Peyton Manning (1 Viewer)

[PainTrain]

I've never liked this championship requirement for greatness. I mean, is Montana the only guy who could have taken the Niners to the Super Bowl? And if so, you're claiming that guys like Ronnie Lott and Jerry Rice were simply riding his coattails. Is Montana's ability to lead the team to the Super Bowl the primary factor in how the other players' careers will be measured, like their championships are just an extension of Montana's greatness alone? Surely you count their rings to justify their greatness as well, but then who actually earned it... Montana? Seems like each of them get credit for being on winning team and the rest of the team is magically removed from the accomplishment for each debate, like they won an MVP trophy or something.

By that measure, if the Colts somehow develop the best defense of all time in Manning's late--dare-I-say--"mediocre" years, and he gets his ring count up while posting Trent Dilfer numbers, would those days rocket his value even if the adapted gameplan was built around say... Addai and impenetrable Colts defense?

Charles Haley has five Super Bowl rings, does that make him the greatest player of all time? Mike Lodish has played in six Super Bowls. If his team had won them all, would it change your opinion about his standing among his peers?

My point is that Manning would be great if you dropped him on any team. If that team doesn't win the Super Bowl, is it really an indictment of his ability if they can't win all their playoff games? No player is so great that any team he plays for should win the championship. If he was, the game would probably be called something like "basketball."

 

[JetMaxx]

Fantastic thread idea. As a Manning fan I came in with preconceived conclusions but this discussion has provided terrific arguments on both sides.

 

[JohnnyU]

A crazy hypothetical....

Your team is down by 6, you have the ball at your own 20 with 2 minutes to go in a Super Bowl, you are the coach and you have your choice of putting in Montana in his prime or Manning in his on the field.. If you dont score you and your family will be killed..

Anyone who has seen them both play and would choose Manning in this situation has a death wish.

For all those people listing other QBs other than Manning, the one thing they had Manning doesn't or has had is a top level defense. That means there is more pressure for Manning to lead his team vs those other QBs who can rely on their defense to even out their bad games or mistakes. Manning doesn't have that option. Year in and year out he has to perform as the best QB each year for the Colts to have played at the level they have. Put Manning on any of those teams anyone is comparing Manning to and he wins more championships than that QB. More than Montana, Brady, or whoever. Crap, I think if you put Manning on any of the top 10 defensive teams last year and they win. I honestly can't say I believe any other QB in history could have that influence on his team.

That is true, but Manning has always had a ton of talent on offense around him. You have to wonder what numbers guys like Elway and Favre could have put up had they had that kind of talent around them for their entire careers.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe Manning makes Wayne, Harrison, and formally Stokely look pretty good? Favre and Elway had plenty of talent around them. Terrell Davis and Rod Smith in his prime come to mind. Favre had Ahman Green in his prime, and Sterling Sharpe was pretty good. I'm sure I'm missing many, but this whole idea about Manning and his talent is crazy talk.

Manning absolutely makes those guys look better. Its reciprocal.....neither would be quite as great without the other. But, I wouldnt exactly call it 'crazy talk'. Rod Smith was a nice player. Always an overachiever. But never even drafted, and never considered to be one of the best. TD was obviously underrated coming out of college because of the migraines and clearly should have been drafted higher, but a very late draft pick nevertheless. Manning has had a 1st round LT, 3 1st round WRs, a 1st round TE, and 2 1st round RBs. That's alot invested in an O. Man, that is crazy talk.

Rod Smith and Terrell Davis were elite players at their position. I don't give a damn what what round they were drafted in, or whether one was undrafted.

lets by realistic here, by far manning has played with be offensive talent than elway ever has. hell manning started his career with marshall fault at rb

Elway had Mark Jackson, Terrell Davis, Rod Smith, McCaffrey, Shannon Sharpe. How many Super Bowls did Elway lose? He was an old man (in football terms) before he won a couple. Plus, Elway got to play with a lot better defenses than Manning ever has. For God's sake, I don't believe any of Elway's defenses gave up 200 yds rushing to two different players in the playoffs, or have an idiot kicker miss one game winning kick in the playoffs and another to tie.

 

[nashua55]

I've never liked this championship requirement for greatness. I mean, is Montana the only guy who could have taken the Niners to the Super Bowl? And if so, you're claiming that guys like Ronnie Lott and Jerry Rice were simply riding his coattails. Is Montana's ability to lead the team to the Super Bowl the primary factor in how the other players' careers will be measured, like their championships are just an extension of Montana's greatness alone? Surely you count their rings to justify their greatness as well, but then who actually earned it... Montana? Seems like each of them get credit for being on winning team and the rest of the team is magically removed from the accomplishment for each debate, like they won an MVP trophy or something.By that measure, if the Colts somehow develop the best defense of all time in Manning's late--dare-I-say--"mediocre" years, and he gets his ring count up while posting Trent Dilfer numbers, would those days rocket his value even if the adapted gameplan was built around say... Addai and impenetrable Colts defense?Charles Haley has five Super Bowl rings, does that make him the greatest player of all time? Mike Lodish has played in six Super Bowls. If his team had won them all, would it change your opinion about his standing among his peers?My point is that Manning would be great if you dropped him on any team. If that team doesn't win the Super Bowl, is it really an indictment of his ability if they can't win all their playoff games? No player is so great that any team he plays for should win the championship. If he was, the game would probably be called something like "basketball."

true to a point, but when you put people in the category of greatest ever, championships have to fit in the equation, because how many tds and yds doesnt always tell the full story. derek jeter in baseball is a good example, he doesnt put up fantastic hr totals or rbi totals, but he is a winner, a great player. manning is a great player, but realistically i dont see how he can be the greatest ever yet, is he a hall of famer? yep sure is, is he the greatest qb ever,nope, not with one superbowl title.

 

[twitch]

A crazy hypothetical....

Your team is down by 6, you have the ball at your own 20 with 2 minutes to go in a Super Bowl, you are the coach and you have your choice of putting in Montana in his prime or Manning in his on the field.. If you dont score you and your family will be killed..

Anyone who has seen them both play and would choose Manning in this situation has a death wish.

For all those people listing other QBs other than Manning, the one thing they had Manning doesn't or has had is a top level defense. That means there is more pressure for Manning to lead his team vs those other QBs who can rely on their defense to even out their bad games or mistakes. Manning doesn't have that option. Year in and year out he has to perform as the best QB each year for the Colts to have played at the level they have. Put Manning on any of those teams anyone is comparing Manning to and he wins more championships than that QB. More than Montana, Brady, or whoever. Crap, I think if you put Manning on any of the top 10 defensive teams last year and they win. I honestly can't say I believe any other QB in history could have that influence on his team.

That is true, but Manning has always had a ton of talent on offense around him. You have to wonder what numbers guys like Elway and Favre could have put up had they had that kind of talent around them for their entire careers.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe Manning makes Wayne, Harrison, and formally Stokely look pretty good? Favre and Elway had plenty of talent around them. Terrell Davis and Rod Smith in his prime come to mind. Favre had Ahman Green in his prime, and Sterling Sharpe was pretty good. I'm sure I'm missing many, but this whole idea about Manning and his talent is crazy talk.

Manning absolutely makes those guys look better. Its reciprocal.....neither would be quite as great without the other. But, I wouldnt exactly call it 'crazy talk'. Rod Smith was a nice player. Always an overachiever. But never even drafted, and never considered to be one of the best. TD was obviously underrated coming out of college because of the migraines and clearly should have been drafted higher, but a very late draft pick nevertheless. Manning has had a 1st round LT, 3 1st round WRs, a 1st round TE, and 2 1st round RBs. That's alot invested in an O. Man, that is crazy talk.

Rod Smith and Terrell Davis were elite players at their position. I don't give a damn what what round they were drafted in, or whether one was undrafted.

Smith was always a solid player. But elite is what Marvin Harrison and other HOFers are. Smith is not a HOFer and he wasnt elite. He had more than 7TDs twice in his career in 12 years. Good years....not elite. TD was great. But so were Marshall Faulk and Edgerrin James and probably Joseph Addai in time....3 guys all taken in the 1st round.....two in the top 5. Its off point to compare the talent Elway and Manning have been surrounded by.

 

[nashua55]

A crazy hypothetical....

Your team is down by 6, you have the ball at your own 20 with 2 minutes to go in a Super Bowl, you are the coach and you have your choice of putting in Montana in his prime or Manning in his on the field.. If you dont score you and your family will be killed..

Anyone who has seen them both play and would choose Manning in this situation has a death wish.

For all those people listing other QBs other than Manning, the one thing they had Manning doesn't or has had is a top level defense. That means there is more pressure for Manning to lead his team vs those other QBs who can rely on their defense to even out their bad games or mistakes. Manning doesn't have that option. Year in and year out he has to perform as the best QB each year for the Colts to have played at the level they have. Put Manning on any of those teams anyone is comparing Manning to and he wins more championships than that QB. More than Montana, Brady, or whoever. Crap, I think if you put Manning on any of the top 10 defensive teams last year and they win. I honestly can't say I believe any other QB in history could have that influence on his team.

That is true, but Manning has always had a ton of talent on offense around him. You have to wonder what numbers guys like Elway and Favre could have put up had they had that kind of talent around them for their entire careers.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe Manning makes Wayne, Harrison, and formally Stokely look pretty good? Favre and Elway had plenty of talent around them. Terrell Davis and Rod Smith in his prime come to mind. Favre had Ahman Green in his prime, and Sterling Sharpe was pretty good. I'm sure I'm missing many, but this whole idea about Manning and his talent is crazy talk.

Manning absolutely makes those guys look better. Its reciprocal.....neither would be quite as great without the other. But, I wouldnt exactly call it 'crazy talk'. Rod Smith was a nice player. Always an overachiever. But never even drafted, and never considered to be one of the best. TD was obviously underrated coming out of college because of the migraines and clearly should have been drafted higher, but a very late draft pick nevertheless. Manning has had a 1st round LT, 3 1st round WRs, a 1st round TE, and 2 1st round RBs. That's alot invested in an O. Man, that is crazy talk.

Rod Smith and Terrell Davis were elite players at their position. I don't give a damn what what round they were drafted in, or whether one was undrafted.

lets by realistic here, by far manning has played with be offensive talent than elway ever has. hell manning started his career with marshall fault at rb

Elway had Mark Jackson, Terrell Davis, Rod Smith, McCaffrey, Shannon Sharpe. How many Super Bowls did Elway lose? He was an old man (in football terms) before he won a couple. Plus, Elway got to play with a lot better defenses than Manning ever has. For God's sake, I don't believe any of Elway's defenses gave up 200 yds rushing to two different players in the playoffs, or have an idiot kicker miss one game winning kick in the playoffs and another to tie.

the 49ers scored like 59 pts against the broncos in the superbowl, so much for a great defence. the afc where childs play for nfc teams in those superbowls. elway would have had to play out of his mind to have even made any of those superbowls close, peyton on the other hand just had to play decent to avoid some of those early playoff loses. hey i am a big backer of peyton, but the facts are the fact, manning has always had a great rb to help take some of the heat off him. elway did not.

 

[JohnnyU]

A crazy hypothetical....

Your team is down by 6, you have the ball at your own 20 with 2 minutes to go in a Super Bowl, you are the coach and you have your choice of putting in Montana in his prime or Manning in his on the field.. If you dont score you and your family will be killed..

Anyone who has seen them both play and would choose Manning in this situation has a death wish.

For all those people listing other QBs other than Manning, the one thing they had Manning doesn't or has had is a top level defense. That means there is more pressure for Manning to lead his team vs those other QBs who can rely on their defense to even out their bad games or mistakes. Manning doesn't have that option. Year in and year out he has to perform as the best QB each year for the Colts to have played at the level they have. Put Manning on any of those teams anyone is comparing Manning to and he wins more championships than that QB. More than Montana, Brady, or whoever. Crap, I think if you put Manning on any of the top 10 defensive teams last year and they win. I honestly can't say I believe any other QB in history could have that influence on his team.

That is true, but Manning has always had a ton of talent on offense around him. You have to wonder what numbers guys like Elway and Favre could have put up had they had that kind of talent around them for their entire careers.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe Manning makes Wayne, Harrison, and formally Stokely look pretty good? Favre and Elway had plenty of talent around them. Terrell Davis and Rod Smith in his prime come to mind. Favre had Ahman Green in his prime, and Sterling Sharpe was pretty good. I'm sure I'm missing many, but this whole idea about Manning and his talent is crazy talk.

Manning absolutely makes those guys look better. Its reciprocal.....neither would be quite as great without the other. But, I wouldnt exactly call it 'crazy talk'. Rod Smith was a nice player. Always an overachiever. But never even drafted, and never considered to be one of the best. TD was obviously underrated coming out of college because of the migraines and clearly should have been drafted higher, but a very late draft pick nevertheless. Manning has had a 1st round LT, 3 1st round WRs, a 1st round TE, and 2 1st round RBs. That's alot invested in an O. Man, that is crazy talk.

Rod Smith and Terrell Davis were elite players at their position. I don't give a damn what what round they were drafted in, or whether one was undrafted.

lets by realistic here, by far manning has played with be offensive talent than elway ever has. hell manning started his career with marshall fault at rb

Elway had Mark Jackson, Terrell Davis, Rod Smith, McCaffrey, Shannon Sharpe. How many Super Bowls did Elway lose? He was an old man (in football terms) before he won a couple. Plus, Elway got to play with a lot better defenses than Manning ever has. For God's sake, I don't believe any of Elway's defenses gave up 200 yds rushing to two different players in the playoffs, or have an idiot kicker miss one game winning kick in the playoffs and another to tie.

the 49ers scored like 59 pts against the broncos in the superbowl, so much for a great defence. the afc where childs play for nfc teams in those superbowls. elway would have had to play out of his mind to have even made any of those superbowls close, peyton on the other hand just had to play decent to avoid some of those early playoff loses. hey i am a big backer of peyton, but the facts are the fact, manning has always had a great rb to help take some of the heat off him. elway did not.

There are a lot of factors at play here. Some were in Elway's favor then, and some are in Manning's favor now. However, I don't believe Manning will finish his career with a 300 /226 TD / INT ratio

 

[nashua55]

A crazy hypothetical....

Your team is down by 6, you have the ball at your own 20 with 2 minutes to go in a Super Bowl, you are the coach and you have your choice of putting in Montana in his prime or Manning in his on the field.. If you dont score you and your family will be killed..

Anyone who has seen them both play and would choose Manning in this situation has a death wish.

For all those people listing other QBs other than Manning, the one thing they had Manning doesn't or has had is a top level defense. That means there is more pressure for Manning to lead his team vs those other QBs who can rely on their defense to even out their bad games or mistakes. Manning doesn't have that option. Year in and year out he has to perform as the best QB each year for the Colts to have played at the level they have. Put Manning on any of those teams anyone is comparing Manning to and he wins more championships than that QB. More than Montana, Brady, or whoever. Crap, I think if you put Manning on any of the top 10 defensive teams last year and they win. I honestly can't say I believe any other QB in history could have that influence on his team.

That is true, but Manning has always had a ton of talent on offense around him. You have to wonder what numbers guys like Elway and Favre could have put up had they had that kind of talent around them for their entire careers.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe Manning makes Wayne, Harrison, and formally Stokely look pretty good? Favre and Elway had plenty of talent around them. Terrell Davis and Rod Smith in his prime come to mind. Favre had Ahman Green in his prime, and Sterling Sharpe was pretty good. I'm sure I'm missing many, but this whole idea about Manning and his talent is crazy talk.

Manning absolutely makes those guys look better. Its reciprocal.....neither would be quite as great without the other. But, I wouldnt exactly call it 'crazy talk'. Rod Smith was a nice player. Always an overachiever. But never even drafted, and never considered to be one of the best. TD was obviously underrated coming out of college because of the migraines and clearly should have been drafted higher, but a very late draft pick nevertheless. Manning has had a 1st round LT, 3 1st round WRs, a 1st round TE, and 2 1st round RBs. That's alot invested in an O. Man, that is crazy talk.

Rod Smith and Terrell Davis were elite players at their position. I don't give a damn what what round they were drafted in, or whether one was undrafted.

lets by realistic here, by far manning has played with be offensive talent than elway ever has. hell manning started his career with marshall fault at rb

Elway had Mark Jackson, Terrell Davis, Rod Smith, McCaffrey, Shannon Sharpe. How many Super Bowls did Elway lose? He was an old man (in football terms) before he won a couple. Plus, Elway got to play with a lot better defenses than Manning ever has. For God's sake, I don't believe any of Elway's defenses gave up 200 yds rushing to two different players in the playoffs, or have an idiot kicker miss one game winning kick in the playoffs and another to tie.

the 49ers scored like 59 pts against the broncos in the superbowl, so much for a great defence. the afc where childs play for nfc teams in those superbowls. elway would have had to play out of his mind to have even made any of those superbowls close, peyton on the other hand just had to play decent to avoid some of those early playoff loses. hey i am a big backer of peyton, but the facts are the fact, manning has always had a great rb to help take some of the heat off him. elway did not.

There are a lot of factors at play here. Some were in Elway's favor then, and some are in Manning's favor now. However, I don't believe Manning will finish his career with a 300 /226 TD / INT ratio

he sure wont, but unless manning wins more superbowls , montana 4 rings will over shadow peytons records, laying claim to the greatest qb ever

 

[Truman]

It's a lot easier to put up good offensive numbers as a QB if you have the number 2 defense in the league (as Montana did during his first championship run) than the number 23 defense (as well as the worst rush D Of. All Time.).

You'll have better field position and face less pressure to carry the load.

Besides, it's not as if Manning struggled against a bunch of scrubs - Kansas City had Ty Law, the one guy who's always had Manning's number. Baltimore had a historically great pass defense (at least according to Football Outsiders), New England were the number 2 scoring defense in all of football and in the Superbowl Indy faced the Bears, whose special teams were so good they scored off the opening kickoff.

 

[nashua55]

the funny thing is if brady wins the superbowl this year, the thread will end up being , who is better brady or manning. its funny what one ring did for a qb. went from choke artist to greatest ever converations.

 

[JohnnyU]

he sure wont, but unless manning wins more superbowls , montana 4 rings will over shadow peytons records, laying claim to the greatest qb ever

Hey, I'm a huge Montana fan and wouldn't have any problem ranking him up there at the top. However, I believe Manning will not only have multiple Super Bowls, but he will hold every meaningful record in the NFL, and that just might be enough to trump Mr. Montana. By the way JU invented the modern day QB and holds a record that will never be broken, throwing a td in 47 straight games, and he did it in shorter seasons which makes it even more impressive. Just as impressive and maybe more so than Joe D 57 game hitting streak in baseball.

 

[nashua55]

It's a lot easier to put up good offensive numbers as a QB if you have the number 2 defense in the league (as Montana did during his first championship run) than the number 23 defense (as well as the worst rush D Of. All Time.).You'll have better field position and face less pressure to carry the load.Besides, it's not as if Manning struggled against a bunch of scrubs - Kansas City had Ty Law, the one guy who's always had Manning's number. Baltimore had a historically great pass defense (at least according to Football Outsiders), New England were the number 2 scoring defense in all of football and in the Superbowl Indy faced the Bears, whose special teams were so good they scored off the opening kickoff.

you can argue those loses were against possibly better teams than the colts, but the steeler loss at home was very crippling to peyton at the time, he played like crap, and the colts had by far the better team. luckily for peyton he redeemed himself last year, because if he didnt win against the patriots after giving up that int for a td, his choke label would have increased 10 fold

 

[JohnnyU]

the funny thing is if brady wins the superbowl this year, the thread will end up being , who is better brady or manning. its funny what one ring did for a qb. went from choke artist to greatest ever converations.

...and that label was idiotic, just like winning Super Bowls doesn't mean a qb is the greatest ever. Football is a team sport and one player doesn't win championships, nor does he lose them. I'm pretty sure that if Brady had Indy's defense the last 6 years his label wouldn't be that great.

 

[Truman]

It's a lot easier to put up good offensive numbers as a QB if you have the number 2 defense in the league (as Montana did during his first championship run) than the number 23 defense (as well as the worst rush D Of. All Time.).You'll have better field position and face less pressure to carry the load.Besides, it's not as if Manning struggled against a bunch of scrubs - Kansas City had Ty Law, the one guy who's always had Manning's number. Baltimore had a historically great pass defense (at least according to Football Outsiders), New England were the number 2 scoring defense in all of football and in the Superbowl Indy faced the Bears, whose special teams were so good they scored off the opening kickoff.

you can argue those loses were against possibly better teams than the colts, but the steeler loss at home was very crippling to peyton at the time, he played like crap, and the colts had by far the better team. luckily for peyton he redeemed himself last year, because if he didnt win against the patriots after giving up that int for a td, his choke label would have increased 10 fold

That one was ugly, but I really enjoyed that game. A lot of credit to Cowher's gameplan and playcalling. Still, the Colts were one Roethlisberger tackle away from winning that game and a Vanderjagt FG from forcing OT.

 

[JohnnyU]

It's a lot easier to put up good offensive numbers as a QB if you have the number 2 defense in the league (as Montana did during his first championship run) than the number 23 defense (as well as the worst rush D Of. All Time.).

You'll have better field position and face less pressure to carry the load.

Besides, it's not as if Manning struggled against a bunch of scrubs - Kansas City had Ty Law, the one guy who's always had Manning's number. Baltimore had a historically great pass defense (at least according to Football Outsiders), New England were the number 2 scoring defense in all of football and in the Superbowl Indy faced the Bears, whose special teams were so good they scored off the opening kickoff.

you can argue those loses were against possibly better teams than the colts, but the steeler loss at home was very crippling to peyton at the time, he played like crap, and the colts had by far the better team. luckily for peyton he redeemed himself last year, because if he didnt win against the patriots after giving up that int for a td, his choke label would have increased 10 fold

Instead of talking about what he didn't do in that game, let's give credit for what he DID do. He performed under pressure in the greatest comeback in AFC Championship history. Of course Manning haters don't want to talk about that game at all. Instead they want to talk about the Steelers game the year before, lol.

 

[nashua55]

the funny thing is if brady wins the superbowl this year, the thread will end up being , who is better brady or manning. its funny what one ring did for a qb. went from choke artist to greatest ever converations.

...and that label was idiotic, just like winning Super Bowls doesn't mean a qb is the greatest ever. Football is a team sport and one player doesn't win championships, nor does he lose them. I'm pretty sure that if Brady had Indy's defense the last 6 years his label wouldn't be that great.

sure its idiotic, but players reputations are made in the playoffs. when everyone is watching, that is the time to shine, and unfortuneatly peyton had a checkered past until last year. montana always seemed to flurish during the big games. heck go back 30 years ago, reggie jackson hitting 3 homeruns in the game clinching world series game on national television, solidified his reputation as MR. OCTOBER.

 

[JohnnyU]

heck go back 30 years ago, reggie jackson hitting 3 homeruns in the game clinching world series game on national television, solidified his reputation as MR. OCTOBER.

I believe he is the all-time strikeout king also, or at least he was when he retired, and probably still is.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Statistics wise Joe Montana's BEST season is worse than Peyton Manning's AVERAGE season.

Montana's BEST season out of the 15 years he played is better than only two of Peyton's nine seasons (one of which was his rookie year).

I know there is more to it than numbers but that is a H-U-G-E difference.

 

[nashua55]

Instead of talking about what he didn't do in that game, let's give credit for what he DID do. He performed under pressure in the greatest comeback in AFC Championship history. Of course Manning haters don't want to talk about that game at all. Instead they want to talk about the Steelers game the year before, lol.

trust me, i am not bashing manning, as i have stated in a prior post, mannings 2nd half performance against against the patriots was the greatest qb performance i have ever seen considering the pressure and circumstances he faced.

 

[twitch]

It's a lot easier to put up good offensive numbers as a QB if you have the number 2 defense in the league (as Montana did during his first championship run) than the number 23 defense (as well as the worst rush D Of. All Time.).

You'll have better field position and face less pressure to carry the load.

Besides, it's not as if Manning struggled against a bunch of scrubs - Kansas City had Ty Law, the one guy who's always had Manning's number. Baltimore had a historically great pass defense (at least according to Football Outsiders), New England were the number 2 scoring defense in all of football and in the Superbowl Indy faced the Bears, whose special teams were so good they scored off the opening kickoff.

Huh? Great D means great QB #s? Are you kidding me? Tell that to Bob Griese, Phi Simms, Jim McMahon, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson and Troy Aikman. And is that why everyone's jumping all over the likes of Carson Palmer, Marc Bulger and Jon Kitna?....because those teams' Ds are so good their QBs will be forced to put up good offensive #s? No. Its because their Ds all stink. Good D means more running and less scoring.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

the funny thing is if brady wins the superbowl this year, the thread will end up being , who is better brady or manning. its funny what one ring did for a qb. went from choke artist to greatest ever converations.

...and that label was idiotic, just like winning Super Bowls doesn't mean a qb is the greatest ever. Football is a team sport and one player doesn't win championships, nor does he lose them. I'm pretty sure that if Brady had Indy's defense the last 6 years his label wouldn't be that great.

In fact, while Brady's numbers remained constant throughout all the only major difference between the Patriots 3 Super Bowl championships with Brady vs. the years they didn't win the Super Bowl with Brady was that the Super Bowl years were the years where the Patriots defense had its 3 highest rankings of Brady's career. In all 3 of those years they ranked higher than Indy has in its best year.

 

[nashua55]

heck go back 30 years ago, reggie jackson hitting 3 homeruns in the game clinching world series game on national television, solidified his reputation as MR. OCTOBER.

I believe he is the all-time strikeout king also, or at least he was when he retired, and probably still is.

he sure is, but he is a HOFer with a 260 something batting average, but people dont care, his legacy was he was a clutch performer when it counted. 5 world series rings, not too shabby, and was the big bat for all the teams he played for. even with all his strikeouts, he was never labled a loser.

 

[Truman]

Very different situation when you're comparing teams playing catchup vs contenders as opposed to contenders vs contenders.

Maybe it would be clearer if I had said efficiency is easier to achieve, rather than simply 'good numbers'.

 

[JohnnyU]

heck go back 30 years ago, reggie jackson hitting 3 homeruns in the game clinching world series game on national television, solidified his reputation as MR. OCTOBER.

I believe he is the all-time strikeout king also, or at least he was when he retired, and probably still is.

he sure is, but he is a HOFer with a 260 something batting average, but people dont care, his legacy was he was a clutch performer when it counted. 5 world series rings, not too shabby, and was the big bat for all the teams he played for. even with all his strikeouts, he was never labled a loser.

Elway was labeled a loser until he won a Super Bowl close to 40 years of age. Football fans are a strange breed. Some of them act as if it was inbreeeding.

 

[twitch]

Statistics wise Joe Montana's BEST season is worse than Peyton Manning's AVERAGE season.Montana's BEST season out of the 15 years he played is better than only two of Peyton's nine seasons (one of which was his rookie year).I know there is more to it than numbers but that is a H-U-G-E difference.

Joe Montana played his home games on one of the windiest, soggiest, nastiest, most unplayable BASEBALL fields in the NFL. We all know that about the old Candlestick. The uniforms of those players actually got dirty. Put him inside of a dome every other game in today's modern passing era and his #s would look a little different.

 

[JohnnyU]

Statistics wise Joe Montana's BEST season is worse than Peyton Manning's AVERAGE season.Montana's BEST season out of the 15 years he played is better than only two of Peyton's nine seasons (one of which was his rookie year).I know there is more to it than numbers but that is a H-U-G-E difference.

Joe Montana played his home games on one of the windiest, soggiest, nastiest, most unplayable BASEBALL fields in the NFL. We all know that about the old Candlestick. The uniforms of those players actually got dirty. Put him inside of a dome every other game in today's modern passing era and his #s would look a little different.

I hope Manning gets to play in another down pour Super Bowl. Superman wasn't impressed with the weather.

 

[twitch]

the funny thing is if brady wins the superbowl this year, the thread will end up being , who is better brady or manning. its funny what one ring did for a qb. went from choke artist to greatest ever converations.

...and that label was idiotic, just like winning Super Bowls doesn't mean a qb is the greatest ever. Football is a team sport and one player doesn't win championships, nor does he lose them. I'm pretty sure that if Brady had Indy's defense the last 6 years his label wouldn't be that great.

In fact, while Brady's numbers remained constant throughout all the only major difference between the Patriots 3 Super Bowl championships with Brady vs. the years they didn't win the Super Bowl with Brady was that the Super Bowl years were the years where the Patriots defense had its 3 highest rankings of Brady's career. In all 3 of those years they ranked higher than Indy has in its best year.

New England set a club record last year for fewest points allowed. The case can be made last year's was their best.

 

[nashua55]

heck go back 30 years ago, reggie jackson hitting 3 homeruns in the game clinching world series game on national television, solidified his reputation as MR. OCTOBER.

I believe he is the all-time strikeout king also, or at least he was when he retired, and probably still is.

he sure is, but he is a HOFer with a 260 something batting average, but people dont care, his legacy was he was a clutch performer when it counted. 5 world series rings, not too shabby, and was the big bat for all the teams he played for. even with all his strikeouts, he was never labled a loser.

Elway was labeled a loser until he won a Super Bowl close to 40 years of age. Football fans are a strange breed. Some of them act as if it was inbreeeding.

the elway thing is funny , he basically was a shell of himself when he finally won the big game, the media portrayed it like he was the enitity that won those games, when in fact everyone knows it was terrell davis. but you are right, he shed the loser tag, just as steve young did when he beat the chargers, and peyton did last year. donnie mac is now the qb now with the loser tag

 

[bostonfred]

It's hard to annoint Manning the best ever based on his statistics. In the first half of the Saints game this week, it was clear that Manning was struggling without Tarik Glenn. In the playoff game against Pittsburgh, on the second of Manning's three failed game winning drives, he blamed his blocking. The Colts have kept Glenn and the rest of the offensive line together, and on keeping Marvin Harrison, Edgerrin James (and now Addai), Reggie Wayne, and either Pollard or Dallas Clark around him.

It's not fair to ignore Manning's statistics, though. He's led his team to a winning record in all but two of the seasons he's played. By the way, Brady's never led his team to a losing season, even in his first season as a starter. Of course, the people pointing to Brady's team as the reason for his winning record will conveniently ignore the fact that Manning's team helped him achieve all these exciting statistics. Apparently the old mantra that football is a team sport doesn't apply to statistical accomplishments.

But let's look at the one year Manning hasn't had a first round pick at running back. The Colts were 6-10, and he had his third worst season ever. The only year he didn't have a healthy Harrison for the full season? The only year he had a top 5 defense? His second worst year statistically. His worst season as a starter (although it was also his rookie season).

Football is a team sport. The Colts have had an incredible offense, but it's as unrealistic to put all the credit for that offense on Manning's shoulders as it is to put all the blame for his playoff losses on his shoulders alone. Of course, when it came down to it, Manning has made more critical, game losing mistakes in the playoffs than his teammates, and as has been mentioned, he had only one good half in the Superbowl run last year. Otherwise, he was busy making Ty Law look like a hall of famer, getting held without a TD against the Ravens, and throwing 7 INTs in seven halves of football.

And it's the playoff losses that have always been his biggest knock. It took him five years to lead his team to a playoff win, in a 2003 campaign that ended with a 4 INT game in New England. He followed up with an incredible 49 TD season, but had a three point performance in the playoffs. In 2005, his numbers dipped, but the Colts had their best regular season record in team history. Unfortunately, he ended the season with a playoff game that he lost three times, throwing the game losing interception to Polamalu, only to watch it get overturned, going three and out with two sacks on another drive, and then getting the ball back again, but ultimately leaving them in long field goal range as time expired. He made individual mistakes that almost cost his team the game. Last year, he threw 7 INTs in his playoff run, but he had an incredible half of football against the admittedly depleted Patriots defense. He had a solid Superbowl performance. He's moving in the right direction, but it's hard to look at his overall playoff resume and see "best of all time".

When it comes down to it, most of Manning's greatest career accomplishments have been under the near-ideal circumstances through which the majority of his career has been played. Even his best half of playoff football was played at home in a dome against a depleted defense. Is he having one of the all time great careers? Absolutely. But I can't put him at the #1 spot when he's faced so little adversity, and struggled more often than not when he has.

 

[Ghost Rider]

wow, you just cant bring yourself to talk about those 7 picks in 4 games. Hypothetically speaking, just to do the math, that would be 28 INTs over a 16 game schedule with 8 returned for TDs, which would be by far the worst INT total in the league, and that would, hypothetically speaking, be just hideous. Another couple of possible rings though, and we'll forget all about that.

Okay, you need to get your facts straight. Only one of Manning's INTs last postseason was returned for a TD, not two. If you are going to keep pounding this point across, at least get the numbers right.

Elway had Mark Jackson, Terrell Davis, Rod Smith, McCaffrey, Shannon Sharpe. How many Super Bowls did Elway lose?

Elway didn't have most of the guys when he lost his first three SBs, and he didn't have three of those five until the last three years of his career. Meanwhile, Manning has always had a stud RB (Faulk, James, and possibly Addai now), the best WR in football (Harrison), and the best number 2 WR (Wayne) in football for many years now. And should we also mention the array of good TEs and number three WRs he has had? To say that Manning hasn't had significantly more offensive talent around him than Elway or Favre, both of whom only had top stars around them for a limited time, is pure ignorance.

 

[twitch]

wow, you just cant bring yourself to talk about those 7 picks in 4 games. Hypothetically speaking, just to do the math, that would be 28 INTs over a 16 game schedule with 8 returned for TDs, which would be by far the worst INT total in the league, and that would, hypothetically speaking, be just hideous. Another couple of possible rings though, and we'll forget all about that.

Okay, you need to get your facts straight. Only one of Manning's INTs last postseason was returned for a TD, not two. If you are going to keep pounding this point across, at least get the numbers right.

Elway had Mark Jackson, Terrell Davis, Rod Smith, McCaffrey, Shannon Sharpe. How many Super Bowls did Elway lose?

Elway didn't have most of the guys when he lost his first three SBs, and he didn't have three of those five until the last three years of his career. Meanwhile, Manning has always had a stud RB (Faulk, James, and possibly Addai now), the best WR in football (Harrison), and the best number 2 WR (Wayne) in football for many years now. And should we also mention the array of good TEs and number three WRs he has had? To say that Manning hasn't had significantly more offensive talent around him than Elway or Favre, both of whom only had top stars around them for a limited time, is pure ignorance.

so true, and my fault. that's inexcusable. I was thinking of one of the Law picks.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

It's all objective guys.

Who's the BEST baseball player ever; Who's the Best basketball player; Who's the Best running back ever

Everyone has an answer to those questions but everyone's answers are different. It will be no different with this.

There's some that may say he's the Best......and there's some that will say Joe Montana, or Unitas or Elway or whoever.

Prior to last year.....there's been conversations right here on this board about Peyton Manning never winning the big game.

Heck, if New England wins the SB this year and Brady has a great year.........I wouldn't even say Manning is better than Brady.

Again, that's a big IF but it's certainly possible.

So.......my answer is NO. He's not going to be the best ever. He's still got a lot of work to do in my mind to even be better than Tom Brady. If NE wins 2 Sb's in the next 3 years, it'll easily be Brady.

 

[Weiner Dog]

I've never liked this championship requirement for greatness. I mean, is Montana the only guy who could have taken the Niners to the Super Bowl? And if so, you're claiming that guys like Ronnie Lott and Jerry Rice were simply riding his coattails. Is Montana's ability to lead the team to the Super Bowl the primary factor in how the other players' careers will be measured, like their championships are just an extension of Montana's greatness alone? Surely you count their rings to justify their greatness as well, but then who actually earned it... Montana? Seems like each of them get credit for being on winning team and the rest of the team is magically removed from the accomplishment for each debate, like they won an MVP trophy or something.By that measure, if the Colts somehow develop the best defense of all time in Manning's late--dare-I-say--"mediocre" years, and he gets his ring count up while posting Trent Dilfer numbers, would those days rocket his value even if the adapted gameplan was built around say... Addai and impenetrable Colts defense?Charles Haley has five Super Bowl rings, does that make him the greatest player of all time? Mike Lodish has played in six Super Bowls. If his team had won them all, would it change your opinion about his standing among his peers?My point is that Manning would be great if you dropped him on any team. If that team doesn't win the Super Bowl, is it really an indictment of his ability if they can't win all their playoff games? No player is so great that any team he plays for should win the championship. If he was, the game would probably be called something like "basketball."

Agreed. Football = 22 on 22 (excluding special teams)It's absurd to rationalize that one player's legacy should be directly linked to the performance of the other 21 starters on his team.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I've never liked this championship requirement for greatness. I mean, is Montana the only guy who could have taken the Niners to the Super Bowl? And if so, you're claiming that guys like Ronnie Lott and Jerry Rice were simply riding his coattails. Is Montana's ability to lead the team to the Super Bowl the primary factor in how the other players' careers will be measured, like their championships are just an extension of Montana's greatness alone? Surely you count their rings to justify their greatness as well, but then who actually earned it... Montana? Seems like each of them get credit for being on winning team and the rest of the team is magically removed from the accomplishment for each debate, like they won an MVP trophy or something.By that measure, if the Colts somehow develop the best defense of all time in Manning's late--dare-I-say--"mediocre" years, and he gets his ring count up while posting Trent Dilfer numbers, would those days rocket his value even if the adapted gameplan was built around say... Addai and impenetrable Colts defense?Charles Haley has five Super Bowl rings, does that make him the greatest player of all time? Mike Lodish has played in six Super Bowls. If his team had won them all, would it change your opinion about his standing among his peers?My point is that Manning would be great if you dropped him on any team. If that team doesn't win the Super Bowl, is it really an indictment of his ability if they can't win all their playoff games? No player is so great that any team he plays for should win the championship. If he was, the game would probably be called something like "basketball."

Agreed. Football = 22 on 22 (excluding special teams)It's absurd to rationalize that one player's legacy should be directly linked to the performance of the other 21 starters on his team.

I disagree. It's 22 on 22 but the way you have it here, you act like each position is equally important.There's no way there's any position that's more important than the QB. He is the leader of the offense, he's the one who will be under fire from fans/media.Championships always will be and has been the defining line when describing greatness for QB's. Do I think if Peyton Manning or Tom Brady if put on the Detroit Lions this year would win a SB with them this year. No, I don't. But over an entire career, no matter what team a QB lands to even be considered by most in the "greatest" category, you have to win a championship. Why? There are a lot of reasons but one is there's never more pressure on a QB ever than playing in the SB and deep into the playoffs. Playing under those conditions shows everyone what you're made of. Last year we saw Peyton Manning take on that challenge vs. New England and Chicago. On the flip side you saw Rex Grossman and how he did under that kind of pressure.

 

[bostonfred]

my answer is NO. He's not going to be the best ever. He's still got a lot of work to do in my mind to even be better than Tom Brady. If NE wins 2 Sb's in the next 3 years, it'll easily be Brady.

I understand this logic, but I have to disagree with it, too. I don't think you can look at how many Superbowls a player has won and use that as a measurement of how good he is. Superbowls and wins are inaccurate and indirect measurements of the quality of a player. Everyone loves to bring up Trent Dilfer, who was as unspectacular a quarterback as has ever won a Superbowl. But the reason Dilfer won that Superbowl is that the team around him was legendary. The Ravens may have had the best defense ever to play in the NFL. McMahon was on the right team at the right time, too, as was Brad Johnson. None of these guys were great quarterbacks, they were all just decent or good players on exceptional teams. Counting the number of Superbowls they'd won, compared with the number of Superbowls that Marino won, is obviously not a good measure of how good they were as quarterbacks. The thing that Manning supporters typically ignore is that statistics are not much more accurate. Are Jon Kitna and Kurt Warner as good as Montana and Elway? Of course not, even though they've put up statistics that rival their counterparts' best years. It's not just about the numbers, it's about the system and surrounding talent. The fact that Manning has been able to put up those numbers consistently (in the regular season, anyways) goes a long way torwards showing that he's better than the one hit wonders, just like Tomlinson is clearly better than Jamal Lewis and Priest Holmes. Repeatability is necessarily a measure of their talent. But let's say Manning ends up with identical numbers to Favre. Could you say he was as good a quarterback as Favre? To me, the answer is a clear no. They both won a ton of games, they both had MVP seasons, they both have incredible numbers, but Favre has had nowhere near the collection of offensive talent that Manning has had. Even if Manning sets career records, how much would he have to exceed Favre by to make up for the fact that he had Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne instead of a surrounding cast like Antonio Freeman, Donald Driver, and Greg Jennings for all these years? He's had every possible advantage his entire career. For those mentioning Tom Brady, forget the Superbowls. What he has done statistically with guys like Reche Caldwell, Troy Brown, Jabar Gaffney, Deion Branch, David Patten, David Givens and co has to be considered pretty impressive as well. He plays on grass outdoors on a cold weather team with a better defense, and yet he still puts up top numbers every year. How many yards and touchdowns does playing in a dome vs. outdoors in the cold make up? Be careful how you answer this, Manning supporters, who have traditionally blamed the cold on Manning's terrible numbers in the playoffs in Foxboro. How many yards and touchdowns does Marvin Harrison vs. Deion Branch make up? Why isn't Deion Branch, the #1 receiver in his second year on a top passing team that has gotten great numbers from its #1 receiver in the past, a consensus top 20 pick? Harrison and Wayne were the #1 and #3 receivers in most fantasy leagues last year. The Pats' number one receiver Reche Caldwell was released this year, and the fantasy football community doesn't even care where he ends up because he wouldn't start on most NFL teams. Another question to ask: If Tom Brady ended up with the best numbers of his career this year (or next, once they've had a chance to get to know each other), would it make Brady a better quarterback than he was in the past? It shouldn't, should it?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Why? There are a lot of reasons but one is there's never more pressure on a QB ever than playing in the SB and deep into the playoffs. Playing under those conditions shows everyone what you're made of. Last year we saw Peyton Manning take on that challenge vs. New England and Chicago. On the flip side you saw Rex Grossman and how he did under that kind of pressure.

So is Doug Williams one of the best QBs ever?

 

[bostonfred]

Why? There are a lot of reasons but one is there's never more pressure on a QB ever than playing in the SB and deep into the playoffs. Playing under those conditions shows everyone what you're made of. Last year we saw Peyton Manning take on that challenge vs. New England and Chicago. On the flip side you saw Rex Grossman and how he did under that kind of pressure.

So is Doug Williams one of the best QBs ever?

Of course not. He didn't play long in the NFL, he ended his career with a losing record, and while he may have performed well in the Superbowl, his team was so much better than the Broncos. But he was also the only quarterback to lead the Bucs to the postseason until 1996, drafted by a third year expansion team, and led his team to three of their nine winning seasons in their 30 year history. He was also the first black quarterback to go to, let alone win, a Superbowl. There's a ton of pressure there. And considering the fact he took over midseason, you have to give him a lot of credit for his performance that season. Rex Grossman may have shown flashes of brilliance, he threw for more TDs than Williams ever did, and he helped his team get to the Superbowl in his first full season as a starter. But he unquestionably struggled late in the season and in the playoffs. I posted a poll just before the Superbowl asking if the Bears should look for a new QB in the offseason. The answer was strongly opposed. By the end of the night, the answer was strongly in favor of the Bears getting a new quarterback. Is Doug Williams the best quarterback ever? Of course not. Would I take Williams over Grossman in their respective primes? Probably, yes.

 

[joemama1]

I love how everyone is spitting out "X is the greatest ever!" like it's a fact. Being a "great" quarterback is SUBJECTIVE. People like to weigh the different statistics differently.... there's no proof one guy is "greater" than another.

Also, I think people are seriously underrating the actual teams involved. Again, it's subjective.... but how much weight can you really put on ONE player? Most people in here are acting like Montana could turn the 1-15, 2-14, 3-13 teams of the decade into 15-1 Superbowl champions. I don't care how good a QB is, there just isn't a way he can play on the offensive line while still throwing the football. As far as I know, Montana didn't intercept any passes, kick any field goals, return any kicks, etc.

I fully expect a million posts disagreeing, after all- logic is blasphemy! Just remember, there's no single tangible you can point to and say "That's why HE is the greatest!"

 

[bostonfred]

Also, I think people are seriously underrating the actual teams involved. Again, it's subjective.... but how much weight can you really put on ONE player? Most people in here are acting like Montana could turn the 1-15, 2-14, 3-13 teams of the decade into 15-1 Superbowl champions. I don't care how good a QB is, there just isn't a way he can play on the offensive line while still throwing the football. As far as I know, Montana didn't intercept any passes, kick any field goals, return any kicks, etc.

Funny you should mention that. There's only one guy we can actually do that with, and it's Tom Brady. They Patriots were 5-13 in their 18 games without Brady. When Brady came in, they went 11-3 the rest of the way and won the Superbowl, and have been 70-24 since in the regular season, along with 10-2 in the postseason.

 

[Truman]

Sorry, which 18 games without Brady?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Sorry, which 18 games without Brady?

All of the 2000 season and the first two games of the 2001 season, I presume. With the weapons he has, you have to wonder if Brady can now go neck-and-neck with Manning as far as having dominant passing numbers. If he does, given the SBs he has already won, he might have as good a case for being the best QB ever as Manning will have, when both of their careers end.

 

[bostonfred]

Sorry, which 18 games without Brady?

18 games with Bill Belichick and the same core group of players that Brady won with, the #18 defense in the NFL (as opposed to the #19 in 2001), the same #1 receiver (Troy Brown) and a better #2 receiver (Terry Glenn, 79/963 instead of David Patten, 51/749). 2001's Antowain Smith and co. rushed for 1793 yards at a 3.8 YPC clip, compared with 2000's Kevin Faulk and co's 1390 yards at a 3.3 YPC clip, but neither team had a particularly productive running game. And Bledsoe passed for more in 2000 than 600 more yards than Brady the following year, so we can compare apples with apples fairly well. At first, observers attributed this to the so-called Ewing theory, saying that the team worked harder to make up for the loss of their superstar. But that theory doesn't hold water, since the same players have continued to play better since Brady took over, and new players, many of them castoffs from other teams, have continued to improve. It wasn't the defense - as I mentioned above, the Patriots defense was 19th in 2001 compared with 18th in 2000. It wasn't the quality of receivers, which went down. The running game improved slightly, but it was still mediocre with Antowain Smith. So the question is, why is there such a clear dividing line between the pre-Brady and post-Brady era?

 

[Tau837]

Already is.

I disagree with this. If his career ended today, he would still be rightfully ranked below Elway, Montana, and Favre among modern era QBs, as well as some of the older generation guys like Unitas and Graham. And depending on how Brady's career progresses from here, he may well be ranked below him as well.

 

[Tau837]

Of the 2000s. To many rule changes to rate him against other QBs not playing in their prime in the same seasons under the same rules.

I agree it is hard to compare across eras. Probably would be best to focus on modern era QBs. But I do think it is possible that Manning could put up a combination of numbers, awards, and postseason success that would be so good that people will be comfortable in saying his career was better than those older era greats.

 

[Tau837]

I still think Montana is the best QB of all time. Being the best of all time is what you do when the chips are down. Manning is probably the most accomplished regular season QB, but what has he done when it counts the most?Manning has folded in the playoffs numerous times. He's never really "battled" when it's one and done. In playoffs losses, he's blamed his teammates(O-line). He's blamed the refs(pre 5-yard touch rule). And for me, that forever tarnishes his accomplishments. The guy could pass for 100,000 yards and 500 TDs and he still would not be the best. Just like Marino is not the best, nor was he ever.

Are you saying he can never be judged better than Montana? What if he goes on to have a lot more postseason success, both in terms of winning and in terms of his numbers? For example, what if he wins 4 more Super Bowls and plays well in doing so? One of the points of my original post was to ask what it will take.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Already is.

I disagree with this. If his career ended today, he would still be rightfully ranked below Elway, Montana, and Favre among modern era QBs, as well as some of the older generation guys like Unitas and Graham. And depending on how Brady's career progresses from here, he may well be ranked below him as well.

Nope. He's better than Elway, Montana, Favre, and Marino right now, in my opinion. Even if he was hit by a bus tonight.

 

[bostonfred]

Already is.

I disagree with this. If his career ended today, he would still be rightfully ranked below Elway, Montana, and Favre among modern era QBs, as well as some of the older generation guys like Unitas and Graham. And depending on how Brady's career progresses from here, he may well be ranked below him as well.

Nope. He's better than Elway, Montana, Favre, and Marino right now, in my opinion. Even if he was hit by a bus tonight.

How do you explain the fac that Favre has better numbers, has a longer win streak, has the same number of Superbowls, has more MVPs, more Pro Bowls, and has done it with substantially worse surrounding talent, if Manning is better than him?

 

[Tau837]

Its tough to argue against Joe Montana as the best QB of all time. The man passed for 11TDs and never threw an INT in a Superbowl...and he won 4 of them. Eleven TDs and 0 picks in the big game. That is the definition of greatness. Manning last year in the playoffs threw 3TDs in 4 games with 7 INTs. Manning's certainly great. Montana was in a class by himself and still is. Why wouldnt you consider Brett Favre the greatest QB of all time? He's got all the records and a Superbowl ring? Why wouldnt he be worthy of that title? Id put Manning in Favre's class...one of the greatest QBs and pure passers of all time. The best ever? Not quite. But he's got atleast another 5 years to change my mind.

I would say Montana is the greatest QB of all time as of now. But I think Manning could surpass him if he continues to put up similar numbers and adds more postseason success.

 

[bostonfred]

I still think Montana is the best QB of all time. Being the best of all time is what you do when the chips are down. Manning is probably the most accomplished regular season QB, but what has he done when it counts the most?Manning has folded in the playoffs numerous times. He's never really "battled" when it's one and done. In playoffs losses, he's blamed his teammates(O-line). He's blamed the refs(pre 5-yard touch rule). And for me, that forever tarnishes his accomplishments. The guy could pass for 100,000 yards and 500 TDs and he still would not be the best. Just like Marino is not the best, nor was he ever.

Are you saying he can never be judged better than Montana? What if he goes on to have a lot more postseason success, both in terms of winning and in terms of his numbers? For example, what if he wins 4 more Super Bowls and plays well in doing so? One of the points of my original post was to ask what it will take.

A few things that we should get to see by the end of his career: I'd want to see what he does once Harrison retires. I'd need to see if he can be the reason his team wins a playoff game a few more times, like he was in the Pats game last year. I'd also like to see what happens if the pass interference rules become less favorable, instead of more favorable. And I'd have to see him win or at least perform very well in a playoff game in cold weather. He'd also need to continue at something close to this pace statistically, although that's secondary. I don't know if championships are a criterion for me.

 

[Tau837]

so then hypthetically, what IF Brady wins 2 more Superbowls? greatest ever? Brady is 30. And he's probably going to win atleast one more ring. But we just cant factor in possible championships. If Manning wins 2 titles, well, without throwing SEVEN picks during those runs, then Im sure some will then consider him the greatest ever. Let's let him win a couple of more titles though before we really compare him to Joe Montana. Because right now, its really not much of an arguement.

Uh, the point of this thread is to speculate about what it will take for Manning to be regarded as the best ever... which may include possible championships. If you prefer not to discuss such things, why are you posting in this thread?