Kurt Warner > Peyton Manning? (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

I posted this in the Warner HOF thread, but thought this might make for some interesting discussion here. Should be interesting to see some people (ahem, Chase) analyze the analysis in the article based on the #'s.

Warner > Manning?

Kurt Warner did more than lift the historically dysfunctional Cardinals franchise into its first Super Bowl on Sunday. He also lifted himself past the Chosen One, Peyton Manning, to right behind Tom Brady on the list of the best quarterbacks in the NFL today.

His performance against Philly in the NFC title game was classic big-game Warner, the type we've rarely seen out of Manning in the playoffs. The Eagles entered the NFC title game with one of the league's best defenses: they ranked fourth in scoring (289 points allowed) and fifth in defensive passer rating (72.9).

It didn't matter.

Warner torched this stingy unit, completing 21 of 28 passes (75 percent) for 279 yards, 9.96 yards per attempt, four touchdowns, no interceptions and a 145.7 passer rating.

It was a nearly perfect statistical game. In fact, over the course of the game, Warner jumped past Joe Montana and into second place on the all-time postseason passer rating list: Warner now boasts a 97.3 postseason passer rating; Montana, 95.6. Only the great Bart Starr was better in the playoffs (104.8).

That's not to say Warner is a better quarterback than Montana. He's not. Montana did it over more games and was nearly flawless in four Super Bowl victories. But it does tell us that Warner's performances over his unusual 11-year NFL career have been nothing less than historic in their nature.

It also tells us that Warner is better than Manning.

The similarities

There are a surprising number of similarities between Manning and Warner.

They both joined the NFL in 1998. They both spent the bulk of their careers playing in domes, giving them plenty of opportunity to cook up fat, juicy stats. And both were often surrounded by great offensive talent. Hell, both of them played with Marshall Faulk and Edgerrin James.

The similarities are apparent in the Cold, Hard Football Facts, too:

• Manning is second in NFL history with a 94.7 career passer rating.

• Warner is third in NFL history with a 93.8 career passer rating.

The two are tight as ticks statistically in the regular season.

The differences

Yet there are two major differences between Warner and Manning. They are differences that tell us Warner is the better quarterback even as the misguiding light called reputation says otherwise.

First, Manning was anointed for his greatness as early as high school and the reputation followed him to the University of Tennessee and into the pros, while Warner followed an unusual path from small college (Northern Iowa) to second-rate pro leagues before injury handed him a shot in the NFL. Warner simply doesn't carry the same perception in the eyes of the pigskin public, even as the Cold, Hard Football Facts demand that he deserves the same Manning-style exaltation.

Second, when it comes to all-important postseason play, there is no comparison: Warner is better than Manning any which way you want to slice it or dice it.

Warner in the postseason (10 games):

230 of 360 (63.9 percent), 2,991 yards, 8.31 YPA, 299 yards per game, 23 TD, 12 INT, 97.3 passer rating.

Manning in the postseason (15 games):

348 of 565 (61.6 percent), 4,207 yards, 7.4 YPA, 280 yards per game, 22 TD, 17 INT, 84.9 passer rating.

You'll notice Warner is better than Manning in almost every single efficiency stat and has actually thrown more postseason TD passes than Manning (23 to 22) -- despite playing in five fewer games.

You'll also notice Warner's postseason passer rating (97.3) is higher than his regular-season passer rating (93.8), while Manning's postseason passer rating (84.9) is significantly lower than his regular-season passer rating (94.7).

In other words, Warner's play improves in the postseason pressure cooker. Manning's performances plummet.

Three other things to consider:

1) Warner is much more likely to play well in the postseason. Warner produced a passer rating of 90.0 or better in six of 10 postseason games. Manning produced a passer rating of 90.0 or better in six of 15 postseason games.

2) Warner is far less likely to lay an egg in the postseason. Manning has played his worst statistical game of the year in the playoffs in 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006 (as measured by passer rating). Three times in 15 playoff games Manning has posted a passer rating of less than 40 (compared with just twice in 176 regular season games).

Warner has never performed so poorly in the playoffs. In his worst statistical game, his passer rating was 56.2.

3) Most importantly, Warner's teams are much more likely to win the playoffs. Warner's teams are 8-2 in postseason play. Manning's Colts are 7-8 in postseason play. In all of history, only Brady (14-3; .824) and Starr (9-1; .900) boast better postseason records than Warner.

Warner is also gearing up for his third Super Bowl start. The list of quarterbacks who have started more is short: John Elway, Terry Bradshaw, Jim Kelly, Montana and Brady.

So what we have in Warner is a quarterback who's as good statistically as anyone who's ever played the position. He's also a two-time MVP, a Super Bowl champion and a Super Bowl MVP.

He'll soon join the short list of quarterbacks who have started three Super Bowls and he's on an even shorter list -- a list that includes only him -- of quarterbacks who got to those three Super Bowls with two different teams (Craig Morton only started two Super Bowls for two teams, Dallas and Denver).

More remarkable is that Warner has done it with historically dysfunctional organizations. Before Warner took them to the big game, the Rams had reached just one Super Bowl (XIV) in their history, including their time in Los Angeles. Warner led the franchise to its only Super Bowl victory and to its first NFL title since 1951. The Rams have fallen off the face of the earth since he left.

Reaching this year's Super Bowl with the 9-7, defensively deficient Cardinals is nothing short of a miracle. The Cardinals are easily the worst franchise in league history: they had won just two playoff games in their first 88 years of NFL football. Yet they've won three playoff games this month alone, and they head to the Super Bowl with what's easily the worst defense (426 points allowed) of any conference champion in league history.

For his part, Manning remains the Picasso of Choke Artists and the master of the one-and-done. Six times in nine visits his vaunted Colts have exited the playoffs without a single victory and he's underperformed almost each and every time.

Given Manning's and Warner's career accomplishments, we'd take Warner over Manning to lead our team six days a week and certainly on Sunday -- especially if that Sunday is in January.

 

[jojoh07]

THEY also thought T edwards was the league MVP after 10 games or so.

 

[gianmarco]

THEY also thought T edwards was the league MVP after 10 games or so.

So, in other words, anything they write from now on is rubbish because they thought Edwards was the MVP after 10 games?

 

[Larrywarren]

Interesting view.

In Manning's defence he's played in the stronger conference throughout his career - 3 of his play off losses have been to teams that went on to win the SB (New England twice and Pittsburgh) and he put up monster numbers in the 2 defeats to San Diego.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

THEY also thought T edwards was the league MVP after 10 games or so.

So, in other words, anything they write from now on is rubbish because they thought Edwards was the MVP after 10 games?

Yes.

 

[FUBAR]

When Warner's on, he probably is better than anyone.

 

[Tanner9919]

Interesting view.In Manning's defence he's played in the stronger conference throughout his career - 3 of his play off losses have been to teams that went on to win the SB (New England twice and Pittsburgh) and he put up monster numbers in the 2 defeats to San Diego.

but the problem is, at some point, Manning has to win more of these playoff games..his career is littered with one-and-done playoff appearances...

 

[Bri]

the current player of interest is always the best.

When hopes shift toward the 2009 season, how will they feel then?

I remember Brady over Manning and Eli over Manning discussions, Peyton is always the one people compare to.

ETA Eli over Peyton

 

[North]

In the past when there were comparisons between Manning and the QB who I think is the greatest (Brady), the argument by Manning lovers is that Brady always had a better defense so thats why he did better than Manning. It's a matter of opinion, but I don't think thats why, I think it's an excuse for Manning fans.

That being said, you can't use that argument for Warner, his playoff teams have not had really good defenses. You could say that it has been Warner and the offense have led to the success of each of the playoff teams he has been on.

In fact in Peyton's only Superbowl win, the only reason he got there and won is because of his defense. The only reason Warner has had success in the playoffs is because of his offense.

If you look at Mannings career as a whole it would be hard to say that Warner is a better QB. Barring injury Manning will go down as the greatest statistical QB to play the game. But if you are talking about clutch QB's Manning drops considerably down the list when it comes to playoff time. Personally I would take Brady and Warner over Manning. Manning is a lot like Favre, great stats but in the clutch (playoffs) he doesn't have his best games.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

the current player of interest is always the best.

When hopes shift toward the 2009 season, how will they feel then?

I remember Brady over Manning and Eli over Manning discussions, Peyton is always the one people compare to.

ETA Eli over Peyton

No one wants to discuss that part of it

 

[David Yudkin]

In the past when there were comparisons between Manning and the QB who I think is the greatest (Brady), the argument by Manning lovers is that Brady always had a better defense so thats why he did better than Manning. It's a matter of opinion, but I don't think thats why, I think it's an excuse for Manning fans.That being said, you can't use that argument for Warner, his playoff teams have not had really good defenses. You could say that it has been Warner and the offense have led to the success of each of the playoff teams he has been on.In fact in Peyton's only Superbowl win, the only reason he got there and won is because of his defense. The only reason Warner has had success in the playoffs is because of his offense.If you look at Mannings career as a whole it would be hard to say that Warner is a better QB. Barring injury Manning will go down as the greatest statistical QB to play the game. But if you are talking about clutch QB's Manning drops considerably down the list when it comes to playoff time. Personally I would take Brady and Warner over Manning. Manning is a lot like Favre, great stats but in the clutch (playoffs) he doesn't have his best games.

While I doubt I would make a claim that Warner > Manning, it's not totally as absurd as some may think.Career Passing RatingManning 94.7, Warner 93.8Career Passing Yards Per GameWarner 259.9, Manning 253.6Career YPAWarner 8.0, Manning 7.7Adjusted Career YPAWarner 7.11, Manning 6.97Career Completion %Warner 65.4, Manning 64.4Career Completions Per GameManning 21.7, Warner 21.2Career TD Passes Per GameManning 1.89, Warner 1.65Post Season Passing Yards Per GameWarner 299.1, Manning 280.5Post Season Passing TD Per GameWarner 2.3, Manning 1.5Post Season Passing RatingWarner 97.3, Manning 84.9IMO, Manning has done it every game, every year. Warner has struggled to play in every game and had a lull in the middle of his career. But statistically on a per game level Warner may actually have been better in a lot of categories.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The original article also says Warner is better than Montana. The article doesn't say that Warner is better than Marino or Unitas, I guess that's just sort of assumed .

 

[gianmarco]

The original article also says Warner is better than Montana. The article doesn't say that Warner is better than Marino or Unitas, I guess that's just sort of assumed .

Huh?

That's not to say Warner is a better quarterback than Montana. He's not.

 

[gianmarco]

In the past when there were comparisons between Manning and the QB who I think is the greatest (Brady), the argument by Manning lovers is that Brady always had a better defense so thats why he did better than Manning. It's a matter of opinion, but I don't think thats why, I think it's an excuse for Manning fans.That being said, you can't use that argument for Warner, his playoff teams have not had really good defenses. You could say that it has been Warner and the offense have led to the success of each of the playoff teams he has been on.In fact in Peyton's only Superbowl win, the only reason he got there and won is because of his defense. The only reason Warner has had success in the playoffs is because of his offense.If you look at Mannings career as a whole it would be hard to say that Warner is a better QB. Barring injury Manning will go down as the greatest statistical QB to play the game. But if you are talking about clutch QB's Manning drops considerably down the list when it comes to playoff time. Personally I would take Brady and Warner over Manning. Manning is a lot like Favre, great stats but in the clutch (playoffs) he doesn't have his best games.

While I doubt I would make a claim that Warner > Manning, it's not totally as absurd as some may think.Career Passing RatingManning 94.7, Warner 93.8Career Passing Yards Per GameWarner 259.9, Manning 253.6Career YPAWarner 8.0, Manning 7.7Adjusted Career YPAWarner 7.11, Manning 6.97Career Completion %Warner 65.4, Manning 64.4Career Completions Per GameManning 21.7, Warner 21.2Career TD Passes Per GameManning 1.89, Warner 1.65Post Season Passing Yards Per GameWarner 299.1, Manning 280.5Post Season Passing TD Per GameWarner 2.3, Manning 1.5Post Season Passing RatingWarner 97.3, Manning 84.9IMO, Manning has done it every game, every year. Warner has struggled to play in every game and had a lull in the middle of his career. But statistically on a per game level Warner may actually have been better in a lot of categories.

But wait, Warner has had some amazing receivers. Manning only had....oh, Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne.

 

[FUBAR]

Interesting view.In Manning's defence he's played in the stronger conference throughout his career - 3 of his play off losses have been to teams that went on to win the SB (New England twice and Pittsburgh) and he put up monster numbers in the 2 defeats to San Diego.

but the problem is, at some point, Manning has to win more of these playoff games..his career is littered with one-and-done playoff appearances...

His career is also littered with 7 straight 10 win seasons, 9 total 10 wins seasons, and a 105-55 (.656) record. I don't know if Peyton is the best ever, but he is definitely up there for his career. Warner is up there for best seasons, but his career is lacking overall.

 

[David Yudkin]

Interesting view.In Manning's defence he's played in the stronger conference throughout his career - 3 of his play off losses have been to teams that went on to win the SB (New England twice and Pittsburgh) and he put up monster numbers in the 2 defeats to San Diego.

but the problem is, at some point, Manning has to win more of these playoff games..his career is littered with one-and-done playoff appearances...

His career is also littered with 7 straight 10 win seasons, 9 total 10 wins seasons, and a 105-55 (.656) record. I don't know if Peyton is the best ever, but he is definitely up there for his career. Warner is up there for best seasons, but his career is lacking overall.

The real advantages Manning has over Warner are playing in 176 games vs 110 for Warner and winning at a lot greater clip. That's pretty much it.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

In fact in Peyton's only Superbowl win, the only reason he got there and won is because of his defense. The only reason Warner has had success in the playoffs is because of his offense.

True to an extent, but not entirely. While his defenses were very poor in '99 and '00, in 2001 the Rams actually got things together (which is what got Lovie Smith a head coaching gig) and finished 3rd in the league.Also, this year, the biggest difference between the mediocre Arizona regular season team and the Arizona postseason team that's in the super bowl is that, other than for one quarter against Philadelphia, the Arizona defense has played very well.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The original article also says Warner is better than Montana. The article doesn't say that Warner is better than Marino or Unitas, I guess that's just sort of assumed <_< .

Huh?

That's not to say Warner is a better quarterback than Montana. He's not.

That was written by the CNNSI guy, I believe.

Warner surpassed Joe Montana

Warner was virtually flawless against one of the league’s toughest defenses: the Eagles entered the NFC title game ranked No. 2 in our Defensive Hog Index and No. 5 in Defensive Passer Rating (72.9).

Warner torched this unit as if it were a Protestant on a stake during the Spanish Inquisition, completing 21 of 28 passes (75.0%) for 279 yards, 9.96 YPA, 4 TD, 0 INT and a 145.7 passer rating.

The performance gives him this eye-popping postseason line for his career.

* 230 of 360 (63.9%), 2,991 yards, 8.31 YPA, 23 TD, 12 INT, 97.3 passer rating.

If it looks impressive, it is. In the process of his nearly perfect statistical performance Sunday, Warner leaped past Joe Montana (95.6) and into second place on the all-time postseason passer rating list.

Only the great Bart Starr (104.8), for our money the best quarterback in history, was more effective than Warner in the postseason.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Artic...pectations.html

 

[Da Guru]

When Warner's on, he probably is better than anyone.

<_< Warner sees the field as good as any QB, plus he seems to have a great touch on the football. That third down swing pass to Edge was a thing a beauty.

 

[BassNBrew]

Compare the competition they have played and it's obvious Manning is better. Every year Manning plays a first place schedule and he's played in the AFC in the era the AFC has dominated. Warner has had a few huge years, Manning perorms well every year. There were a couple of years where Warner was a huge liability.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Interesting view.In Manning's defence he's played in the stronger conference throughout his career - 3 of his play off losses have been to teams that went on to win the SB (New England twice and Pittsburgh) and he put up monster numbers in the 2 defeats to San Diego.

but the problem is, at some point, Manning has to win more of these playoff games..his career is littered with one-and-done playoff appearances...

His career is also littered with 7 straight 10 win seasons, 9 total 10 wins seasons, and a 105-55 (.656) record. I don't know if Peyton is the best ever, but he is definitely up there for his career. Warner is up there for best seasons, but his career is lacking overall.

The real advantages Manning has over Warner are playing in 176 games vs 110 for Warner and winning at a lot greater clip. That's pretty much it.

You could say the same thing about Roger Staubach, but I don't see anyone clamoring for him as the greatest QB of all time. What's the difference between him and any other all time great QB? Just the number of games played. Because those sorts of things matter.I know you love black ink (my formula implicitly does as well) so here you go:Staubach led the league in QB Rating (who cares) four times and ANY/A (only Chase cares) four times.Warner led the league in QB rating two times and ANY/A three times.Manning led the league in QB rating three times and ANY/A three times.Montana, 2 and 1.Marino, 1 and 2.Unitas, three and incomplete (sack data not available)Ken Anderson, 4 and 2.Fouts, 0 and 3.Favre, 0 and 0.And then there's Young, 6 and 5.If you're going to give Warner a pass for stocking groceries and being in the AFL, then I think Staubach deserves a pass for his Naval service. And Staubach won 2 rings and appeared in 4 SBs, a mark I doubt Warner will exceed. So what's the Warner >> Staubach argument, before we get to Warner >> Manning?

 

[dgreen]

But statistically on a per game level Warner may actually have been better in a lot of categories.

And I would guess Warner had many more partial games than Manning. Manning's per game averages are based on him playing every snap. I think I remember maybe one or two games in week 17 when he played one or two series then sat. Warner's had several more games that weren't full games that would slightly bring down his per game averages.

 

[Wilbur Wood]

Just another factoid for consideration in this discussion. One that has made Manning's road to success easier than Warner's.

Continuity. Manning has been on the same team, playing in the same system, good o-line with the same coaches for most/all of his career. Peyton is a workaholic. He also needs a lot of work and a lot reps. For example, look how his play was "off" (by his standards) early in this season because he had missed training camp. I submit that had Manning since 1998 changed teams a couple of times like Warner that there would have been some downturns in his stat lines as he would need to time adjust. Not to mention, some of Warner's down moments occurred when he was getting killed behind porous offensive lines (late Ram years, NYG years), so I submit that the all important "context" in which Peyton has performed over the last decade has been much more favorable than the road that Warner has toiled.

 

[David Yudkin]

Interesting view.In Manning's defence he's played in the stronger conference throughout his career - 3 of his play off losses have been to teams that went on to win the SB (New England twice and Pittsburgh) and he put up monster numbers in the 2 defeats to San Diego.

but the problem is, at some point, Manning has to win more of these playoff games..his career is littered with one-and-done playoff appearances...

His career is also littered with 7 straight 10 win seasons, 9 total 10 wins seasons, and a 105-55 (.656) record. I don't know if Peyton is the best ever, but he is definitely up there for his career. Warner is up there for best seasons, but his career is lacking overall.

The real advantages Manning has over Warner are playing in 176 games vs 110 for Warner and winning at a lot greater clip. That's pretty much it.

You could say the same thing about Roger Staubach, but I don't see anyone clamoring for him as the greatest QB of all time. What's the difference between him and any other all time great QB? Just the number of games played. Because those sorts of things matter.I know you love black ink (my formula implicitly does as well) so here you go:Staubach led the league in QB Rating (who cares) four times and ANY/A (only Chase cares) four times.Warner led the league in QB rating two times and ANY/A three times.Manning led the league in QB rating three times and ANY/A three times.Montana, 2 and 1.Marino, 1 and 2.Unitas, three and incomplete (sack data not available)Ken Anderson, 4 and 2.Fouts, 0 and 3.Favre, 0 and 0.And then there's Young, 6 and 5.If you're going to give Warner a pass for stocking groceries and being in the AFL, then I think Staubach deserves a pass for his Naval service. And Staubach won 2 rings and appeared in 4 SBs, a mark I doubt Warner will exceed. So what's the Warner >> Staubach argument, before we get to Warner >> Manning?

As a Cowboys fan I'm certainly not going to argue against you, but I was really only trying to circumvent those that invariable would say Manning's career numbers >>>> Warner's career numbers.

 

[David Yudkin]

Every year Manning plays a first place schedule and he's played in the AFC in the era the AFC has dominated.

I was curious as to what the opponents' team records were for both . . . so I looked it up.Manning: 1421-1393-2 .505Warner: 807-952-1 .459That includes all games played in all situations, for those that were wondering.

 

[awesomeness]

Peyton Manning is underrated on this board in terms of an NFL player. For whatever reason i do not know. As Bri said earlier, i think it has to do with the current player of interest is always the best.

 

[thatguy]

It's also worth noting that a very large chunk of Peyton's post season numbers came in two first round games against Denver. Remove those two games, in which his passer rating was near perfect, and his stats look a whole lot worse. Peyton owns Denver.

 

[MDSkinner]

I think statistically, it seems to make sense that Warner is as good or better than Manning especially in the post season. To me, the real difference is the control over the team that Manning has vs Warner. Warner is a tremendous QB but even at St. Louis winning the MVP and the SB it seemed that he was a great passer in terms of throwing to a spot. Manning does not seem like a "throw to a spot" and let the WR do the rest, whereas Warner (to me) has gained that stigma, mainly because of his playing time in SL. Clearly, Warner has always done exactly what was needed out of him in the offenses he was in, so there is no reason that he should somehow be knocked down a notch for this, but I think it does have something to do with the perception of him.

The way that Manning plays (obviously more in the regular season) is by reading the defense, calling Audibles, check downs, etc..and I can never recall seeing a player have that much control over the offense and I think in many ways it has changed the game and the expectations for younger QBs. I think that makes Manning seem better, even if statistically he is not.

 

[thatguy]

I think statistically, it seems to make sense that Warner is as good or better than Manning especially in the post season. To me, the real difference is the control over the team that Manning has vs Warner. Warner is a tremendous QB but even at St. Louis winning the MVP and the SB it seemed that he was a great passer in terms of throwing to a spot. Manning does not seem like a "throw to a spot" and let the WR do the rest, whereas Warner (to me) has gained that stigma, mainly because of his playing time in SL. Clearly, Warner has always done exactly what was needed out of him in the offenses he was in, so there is no reason that he should somehow be knocked down a notch for this, but I think it does have something to do with the perception of him.The way that Manning plays (obviously more in the regular season) is by reading the defense, calling Audibles, check downs, etc..and I can never recall seeing a player have that much control over the offense and I think in many ways it has changed the game and the expectations for younger QBs. I think that makes Manning seem better, even if statistically he is not.

Warner may not have as much control over the play calling and NOBODY in the history of football audibles as much as Peyton, but in the end, every QB in the history of football is a "throw to the spot" QB - in fact, they're judged by their ability to consistently hit the spot. I don't get why you think it's a bad thing that Warner is incredibly good, nay, among the best all time, at hitting his spot? Also, he is clearly very good at reading defenses as evidenced by his ability to consistently beat the blitz by immediately finding the open man.Don't take this to mean I think Warner is a better QB than Manning. Manning's body of work, at least in the regular season, is nothing short of spectacular. I just think they're both great and what you are suggesting somehow makes Warner the lesser QB is in my opinion perhaps his greatest strength.

 

[mr. furley]

anyone else tired of the flavor of the month opinion?

if a player has a good run in the playoffs he suddenly becomes the best player at his position.

last year it was Manning and Burress.. this year it's Warner and Fitzgerald.

yes the playoffs are a big stage and all that but the hype just catches on like wildfire and people start to overvalue.

eta: pretty much what awesomeness said

 

[thatguy]

anyone else tired of the flavor of the month opinion?

if a player has a good run in the playoffs he suddenly becomes the best player at his position.

last year it was Manning and Burress.. this year it's Warner and Fitzgerald.

yes the playoffs are a big stage and all that but the hype just catches on like wildfire and people start to overvalue.

I don't think many people considered either of them the best at their position after their '07 post season success.The Warner praise may be a bit overboard, but he does have the body of work, at least in the post-season and a handful of regular seasons, to back it up. He simply lacks the regular season body of work that some of the other great QB's have put up on a consistent basis - which to me is a shame... I think the talent has always been there and we might always be left wondering what could have been.

Fitz on the other hand was already considered by many to be the best WR in football. And by most I think he was easily in the top 5. This is simply his first chance to shine in the post season, and he has taken full advantage. Players are so often judged by what they do in January. I don't know how anyone can say at this point that Fitz is not great.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I can't believe people are using QB rating as the measurement of talent...I thought this was the shark pool?

At least neither guy can scramble so that is one factor the QB rating doesn't measure.

What about taking sacks? What about fumbling?

Those are 2 areas where Manning excels and Warner is terrible. Warner had 5 years where he couldn't play because of those 2 issues. When given reasonable time and great weapons he surely can throw great, but NO he is not as good as Manning, or Montana, Marino, or Unitas.

As for the "clutch factor" in playoffs; I hope people really don't out too much weight in that. A little OK, but let's not go overboard over a small amount of games.

BTW, Warner had about 50% more fumbles than Manning in about 50% less games. But of course fumbling is better than throwing the ball away with QB rating.

 

[mo542]

Guys.... I don't even think this is a debate but I'll point out why they are using averages and not totals. In addition, I'll give two stats were there is no debate as to who is better.

Manning

Passing yards: 45,628 (7th all time)

Passing Touchdowns: 333 (4th all time)

Warner

Passing yards: 28,591 (38th all time)

Passing Touchdowns: 182 (40th all time)

Looking at the totals and ranks it's not even close. In addition, people point out the playoff percentages. We'll Manning has played in more playoff games than Warner and, at the end of the day, they both have one ring. Although, I think it's a simpleton argument to compare rings and/or winning percentage since there are two other phases of the game that a QB has minimal control over.

Manning has never missed a game in 11 years, playing 176. Warner has played in 110 games in 11 years, that's 10 games a year.

Another stat that seals the argument in my mind is fumbles; remember this is not figured into QB rating. Warner has 91 fumbles verses Manning's 52. Warner's fumble average per game is .84 verses Manning's .30. Again, not close.

If you take the names away and show the numbers, who would you pick? To me there is no debate.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Guys.... I don't even think this is a debate but I'll point out why they are using averages and not totals. In addition, I'll give two stats were there is no debate as to who is better.ManningPassing yards: 45,628 (7th all time)Passing Touchdowns: 333 (4th all time)WarnerPassing yards: 28,591 (38th all time)Passing Touchdowns: 182 (40th all time)Looking at the totals and ranks it's not even close. In addition, people point out the playoff percentages. We'll Manning has played in more playoff games than Warner and, at the end of the day, they both have one ring. Although, I think it's a simpleton argument to compare rings and/or winning percentage since there are two other phases of the game that a QB has minimal control over. Manning has never missed a game in 11 years, playing 176. Warner has played in 110 games in 11 years, that's 10 games a year. Another stat that seals the argument in my mind is fumbles; remember this is not figured into QB rating. Warner has 91 fumbles verses Manning's 52. Warner's fumble average per game is .84 verses Manning's .30. Again, not close.If you take the names away and show the numbers, who would you pick? To me there is no debate.

At least someone is paying attention Durability just to pile on stats is not that valuable, but durability when your performance is well above a replacement player is worth a lot. Warner missing time is an issue, just as Warner's inability to start when healthy was an issue as well for a few years. Maybe when Warner is "in a zone" he is as good as it gets, but if Lienert didn't stink, we wouldn't even be hearing about Warner again because Arizona was trying to replace him, just as other teams did as well.

 

[thehornet]

to answer the thread....um, no.

 

[David Yudkin]

I already gave my opinion that I don't think overall Warner is better, but again feel that there is at least some merit to at least discuss and review the cases for each.

Totaling the numbers from only games where each was a starter (inluding the post season).

In 191 games for Manning:

21.9 completions, 64.2% comp%, 260.9 passing yds, 1.86 passing TD, 0.95 INT per game

In 111 games for Warner:

22.4 completions, 65.5% comp%, 276.5 passing yds, 1.81 passing TD, 1.13 INT per game

CLEARLY Manning has other key advantages including much better winning %, fewer fumbles, more longevity, better career totals, no down years, more games played, never lost his starting job, slightly tougher schedule, better commercials, etc.

That being said, I don't see why so many people are saying that this is a ridiculous discussion.

 

[mo542]

I already gave my opinion that I don't think overall Warner is better, but again feel that there is at least some merit to at least discuss and review the cases for each.

Totaling the numbers from only games where each was a starter (inluding the post season).

In 191 games for Manning:

21.9 completions, 64.2% comp%, 260.9 passing yds, 1.86 passing TD, 0.95 INT per game

In 111 games for Warner:

22.4 completions, 65.5% comp%, 276.5 passing yds, 1.81 passing TD, 1.13 INT per game

CLEARLY Manning has other key advantages including much better winning %, fewer fumbles, more longevity, better career totals, no down years, more games played, never lost his starting job, slightly tougher schedule, better commercials, etc.

That being said, I don't see why so many people are saying that this is a ridiculous discussion.

I think you’ve highlighted why some people think ridiculous argument; that's a long list. If you look at averages, then you could make the argument that he’s better than Dan Marino, John Elway, and Brett Farve too. Those guys are considered all-time greats because they played at a high level for a long period of time; Warner has not because of various reasons. Warner has been a very good QB, but, in my opinion, he’s a notch below the aforementioned. To me, it’s a little like Gale Sayers. He was a great RB, but I don’t think he’s in the conversation for all-time greats because he did not play enough games.Edit: Changing analogy for relevance.

 

[thatguy]

I already gave my opinion that I don't think overall Warner is better, but again feel that there is at least some merit to at least discuss and review the cases for each.

Totaling the numbers from only games where each was a starter (inluding the post season).

In 191 games for Manning:

21.9 completions, 64.2% comp%, 260.9 passing yds, 1.86 passing TD, 0.95 INT per game

In 111 games for Warner:

22.4 completions, 65.5% comp%, 276.5 passing yds, 1.81 passing TD, 1.13 INT per game

CLEARLY Manning has other key advantages including much better winning %, fewer fumbles, more longevity, better career totals, no down years, more games played, never lost his starting job, slightly tougher schedule, better commercials, etc.

That being said, I don't see why so many people are saying that this is a ridiculous discussion.

I think you’ve highlighted why some people think ridiculous argument; that's a long list. If you look at averages, then you could make the argument that he’s better than Dan Marino, John Elway, and Brett Farve too. Those guys are considered all-time greats because they played at a high level for a long period of time; Warner has not because of various reasons. Warner has been a very good QB, but, in my opinion, he’s a notch below the aforementioned. To me, it’s a little like Bo Jackson. He was one of the greatest RB’s I’ve seen, but I don’t think he’s in the conversation for all-time greats because he did not play enough games.

I don't think you'll find many that consider Warner better than Manning, or any of those guys for that matter, if asked to list the all time greats. However, it is a pertinent discussion if asking who is the better QB right now. In 19 total games this season, Warner has 5352 years, 38 TDs, and 16 INTs. When you also take into consideration his strong finish to '07, you're looking at over one and a half years of very high level play. So, taking that time period in a vacuum and ignoring the rest of their respective histories, it becomes a valid question. Also, not matter how you slice it, asking which of them plays better in January and February is certainly valid, and slanted in Warner's favor.

 

[CrossEyed]

If I had one post-season game that I had to win and could choose Manning or Warner I'm taking Warner. Not even that difficult of a choice.

 

[mo542]

I already gave my opinion that I don't think overall Warner is better, but again feel that there is at least some merit to at least discuss and review the cases for each.

Totaling the numbers from only games where each was a starter (inluding the post season).

In 191 games for Manning:

21.9 completions, 64.2% comp%, 260.9 passing yds, 1.86 passing TD, 0.95 INT per game

In 111 games for Warner:

22.4 completions, 65.5% comp%, 276.5 passing yds, 1.81 passing TD, 1.13 INT per game

CLEARLY Manning has other key advantages including much better winning %, fewer fumbles, more longevity, better career totals, no down years, more games played, never lost his starting job, slightly tougher schedule, better commercials, etc.

That being said, I don't see why so many people are saying that this is a ridiculous discussion.

I think you’ve highlighted why some people think ridiculous argument; that's a long list. If you look at averages, then you could make the argument that he’s better than Dan Marino, John Elway, and Brett Farve too. Those guys are considered all-time greats because they played at a high level for a long period of time; Warner has not because of various reasons. Warner has been a very good QB, but, in my opinion, he’s a notch below the aforementioned. To me, it’s a little like Bo Jackson. He was one of the greatest RB’s I’ve seen, but I don’t think he’s in the conversation for all-time greats because he did not play enough games.

I don't think you'll find many that consider Warner better than Manning, or any of those guys for that matter, if asked to list the all time greats. However, it is a pertinent discussion if asking who is the better QB right now. In 19 total games this season, Warner has 5352 years, 38 TDs, and 16 INTs. When you also take into consideration his strong finish to '07, you're looking at over one and a half years of very high level play. So, taking that time period in a vacuum and ignoring the rest of their respective histories, it becomes a valid question. Also, not matter how you slice it, asking which of them plays better in January and February is certainly valid, and slanted in Warner's favor.

Fair enough, but I’d like to add that stats will not tell you the whole story.When the Pats played the Rams in the Super Bowl, the focal-point of the defensive game plan was to stop Faulk. They would not let him get out of the backfield cleanly and always tried to hit him. Now they were worried about Warner too, but they though that Faulk was the engine that made the offense go. That game plan became the template for stopping the Rams vaulted offense.

If you look at the Colts Super Bowl, watch the Bears safeties. They were very deep, deeper than they normally played. The Bears were clearly worried about the Colts passing attack. That game planning was a big reason why the Colts had a lot of rushing yards. Even then, Manning made the plays when he had to. Peyton Manning didn’t have very good numbers that game but clearly had an impact on the game.

The Bears were using the same defense used by the Ravens earlier in the playoffs, which was to play the 2 safeties way back, and stop the big play. At this point in the game, Manning started taking what the defense gave to him, and they methodically moved down the field. This, in my opinion, is what got the Colts over the top in 2006. He became very patient, took what defenses gave him, and the offense was more succussful.

http://www.stampedeblue.com/2008/7/5/56546...ning-s-greatest

My point is that great players have an effect on the game even if their stats aren’t good, therefore stats don’t tell the whole story. I think this is obvious but I wanted to point out two examples using the players we are comparing.

 

[David Yudkin]

I already gave my opinion that I don't think overall Warner is better, but again feel that there is at least some merit to at least discuss and review the cases for each.

Totaling the numbers from only games where each was a starter (inluding the post season).

In 191 games for Manning:

21.9 completions, 64.2% comp%, 260.9 passing yds, 1.86 passing TD, 0.95 INT per game

In 111 games for Warner:

22.4 completions, 65.5% comp%, 276.5 passing yds, 1.81 passing TD, 1.13 INT per game

CLEARLY Manning has other key advantages including much better winning %, fewer fumbles, more longevity, better career totals, no down years, more games played, never lost his starting job, slightly tougher schedule, better commercials, etc.

That being said, I don't see why so many people are saying that this is a ridiculous discussion.

I think you’ve highlighted why some people think ridiculous argument; that's a long list. If you look at averages, then you could make the argument that he’s better than Dan Marino, John Elway, and Brett Farve too. Those guys are considered all-time greats because they played at a high level for a long period of time; Warner has not because of various reasons. Warner has been a very good QB, but, in my opinion, he’s a notch below the aforementioned. To me, it’s a little like Bo Jackson. He was one of the greatest RB’s I’ve seen, but I don’t think he’s in the conversation for all-time greats because he did not play enough games.

I don't think you'll find many that consider Warner better than Manning, or any of those guys for that matter, if asked to list the all time greats. However, it is a pertinent discussion if asking who is the better QB right now. In 19 total games this season, Warner has 5352 years, 38 TDs, and 16 INTs. When you also take into consideration his strong finish to '07, you're looking at over one and a half years of very high level play. So, taking that time period in a vacuum and ignoring the rest of their respective histories, it becomes a valid question. Also, not matter how you slice it, asking which of them plays better in January and February is certainly valid, and slanted in Warner's favor.

Fair enough, but I’d like to add that stats will not tell you the whole story.When the Pats played the Rams in the Super Bowl, the focal-point of the defensive game plan was to stop Faulk. They would not let him get out of the backfield cleanly and always tried to hit him. Now they were worried about Warner too, but they though that Faulk was the engine that made the offense go. That game plan became the template for stopping the Rams vaulted offense.

If you look at the Colts Super Bowl, watch the Bears safeties. They were very deep, deeper than they normally played. The Bears were clearly worried about the Colts passing attack. That game planning was a big reason why the Colts had a lot of rushing yards. Even then, Manning made the plays when he had to. Peyton Manning didn’t have very good numbers that game but clearly had an impact on the game.

The Bears were using the same defense used by the Ravens earlier in the playoffs, which was to play the 2 safeties way back, and stop the big play. At this point in the game, Manning started taking what the defense gave to him, and they methodically moved down the field. This, in my opinion, is what got the Colts over the top in 2006. He became very patient, took what defenses gave him, and the offense was more succussful.

http://www.stampedeblue.com/2008/7/5/56546...ning-s-greatest

My point is that great players have an effect on the game even if their stats aren’t good, therefore stats don’t tell the whole story. I think this is obvious but I wanted to point out two examples using the players we are comparing.

Are you really going to argue that Manning passing for 247 yards and 1 TD was a better performance than either of Warner's SB efforts . . . 365 yards and 1 TD or 414 yards and 2 TD? There are other players on the field besides the QB, but it certainly appears that Warner did more than his part in his two trips.

 

[mo542]

I already gave my opinion that I don't think overall Warner is better, but again feel that there is at least some merit to at least discuss and review the cases for each.

Totaling the numbers from only games where each was a starter (inluding the post season).

In 191 games for Manning:

21.9 completions, 64.2% comp%, 260.9 passing yds, 1.86 passing TD, 0.95 INT per game

In 111 games for Warner:

22.4 completions, 65.5% comp%, 276.5 passing yds, 1.81 passing TD, 1.13 INT per game

CLEARLY Manning has other key advantages including much better winning %, fewer fumbles, more longevity, better career totals, no down years, more games played, never lost his starting job, slightly tougher schedule, better commercials, etc.

That being said, I don't see why so many people are saying that this is a ridiculous discussion.

I think you’ve highlighted why some people think ridiculous argument; that's a long list. If you look at averages, then you could make the argument that he’s better than Dan Marino, John Elway, and Brett Farve too. Those guys are considered all-time greats because they played at a high level for a long period of time; Warner has not because of various reasons. Warner has been a very good QB, but, in my opinion, he’s a notch below the aforementioned. To me, it’s a little like Bo Jackson. He was one of the greatest RB’s I’ve seen, but I don’t think he’s in the conversation for all-time greats because he did not play enough games.

I don't think you'll find many that consider Warner better than Manning, or any of those guys for that matter, if asked to list the all time greats. However, it is a pertinent discussion if asking who is the better QB right now. In 19 total games this season, Warner has 5352 years, 38 TDs, and 16 INTs. When you also take into consideration his strong finish to '07, you're looking at over one and a half years of very high level play. So, taking that time period in a vacuum and ignoring the rest of their respective histories, it becomes a valid question. Also, not matter how you slice it, asking which of them plays better in January and February is certainly valid, and slanted in Warner's favor.

Fair enough, but I’d like to add that stats will not tell you the whole story.When the Pats played the Rams in the Super Bowl, the focal-point of the defensive game plan was to stop Faulk. They would not let him get out of the backfield cleanly and always tried to hit him. Now they were worried about Warner too, but they though that Faulk was the engine that made the offense go. That game plan became the template for stopping the Rams vaulted offense.

If you look at the Colts Super Bowl, watch the Bears safeties. They were very deep, deeper than they normally played. The Bears were clearly worried about the Colts passing attack. That game planning was a big reason why the Colts had a lot of rushing yards. Even then, Manning made the plays when he had to. Peyton Manning didn’t have very good numbers that game but clearly had an impact on the game.

The Bears were using the same defense used by the Ravens earlier in the playoffs, which was to play the 2 safeties way back, and stop the big play. At this point in the game, Manning started taking what the defense gave to him, and they methodically moved down the field. This, in my opinion, is what got the Colts over the top in 2006. He became very patient, took what defenses gave him, and the offense was more succussful.

http://www.stampedeblue.com/2008/7/5/56546...ning-s-greatest

My point is that great players have an effect on the game even if their stats aren’t good, therefore stats don’t tell the whole story. I think this is obvious but I wanted to point out two examples using the players we are comparing.

Are you really going to argue that Manning passing for 247 yards and 1 TD was a better performance than either of Warner's SB efforts . . . 365 yards and 1 TD or 414 yards and 2 TD? There are other players on the field besides the QB, but it certainly appears that Warner did more than his part in his two trips.

No that is not what I said... I said that Manning's impact was greater than his numbers indicated. Which is a major fault in only looking at numbers. However, I don’t think Warner’s numbers would have looked as good if he played in a Super Bowl where there was heavy rain the whole game and two safeties backed off 20 yards. QB rating does not tell the whole story.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Are you really going to argue that Manning passing for 247 yards and 1 TD was a better performance than either of Warner's SB efforts . . . 365 yards and 1 TD or 414 yards and 2 TD? There are other players on the field besides the QB, but it certainly appears that Warner did more than his part in his two trips.

NE's last-second win in SB 36 overshadowed a great 4th quarter comeback engineered by Warner. He had gotten beaten up and knocked down repeatedly, yet still managed to bring his team back from a 14-point 4th quarter deficit. It wasn't his fault that the defense then let a first-year starter drive the field for the winning FG. Warner's performance in SB 36 is easily one of the best by a losing Super Bowl QB in the history of the game.

 

[MDSkinner]

Warner may not have as much control over the play calling and NOBODY in the history of football audibles as much as Peyton, but in the end, every QB in the history of football is a "throw to the spot" QB - in fact, they're judged by their ability to consistently hit the spot. I don't get why you think it's a bad thing that Warner is incredibly good, nay, among the best all time, at hitting his spot? Also, he is clearly very good at reading defenses as evidenced by his ability to consistently beat the blitz by immediately finding the open man.

Don't take this to mean I think Warner is a better QB than Manning. Manning's body of work, at least in the regular season, is nothing short of spectacular. I just think they're both great and what you are suggesting somehow makes Warner the lesser QB is in my opinion perhaps his greatest strength.

Just so you know, I don't think that is a bad thing at all that Warner is tremendous at this. I am just saying that it is my opinion that this is why he is not considered as highly as Manning is. And you are right, all QB's are in the end throwing to a spot, but I think the perception of throwing to a spot in the "Greatest Show on Turf" offense was considered to be a different thing than throwing to a spot from every other QB perspective (I could be wrong).

 

[Ghost Rider]

In regards to throwing to a spot, not only is Warner excellent at this, he almost always puts the ball in a spot where the WR can catch it and run with it being breaking stride at all. That is why you always saw those 15-yard passes become 40-yard gains back in St. Louis. I won't mention names (Peyton Manning is not one of them, FYI), but there are QBs who complete a lot of passes, but often do not give their WRs a chance to make big plays, because of their inability to hit them perfectly in stride on a regular basis.

 

[valhallan]

If I had one post-season game that I had to win and could choose Manning or Warner I'm taking Warner. Not even that difficult of a choice.

Same here. In the end, I want postseason wins over gaudy regular season statistics and longevity. Apparently it's a matter of preference, as some here seem to find it much more important to rack up stats regardless of play in the postseason.

 

[valhallan]

In regards to throwing to a spot, not only is Warner excellent at this, he almost always puts the ball in a spot where the WR can catch it and run without breaking stride at all.

The very first thing I noticed about Warner in '99 was how perfectly placed his passes were. It's the same thing in Arizona now.

 

[Delusions Of Adequacy]

Warner had a 5 year period where he did essentially nothing, 2002-2006. 26 TD passes, something like 34 int during that period.

You can argue that it was injuries and the Giant's decision to let E Manning play, but the fact is he produced next to nothing for those years.

This alone should end any arguments that Warner > P Manning

 

[Liquid Tension]

I already gave my opinion that I don't think overall Warner is better, but again feel that there is at least some merit to at least discuss and review the cases for each.

Totaling the numbers from only games where each was a starter (inluding the post season).

In 191 games for Manning:

21.9 completions, 64.2% comp%, 260.9 passing yds, 1.86 passing TD, 0.95 INT per game

In 111 games for Warner:

22.4 completions, 65.5% comp%, 276.5 passing yds, 1.81 passing TD, 1.13 INT per game

CLEARLY Manning has other key advantages including much better winning %, fewer fumbles, more longevity, better career totals, no down years, more games played, never lost his starting job, slightly tougher schedule, better commercials, etc.

That being said, I don't see why so many people are saying that this is a ridiculous discussion.

I think you’ve highlighted why some people think ridiculous argument; that's a long list. If you look at averages, then you could make the argument that he’s better than Dan Marino, John Elway, and Brett Farve too. Those guys are considered all-time greats because they played at a high level for a long period of time; Warner has not because of various reasons. Warner has been a very good QB, but, in my opinion, he’s a notch below the aforementioned. To me, it’s a little like Gale Sayers. He was a great RB, but I don’t think he’s in the conversation for all-time greats because he did not play enough games.

Bo Jackson was the best RB I ever saw, but because of his lack of longevity, he is not in any discussion of all time greats. Bo didn't have longevity because he was injured, Warner doesn't have longevity because people didn't want him to play and also because of injuries.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Warner had a 5 year period where he did essentially nothing, 2002-2006. 26 TD passes, something like 34 int during that period.You can argue that it was injuries and the Giant's decision to let E Manning play, but the fact is he produced next to nothing for those years.This alone should end any arguments that Warner > P Manning

I cannot imagine actually arguing that Warner is better than Manning, all-time, but when both are at their best, it is pretty close, and I think it goes without saying that Warner has been the much better playoff performer.