At this point, what do we make of Peyton Manning's legacy? - Page 3

Bob Sanders Dreadlock · 01-16-2013, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntoinCD

You also have to admit that until that stage Brady's offense (outside of Brady) was equivalent to the Colts defense. Brady didn't get legitimate weapons until after that season. You're talking guys like Branch, Givens, Brown, Fauria, Smith etc. None of these guys would have cracked the Colts offense.

It's tough to compare two guys like this because the situations were completely different. Manning had countless top targets and quite a few hall of fame caliber players on offense. Harrison, Wayne, James, Clark, Glenn, Saturday, Stokley, Faulk etc. The top guys Manning had on offense where similar to the top guys the Pats had on defense. Seymour, Wilfork, Brushci, Vrable, McGinest, Harrison, Samuel, Law , Milloy etc. In fact it's not a ridiculous statement to say that Manning's cast on offense was more impressive than the Pats defense.

I also disagree that the Pats lost both games to the Giants mainly because of Brady. Sure Brady didn't have great games but on both occassions he had the Pats up late into the 4th quarter and the defense folded like an old deck chair on both occassions, aided by one miracle throw and catch in 2007 and one spectacular throw and catch last year.

I'm not going to get too involved in this debate because I can't be unbiased because Brady is my horse in this race. However I don't think it's a fair comparison to say Brady won Superbowls because he had a great defense and Manning didn't because he had a crap defense. Because on the flip side, Manning had great offensive talent but Brady had mediocre offensive talent in those years

Surely you did not just list Brandon Stokley as a hall of fame caliber player

Saints-Tigers · 01-16-2013, 12:00 PM

I hate the ring argument. Brady is eerily similar to Manning in recent years. He's been shattering records, but has come up short as the favorite on multiple occasions.

Young Tom Brady is 3-0 in the superbowl, and old Tom Brady is 0-2.

Does anyone here think Tom isn't a much better player now than he was when he won the Superbowl? If he didn't win the 3 when he was a far inferior player than he is now, does that make him a choker, or means he can't get over the hump?

It's like reverse John Elway. People would **** all over Elway like they do with Dan Marino, if he didn't win 2 superbowls, both of which when he wasn't almost in his prime, or playing his best football.

RaiderDiehard · 01-16-2013, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Greatest regular season qb of all time. Ok playoff qb. Overall still a top 5 qb of all time.

Just not as good as Brady. Who might be the greatest qb of all time if he wins another Super Bowl.

This last loss wasn't his fault though. Not entirely at least.

THIS.

He sneaks into the Top 5, whereas Marino doesn't.

mqtirishfan · 01-16-2013, 12:23 PM

ITT: Egregious Brett Favre trolling.

Jvig43 · 01-16-2013, 12:28 PM

Lets also not forget that if we want to use the Brady won 3 Sbs off his defense, Manning won his ONLY SB off of his defense and running game. /End homer comment to stir up Brady Manning Debate

AntoinCD · 01-16-2013, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Sanders Dreadlock

Surely you did not just list Brandon Stokley as a hall of fame caliber player

I was stating that in the players I mentioned there were countless top players and some HOF caliber players.

Obviously guys like Stokley, Clark, Saturday aren't in that second category but 5 or 6 years ago they were all high level offensive players

Saints-Tigers · 01-16-2013, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jvig43

Lets also not forget that if we want to use the Brady won 3 Sbs off his defense, Manning won his ONLY SB off of his defense and running game. /End homer comment to stir up Brady Manning Debate

It's not as simple as that, and I know you're being facetious, but I do like that formula better.

Constantly trying to build a monstrous offense at the expense of you defense isn't as good a formula as going defensively heavy once you have the franchise QB in place.

Jvig43 · 01-16-2013, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saints-Tigers

It's not as simple as that, and I know you're being facetious, but I do like that formula better.

Constantly trying to build a monstrous offense at the expense of you defense isn't as good a formula as going defensively heavy once you have the franchise QB in place.

It was more tongue in cheek but I'm just sort of rolling with that logic with my previous comments.

And I agree with you up until recently, the NFL has done a magnificent job of deteriorating the significance of defense over the past few years so i am not sure that line of thinking holds up in todays NFL.

FUNBUNCHER · 01-16-2013, 01:16 PM

If Brady wins his 4th SB this year, there is no more comparison in my book.

AntoinCD · 01-16-2013, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saints-Tigers

It's not as simple as that, and I know you're being facetious, but I do like that formula better.

Constantly trying to build a monstrous offense at the expense of you defense isn't as good a formula as going defensively heavy once you have the franchise QB in place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jvig43

It was more tongue in cheek but I'm just sort of rolling with that logic with my previous comments.

And I agree with you up until recently, the NFL has done a magnificent job of deteriorating the significance of defense over the past few years so i am not sure that loine of thinking holds up in todays NFL.

I agree with JVig but see the point being made.

From a logical standpoint if you have an elite defense and a franchise QB you should theoretically be able to slow down the opposing offense enough to allow your QB to put up enough points to win. However, it doesn't always work that way.

Looking back through the last 5 or 6 years, the only time(s) that is applicable really is the Giants against the Pats (2007) and the Steelers against the Cardinals.

The Colts, Saints, Packers and Giants (2011) won based off their offense. It is a fallacy that the Giants won last year with a tremendous defense and Eli making enough plays.

I am not sure there is a definitive method to building a winning superbowl team. Clearly having just an all world offense isn't enough as is proved by the Colts for numerous years, but also the Saints this year. When the Saints won the Superbowl their defense created a lot of turnovers.

But likewise, having a stellar defense and a mediocre offense isn't enough. On any given day one of the offensive juggernauts can put up 30+ on any team, and if you don't have the firepower to do likewsie then consistently it is tough to win.

In today's NFL if I had to choose I would take the high powered offense and a defense that does enough. The defense doesn't need to be great. Last Sunday the Pats put a beat down on the Texans for two reasons. Firstly, when a great offense clicks it takes a truely great defense to slow them down (you aren't going to stop them) and secondly, the Texans offense couldn't generate enough points.

This isn't a guaranteed method though. The 49ers put up 45 on the Packers last week and the 49ers aren't exactly known for their high scoring offense.

cmarq83 · 01-16-2013, 01:31 PM

Brady-Manning eh? What a novel topic.

Anyways since I've never really weighed in too heavily on the topic I figured now is a good time to do it. When I think of the 2 I consider Manning to be the best QB of the era and Brady to be the greatest QB of the era.

On any given day Manning can take over and absolutely dominate a football game. His comeback throws and seam patterns are incredible, and he makes amazing adjustments at the line of scrimmage. He can end a game 2 drives into the first quarter, he'll score quickly and you can't stop him, the opposing defense is deflated after that and the game is headed for a 25 point blowout. He is capable of executing on a higher level than any QB I've ever seen play before, and on any given day he can truly be the best QB in the game.

However, on the other hand Brady has a resume that simply can't be matched by anyone presently, not even Manning. As BigBanger said the amount of times the offense has changed during his career here is incredible, and he's proven no matter how they move the ball through the air that he can adapt and excel. The reason I use the term greatest to define Brady over Manning is simply because of achievement. When it's all said and done and NFL films runs documentaries on the 2 of them, which one will seem more impressive? While Manning's high water mark was that 2006 AFC Championship game, Brady multiple legendary moments in the same vein. His career is without a doubt more spectacular, but does that make him the better passer of the 2? No.

However, I do object to killswitch's assertion that Brady wasn't an elite QB prior to 2006. His numbers year to year were roughly top 5, and the Patriots overall offensive output was usually high up there as well. His yearly ~ 3700 28TD 14INT 92QB rating were pretty much the norm for top 5 QB's in that time period.

Also, in 2001 the Patriots were 6th in PPG offensively despite having overall talent offensively comparable to the Jaguars minus MJD. When you consider that the 2 highest paid players on offense weren't playing (Bledsoe and Glenn), and that only something like 20% of the team's salaries were allocated to the offense, It's a miracle they were as good as they were.

Saints-Tigers · 01-16-2013, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jvig43

It was more tongue in cheek but I'm just sort of rolling with that logic with my previous comments.

And I agree with you up until recently, the NFL has done a magnificent job of deteriorating the significance of defense over the past few years so i am not sure that line of thinking holds up in todays NFL.

It works both ways. I want my elite athletes and mega contracts on defense. I've seen enough from Brees and Payton + Brady/Belichick, that I think you could generate elite offense with an elite QB and good protection. The rest of the pieces can be changed.

I just don't think there is a way to scheme your way around being elite on defense, and you can't make yourself elite on that side with the strength of one player like you can on offense.

When you are relying on winning shootouts, all it takes is one quarter or two of down play on offense, and you might be boned.

No team should ever be over reliant on one side of the ball, and I think just having an Elite QB already makes you good enough on offense, unless the rest of your offense is practice squaders.

AntoinCD · 01-16-2013, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saints-Tigers

It works both ways. I want my elite athletes and mega contracts on defense. I've seen enough from Brees and Payton + Brady/Belichick, that I think you could generate elite offense with an elite QB and good protection. The rest of the pieces can be changed.

I just don't think there is a way to scheme your way around being elite on defense, and you can't make yourself elite on that side with the strength of one player like you can on offense.

When you are relying on winning shootouts, all it takes is one quarter or two of down play on offense, and you might be boned.

No team should ever be over reliant on one side of the ball, and I think just having an Elite QB already makes you good enough on offense, unless the rest of your offense is practice squaders.

This works both ways also. An elite defense needs to step on the offense's throat for 60 minutes. In more than one game this year the Pats have put up 28 points in less than 15 minutes and I'm sure teams like the Packers etc have also hit purple patches and scored in bunches quickly. If your defense has 2 poor series to start the game you may be down 14 points and the game may as well be over at that stage.

I agree though that you can't be over reliant on one side because there will be times when that one unit struggles

Monomach · 01-16-2013, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Jones

It's difficult to leave Peyton out of any conversation regarding the best quarterbacks of all time, but someone posted earlier in this topic that "you can't blame Peyton for allowing 38 points in this game." Yes, we can. He threw a pick six, fumbled a ball away in his own territory which led to a touchdown, and finally threw another pick in his own territory (in overtime), which set up the game-winning field goal. I'm thinking he's pretty much the goat there. Does a bad playoff game remove him from the conversation regarding the best quarterbacks ever? No. But it certainly makes him a key reason why the Broncos lost this week.

OH COME ON

That pick six was a perfectly thrown ball that hit his receiver in the hands and he didn't catch it. The WR didn't even have to make any adjustments to get to the ball. That pick six is 100% on Eric Decker.

descendency · 01-16-2013, 02:42 PM

Too much is made of playoff losses. Joe Montana made 7 NFC Championships, but only appeared in 4 Super Bowls (only??? That makes him 4-3 in those games). He was one and done a bunch too.

Tom Brady is 5-1 in championship games, where his only falter was a game that his team lost 34-38, but is 3-2 in Super Bowls so people act like he can't win the big one. ("He hasn't won a Super Bowl since spygate@@@..." but he has been to it 2 times. Who else can claim that? Eli Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, Peyton Manning... what terrible company to be in...)

Manning is a great QB that does great things on the field. I really don't know why Manning is 9-11 in the playoffs (0-4 under 40 degrees, 0-3 in overtime games). I hate to put the blame on others, but I really do think his teams have come up small because of other factors and less about Manning's playoff prowess.

edit: Though, my sympathy for Manning went out the window when he signed in Denver, knowing what kind of talent was on the team and what kind of coach they have. I don't hate John Fox, but if I am a QB who wants to win - I wouldn't want to be his QB.

Ness · 01-16-2013, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by descendency

Too much is made of playoff losses. Joe Montana made 7 NFC Championships, but only appeared in 4 Super Bowls (only??? That makes him 4-3 in those games). He was one and done a bunch too.

I think Montana was one and done 4 times out of the 11 times he has played in the postseason. Just saying.

WCH · 01-16-2013, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

I think Peyton deserves to be on top of Young for sure. The rest is up for debate. How far back do we go? Does Otto Graham belong in there? It's tough to say.

For me it's:

Montana
Brady
Unitas
Elway
Peyton

I think that Otto Graham has to be in this conversation. He was probably the most dominant QB in the history of the game. I think that three things work against him:

1. His first several seasons, the Browns were in the AAFL. They continued to dominate when they joined the NFL, but this still has to be mentioned.

2. You have to try really hard to find video footage of him. Most football fans alive today have never seen a full game that Otto Graham played in. We're doing good if we've seen a minute worth of highlights. There was no NFL Films in 1950.

3. Paul Brown was basically running the West Coast Offense 25 years before Bill Walsh started doing it. Graham was the first QB who could just drop into a pocket and throw a slant pass. I don't like to ding players for being in a certain system, but that's like driving a Cadillac when everybody else has a Model T.

Forenci · 01-16-2013, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jvig43

Lets also not forget that if we want to use the Brady won 3 Sbs off his defense, Manning won his ONLY SB off of his defense and running game. /End homer comment to stir up Brady Manning Debate

So what you're saying is Manning would have 4-5 Super Bowls if he had Brady's defense?

#tableturned

7DnBrnc53 · 01-16-2013, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WCH

I think that Otto Graham has to be in this conversation. He was probably the most dominant QB in the history of the game. I think that three things work against him:

1. His first several seasons, the Browns were in the AAFL. They continued to dominate when they joined the NFL, but this still has to be mentioned.

2. You have to try really hard to find video footage of him. Most football fans alive today have never seen a full game that Otto Graham played in. We're doing good if we've seen a minute worth of highlights. There was no NFL Films in 1950.

3. Paul Brown was basically running the West Coast Offense 25 years before Bill Walsh started doing it. Graham was the first QB who could just drop into a pocket and throw a slant pass. I don't like to ding players for being in a certain system, but that's like driving a Cadillac when everybody else has a Model T.

Graham also played with eight other Hall of Famers, and that, along with playing for Paul Brown, is probably the reason why he isn't rated that highly.

Back to Brady, though. Someone earlier on this thread said that Brady evolves and changes every year. I don't think so. I think that the Pats change and evolve every year, not Brady. You have to give Belichick credit for that.

When they won those Super Bowls, it was a team effort, and Brady rode those teams a little bit. 2004 was the last time that they ran for 2,000 yards as a team(not counting 08 with Cassel)with Brady playing most of the games until this year.

Since 04, it seems that Brady has been more and more the focus of the offense, and they haven't won a Super Bowl with it all on his shoulders. Heck, they were lucky to get there last year. If it wasn't for Lee Evans and Billy Cundiff, they don't.

To win it this year, they need to keep running the ball effectively, and the defense needs to get turnovers. They got eight turnovers in the three SB wins, and only one in the two losses against the Giants.

AntoinCD · 01-16-2013, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7DnBrnc53

Graham also played with eight other Hall of Famers, and that, along with playing for Paul Brown, is probably the reason why he isn't rated that highly.

Back to Brady, though. Someone earlier on this thread said that Brady evolves and changes every year. I don't think so. I think that the Pats change and evolve every year, not Brady. You have to give Belichick credit for that.

When they won those Super Bowls, it was a team effort, and Brady rode those teams a little bit. 2004 was the last time that they ran for 2,000 yards as a team(not counting 08 with Cassel)with Brady playing most of the games until this year.

Since 04, it seems that Brady has been more and more the focus of the offense, and they haven't won a Super Bowl with it all on his shoulders. Heck, they were lucky to get there last year. If it wasn't for Lee Evans and Billy Cundiff, they don't.

To win it this year, they need to keep running the ball effectively, and the defense needs to get turnovers. They got eight turnovers in the three SB wins, and only one in the two losses against the Giants.

This is the 2nd time I have seen this. If Cundiff makes the kick it's tie ball game. How does anyone know what happens in OT?

Jvig43 · 01-16-2013, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forenci

So what you're saying is Manning would have 4-5 Super Bowls if he had Brady's defense?

#tableturned

Playing in Foxboro without his all star supporting cast? Not a chance.

WCH · 01-16-2013, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forenci

So what you're saying is Manning would have 4-5 Super Bowls if he had Brady's defense?

#tableturned

I think Peyton is the best QB I've seen so far. I don't really think it's even close. At his peak, he was the "Robo Quarterback" that Todd Marinovich was raised to be. If Manning traded places with Brady 10 years ago, I think Belichick would have won damn near ALL the Super Bowls. And I'm a pretty big fan of Tom Brady.

I_C_DeadPeople · 01-16-2013, 07:38 PM

The one thing we will never know is stuff like 'player A would have won 12 superbowls if he was on Team X'. So there is no option but to go with known facts. And the purpose of the game itself is to win championships, not to win the regular season stats. In that regard, one has to downgrade Peyton, I mean, it is even clear that Eli is a better clutch QB. Montana was clutch, Brady is, Elway was as well.

nepg · 01-16-2013, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vidae

Honestly I have no idea how anyone has Steve Young on a greatest of all time list at all.

Thank you for speaking up.

I was sitting there with this face:

The Top 6 is almost undebatable. And I am in the camp that says there are 3 tiers.

Montana/Brady
Elway/Manning
Marino/Favre

Personally, I have it:
Brady
Montana
Manning
Elway
Marino
Favre

That said, I think Manning ends up #2 and Montana #3 for me in the end.

And I love people talking about Brady/Manning as if they're arguing Aikman and Marino where one player clearly had much more amazing team around him his entire career.

Splat · 01-16-2013, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nobodyinparticular

I would probably switch out Unitas for Gannon. Otherwise this list is spot on.

Please tell me you are joking.

I got Montana #1 and Elway #2 after that it's toss up for me between a hand full of guys.

With Steve Young and Rich Gannon not being in the discussion.