Peyton Manning, Greatest QB of all time?

[Jack of Arcades]

SB 36: NE 20, StL 17.

Warner threw two picks (one went for 6, and the other a 30 yard return) and StL lost a fumble.

Meanwhile, Brady threw for 145 yards and was the MVP.

SB 38: Brady had a great game. No criticism here, although he had a lot of help from his team getting there in the first place.

SB 39: Brady had a good, not great game helped by 4 PHI turnovers. NE scores 24.

[bottomset]

Ty Law got robbed of the MVP in SB36

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to refresh everyone's memory about how wide the talent gap is between Brady's WRs and Manning's WRs:

Brady's leading WR this year was Reche Caldwell. This is the same Reche Caldwell that struggled to get playing time with the San Diego Chargers(who have one of the worst WR groups in the league). Nobody else on the Pats even had 400 yards receiving!!!

Now compare that to Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne.


Thats a huge differnce.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the Pats' defense was way better than the Colts. You can quote just about any stat and make it support your guy.

Manning and Brady are BOTH exceptional quarterbacks. The comparison to Marino and Montana just got blown up a bit with Peyton getting a ring.

Let me ask you this... what would Peyton have to do over the rest of his career to make you say he was better than Brady? What would it take?

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
Assani, I am not sure if anyone has mentioned this re: the "supporting casts," but have you looked at it from the other perspective, which is that having Manning makes those other guys look so good? You really think Stokley was as good as his big year under Manning? Having the ball be where only you can reach it, or hitting you right in the chest 40 yards down field is a big advantage as far as putting up stats goes.

Do you also think that Brady hasn't had a much better supporting cast on D? Do you also agree that pretty much everybody has worse stats in the playoffs because the average level of competition is so much higher? Do you also agree that coaching and play calling will have a huge impact on your playoff success? All these things being true, it sure seems like stats are the most controlled variable of the bunch.

James

[/ QUOTE ]Lots of good points here, and I totally agree that Manning makes those guys look better and vice versa. But just watching Marvin Harrison run routes, you can tell that hes special with or without Manning. I agree that STokely isn't great, but for a #3 hes not bad. And yes Brady's D has been much better except for two big years: Lsat year indy had a really good D, and in the Pats first SB their D was just average that year.

In theory I would agree that players' performances should go down in the playoffs since they're playing better competition. However, in reality the all time greats actually perform better in the postseason. I won't go ahead and bring up the "C" word, but you can make of it what you will.

Stats are not the most controlled because stats are influced by Manning's advantage(better surrounding offensive talent) but not by Brady's(better defense).

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
SB 36: NE 20, StL 17.

Warner threw two picks (one went for 6, and the other a 30 yard return) and StL lost a fumble.

Meanwhile, Brady threw for 145 yards and was the MVP.

SB 38: Brady had a great game. No criticism here, although he had a lot of help from his team getting there in the first place.

SB 39: Brady had a good, not great game helped by 4 PHI turnovers. NE scores 24.

[/ QUOTE ]pretty much agree, although I think Brady deserves more credit for the last one than you're giving him.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
SB 38: Brady had a great game. No criticism here, although he had a lot of help from his team getting there in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

the first playoff game that year was played in arctic conditions. it was like 6 degrees (air temperature) not counting the wind. they were playing the Titans, a great defense. his #'s aren't gonna look great.

the second game was also played in the snow, against the Colts. they scored 24 offensive points. then you noted he played a very good SB.

his regular season in 2003 was very good, he was a big reason they were 14-2 and had 2 home playoff games.

[ QUOTE ]
SB 39: Brady had a good, not great game helped by 4 PHI turnovers. NE scores 24.

[/ QUOTE ]

his 2004 regular season DPAR was #3 in the league. the first playoff game against the Colts he didn't do a whole lot as the team relied on the running game. then he played a good game against Pittsburgh. I'd say his SB game was great considering the defense he was up against.

in the above 6 games, he threw 217 passes and had 2 intercepted. what should be noted is that he didn't play a single bad game the whole time. a lot of his games didn't look that dissimilar from Peytons last night - take what the defense gives you, don't do anything dumb.

both of his regular seasons (one good, one great) were key reasons why 3/4 playoff games were played at home in the cold and snow where his team (but not his stats) were best off.

I think the "Brady just got carried by his defense and special teams" pendulum has swung just a bit too far

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]

Let me ask you this... what would Peyton have to do over the rest of his career to make you say he was better than Brady? What would it take?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a tough question. Let me say that I think that our dispute here is not over how we rate Manning; I think our dispute is that I rate Brady higher than most of you all. I think we're all pretty much in somewhat agreement on Manning.

Its hard for me to answer because I view Brady so highly. It would be like if someone asked me "What does Kobe Bryant have to do to make you think that hes better than Jordan?" I mean sure Bryant could end up better with a great second half of his career, but its just hard to say that someone is outright better than Jordan.

Obviously winning another SB would go a long way. I'd also like to see what he does with below average surrounding talent. For example, my opinion of Montana went up a ton after I saw him in Kansas City.

Its hard to give an outright answer to that question really. Sorry.

[prohornblower]

This thread is dumb and needs to be locked already. People are arguing if Peyton is the best ever and he's got 6 more good years left.

At this pace, he will be by the time he retires, no question about it.

The Brady comparisons need to stop as well. He's also nowhere near done. It's just silly.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Let me ask you this... what would Peyton have to do over the rest of his career to make you say he was better than Brady? What would it take?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a tough question. Let me say that I think that our dispute here is not over how we rate Manning; I think our dispute is that I rate Brady higher than most of you all. I think we're all pretty much in somewhat agreement on Manning.

Its hard for me to answer because I view Brady so highly. It would be like if someone asked me "What does Kobe Bryant have to do to make you think that hes better than Jordan?" I mean sure Bryant could end up better with a great second half of his career, but its just hard to say that someone is outright better than Jordan.

Obviously winning another SB would go a long way. I'd also like to see what he does with below average surrounding talent. For example, my opinion of Montana went up a ton after I saw him in Kansas City.

Its hard to give an outright answer to that question really. Sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

But your answer is very telling, in that you value Brady extremely highly, as if he is the Michael Jordan of football, and you wonder if there's anything Manning could do to overtake him in your mind.

I would think if Manning wins 2 more SBs and Brady zero, giving them each three, that any rational fan would rank Manning ahead of Brady. Doesn't sound like you would.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Let me ask you this... what would Peyton have to do over the rest of his career to make you say he was better than Brady? What would it take?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a tough question. Let me say that I think that our dispute here is not over how we rate Manning; I think our dispute is that I rate Brady higher than most of you all. I think we're all pretty much in somewhat agreement on Manning.

Its hard for me to answer because I view Brady so highly. It would be like if someone asked me "What does Kobe Bryant have to do to make you think that hes better than Jordan?" I mean sure Bryant could end up better with a great second half of his career, but its just hard to say that someone is outright better than Jordan.

Obviously winning another SB would go a long way. I'd also like to see what he does with below average surrounding talent. For example, my opinion of Montana went up a ton after I saw him in Kansas City.

Its hard to give an outright answer to that question really. Sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

But your answer is very telling, in that you value Brady extremely highly, as if he is the Michael Jordan of football, and you wonder if there's anything Manning could do to overtake him in your mind.

I would think if Manning wins 2 more SBs and Brady zero, giving them each three, that any rational fan would rank Manning ahead of Brady. Doesn't sound like you would.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Any rational fan" already ranks Manning ahead of Brady. If Manning wins two more titles and Brady wins none, even irrational fans might begin to rate Manning higher.