Peyton Manning, Greatest QB of all time? - Page 17

PokerFink · #**161** 01-24-2007, 10:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If Turner's DVOA and numbers etc. indicate better than LT then why don't they give him all of the carries, I think I know why.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Turner's DVOA indicate that he is better than LT, but I think they do indicate that if LT were to have a serious injury, the offense would not decline all that much with Turner. It would certainly decline less than the general public thinks. Of course, this depends on how well Turner could hold up to a full workload, a question I have no answer for.

A part of Turner's success very likely comes from his limited carries and that he is "fresh" when he is in the game. He will be at or near 100% for almost all his carries, as compared to LT who is often beat up from his bigger workload.

But one theory I commonly see about Turner is that "he has a better yards per carry than LT because he is put into situations where it's easier for a RB to gain more yards (ie 3rd and long)." That simply isn't true, because DVOA acounts for the down and distance, and Turner is comfortably ahead of LT in each of the past 3 years.

prohornblower · #**162** 01-24-2007, 11:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still don't think there is a large gap in ability between average starter and average immediate back-up.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see why there would be. Assuming NFL teams are at least decent at identifying talent in QBs, the guys starting in the NFL would pretty much be the thirty-two best QBs in the world. The #1 backups would basically be #33-64. I don't think there's a big gap in talent from #17-49.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. You said in like 20 words what I tried to say in 1000. This should shed some illumination on the reason why coaches are afraid to give their back up a substantial shot. (Scared to death of controversy and difficult decisions).

EDIT: This is a good time to point out that the 32nd best QB may get 400+ passes a season, and the 33rd best QB may get 0. Huge disparity in opportunity vs. talent in many cases.

FlyWf · #**163** 01-25-2007, 12:40 AM

There are probably 5-6 backups better than a few starters. The NFL labor market isn't efficient. It strikes me as pretty implausible that there are exactly 32 good QBs in the league at any time.

tdarko · #**164** 01-25-2007, 01:01 AM

JoA,

[ QUOTE ]
btw the difference between Peyton and LT2 is HUGE.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was never comparing LT to Peyton, I was only ever comparing LT to Turner. I actually mentioned earlier that I believe QB's are more valuable than RB's.

THAY3R · #**165** 01-25-2007, 01:08 AM

But ignoring that, the difference between Manning compared to other QB's and LT2 compared to other RB's is HUGE.

tdarko · #**166** 01-25-2007, 01:41 AM

UCF,

I would agree with that. I don't think that there would be any drop off if LT was substituted for LJ, S. Jackson, or many other top tier RB's.

Golden_Rhino · #**167** 01-25-2007, 03:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As far as I can remember LT was pretty good even when the Chargers sucked.

[/ QUOTE ]

In his 6 Seasons, he only has 2 Years over 4.5 YPC, and 2 Years under 4 YPC.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say he had great stats, I'm saying he was a very good running back. The only back I remember putting up great stats with a horrible team was Barry Sanders (I'm sure you guys can think of others), but he was in a league all by himself.

TheNoodleMan · #**168** 01-25-2007, 04:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As far as I can remember LT was pretty good even when the Chargers sucked.

[/ QUOTE ]

In his 6 Seasons, he only has 2 Years over 4.5 YPC, and 2 Years under 4 YPC.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say he had great stats, I'm saying he was a very good running back. The only back I remember putting up great stats with a horrible team was Barry Sanders (I'm sure you guys can think of others), but he was in a league all by himself.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually RBs putting up big numbers on bad teams are not that unprecedented. Off the top of my head OJ Simpson, Walter Payton and Marshall Faulk come to mind. All of them played for some pretty poor teams and racked up some big numbers while doing it.

gusmahler · #**169** 01-25-2007, 04:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why there would be. Assuming NFL teams are at least decent at identifying talent in QBs, the guys starting in the NFL would pretty much be the thirty-two best QBs in the world. The #1 backups would basically be #33-64. I don't think there's a big gap in talent from #17-49.

[/ QUOTE ]

But some teams have multiple good QBs (e.g., KC) and some have none (e.g., Oak). And sometimes, teams aren't the best judges of talent and switch QBs in the middle of the season (e.g., DAL, WAS, MIA, ARI).

blackize · #**170** 01-25-2007, 05:48 AM

In this month's issue of Maxim, Dan Marino ranks the current top QBs.

"Tom Brady
Dan says: 'He's number one over Peyton because he's won three Super Bowls. But both of these guys are in a league of their own.'
Telling stat: Brady is 10-1 in playoff games
Factoid: In 2004 Brady became the youngest QB to win his second Super Bowl MVP. It was his third year as a starter.

Peyton Manning
Dan says: 'I don't think he's missed a snap as a starter. He's just your great prototypical franchise quarterback.'
Telling stat: Peyton has a career passer rating of 94.0
Factoid: Peyton roughed up Marino's record for touchdown passes in a season when he threw 49 TDs in 2004. But can he beat his dome baby rap? "

The list is rounded out with Carson Palmer, Marc Bulger, and Eli Manning.

I think it's very surprising to see Dan Marino of all people glorify Brady solely because of his Super Bowl rings. After reading the Patriots rant thread I think it is very surprising to see Brady even mentioned in the same breath as Peyton Manning when talking about all time greats.