guys in the same type of offense and Pennington is mediocre. Team know he can't beat them over the top but they run the same patterns and guys are wide open. It does take accuracy and good pass protection to work and both teams have that.That seems reasonable. I look at Indy and I see at least five guys contributing to Manning's numbers. Then I look at New England, and I look at what Brady's done in New England and think, why hasn't the league figured it out? It seems so obvious what they're doing. Either the rest of the league should be copycatting this offense, or someone should have figured out how to stop it. But the fact that nobody's running this offense and nobody's figured out how to stop it tells me that it's not just the offense. It wasn't David Patten. It wasn't Troy Brown. It wasn't even Deion Branch and David Givens. It's the guy running it.Everything you wrote above this line was spot-on, and I agree with pretty-much all of it. I just don't want the point of YAC to get misconstrued here. I was using it more as a demonstration of what the receivers in the NE offense contribute to the overall body of their offensive efficiency. While the RBs often contribute to that, it was '04, I believe, where the WRs for NE led the entire league in YAC. In no way, though, do I make any link between YAC and QB ability. I couldn't even fabricate a logical connection between the two and keep a straight face.Nevertheless, these are entirely different offensive philosophies. My personal opinion is that Indy's philosophy imposes greater risks and, when rolling, can be deadlier than what New England has installed. The risk-reward is greater for Indy, I guess (imo, of course). Do I elevate Manning a touch because of that perception? I guess I do.
