Does your playoff record determine whether or not you are a greatest of all time? Does the fact that Marino never won a super bowl make him less of a QB. Brady is 14-4 postseason, Manning's 9-9 doesnt even compare. Is Brady that much better than Manning?
I think success in the playoffs does make a difference.
Bart Starr was 15-1.
Yes he can!
no you can't. fact is if they weren't playing the worst super bowl team in history 3 yrs ago (da bears and rex grossman) he would have found a way to blow that game. to boot...he's a sore loser.
Manning has amazing skills and knowledge of the game, but there are some situations in which he just cannot thrive...certainly not like Joe Montana did, or John Unitas or even Roger Staubach or Steve Young.
Bart Starr had a terrific winning record and there's no doubt he was one of the greats, but - and please correct me if anyone recalls otherwise - he had such an amazing offensive line that I don't even recall him being under pressure all that much.
Weary wrote:
Manning has amazing skills and knowledge of the game, but there are some situations in which he just cannot thrive...certainly not like Joe Montana did, or John Unitas or even Roger Staubach or Steve Young.
Bart Starr had a terrific winning record and there's no doubt he was one of the greats, but - and please correct me if anyone recalls otherwise - he had such an amazing offensive line that I don't even recall him being under pressure all that much.
Bart Starr had one of the greatest lines ever, but so did all of the other great quarterbacks, and running backs for that matter. The one glaring exception is Barry Sanders, who amassed ridiculous yards playing behind some of the worst linemen imaginable. That's why I think he's the greatest player in the history of the league. Marino had a shitty line for many years but with that quick release and short routes it didn't matter.
Montana wasn't that great early in his career. Roger Craig really helped him thrive.
Unitas was a more amazing talent than Starr, and is one of the few QBs from that era with the physical skills to play today. Starr was just a damn good football player.
Don't forget, Unitas and Starr called most of their own plays, and Starr was 15-1 calling and executing plays. Although you can't really penalize today's players for not calling plays, you have to figure that in to Starr's greatness.
Unitas and Starr would tie for my top QB. Montana second. Everyone else mentioned would be a distant third
Why not look at it the other way. Ben Rothlesbeger has won 2 Super Bowls, so he must have a great post season record, and no one would compare him to any of the aforementioned greats.
Teams win in the post season, not QBs.
The only reason why Indy was any good this year was because of Manning. They had a good defense, though not spectacular, nothing to speak of special teams, a horrible run offense and a bunch of no-name to decent wide receivers.
Manning and his line were the only reason they got to where they did. Bottom line, Manning didn't lose the game, the Colts lost the game. And if Manning wasn't the best QB ever (or right up in the top 3) the colts wouldn't be in a position where we could criticize their QB for not winning the big one.
QBs are unique in football because a team's success is more dependent on that position than any other position. The QB is, by default, the leader. Whether deserving or not, the QB will always be, in part, judged by the success of his team.
In that regard, Peyton Manning is a great QB, and can be talked about in the same breath as the other greats, but at the end of the day he cannot be claimed to be the best.
Weary wrote:
Manning has amazing skills and knowledge of the game, but there are some situations in which he just cannot thrive...certainly not like Joe Montana did, or John Unitas or even Roger Staubach or Steve Young.
Bart Starr had a terrific winning record and there's no doubt he was one of the greats, but - and please correct me if anyone recalls otherwise - he had such an amazing offensive line that I don't even recall him being under pressure all that much.
Excellent point...which brings us to the truth. Manning didn't lose the game. He played well enough to win. The Colts defense didn't keep the game close enough for manning to have more time on the field. The Colt's defense lost that game, not manning. So, to answer the OP, yeah...manning can be the greatest of all time if his team is marginal. Kind of like Barry Sanders being one of the best. he certainly was better than Emmitt Smith just didn't have a team around him. That's the luck of the draw
Manning is the better quarterback. Brady plays for what has been a better team over the last 10 years. Give me a choice between the two and I will pick Manning every time, Super Bowl or not.
Yeah, Brady was a very good role player and most importantly had the patience to use the time that his line gave him. The time was a luxury, but he used it well.
The comments being made about Smith and Sanders are accurate. Smith is clearly a very fine human being, but Sanders got NO help at all from the Detroit lines. It's amazing what he managed to accomplish.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
Brady plays for what has been a better team over the last 10 years.
That is not true.
Have to disagree on Manning being one of the greatest. If you put him there, then you have to put Favre there, and as much as I am a fan of Favre, he is not one of the greatest QBs. Great football player to be sure, but a QB is a leader, and leaders should not make critical mistakes at critical junctures of championship games. That is why they are second tier to Unitas, Starr, and Montana. All the physical skills in the world do not overcome poor decision making in a leadership role. That's why Brady is a better QB - he rarely loses games. Favre's last pass for every team he played for is an interception, and for two of those teams it was in the NFC championship. Manning is in that same boat.
Bum wrote:
[
...Don't forget, Unitas and Starr called most of their own plays, and Starr was 15-1 calling and executing plays. Although you can't really penalize today's players for not calling plays, you have to figure that in to Starr's greatness...
The argument that the old timers should get extra credit for calling their own plays is bogus. Everyone called their own plays back then. So they get extra credit for playing the same as everyone else in their era? It was more difficult to win when calling your own plays (even when the opposing QB was also calling his own plays)???
Just doesn't make any sense at all.
As far as great old timers:
1) Johnny U. is the only one mentioned who would still be great in today's game
2) Bart Starr was really good at handing the ball off behind a dominant offensive line. He was little different than Bob Griese in that regard, only with an even more dominant team for a longer time period. To mention Starr among the greats is downright hilarious.
3) If you want to go with great post-season record take a look at Otto Graham.
Greatest QB's I have seen in my lifetime are Montana, Marino, and Brady, not necessarily in that order, but those 3 stand out pretty well for years of consistent success.
Apparently you can't read.
"Although you can't really penalize today's players for not calling plays"
Yeah, Otto Graham should be considered, every bit as much as Manning.
They don't get credit for calling plays, they get credit for being great on-field leaders. When a guy keeps choking in championship games, as both Favre and Manning did (that INT by Manning was high school) they are missing the most important aspect of being a QB.
If Manning had done a "Bart Starr" and handed off more, he would now have 2 SB rings. Sometimes the best QB is the one who checks out of bad plays rather than stay with a poorly designed pass play do that he can look like the star.
QB wrote:
Why not look at it the other way. Ben Rothlesbeger has won 2 Super Bowls, so he must have a great post season record, and no one would compare him to any of the aforementioned greats.
Teams win in the post season, not QBs.
The only reason why Indy was any good this year was because of Manning. They had a good defense, though not spectacular, nothing to speak of special teams, a horrible run offense and a bunch of no-name to decent wide receivers.
Manning and his line were the only reason they got to where they did. Bottom line, Manning didn't lose the game, the Colts lost the game. And if Manning wasn't the best QB ever (or right up in the top 3) the colts wouldn't be in a position where we could criticize their QB for not winning the big one.
For a regular season game, I would take Manning. For a Super Bowl, I would take Big Ben without a doubt.
You have to be pretty good to even be in 18 playoff games.
I don't blame Manning too much on the INT.
The Saints blitzed hard and the CB guessed on the slant. If they called a fade or a go the game would have been tied right there.
Good calculated risk there by the Saints, though.
The onside kick odds favored the Saints but would have set up a short field for the Colts depending on how the scrum went.
So those two plays where the Saints took calculated risks were worth 21 points.
The Colts had more first downs, more yards passing, more yards rushing and time of posession was even. Each team had only two punts.
But Manning did not find a way to win this one and there opportunities.
I completely blame Manning for the INT. He didn't read the defense before the snap, and he made a poor throw to a receiver he knew was hurt. His RBs were tearing up the Saints all day, but he refused time and again to check out of pass plays. He has an awful hero complex, as does Favre, and that does not make for a championship QB. Championship QBs are calm, collected, and calculated. Bart Starr, Joe Montana, and Brady. Big Ben is damn cool under pressure even though folks portray him as a slinger. What he did to several teams, including the Packers, this year at the end of games was damn impressive.
For that manner, Kurt Warner is a better QB than Manning. Much better. The Rodney Dangerfield of the NFL. What has the guy done to not be in the discussion?