D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
Montana was a real fucking general, as much as I hate that dude, he was gifted.
Is Peyton Manning the best quarterback of all time? No.
- Thread starter Fracas
- Start date
- Status
Montana was a real fucking general, as much as I hate that dude, he was gifted.
so why did Marino, Montana, Young, Moon, Kelly, Esiason, hell, even Fran Tarkenton have better stats then Elway.
Elway won in a shitty AFC and then got destroyed in the Super Bowl. Sure he took some bad teams, but there was no incredible team in the AFC at the time compared to some really great NFC teams.
You are ignoring rushing yards.
John Elway has 3,407 rushing yards making him the 6th top rushing QB ever. Only Steve young came close to that. He scored 31 rushing touchdowns. He carried bad teams to Super Bowls.
Edit: It sure is nice he ended the NFCs domination at that time. :-D
SmackCrackleNPop
Member
That was unfortunate being in the wrong division. Chargers made the playoffs and they were 8-8 as AFC west champs that year. Put the Patriots in that division and they easily make the playoffs and probably do well with Cassell
Ok...So he was a good runner, so that should catapault him over Favre, Marino, Brady, Manning, Montana, and Young?
If we add those rushing yards to the total amount of offense produced, it still desn't add to him being any better then the ones listed above.
Hell, If we count them, Unitas and Starr were pretty awesome, along with Staubach, and Tarkenton.
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
Offense produced is entirely dependent on a mix of who you play though and how the rest of your team works. So even though Elway could run, it is just a bullet point on the positives he had.
So who did you say was the best? Farve? I actually think it is Peyton Manning to be honest. I think you are still mad about Super Bowl XXXII.
There is no debate. It's Joe Montana. Would any of you guys pick Manning or Brady to be your QB if your team is down in Q4? No, you wouldn't. You'd take Montana because he delivers.
I never forgot. It's one of the main points I use to say Brady massively benefits from an amazing system
In order
Montana
Brady
Manning
Favre
Marino
Young
Favre, Marino, and Young are all interchangeable
I think you just can't put up a counter argument
FriedConsole
Banned
Just saying Brady is a great quarterback that benefits from a system. How do you explain Matt Cassel doing well there? You could plug in Kyle Orton into the Patriots and he would do well.
Peyton brings his own system with him.
EDIT: Oh I guess I am not the first to bring up Cassel.
I bet you watched them all play too every game. Nice arbitrary list buddy. No one has the stats of Peyton and he has the same number of Super Bowl appearances as Farve so far.
Ludicrous Speed
Banned
I never forgot. It's one of the main points I use to say Brady massively benefits from an amazing system
I agree. It's the sum of all the parts.
Brady has played some amazing games but he has also played like shit. A few times this season even!! I'm not sure where people are getting that he's the greatest of all time. Peyton has consistently performed well throughout his career. Brady has been up and down. And plus, Brady choked in two Super Bowls. That alone should knock him down several pegs
It's already been explained
There was a 5 win difference between what Brady did and what Cassel did, and many would say that the Patriots schedule was easier then it was the previous year.
To put it into perspective, if a team went 12-4 with brady, he got hurt, and his backup won 5 less games and went 7-9, would he still be a "system" qb?
Ludicrous Speed
Banned
Just saying Brady is a great quarterback that benefits from a system. How do you explain Matt Cassel doing well there? You could plug in Kyle Orton into the Patriots and he would do well.
Peyton brings his own system with him.
EDIT: Oh I guess I am not the first to bring up Cassel.
True. Cassel has shown his mediocrity since leaving New England. Even though the Vikings won their game yesterday I actually think they may be better off starting Ponder.
grosvenor_92
Member
His stats are pretty damn incredible so based on those alone he has a good chance. If he wins another ring or two his chances obviously increase
that's why I have Peyton over Favre...
I think you're not reading something buddy. Hell, I think there's a big drop off from Manning to Favre.
And I bet that you watched every single game in NFL history, you've seen the great Bart Starr all the time way back when
Halcyon
Member
Brady's whole thing was this for most of his early career.
Manning has come back from all sorts of stuff. They both are fully capable of putting a ton of points on the board at any second.
My point is that there isn't a "best" but I feel like there's a handful on equal setting.
Agreed. A dark part of me hopes that by the time they figure out the receiver/tight end situation in New England, Brady will be steadily on the decline. Could be the massive losses (quantity and quality) I've endured at his hands.
Also, I'm starting to think Peyton plays longer than Tom.
Brady has made it to 5 superbowls compared to mannin's 2
Brady has 3 rings compared to Manning's 1
Brady has a 96.4 career qb rating while mannings rating is 96.5
Stats are pretty similar, while Brady doesn't throw as many TD's, he doesn't turn the ball over as much as Manning
Brady also has essentially 12 seasons fully starter with 140 wins, Manning has 15 seasons under his belt and has 158 wins
womfalcs3
Banned
I think it's foolish to try to narrow it down to a single "best" QB.
Different eras, opponents, skill sets, schemes and styles make that impossible.
I'm a huge Brady fan, and I'll always fight against a lot of the Pro-Peyton and Anti-Brady arguments, but I wouldn't wanna choose between the two.
I think those "5 guys in no particular order" posts may be a bit of a cop out, but also closest to the truth.
Different eras, opponents, skill sets, schemes and styles make that impossible.
I'm a huge Brady fan, and I'll always fight against a lot of the Pro-Peyton and Anti-Brady arguments, but I wouldn't wanna choose between the two.
I think those "5 guys in no particular order" posts may be a bit of a cop out, but also closest to the truth.
SmackCrackleNPop
Member
Joe Montana. Clearly the best.
The rest is more of a debate imo.
The rest is more of a debate imo.
I can't see into the future, but Peypey is playing much better right now than Joe Montana is.
And this is why the Super Bowl rings matter.
to a certain extent, yes, but only to an extent. People who only look at rings are ridiculous because it would imply that Trent Dilfer is better then Marino, but not looking at rings would make you say that Marino was better then Montana.
The 3 main things I look at woith QBS is 1. Stats, 2 Wins, and 3. Rings
Quarterback is the most important position in any sport, hence why wins and superbowls are important for QBs because a good QB will definately help win a lot more then a good Wide Reciever
greatestjediever
Member
Brady also got to inherit a solid defensive team (they were #6 in points allowed that year) when he got picked as the 6th round pick. That's the nature of the beast, if you're a talent getting picked late, you have a better chance of landing on a good team without hurting their salary cap restrictions. Peyton was a #1 overall going to a really bad team (3-13 the year before). He promptly went 3-13 his rookie year with the same bad team. The next year when the Colts went 13-3 was unusual in the sense that they had a relatively light schedule having performed so poorly the year before and ended up playing against a lot of .500 teams.
And then with essentially the same team went 10-6 then next year (making the playoffs) and then getting demolished by the Ravens in the wildcard. And then went 14-2 the next year, and also one-and-done in the divisional round to the Jets.
The Patriots defenses during their championship years were dominant. In 2001, they held the 2nd best offense in the league (Raiders) to 13 points (though they needed Walt Coleman to bail them out and god-tier Vinatieri to kick em through). Then in the AFC Championship game, they hung 24 points on a top ranked defense in Pittsburgh, despite Brady only throwing 115 yards with no TDs. Then they managed to hold the Greatest Show on Turf to 17 freaking points. And Brady was far from beasting the game, with 145 yards and 1 TD. That team won in spite of Brady's play, much like the Steelers won in spite of Ben's play in 2005 (or hell, even Manning's play in the 2006). They also had the #1 defense in the NFL in 2003 and the #2 (tied) defense in 2004. Only in 2004 did NE boast a top-tier offense with 437 points, but it wasn't because Brady was throwing lights out (60% completion, 28 TD, 14 INT). That said, he did have a fantastic performance Super Bowl in 2003, but certainly not Montana or Steve Young like.
My point is: using wins and losses is pretty tenuous in judging greatness of QBs. It makes for extremely lazy arguments (ie. Vince Young just keeps winning! Tim Tebow just keeps winning!), mainly because the sport really is such a great example of a team sport. That said, I'm sure most players would happily give up many of their personal accolades to keep winning championships.
I'm not disagreeing with you here. But it's tough to make the argument for Manning over Brady when their stats are so similar but Brady has more rings.
Brady also had a pretty poor offense around him during this time. I have a hard time remembering who even was the running back and wideouts when Brady won his first superbowl. Manning had Marvin Harrison, Edgerrin James, and a few more weapons then Brady. Brady Finally got a legit offensive weapon with Moss and ended up setting records. Donovan Mcnabb had a very similar team to Brady, and was one of the top 3 QBs of that time, and yet he could never make it over the hump, even if he did have Brian Westbrook
And then with essentially the same team went 10-6 then next year (making the playoffs) and then getting demolished by the Ravens in the wildcard. And then went 14-2 the next year, and also one-and-done in the divisional round to the Jets.
I mean it's all relative to a certain extent, Manning had some really dominat teams in his time, and won with loads of talent around him. Brady was able to do well with pretty low amounts of Talent. Both were mightily helped by really good o-lines though.
THIS
Manning has played 3 more years then Brady, which gives him a huge edge in terms of the total of his stats. Brady and Mannings stats are pretty similar, but Brady wins more, and that's the main difference between the two
I'm in the same boat, GOAT.
Until Manning became a Bronco he was said to carry his team, that is why he has four NFL MVPs. Brady always was fat on talent partly due to Belichick. Brady never carried the team except maybe this year. And he still has barely won all four games.
Edit: I would say his running backs are also carrying the team so far they are excellent.
slightconfuse
Banned
id Go elway or montana. over manning.
GravityMan
Member
Tough choice.
I think Peyton is the most intelligent quarterback to ever play the game. A future as a NFL head coach or GM is in his for the taking if he wants it.
But, I think Brady is more athletic and a better improviser, making him better able to still make positive plays when the original called play breaks down. I also think Brady is mentally tougher than Manning, which is a reason why he has had more playoff success. But I also think Brady has had a better coach throughout his career than Peyton has ever had (Dungy included).
I think Peyton is the most intelligent quarterback to ever play the game. A future as a NFL head coach or GM is in his for the taking if he wants it.
But, I think Brady is more athletic and a better improviser, making him better able to still make positive plays when the original called play breaks down. I also think Brady is mentally tougher than Manning, which is a reason why he has had more playoff success. But I also think Brady has had a better coach throughout his career than Peyton has ever had (Dungy included).
teruterubozu
Member
Montana was amazing even when he played for the Chiefs at the end of his career.
He was said to carry his team, and sure he carried his team, but he also happened to have Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Edgerrin James and a pretty damn good o-line, so sure, he carried the team, but much in the same way that Montana carried a team filled with Jerry Rice, and Roger Craig.
Brady never had offensive talent other then on the o-line. Deion Branch was probably his biggest weapon. I guess Kevin Faulk was decent, but Brady had a lot of mediocre players on Offense and still put up some pretty good numbers.
When Brady got a hall of fame reciever, he ended breaking the record for most TD passes in a season btw.
johnny_park
Member
You should look at his numbers before and after Dan Reeves. He would try and run the ball for the first 3 quarters and when that got them behind he would let Elway do his thing.
His rating with Reeves was 72.9. After Reeves it was 89.1.
Maybe pre-knee injury Brady was more athletic, but he can't move nearly as well as he used to. Brady isn't quite at the level of Bledsoe yet, though. He can at least avoid some tackles.
i know you just started following the sport last may missing out on the last decade, but atleast you can watch some youtube videos
But no no no, welker, D thomas, J thomas, decker, Moreno, Hillman is not enough. just like how reggie wayne, marvin harrison was not enough for poor Pepe manning
while Brady has kendrick tompkins, blount, dobson, boyce whoeverthefuck blowing out teams just like he did with troy browns and deion branches of this world in his entire career, winning superbowls with people off the street and a kicker. the only time he had receivers was 07 when Moss came in and he broke every record in existence.
and Salty fuckers have the audacity to argue who is better. but thats ok because the Ring count will always speak for itself
Kevin Faulk would always come up with the big plays. Great third down back.
so you're saying I should ignore parts of his career because it doesn't fit into a discussion of his entire career.
Kevin Faulk sucked compared to Edgerrin James in his prime
Kevin Faulk was a decent, he never really acclompished much other then being a decent 3rd down back
johnny_park
Member
No, you said he was overrated, his numbers are shitty. I'm saying once he got a coach that was more offensive minded his numbers got drastically better.
Elway was still impressive during those early years. No one else would have lead those broncos teams to the superbowl.
- Status