Yes you did but hide behind it. Is mark called the greatest of all time? so the arguments are completely different, thanks for proving my point. But I hear how Peyton is the Denver O(and was Indy's O), how he makes average players great. How come he can't make them great when it matters most?
so because people call peyton the greatest of all time, he should get evaluated on different terms than every other football player to ever play the game? he did elevate those players to greatness, they broke how many records on offense this season? its hard to do it every week and in the big game his teammates severely let him down. if you cant see past all the media hype and just evaluate the mans career, then i guess hypocrisy is spelt nyjunc, because when you look at the numbers and watch the games, you see a guy that is worlds above the competition he is facing. this is not a fast paced two-sided game where one player can effectively handle the ball, score, and defend at the same time. you cant say things like, 'well, jordan never lost like that' or anything else because its just not the same thing. peyton cant score unless his wide receivers catch the ball. you have to get open to catch the ball. you cant lose yards on third down trying to fight for extra yards when diving forward would have gotten the first. you cant fumble the ball in the red zone. you cant fumble the ball after a huge reception. you cant snap the ball early and over the qbs head into the endzone on the first snap of the superbowl. what did peyton have to do with all of those circumstances? im not hiding behind anything. you very clearly sound like a man unable to get past his personal feelings and evaluate something with an unbiased opinion.
of course you evaluate Mark Sanchez different than you evaluate Peyton Manning. Peyton and the all time greats get graded on a much tougher scale, they are expected to do more. His teammates let him down like they always seem to do, isn't it amazing he can change players, teams, coaches but they all let him down in the biggest games.:lol: how many receivers dropped passes? the WR got the 1st down after initially going backward and losing it. you can't fumble in the RZ but you can throw multiple INts including one for a TD? Nowhere did I say it was all on Peyton, Denver as a team got thoroughly outplayed but that includes Peyton Manning. he didn't blow it like 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2011 but he played very poorly as well.
sure they are expected to do more, but that doesnt mean when they dont they all of a sudden suck or it was all their fault dropped passes arent the only ways a receiver can ruin a qbs night. but i thought you would know that since you are the ultimate expert on the sport right? one turnover on a miscommunication and another caused by a sack arent really things you damn a qb for. you dont blame a qb when receivers arent open, or when they get chased down by d-lineman, or when they lose yards (yeh he got the first that one time...) the receivers played like trash, peyton couldnt squeeze a few through the seattle secondary, and the defense couldnt get off of the field on third down. it was a terrible day for the broncos all around. but the broncos didnt lose cause peyton played like shit, peyton played like shit cause the broncos were unprepared and unable to match the physicality of the seahawks.
Junc, just out of curiosity, how do you go about rating the greatest of all time? What criteria do you set on the short list of what, 3-5 QBs when you are looking at who you consider to be the greatest ever? IMO, football is 1 sport where it is very difficult to judge who the greatest is. Its very team dependent. No single person can decide whether you win, lose, or draw. Maybe a kicker, but even he needs someone to hold the ball for him. EX. Larry Fitzgerald, he could have potentially been one of the greatest ever, but he never had a QB to throw him the ball. Hes never had consistent QB play. Even Brady needed his kicker to help him out more than once...
+1. I think Marino was better than all of them, but he can't be the GOAT without at least 1 SB, not when you have Montana, Manning, Brady, Elway. _
Brady was not even a top 10 QB this season by the numbers and guided his team to a 26-3 deficit through 3 quarters in the most important game of the season, against a D he previously lit up in the first matchup. Brady was basically on the level of Cam Newton this season while his rival Peyton produced arguably the greatest QB season in NFL history. This was a terrible year for Brady in terms of his comparison against Peyton. Trust me, if 2013 repeats into 2014 and 2015, the argument of Brady over Peyton will basically cease to exist (except to the uninformed such as yourself). Brady can't get outplayed so thoroughly by his rival and have people still consider them the same caliber player.
Exactly. Plus if you are judging any NFL QB in history wouldn't you use the largest sample size possible? And if you considered each QB's entire body of work and which QB was considered the most valuable player in the league on a most frequent basis and considered the top guy for the longest period of time, how could it be anyone other than Peyton? The only argument against Peyton is to take a far smaller sample size (playoffs), believe that the added pressure and stakes causes a player's performance to be significantly altered, and then come to the subjective opinion that other QBs were able to "raise their level" while Peyton played worse. However, the numbers don't really back that Peyton is worse in the playoffs, maybe slightly but that's more a reflection of playing better opposing Ds. So then you have to go to the final criteria and decide that the team's success must factor heavily into evaluation of the player (which brings in a million variables that the QB can no longer control). The you can knock Peyton down. I personally choose not to factor that final criteria more heavily than analysis of his individual play and dominance. Others go the other way. It is what it is The idea behind this thread though, that the 2013-14 NFL season proves Brady is better than Peyton is so laughable though I don't know where to begin as Peyton had a vastly superior season to Brady by any measurement.
please show me where I said he sucks or it was all his fault? ahh miscommunication, so it was all on the receiver? as we know Peyton never makes a mistake. gets all the credit for calling games every week but when they fail no mention how he calls games. They all played terribly including Peyton. The man that routinely elevates trash to stars just couldn't do it on the biggest stage AGAIN.
The biggest thing I look for is how a QB gets the most out of the talent around him. he doesn't have to have 3-4 SB wins, if peyton was losing postseason games 31-28 or something like that I'd have him rated much higher but he continues to fail w/ what I consider the best talent in the league. I have Dan marino in my top 5, Dan made 1 SB and never got close to another but he didn't have SB caliber talent around him. If he had the talent Peyton has had to work with he would have won SBs. Brady set up that kicker, Peyton played w/ Vinatieri just as long and now has perhaps the best K in the game- where are his 5 SB apps and 3 SB wins? You said it all, you use #s to judge. I don't. I take it into consideration but it's much more than just #s. He had awful talent around him, that team wouldn't have made the playoffs w/ another QB let alone make a title game. Peyton had a great year until the biggest game of the year, he had the best talent and failed in the biggest spot. That is basically what Peyton is- a #s guy. if Peyton makes 2 more SBs and gets humiliated again there still won't be a debate. Brady's #1 was Julian Edelman, Wes Welker's backup in NE and Welker is probably the 4th best weapon in the pass game in Denver. Joe Montana reg season win %: 71% postseason: 70% Tom Brady reg: 77% post: 70% Unitas: 65%, 67% Manning: 70%, 48% amazing how this works out. Peyton had a better year but even at his best w/ incredible talent around him he couldn't step up when his team needed him most. Typical Peyton, that's why he's not the greatest or even in the discussion.
Heres a good stat that Junc will eat alive. Broncos averaged 38 total team points per game during the 16 regular season games. In the playoffs they averaged 19 points. That is a 50% drop off in a smaller sample size.
I'll take him over any QB the Jets have ever had in the postseason as well. He's lost a bunch of games but he's won a bunch as well. When your always in the playoffs your going to have your fair share of wins and losses.
not more losses than wins. I'll take him b/c he'd give my team a chance but I'd rather have peyton in the reg season and Eli postseason. peyton is just not a good postseason QB.
they scored 8 pts in the biggest game of the year and it came in garbage time. In 2 of the 3 postseason games they played great despite lesser scoring #s so I won't bash them for that but I will bash them for their performance in the SB.
At the end of the day I think we can all agree that Peyton manning is arguably the greatest regular season qb of all time. The mvp's and records speak for themselves. However if I needed to win 1 big game and could pick any qb its about 10 qb's I would pick over him. Give me Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Ben roethlesberger, eli manning, kurt warner, steve young, Troy aikman, joe montana, John elway, terry Bradshaw, or roger staubach over Peyton in a must win, win or go home game any day of the week. Peyton is a better qb then some of these guys but not when it counts.
I wouldn't put Steve Young in there, he was handed the keys to a dynasty and managed just 1 SB b/c of the Jimmy Johnson-Jerry Jones divorce but I get your point.
That's the thing though, it's never just "one game." If you had Peyton in a "big game" however you want to define it (and clearly the Peyton haters do not consider the AFC CG this season to be a big game because he threw 400 yards and dominated the Pats D, which he isn't really getting credited for), then that means you had him for the whole season to, which means your team probably won 12+ games and got a bye. A lot of the guys you brought up have performed terribly in playoff games too. Roethlisberger had one of the worst QB performances in SB history, certainly a worse passing game than what we saw from Peyton a couple days ago (although his team bailed him out). I'd usually take my chances with the guy most likely to win me the most games and play the position the best while doing it, and that would probably be Peyton. I can admit that guys like Warner and Montana certainly have far fewer warts on their playoff resumes than Peyton does though. I don't really even consider guys like Aikmen or Bradshaw to be elite players so they aren't in that discussion for me. Game managers basically that played on all-time great pre-salary cap teams.
Eli is the product of two miraculous runs. He's not a bad player but he isn't in Peyton's class. Eli's also played in 11 postseason games compared to Peyton's 23. I'll take the guy who I know is always going to be there because eventually your team breaks through (like in 2006). You get there enough your bound to win one. Look at those Raven teams. They were always going deep into the playoffs and coming up short, eventually everything clicks, the ball starts bouncing your way, and you win one. He's 11 and 12 overall in the postseason. You get there a lot your going to have good and bad games. It happens. He's so great he's judged at an entirely different level. He's a victim of his own success to an extent. He's had some all-time great playoff games as well. But if he doesn't win it all he's looked at as a failure. Eli played Seattle this year, threw 5 picks, his team got shutout, and he finished the game watching from the sideline.
It's not a good stat. Even though in the first two Broncos games their ppg was lower than their season average, their points per possession was higher than their season average. Here's an extremely simple way to look at it. In game 1, team A scored 30 points on 15 possessions In game 2, team B scored 24 points on 8 possessions. Team A has more PPG, team B is much more efficient and better output than team A since B scored 3 points per possession and A scored 2 point per possession. It takes into account pace of the game. 26 points on 8 possession is better than 26 points on 12 possessions even though PPG they are exactly the same. EDIT: I looked at 2007 Pats to cross reference too. In the first game against JAX in the playoffs, the Pats scored under their season average by only getting 31, but they scored almost 4 points a possession putting them over their season average. The next two games were bad in both ppg and ppp
