If Peyton Manning retired today, (1 Viewer)

[Pat Patriot]

That's just crazy.  MJ was arguably the greatest to play in the NBA.  To compare him to Brady is ridiculous.

Merely based on Manning's career thus far he is one of the greatest qbs of all time.  While winning a SB is great, Manning has brought a lot to the table and I'm not even a fan of his.  SBs are won by team effort.  Brady has had a good surrounding cast as has Manning.  Brady's has just come through better in the clutch.

If you don't believe Brady is well on his way to becoming one of the best QBs of all time - which is what I got from your post; correct me if I'm wrong - then you simply haven't been paying attention the past 5 years.

I have been paying attention. I just do not think he is an elite qb. He is solid and does decent in his scheme. There would not even be a comparison here if the Colt had a SB ring.

So if Manning had 1 ring to Brady's 3 rings, there would be no comparison to Manning and Brady as QB's? The clutchness of Brady outweighs the gawdy stats of Manning.

 

[SSOG]

FreeBaGeL, are you forgetting that in the Patriots first two Super Bowl wins, the defense collapsed in the 4th quarter (blowing double digit leads in both) and Brady bailed them out both times by leading the offense down the field for wins?

You switch the supporting casts of Manning and Brady the last 5 years and Manning has at least 3 super bowls of his own.

Maybe, maybe not, but keep in mind that Manning has never had to perform in an offense not filled with All-Pro's all over the place. Brady has often excelled with an average RB (except for Dillon in '04) and a good to very good, at best, receivers. Manning has always had James, a top RB, Harrison, a top WR, and very good, at worst, complementary receivers. Brady has proven he can perform at a top level without having top level talent at the other skill positions. Manning never has, so I do not think it is that simple to say what you said.

This is, in my mind, the only legitimate arguement against Peyton Manning as a HoFer. I place a LOT of emphasis on supporting cast (obviously QBs with better OLs and WRs will put up better numbers), which is why I'm lower on Marino and Kelly than most people. Manning gets a serious downgrade on the all-time list because of his supporting cast. At the same time, though... NO ONE has *EVER* put up a run even REMOTELY like what Manning is currently on. EVER. He's a lock for the HoF, even if he retires tomorrow.

His legacy would be as a choke artist. If he deserves that lable is up to you.

Personaly I think he does, just like everyone else who eventually overcame it deserved it when they did. Lefty, Cower, Bonds. All these guys deserved being labled as Choke artists until they proved they weren't and performed. Manning doesn't have to win the Super Bowl or even get to one. He just has to stop being the reason his team doesn't in the Playoffs.

So, basically, what you're saying is that everyone who hasn't won a big one yet should be labeled incapable of winning the big one until they win a big one, at which point we should acknowledge that they were really capable of it all along? Huh?What sort of criteria do you want? You want Manning to not be the reason his team loses? Fair enough. Against Pittsburgh this year, Manning was 22 of 38 (58%) for 290 yards (7.6 ypa), with 1 TD and 0 INTs. Were they all-world numbers? Nope, but they were VERY respectable numbers (90+ QB rating). Manning certainly wasn't the reason his team lost that playoff game... so obviously, by your definition, Manning's no longer a choker.

Want to raise the bar some? Sure, let's make it so that Peyton Manning has to perform SUPERBLY in an elimination game before he shakes that "choker" moniker. Well then, allow me to remind you of 44 of 58 for 681 yards and 8 TDs (and two straight "perfect" Qb ratings and 0 punts) against KC and Denver in 2003. That's certainly performing "great", and Manning was definitely the reason Indy won against KC (his defense didn't force a KC punt all game).

Okay, okay, so what you're telling me is that the new definition for non-choker Manning is that he has to perform great in a big game, and the definition of "big game" is any game that Manning performs poorly in, since obviously he's a choker who can't cut it in big games. Once he handles that, though, you'll take back that "choker" label, right?

Again, Manning has lost in the playoffs for 3 straight years. The team that beat him went on to win the superbowl for 3 straight years. It's not like he's losing to scrubs here- he's losing to THE BEST TEAM IN THE ENTIRE NFL... and he's absolutely KILLING everybody else he faces (41, 38, 49 points against non-SB champs). I think you could make a solid arguement that Indy has been the #2 team in the entire NFL for 3 straight years now. Since when is that an insult?

If anything, I'd take Kurt Warner in his prime over Peyton Manning in his prime.

Kurt Warner in his prime;
| Name | G | CMP ATT PCT YARD Y/A TD IN | RSH YARD |+----------------------+----+-------------------------------+--------+| Kurt Warner | 16 | 375 546 68.7 4830 8.8 36 22 | 28 60 |+----------------------+----+-------------------------------+--------+Peyton Manning in his prime;

| Name                 |  G | CMP ATT   PCT YARD  Y/A TD IN | RSH YARD |+----------------------+----+-------------------------------+--------+| Peyton Manning       | 16 | 336 497  67.6 4557  9.2 49 10 |  25   38 |+----------------------+----+-------------------------------+--------+

You know, when I first read Phlash's post, I figured it'd be Manning in a runawy. Manning's got him beat in the TD's and had less interceptions.

Warner had Manning beat in completion % and yardage.

Neither of these guys were / are much at scrambling.

It's pretty darn close really.

If you see that as "pretty darn close", you're looking at different statistics than I am.First off, ignore completion percentage. That's as much a result of the system you're throwing in as anything. Lots of short passes to the RB = high completion %. The big stat is YPA, since it's scheme independent (if you're in a long-ball offense, you complete fewer passes but each pass goes further. If you're in a WCO, you complete more passes, but each pass is shorter. Statistically, ypa will be pretty even across all different schemes). Also, remember that Manning had 49 fewer pass attempts than Warner (which means you need to increase all of his numbers by 10% to get a good basis for comparison).

If you add 10% to all of Manning's numbers (to get an accurate comparison), then suddenly he has 5000+ yards, 54 TDs, and only 11 INTs. The INTs are really the amazing thing. I mean, Warner's 22 INTs would have been 2nd in the NFL last year, and would have LED THE LEAGUE in '03 or '04.

To get a per-attempt comparison... Manning's ypa was marginally better than Warner's (4.5% better)... but his TD% was 50% BETTER (9.9% compared to 6.6%) and his INT% was 50% LOWER (2.0% compared to 4.0%). Warner's season was amazing. Manning's season defies description. In my opinion, only Steve Young's 1994 campaign and Marino's 1984 campaign were anywhere near the level of Manning's 2004 campaign (yes, it's weird how these all come in years ending in 4). And even those two years fall short.

It's silly to label one person clutch and another person a choker on such a small sample of games. If a few of us flipped coins ten times, at least one of us would totally rule and another would totally suck. It means very little.

Quoted for emphasis.

 

[Noahs Troopers]

If the career ended today, one word comes to mind:

CHOKER