Peyton Manning, Greatest QB of all time?

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, and Brady is nothing without the rings.

[/ QUOTE ]

nonsense. hes been the 2nd best QB over the past ~5 years in the NFL. however if it were not for "the rings" then people wouldnt make dumb statements like he is better than manning.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, and Brady is nothing without the rings.

[/ QUOTE ]

nonsense. hes been the 2nd best QB over the past ~5 years in the NFL. however if it were not for "the rings" then people wouldnt make dumb statements like he is better than manning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, that's really only more or less by default. Guys who have been active as starting QBs since 02 are essentially:

Manning
Brady
Green
McNair
Hasselback
Vick
Favre
Bulger
McNabb

Over this time period, no one's close to Manning (who starts to pull away from everyone in 03). Brady, Green, Bulger, and Hasselback have been close. McNabb, Pennington, and Culpepper would be right there were it not for injuries. Palmer needs more time.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Namath being considered a toip 30 QB is ridiculous. Career completion % under 50, career qb rating under 70.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whenever I have a conversation with an alleged football aficionado I ask them who their all-time greatest QB's are. If Namath is listed, I know the person is a knob.

Namath might be the most overrated person to ever do anything ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think of Namath's time as the dead ball era for qbs.

[prohornblower]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the fact that the Colts know they're [censored] if Manning gets hurt. It doesn't matter how much game time Sorgi gets, if Manning goes out its game over.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this doesn't answer why he's in for every single snap. Just saying "They are screwed if Sorgi goes in anyway" isn't a good reason to leave Peyton out there non-stop. Are the powers-that-be protecting Mannings stats? Or is the season so short that they'd rather get the starter as many reps as possible going into post-season? (Probably).

I think in a lot of cases (obv. not INdy), the head coach is "afraid" of getting the back-up enough (non-injury) chances to prove himself for fear of sparking a QB controversy in the media. No coach wants to deal with that.

I think NFL back-ups are not much worse than NFL starters, across the board. I may be wrong, but it's not like in baseball where the #5 starter is nowhere close to #1 starter (yet still gets 34 chances to prove himself). MLB coaches love getting rookie starter starts because they have plenty of places to put them. NFL coaches have one spot for QB and probably don't want to deal with a tough decision.

[THAY3R]

I think the whole "Namath is overrated" thing is getting rather overrated. Being a QB was different back then, so his completion % is not nearly as bad as it looks. In 5 of his first 6 healthy seasons he finished top 3 in Adjusted Yards per Pass(5th in the other year)

When he was healthy he was a very good QB.

[prohornblower]

You can add David Carr to that list. File under piss-poor.

[Eagles]

[ QUOTE ]
Not that I agree with your statement, but I was wondering why the F Jeff Sorgi (or whatever his name is...Colts back-up) hasn't taken a snap all regular season?

What is that about? Why does/did Manning take every snap of every game? Seriously, I'd like to see a really good argument for this.

You can throw out "well they wanted to secure HF advantage" and "a lot of their wins were close games" but that isn't enough to cut it. You shouldn't hurt your thumb in the AFC championship game and then be like "be ready!" to the dude who hasn't seen a football since the last time he saw Stuey on Family Guy.

[/ QUOTE ]
I need to start posting here more so people get my sarcasm

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the whole "Namath is overrated" thing is getting rather overrated. Being a QB was different back then, so his completion % is not nearly as bad as it looks. In 5 of his first 6 healthy seasons he finished top 3 in Adjusted Yards per Pass(5th in the other year)

When he was healthy he was a very good QB.

[/ QUOTE ]
This hardly merits a place alongside Montana, et al. He is the Brad Johnson of his era, with a lot more crossover appeal.

[THAY3R]

I don't think any rational person puts Namath in the likes of Montana, et al. He is better than a "Brad Johnson of his era".

He is considered "great" because of "what he did for the game" , justified or not.

[Seadood228]

Doesn't Mannings playoff performance as a whole (not the fact that he in ringless) play into this mix? As much as we can argue against, he just hasn't played spectacular in the playoffs, with the exception of a few games. You can blame his O-line, defense, kicker, etc., but imo the truly great quarterbacks can rise above having a sub-standard supporting cast in pressure situations (Elway anyone?) This could, and I think will change though.

I'm really sick of hearing this "If Peyton had Brady's D" and "Brady is nothing without the rings" crap. It's not like Peyton had the Colts marching down the field, only to have his D blow the game during his losses. He simply hasn't looked sharp, and really struggled in the face of a pass rush. While I do believe the latter is true, those rings are in large part from HIS PLAY, as well as his D. Last I checked, the Pats D weren't on the field for all of his game winning drives.

With all this, I do think Peyton gets a ring this year, and probably gets at least one more. He's going to keep improving as a game manager and retire as the de facto greatest QB of all time. Brady will be close, but it will be hard to argue against Peyton's records..

If Peyton wins only one SB in his career, he'll be lumped in with everyone else, imo. I think the same holds true if he never wins one.

So this SB really isn't that important for him [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
This hardly merits a place alongside Montana, et al. He is the Brad Johnson of his era, with a lot more crossover appeal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have missed Brad Johnson's two MVP awards.