NFL Super Scout Chris Landry (1 Viewer)

[Raider Nation]

Landry's background, for those unfamiliar with him.

Chris Landry is a veteran NFL Scout, having served with both the Cleveland Browns and the Houston Oilers/Tennessee Titans. He also has experience running the annual NFL Scouting Combine.

Prior to entering the NFL, Landry served on the LSU coaching staff in the mid to late 1980's.

Landry now operates his own Scouting Consulting business where he serves as a scouting consultant on NFL and College Players to several NFL teams.

He also is involved in the evaluation process of coaches and assists both universities and NFL teams in their coaching searches.

His comments in a nutshelleyton Manning is the unquestioned NFL MVP right now. No one, not even Revis, Brees or Peterson is in his neighbrhood. He has never ever at any point in his career played better than this and it can be argued that no quarterback in history has ever mastered the position to this degree. If you took him away from that team, as structured right now, it would cost them a MINIMUM six wins, and almost for sure more than that. There are no stats that fully measure how much he helps out just their defense alone.



Pretty strong support. Factor in that he will play another hundred years or so and will likely hold every meaningful record in the books, and we may well be currently watching the best QB in NFL history when it's all said and done. One more title might just lock that up, and two more almost certainly would.

 

[Chase Stuart]

It's obvious that Manning's one of the best QBs of all-time, and it's just as obvious that he's the clear NFL MVP.

But six wins a season? Come on. There are 10 other starters on offense, 11 starters on defense, and a bunch of reserves that have a huge impact on every team's performance. To assign such a high percentage of team success to a QB is absurd.

 

[Maroney=Sped]

It's obvious that Manning's one of the best QBs of all-time, and it's just as obvious that he's the clear NFL MVP.

But six wins a game? Come on. There are 10 other starters on offense, 11 starters on defense, and a bunch of reserves that have a huge impact on every team's performance. To assign such a high percentage of team success to a QB is absurd.

If this doesn't make him MVP, nothing will.

 

[Raider Nation]

It's obvious that Manning's one of the best QBs of all-time, and it's just as obvious that he's the clear NFL MVP.But six wins a game? Come on. There are 10 other starters on offense, 11 starters on defense, and a bunch of reserves that have a huge impact on every team's performance. To assign such a high percentage of team success to a QB is absurd.

If Jim Sorgi had to start all 16 games for this team, what would their record be?Honestly, I'd say 6-10.

 

[RudeDog]

It could also be argued that Dallas Clark is the Colts team MVP. Take away Clark and Peyton becomes just a good QB not the great QB he currently performs as.

Peyton relies heavily on Clark and if without him as a security blanket he would not be able to do many of the things he does.

 

[rvmblack]

It's obvious that Manning's one of the best QBs of all-time, and it's just as obvious that he's the clear NFL MVP.But six wins a game? Come on. There are 10 other starters on offense, 11 starters on defense, and a bunch of reserves that have a huge impact on every team's performance. To assign such a high percentage of team success to a QB is absurd.

I dont tihnk its that far off...Lets substitute Manning for Sorgi..Are the Colts 13-3 or 12-4..No...What would they be...Probably 7-9 or 8-8 at best...So 4-5 wins probably is a more accurate number.I mean, except for Wayne, their WRs are not good. Clark is solid, but I think his stats get inflated because of Manning.And their running game is absolutely horrendous (No, Addai is not a good RB. He is a very good receiver and blocker)

 

[Raider Nation]

Conversely, put Manning (with a full training camp) on my brutally bad Oakland team, and they easily -- EASILY win 8 games.

 

[Mr. Black]

Uh oh here we go again. This thread is about to get ugly with the Manning haters. Here comes the he never won the BIG GAME until crowd...oh and the Brady is better than Manning crowd also...Then the well he had a better def crowd too.

 

[kupcho1]

"Super" Scout

 

[Raider Nation]

"Super" Scout

Indeed. He's no ordinary run-of-the-mill scout.

 

[sho nuff]

It could also be argued that Dallas Clark is the Colts team MVP. Take away Clark and Peyton becomes just a good QB not the great QB he currently performs as.Peyton relies heavily on Clark and if without him as a security blanket he would not be able to do many of the things he does.

Umm...Clark is good and all.But give him even an average TE and Manning is still a great QB.Funny how many people said this same thing about Marvin too.Face it...Manning is simply a great QB.I don't think Clark has made him...he has helped make Clark.

 

[jobarules]

I think Manning has clearly catapulted himself to #1 QB of all time. It may be hyperbole but Im pretty confident in that declaration.

 

[Chase Stuart]

It's obvious that Manning's one of the best QBs of all-time, and it's just as obvious that he's the clear NFL MVP.But six wins a game? Come on. There are 10 other starters on offense, 11 starters on defense, and a bunch of reserves that have a huge impact on every team's performance. To assign such a high percentage of team success to a QB is absurd.

I dont tihnk its that far off...Lets substitute Manning for Sorgi..Are the Colts 13-3 or 12-4..No...What would they be...Probably 7-9 or 8-8 at best...So 4-5 wins probably is a more accurate number.I mean, except for Wayne, their WRs are not good. Clark is solid, but I think his stats get inflated because of Manning.And their running game is absolutely horrendous (No, Addai is not a good RB. He is a very good receiver and blocker)

2-3 wins.The Colts have a terrific pass blocking OL, a bunch of very talented weapons in the passing game, and an insanely good pass defense (Freeney/Mathis are averaging 2 sacks a game and their pass D has been lights out). Manning's awesome, and has been the most consistently awesome player in the game for the last decade. But to ignore the performances of guys like Saturday, Freeney, Mathis, Clark, Wayne, Diem, Betha, et al just because they don't do TV commercials is crazy.The Pats were expected to win 12-13 games last year. Brady went down and they won 11.Whenever the Eagles lose McNabb, their backup QB comes in and performs very well.In 2007, the Texans scored more points with Sage Rosenfels starting than with Matt Schaub starting.The 1998 Broncos scored more with Bubby Brister playing than with John Elway.The 1996 Dolphins scored more with Craig Erickson than with Dan Marino.But think of it another way. Let's say you have the Colts as a 12.5 win team this year. How do you want to dole out credit for those 12.5 wins? Do you really want to say Manning is worth 6.0 wins and the players below are worth 6.5 wins? Addai, Joseph Bethea, Antoine Brackett, Gary Brock, Raheem Brown, Donald Bullitt, Melvin Clark, Dallas Collie, Austin Dawson, Keyunta DeVan, Kyle Diem, Ryan Federkeil, Daniel Foster, Eric Francisco, Aaron Freeney, Dwight Garcon, Pierre Gonzalez, Anthony Hagler, Tyjuan Hall, Roy Hardie, Rudolph Hart, Mike Hayden, Kelvin Humber, Ramon Jackson, Marlin Jennings, Tim Johnson, Antonio Johnson, Charlie Johnson, Ed Keiaho, Freddy Lacey, Jacob Lilja, Ryan Mathis, Robert McAfee, Pat Moala, Fili Muir, Daniel Painter, Curtis Petrowski, Jamie Pollak, Mike Powers, Jerraud Richard, Jamey Robinson, Gijon Rushing, T.J. Sanders, Bob Saturday, Jeff Session, Clint Silva, Jamie Simpson, Chad Snow, Justin Sorgi, Jim Tamme, Jacob Ugoh, Tony Vinatieri, Adam Wayne, Reggie Wheeler, Philip

 

[Maroney=Sped]

"Super" Scout

Indeed. He's no ordinary run-of-the-mill scout.

Yes. He's quite skillful at scouting out other peoples' writings and using them as his own.

 

[adamjw2]

It could also be argued that Dallas Clark is the Colts team MVP. Take away Clark and Peyton becomes just a good QB not the great QB he currently performs as.Peyton relies heavily on Clark and if without him as a security blanket he would not be able to do many of the things he does.

Peyton has made TE after TE look good starting with Ken Dilger, Marcus Pollard, Utecht, and of course Dallas Clark. If it wasn't Clark it would be someone else.

 

[Jewell]

It's obvious that Manning's one of the best QBs of all-time, and it's just as obvious that he's the clear NFL MVP.

But six wins a season? Come on. There are 10 other starters on offense, 11 starters on defense, and a bunch of reserves that have a huge impact on every team's performance. To assign such a high percentage of team success to a QB is absurd.

Perhaps in the past it may have been absurd, but in today's NFL a QB is more important than ever. With the defensive secondary rules being more strictly enforced, receivers are running more free. A QB that is accurate is going to hit a far higher percentage of those passes. That's why you see teams with great QBs (Pats, Colts) shifting toward a higher percentage of passes. Plus, defenses have become so intricate pre-snap that you need a QB that's able to read what's going on. Peyton does that as good as, if not better, than any. If Peyton were to go down and say Jamarcus Russell took over in Indy the difference in record would definitely be six games. Likely more.

 

[Twilight]

I think Manning has clearly catapulted himself to #1 QB of all time. It may be hyperbole but Im pretty confident in that declaration.

I won't quite give it to him yet, as I think he still isn't at Montana's level in the high-pressure situations. But, given the improvement he has made in that category over the past few years, I'm very confident he will retire as the best of all time, barring a freak career-ending injury.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Conversely, put Manning (with a full training camp) on my brutally bad Oakland team, and they easily -- EASILY win 8 games.

I would expect more from you than this.Dan Marino, at the prime age of 27, went 6-10.

Brett Favre, at age 38, went 13-3. But at age 36, he went 4-12.

Johnny Unitas, after winning a couple of titles, put up a 6-6 season with the '60 Colts.

John Elway, at age 30, led a 5-11 Broncos team.

Fran Tarkenton, at age 26, was just 4-7-1 with the Vikings after being a Pro Bowler at ages 24 and 25.

But you think Peyton Manning on the brutally bad Raiders is going to go 8-8? After going 12-4 on the very good Colts last year? If you were going to pick numbers from a hat, why stop at 8?

 

[Chase Stuart]

It's obvious that Manning's one of the best QBs of all-time, and it's just as obvious that he's the clear NFL MVP.

But six wins a season? Come on. There are 10 other starters on offense, 11 starters on defense, and a bunch of reserves that have a huge impact on every team's performance. To assign such a high percentage of team success to a QB is absurd.

Perhaps in the past it may have been absurd, but in today's NFL a QB is more important than ever. With the defensive secondary rules being more strictly enforced, receivers are running more free. A QB that is accurate is going to hit a far higher percentage of those passes. That's why you see teams with great QBs (Pats, Colts) shifting toward a higher percentage of passes. Plus, defenses have become so intricate pre-snap that you need a QB that's able to read what's going on. Peyton does that as good as, if not better, than any. If Peyton were to go down and say Jamarcus Russell took over in Indy the difference in record would definitely be six games. Likely more.

Wouldn't that make the 11 guys responsible for pass defense more important than ever, too?

 

[Jewell]

The Pats were expected to win 12-13 games last year. Brady went down and they won 11.Whenever the Eagles lose McNabb, their backup QB comes in and performs very well.In 2007, the Texans scored more points with Sage Rosenfels starting than with Matt Schaub starting.The 1998 Broncos scored more with Bubby Brister playing than with John Elway.The 1996 Dolphins scored more with Craig Erickson than with Dan Marino.

Rather than saying the Pats were expected to win 12-13, why not just go by their most recent track record prior to Brady going down? Afterall, the Pats weren't expected to go 16-0 in 2007, but they did. Besides, what is expected? The Broncos were expected to stink this year, but they don't. It's better to use the actual rather than the hypothetical. So in that first example you can say Brady to Cassel represented a 5 game difference.The difference between Schaub and Rosenfels is not nearly as great as the difference between Manning and Sorgi.Both Elway and Marino were further toward the end of their careers than Manning is now. Manning is still in his prime, and is producing like it.I really have no answer for the Eagles point, though. Aberration?

 

[BeTheMatch]

Conversely, put Manning (with a full training camp) on my brutally bad Oakland team, and they easily -- EASILY win 8 games.

I would expect more from you than this.Dan Marino, at the prime age of 27, went 6-10.

Brett Favre, at age 38, went 13-3. But at age 36, he went 4-12.

Johnny Unitas, after winning a couple of titles, put up a 6-6 season with the '60 Colts.

John Elway, at age 30, led a 5-11 Broncos team.

Fran Tarkenton, at age 26, was just 4-7-1 with the Vikings after being a Pro Bowler at ages 24 and 25.

But you think Peyton Manning on the brutally bad Raiders is going to go 8-8? After going 12-4 on the very good Colts last year? If you were going to pick numbers from a hat, why stop at 8?

You seem overly and oddly testy here. I don't get it.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The Pats were expected to win 12-13 games last year. Brady went down and they won 11.Whenever the Eagles lose McNabb, their backup QB comes in and performs very well.In 2007, the Texans scored more points with Sage Rosenfels starting than with Matt Schaub starting.The 1998 Broncos scored more with Bubby Brister playing than with John Elway.The 1996 Dolphins scored more with Craig Erickson than with Dan Marino.

Rather than saying the Pats were expected to win 12-13, why not just go by their most recent track record prior to Brady going down?

Because Matt Cassell didn't play for the 2007 Patriots. He played for the 2008 Patriots. You're never going to get an apples to apples comparison unless you look at teams where each QB played in 8 games. The best you can do is see what actually happened with the new QB versus what you expected to happen with the old QB in there. With Brady last year, the Pats probably win 12 or 13 games; they won 11.

 

[Chaka]

"Super" Scout

Indeed. He's no ordinary run-of-the-mill scout.

Isn't that the same guy who got nailed dead-to-rights for palgiarizing Mike Lombardi content?

 

[Raider Nation]

Conversely, put Manning (with a full training camp) on my brutally bad Oakland team, and they easily -- EASILY win 8 games.

I would expect more from you than this.Dan Marino, at the prime age of 27, went 6-10.

Brett Favre, at age 38, went 13-3. But at age 36, he went 4-12.

Johnny Unitas, after winning a couple of titles, put up a 6-6 season with the '60 Colts.

John Elway, at age 30, led a 5-11 Broncos team.

Fran Tarkenton, at age 26, was just 4-7-1 with the Vikings after being a Pro Bowler at ages 24 and 25.

But you think Peyton Manning on the brutally bad Raiders is going to go 8-8? After going 12-4 on the very good Colts last year? If you were going to pick numbers from a hat, why stop at 8?

I did not arbitrarily pick 8 wins. Coming into this season, I expected Oakland to go 8-8. The pieces were in place to be competitive. But they are getting HISTORICALLY bad QB play. Russell is beyond awful. He not only can't complete passes... he can't even hang onto the football. It's a joke. Oakland's defense is not the '85 Bears, but how much can you expect from them when the opponent starts every drive in your red zone? Russell single-handedly is bringing down every other player on that team. No doubt in my mind Oakland wins at least 8 games with Manning.

 

[Jewell]

Because Matt Cassell didn't play for the 2007 Patriots. He played for the 2008 Patriots. You're never going to get an apples to apples comparison unless you look at teams where each QB played in 8 games. The best you can do is see what actually happened with the new QB versus what you expected to happen with the old QB in there. With Brady last year, the Pats probably win 12 or 13 games; they won 11.

Says who? The same experts that told us that the Broncos and Bengals were two of the worst teams in the league just two months ago? The same experts that expected the Dolphins and Falcons to be the worst teams in the league last season? No thanks.I know that you can't do a direct comparison across seasons (2007-2008) because some players other than QB are different, but that renders, IMHO, a more accurate result than relying on "what's expected".

 

[Chase Stuart]

Conversely, put Manning (with a full training camp) on my brutally bad Oakland team, and they easily -- EASILY win 8 games.

I would expect more from you than this.Dan Marino, at the prime age of 27, went 6-10.

Brett Favre, at age 38, went 13-3. But at age 36, he went 4-12.

Johnny Unitas, after winning a couple of titles, put up a 6-6 season with the '60 Colts.

John Elway, at age 30, led a 5-11 Broncos team.

Fran Tarkenton, at age 26, was just 4-7-1 with the Vikings after being a Pro Bowler at ages 24 and 25.

But you think Peyton Manning on the brutally bad Raiders is going to go 8-8? After going 12-4 on the very good Colts last year? If you were going to pick numbers from a hat, why stop at 8?

I did not arbitrarily pick 8 wins. Coming into this season, I expected Oakland to go 8-8. The pieces were in place to be competitive. But they are getting HISTORICALLY bad QB play. Russell is beyond awful. He not only can't complete passes... he can't even hang onto the football. It's a joke. Oakland's defense is not the '85 Bears, but how much can you expect from them when the opponent starts every drive in your red zone? Russell single-handedly is bringing down every other player on that team. No doubt in my mind Oakland wins at least 8 games with Manning.

The running game is brutal. JaMarcus Russell isn't the reason DMC fumbles. DMC is the reason DMC fumbles. The running game has been atrocious, and you can't pin that on Russell. Same goes for the run D.

 

[BeTheMatch]

Conversely, put Manning (with a full training camp) on my brutally bad Oakland team, and they easily -- EASILY win 8 games.

I would expect more from you than this.Dan Marino, at the prime age of 27, went 6-10.

Brett Favre, at age 38, went 13-3. But at age 36, he went 4-12.

Johnny Unitas, after winning a couple of titles, put up a 6-6 season with the '60 Colts.

John Elway, at age 30, led a 5-11 Broncos team.

Fran Tarkenton, at age 26, was just 4-7-1 with the Vikings after being a Pro Bowler at ages 24 and 25.

But you think Peyton Manning on the brutally bad Raiders is going to go 8-8? After going 12-4 on the very good Colts last year? If you were going to pick numbers from a hat, why stop at 8?

I did not arbitrarily pick 8 wins. Coming into this season, I expected Oakland to go 8-8. The pieces were in place to be competitive. But they are getting HISTORICALLY bad QB play. Russell is beyond awful. He not only can't complete passes... he can't even hang onto the football. It's a joke. Oakland's defense is not the '85 Bears, but how much can you expect from them when the opponent starts every drive in your red zone? Russell single-handedly is bringing down every other player on that team. No doubt in my mind Oakland wins at least 8 games with Manning.

The running game is brutal. JaMarcus Russell isn't the reason DMC fumbles. DMC is the reason DMC fumbles. The running game has been atrocious, and you can't pin that on Russell.

So poor quarterback play that leads to defenses stacking the box to stop the run can't be pinned on Russell?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Conversely, put Manning (with a full training camp) on my brutally bad Oakland team, and they easily -- EASILY win 8 games.

I would expect more from you than this.Dan Marino, at the prime age of 27, went 6-10.

Brett Favre, at age 38, went 13-3. But at age 36, he went 4-12.

Johnny Unitas, after winning a couple of titles, put up a 6-6 season with the '60 Colts.

John Elway, at age 30, led a 5-11 Broncos team.

Fran Tarkenton, at age 26, was just 4-7-1 with the Vikings after being a Pro Bowler at ages 24 and 25.

But you think Peyton Manning on the brutally bad Raiders is going to go 8-8? After going 12-4 on the very good Colts last year? If you were going to pick numbers from a hat, why stop at 8?

I did not arbitrarily pick 8 wins. Coming into this season, I expected Oakland to go 8-8. The pieces were in place to be competitive. But they are getting HISTORICALLY bad QB play. Russell is beyond awful. He not only can't complete passes... he can't even hang onto the football. It's a joke. Oakland's defense is not the '85 Bears, but how much can you expect from them when the opponent starts every drive in your red zone? Russell single-handedly is bringing down every other player on that team. No doubt in my mind Oakland wins at least 8 games with Manning.

The running game is brutal. JaMarcus Russell isn't the reason DMC fumbles. DMC is the reason DMC fumbles. The running game has been atrocious, and you can't pin that on Russell.

So poor quarterback play that leads to defenses stacking the box to stop the run can't be pinned on Russell?

As much as the great quarterback play by Manning that leads to defenses playing the pass can be the reason Addai and Brown have sparkling 3.4 and 3.5 YPC averages.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Daniel Jeremiah is a former NFL scout that does a Twitter segment called Ask 5 in which he asks 5 NFL scouts/GMs/coaches a question and posts the results.

Today's question was whether or not Peyton was good for 9+ wins on the Raiders.

The NFL scouts/GMs/Coaches voted 4-1 in favor of Manning.

I'd say that's a pretty strong endorsement. You'll always have haters like Chase who have constantly tried to minimize what Peyton Manning has done, but for the guys whose jobs ride on being able to analyze these things, they know the truth.

 

[Jewell]

Out of curiosity, does anybody know how much of a personnel difference there is between the 2008 Ryan Fitzpatrick Bengals and the 2009 Carson Palmer Bengals? Obviously, their defense is vastly improved, and Benson wasn't there all of last season; but it would be foolish to assume that Palmer isn't getting the Bengals wins that Fitzpatrick would not.

Considering that Peyton is considerably better than Carson, I think one can extrapolate from the Bengals example that Peyton would also create such a difference with the Colts.

 

[Maroney=Sped]

Conversely, put Manning (with a full training camp) on my brutally bad Oakland team, and they easily -- EASILY win 8 games.

I would expect more from you than this.Dan Marino, at the prime age of 27, went 6-10.

Brett Favre, at age 38, went 13-3. But at age 36, he went 4-12.

Johnny Unitas, after winning a couple of titles, put up a 6-6 season with the '60 Colts.

John Elway, at age 30, led a 5-11 Broncos team.

Fran Tarkenton, at age 26, was just 4-7-1 with the Vikings after being a Pro Bowler at ages 24 and 25.

But you think Peyton Manning on the brutally bad Raiders is going to go 8-8? After going 12-4 on the very good Colts last year? If you were going to pick numbers from a hat, why stop at 8?

Peyton runs his offense far more relative to other QB's of his era than did any of the examples you cited. Peyton essentially calls his own plays, and while Unitas did the same, so did everyone else in the NFL in that era. Not so now. That particular offense is an Indy car. Not just anyone can drive and handle it, but when the right person does, i.e. Peyton, there's not an offense that's better.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The running game is brutal. JaMarcus Russell isn't the reason DMC fumbles. DMC is the reason DMC fumbles. The running game has been atrocious, and you can't pin that on Russell. Same goes for the run D.

The running game would be a lot better if opponents didn't have 10 guys playing the run with just a single center-fielder watching for the pass while doing crosswords.

 

[Matt Waldman]

It's obvious that Manning's one of the best QBs of all-time, and it's just as obvious that he's the clear NFL MVP.But six wins a game? Come on. There are 10 other starters on offense, 11 starters on defense, and a bunch of reserves that have a huge impact on every team's performance. To assign such a high percentage of team success to a QB is absurd.

I dont tihnk its that far off...Lets substitute Manning for Sorgi..Are the Colts 13-3 or 12-4..No...What would they be...Probably 7-9 or 8-8 at best...So 4-5 wins probably is a more accurate number.I mean, except for Wayne, their WRs are not good. Clark is solid, but I think his stats get inflated because of Manning.And their running game is absolutely horrendous (No, Addai is not a good RB. He is a very good receiver and blocker)

2-3 wins.The Colts have a terrific pass blocking OL, a bunch of very talented weapons in the passing game, and an insanely good pass defense (Freeney/Mathis are averaging 2 sacks a game and their pass D has been lights out). Manning's awesome, and has been the most consistently awesome player in the game for the last decade. But to ignore the performances of guys like Saturday, Freeney, Mathis, Clark, Wayne, Diem, Betha, et al just because they don't do TV commercials is crazy.The Pats were expected to win 12-13 games last year. Brady went down and they won 11.Whenever the Eagles lose McNabb, their backup QB comes in and performs very well.In 2007, the Texans scored more points with Sage Rosenfels starting than with Matt Schaub starting.The 1998 Broncos scored more with Bubby Brister playing than with John Elway.The 1996 Dolphins scored more with Craig Erickson than with Dan Marino.But think of it another way. Let's say you have the Colts as a 12.5 win team this year. How do you want to dole out credit for those 12.5 wins? Do you really want to say Manning is worth 6.0 wins and the players below are worth 6.5 wins? Addai, Joseph Bethea, Antoine Brackett, Gary Brock, Raheem Brown, Donald Bullitt, Melvin Clark, Dallas Collie, Austin Dawson, Keyunta DeVan, Kyle Diem, Ryan Federkeil, Daniel Foster, Eric Francisco, Aaron Freeney, Dwight Garcon, Pierre Gonzalez, Anthony Hagler, Tyjuan Hall, Roy Hardie, Rudolph Hart, Mike Hayden, Kelvin Humber, Ramon Jackson, Marlin Jennings, Tim Johnson, Antonio Johnson, Charlie Johnson, Ed Keiaho, Freddy Lacey, Jacob Lilja, Ryan Mathis, Robert McAfee, Pat Moala, Fili Muir, Daniel Painter, Curtis Petrowski, Jamie Pollak, Mike Powers, Jerraud Richard, Jamey Robinson, Gijon Rushing, T.J. Sanders, Bob Saturday, Jeff Session, Clint Silva, Jamie Simpson, Chad Snow, Justin Sorgi, Jim Tamme, Jacob Ugoh, Tony Vinatieri, Adam Wayne, Reggie Wheeler, Philip

Yeah, I'd feel comfortable with that considering Wayne, Clark, Tamme, Gonzalez, Garcon, Collie, Addai, Brown, Hart, Robinson, and Hall all rely upon Manning's skill at recognizing defensive coverages and executing against them with pinpoint accuracy. Plus, I'm Curtis Painter or any other QB thrusted into the job would also require the OC to provide plays rather than "concepts" that he now gives to Manning and let's the All-Pro QB make the ultimate call. Few QBs actually call their own plays any more. Manning does. Plus Manning operates an offense without much of a running game and if anything I think Mathis and Freeney owe Manning a couple of games because if it weren't for their QB scoring on just about every series, these two DEs would have no shot at playing as aggressively as they do. They would have to play the run more. I feel just as comfortable giving Manning that much credit as I would giving the 2000 Ravens defense that kind of props versus their offense or Dan Marino on several of his teams in the 80s and 90s.

 

[Chaka]

The running game is brutal. JaMarcus Russell isn't the reason DMC fumbles. DMC is the reason DMC fumbles. The running game has been atrocious, and you can't pin that on Russell. Same goes for the run D.

The running game would be a lot better if opponents didn't have 10 guys playing the run with just a single center-fielder watching for the pass while doing crosswords.

And he gets ticked off when he has to get out of his lawn chair.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Daniel Jeremiah is a former NFL scout that does a Twitter segment called Ask 5 in which he asks 5 NFL scouts/GMs/coaches a question and posts the results.

Today's question was whether or not Peyton was good for 9+ wins on the Raiders.

The NFL scouts/GMs/Coaches voted 4-1 in favor of Manning.

I'd say that's a pretty strong endorsement. You'll always have haters like Chase who have constantly tried to minimize what Peyton Manning has done, but for the guys whose jobs ride on being able to analyze these things, they know the truth.

Please. For years I've been labeled a Manning homer. And NFL scouts/GMs/coaches are far from perfect.

 

[Chaka]

Daniel Jeremiah is a former NFL scout that does a Twitter segment called Ask 5 in which he asks 5 NFL scouts/GMs/coaches a question and posts the results.

Today's question was whether or not Peyton was good for 9+ wins on the Raiders.

The NFL scouts/GMs/Coaches voted 4-1 in favor of Manning.

I'd say that's a pretty strong endorsement. You'll always have haters like Chase who have constantly tried to minimize what Peyton Manning has done, but for the guys whose jobs ride on being able to analyze these things, they know the truth.

Please. For years I've been labeled a Manning homer. And NFL scouts/GMs/coaches are far from perfect.

I am not sure how many wins Peyton would be good for but I am sure that Jamarcus is good for 11 more losses this season.Jamarcus couldn't hit the bowl with two cheeks on the seat.

 

[Tau837]

The Pats were expected to win 12-13 games last year. Brady went down and they won 11.

First off, the year before the Pats won all 16. No one expected a repeat of that, but it is possible they could have won more than 12-13 games with Brady.Secondly, and more importantly, most teams don't have as solid a coaching staff and organization as the Pats. I give a lot of credit for them still winning 11 games to them, not just the players.And as for the players, one could argue that the supporting cast, at least on offense, was stronger last year in New England than it is currently in Indy, and that helped Cassell.Finally, while we didn't know this prior to Brady's injury, at this point it seems reasonable to think Cassell is better than Sorgi.

Whenever the Eagles lose McNabb, their backup QB comes in and performs very well.In 2007, the Texans scored more points with Sage Rosenfels starting than with Matt Schaub starting.The 1998 Broncos scored more with Bubby Brister playing than with John Elway.The 1996 Dolphins scored more with Craig Erickson than with Dan Marino.

First off, I don't think any of these QBs is close to as good as Manning or as much of a focal point of their offenses as Manning is.Secondly, you have a pretty small sample size with some of these, and thus those results could easily have been influenced by context moreso than by your stance that the QB isn't as much of an impact player as is being stated here.

But think of it another way. Let's say you have the Colts as a 12.5 win team this year. How do you want to dole out credit for those 12.5 wins? Do you really want to say Manning is worth 6.0 wins and the players below are worth 6.5 wins?

While other players make strong and required contributions, Manning makes all of their jobs easier. And I mean all of their jobs. Every defensive player gets more rest than he would if Sorgi was at QB, and the defense generally does not have to come on the field with poor field position (due to the offense). Every offensive lineman is made better because of Manning's understanding of the defense and where rushers are coming from and how quickly he needs to get rid of the ball... and how quickly he is able to progress through reads and deliver it. Every receiving option's job is easier because Manning puts the ball consistently where it needs to be. Every runner's job is easier because the defense is so concerned about Manning. Special teams is easier because they have to cover fewer punts. Etc. He is a rare player that literally impacts every other player on the team in a positive way.Right now, it looks like the Colts could easily win 13+ games... in order for your stance to hold up, you must be saying that you think that if Manning had gone down in week 1 only to be replaced for the year by Sorgi, the Colts would still have won 10+ games. Is that your stance?IMO you aren't giving him enough credit, at least not with Sorgi as his backup.

 

[BeTheMatch]

Daniel Jeremiah is a former NFL scout that does a Twitter segment called Ask 5 in which he asks 5 NFL scouts/GMs/coaches a question and posts the results.

Today's question was whether or not Peyton was good for 9+ wins on the Raiders.

The NFL scouts/GMs/Coaches voted 4-1 in favor of Manning.

I'd say that's a pretty strong endorsement. You'll always have haters like Chase who have constantly tried to minimize what Peyton Manning has done, but for the guys whose jobs ride on being able to analyze these things, they know the truth.

Please. For years I've been labeled a Manning homer. And NFL scouts/GMs/coaches are far from perfect.

Certainly not as perfect as you.

 

[Tau837]

The best you can do is see what actually happened with the new QB versus what you expected to happen with the old QB in there. With Brady last year, the Pats probably win 12 or 13 games; they won 11.

Ah, so your speculation is superior to ours, is that it? ETA: And superior to the speculation of NFL GMs, scouts, and coaches, too...

 

[Gr00vus]

"Super" Scout

Indeed. He's no ordinary run-of-the-mill scout.

He's got a cape.

 

[u999spf]

"Super" Scout

Indeed. He's no ordinary run-of-the-mill scout.

Yes. He's quite skillful at scouting out other peoples' writings and using them as his own.

Not only other people's writings but I heard this show on Sunday morning and he used almost the exact same line that the guys on NFL Sirius Afternoon Drive (Pat Kirwan and Tim Ryan) said about #1wr's. Basically they said that a teams #1WR is dictated by the other team's defense and not by the players own team. They dictate how/who receives extra attention. I know its pretty wide known that this is a true statement but you don't hear it all the time and I heard it 2 times in 3 days. It just stuck with me, given Landry's past transgressions.

 

[RebelINS]

Says It All

 

[duaneok66]

Manning is worth a lot more than 2-3 wins . . . imagine Garcon or Collie on another team with an ordinary QB - would they still be ready to play?? An ordinary QB with a slower release would get sacked repeatedly . . . the running game last year was WELL below average - the Colts still win twelve games . . .

 

[Joe Bryant]

It's obvious that Manning's one of the best QBs of all-time, and it's just as obvious that he's the clear NFL MVP.But six wins a season? Come on. There are 10 other starters on offense, 11 starters on defense, and a bunch of reserves that have a huge impact on every team's performance. To assign such a high percentage of team success to a QB is absurd.

Really GB?That's bold but doesn't seem absurd to me at all. I'd say Brady's worth 2-3 games.J

 

[5Rings]

I think Manning has clearly catapulted himself to #1 QB of all time. It may be hyperbole but Im pretty confident in that declaration.

I won't quite give it to him yet, as I think he still isn't at Montana's level in the high-pressure situations. But, given the improvement he has made in that category over the past few years, I'm very confident he will retire as the best of all time, barring a freak career-ending injury.

 

[Weiner Dog]

SB winning coach - Dungy...gone.

HOF WR - Harrison...gone.

NFL Defensive MVP - Sanders...hurt.

1st rounder and #2 WR - Gonzalez...hurt.

The Colts win at least 1/3 of their games b/c of Manning.

 

[duaneok66]

SB winning coach - Dungy...gone.HOF WR - Harrison...gone.NFL Defensive MVP - Sanders...hurt.1st rounder and #2 WR - Gonzalez...hurt.The Colts win at least 1/3 of their games b/c of Manning.

excellent post . . . you replace Harrison and GOnzalez with two unkowns, and you DON'T MISS A BEAT . . .

 

[kaa]

The NFL is a coaches league. I'm certain a scout would disagree with that since accepting that premise means a scout loses value, which impacts the pride a scout takes in his chosen profession. Nevertheless I think its true.

If I put Peyton Manning on the Raiders, they may win some more games. Or the head coach may not utilize the pieces they have properly and Peyton will regress. I can definitely guarantee you that if I made Bill Belichick head coach of the Raiders, they would win more games.

 

[Chase Stuart]

It's obvious that Manning's one of the best QBs of all-time, and it's just as obvious that he's the clear NFL MVP.But six wins a season? Come on. There are 10 other starters on offense, 11 starters on defense, and a bunch of reserves that have a huge impact on every team's performance. To assign such a high percentage of team success to a QB is absurd.

Really GB?That's bold but doesn't seem absurd to me at all. I'd say Brady's worth 2-3 games.J

Which Brady? The old Brady, who most felt was better than Manning, or the new Brady, who misses a wide open Randy Moss every week?If you mean the old Brady, I agree. The new one, not so much.Put it this way. If you list every single player in the NFL and said "I think Manning's worth 6 games.... Brees is worth 5.... Brady 2 or 3.... ADP 2 or 3.... Revis 2... Patrick Willis 2-3.... DeMarcus Ware 1-2..." all the way down to "Jay Feeley, 0.1 games", I think you're going to end up with way more than 256 games. Or you're going to SEVERELY underestimate the value of line play. People say the games are won in the trenches until we start talking about the value of a QB. And I don't just you, Joe. I mean the plural you. I think everyone would say most players are worth more than they actually are. If you pick out one guy, you can say any number you want. You can say Kyle Orton's worth 5 games more than an average QB. But until you do it for all 32 teams and 45+ players for each team, and have that total add up to 256, I think you're going to be wildy off on most of your guesses.

 

[Raider Nation]

The NFL is a coaches league. I'm certain a scout would disagree with that since accepting that premise means a scout loses value, which impacts the pride a scout takes in his chosen profession. Nevertheless I think its true. If I put Peyton Manning on the Raiders, they may win some more games. Or the head coach may not utilize the pieces they have properly and Peyton will regress. I can definitely guarantee you that if I made Bill Belichick head coach of the Raiders, they would win more games.

It's amazing how much smarter Belichick got when Brady became his starting QB.