Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 121
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    7,968
    Quote Originally Posted by flea View Post
    1. Manning
    2. Marino
    3. Favre
    4. Montana
    5. Brady
    6. Elway
    7. Brees
    8. Staubach
    9. Young
    10. Rodgers

    Put Graham, Unitas, Starr where ever you want. It's hard enough comparing 2010s QBs to 2000s, much less 90s or 80s QBs. That's why I like baseball historical comparisons best. Virtually nobody argues that Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, Williams, and Bonds are the best 5 hitters ever. Sure someone might scoot out Bonds for Mantle, or Gehrig for Musial, but for the most part they hold true for every fan of the game. Not so with football.
    That's why it doesnt make sense to compare era's and makes sense to compare how dominant they were in their era against their peers. Alas Brees has no business being in the top 10 of any list having played the majority of his career amongst the likes of Manning, Rodgers, and Brady. Hall of famer no doubt, but not a top 10 all time QB.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Post season success is the most overrated aspect of ranking any player.
    Couldn't disagree more. Weren't you the guy suggesting Bradshaw should be Top 5? With literally three more career TD passes than INT's what else does he have to hang his hat on other than his sizable postseason success? Seems a contradiction.
    Either way, my view is after a 17 week regular season, when your tired and beat up if not injured, postseason success is the real nut crunching time. To me its kind of a "men from the boys" thing. No bad opponents and (in theory at least) each game gets more difficult than the previous one. No matter what the sport you separate yourself from the others by winning in the playoffs. And as a fan what else is there other than winning a title? I mean, would MJ be the greatest basketball ever if he had only one ring? I highly doubt it.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    58,727
    Quote Originally Posted by rc33 View Post
    Weren't you the guy suggesting Bradshaw should be Top 5?
    You might want to check this.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    5,042
    Quote Originally Posted by rc33 View Post
    Couldn't disagree more. Weren't you the guy suggesting Bradshaw should be Top 5? With literally three more career TD passes than INT's what else does he have to hang his hat on other than his sizable postseason success? Seems a contradiction.
    Either way, my view is after a 17 week regular season, when your tired and beat up if not injured, postseason success is the real nut crunching time. To me its kind of a "men from the boys" thing. No bad opponents and (in theory at least) each game gets more difficult than the previous one. No matter what the sport you separate yourself from the others by winning in the playoffs. And as a fan what else is there other than winning a title? I mean, would MJ be the greatest basketball ever if he had only one ring? I highly doubt it.
    your MJ example shows why this logic is faulty as hell.

    if chicago doesnt draft pippen and sign rodman for the 2nd 3peat, it's very likely that he has ZERO rings.

    yet he's still the exact same player with the exact same skills, it shows that who you have as teammates matter WAY too much in a team sport to just go "well this guy has x amount of rings so clearly he's better than this other guy that has less
    Quote Originally Posted by NormSizedMidget View Post
    It's different now than it was.

    When he won the second one, Giants fans are here we're outside of their minds.
    That quote always cracks me up.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    58,727
    Quote Originally Posted by basch152 View Post
    your MJ example shows why this logic is faulty as hell.

    if chicago doesnt draft pippen and sign rodman for the 2nd 3peat, it's very likely that he has ZERO rings.

    yet he's still the exact same player with the exact same skills, it shows that who you have as teammates matter WAY too much in a team sport to just go "well this guy has x amount of rings so clearly he's better than this other guy that has less
    This ^

    Marino was unlucky to be on a team that couldn't put together a decent defense or run game. Bradshaw was lucky to play with 2 HOF WRs, 2 HOF RB's, and an all time great defense. Swap them and Marino goes down as the GOAT easily.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    173
    Fair enough. My point about Jordan dealt with him individually being considered the best ever if he'd won only one ring. For example, Karl Malone may have been a better PF than Tim Duncan but he's not viewed the way Duncan is. The difference is the rings, the NBA Finals, the Conference Championship games and all the big moments and big games Duncan was a part of. Naturally we're talking about a team sport and as with every team sport, the star ain't taking home rings without great players (like Pip and Rodman) around him.
    My observation was with regard to an earlier statement that postseason success is highly overrated.
    I don't think its overrated at all and think it's a principal consideration when comparing careers.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,951
    Quote Originally Posted by rc33 View Post
    Fair enough. My point about Jordan dealt with him individually being considered the best ever if he'd won only one ring. For example, Karl Malone may have been a better PF than Tim Duncan but he's not viewed the way Duncan is. The difference is the rings, the NBA Finals, the Conference Championship games and all the big moments and big games Duncan was a part of. Naturally we're talking about a team sport and as with every team sport, the star ain't taking home rings without great players (like Pip and Rodman) around him.
    My observation was with regard to an earlier statement that postseason success is highly overrated.
    I don't think its overrated at all and think it's a principal consideration when comparing careers.
    But there's way more that goes into winning a game than just 1 player. And that's especially true of football.

    I'm not going to rehash the full arguement, but Brady's greatness stems from all of his playoff success, but that absolutely is at least partially attributed to his team. I don't remember the exact numbers when I looked it up last year but Brady's record in playoff games where his passer rating was under either 70 or 80 was over .500, Peytons was a little below .500 and basically every other great had a win percentage around or below .300. That absolutely matters. If you give Brady a similar 0.300 winning percentage in those games, and he goes to and wins less super bowls for sure.

    Every great qb has off playoff games. But the biggest difference is Brady's team wins at a much higher clip when he has off playoff games than any other great qb. And it happens for other QBs at times too. Rodgers wasn't very good vs Chicago in the nfc championship when he won his super bowl, but that's one of the few seasons his defense actually bailed him out. Late career Brees has had more help in defense lately, but mid career Brees had virtually no defensive help.

    And that's why the "winning" standard is kind of dumb to me. I get it has to be part of it, but winning has alot of other factors. For many great QBs, they need to play really well in the playoffs otherwise they are eliminated. If they play average, below average or downright bad, they are done most years. Some of them get a few runs where they dont have to be perfect, but not a ton. For Brady, that hasn't been the case.

    A great example of that is with Brady himself. He's played 41 playoff games. His 6th highest qb rating game and his highest qb rating in a super bowl was the loss to Philly. And 2 of his 3 lowest qb rating games in a super bowl, including his lowest, resulted in wins.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    173
    Good points. I feel QB is the only position where "winning" matters. Aaron Donald can wreck an OL in any given game and still end up on the losing end. RB's, WR's, etc.. can have great games and still lose. No position affects the outcome of a game like the QB. Look at the Niners when Garoppolo was injured vs. when they had him on the field. They went from 3rd overall pick in 2018 to the SB in 2019. The two QB's have their hands on the ball every non-Special Teams snap. That's the lone position where (IMO) I think wins do count for something. Look at Russell Wilson. Great player and his stats are often modest but when the game's on the line he comes thru with that critical 3rd down play or TD drive. "Clutch" is a real thing. Montana threw 3 INT's prior to completing "The Catch" to Dwight Clark. No one remembers the INT's. As long as you were big in the biggest moments you don't even have to have great stats to have a "great" game.
    Of course there will be aberrations; Brady throws for 505 with 3 TDs and 0 INT's and loses to Philly while Peyton goes 1-14...1-14!...on 3rd down vs. Carolina and wins easily. At the end of the day you just hope it evens out, at least a bit.
    Last edited by rc33; 05-12-2020 at 02:58 PM.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    20,217
    Quote Originally Posted by manbearchef View Post
    Tbf Peyton's good years in Denver were basically just running his own offense while Fox just worried about the defense. It'd be impressive to say he took Fox to a SB if Fox hadn't been to a SB and another NFCCG with Jake Delhomme and made it to the divisional round with Tim Tebow the year before. The Caldwell SB appearance had as much to do with weak AFC playoff games as it did him doing anything spectacular; I mean the Mark Sanchez Jets weren't exactly the toughest AFCCG matchup.

    Peyton was great, there's no refuting that, but he had stacked offenses his entire career and only walked away with 1 SB in 15 years of elite play. It's easy to say "well what if he had better defenses?" But what if he had worse offenses? I think we see Rodgers fans make the same excuses for him; you can't expect a team to have a great offense AND a great defense.

    Peyton's in everyone's top 5, but it's a tough sale for me to put him over Brady in any scenario.
    So Manning running his own offense is a negative now? Fox was really bad and you know he was.

    Sure Manning had a lot of help, but so did almost every QB in the top 5. Brady was on some unbelievably stacked teams... But his defense was ALWAYS good and more often then not, the team with the better defense wins the Super Bowl.... You should know that better than anyone after Super Bowl 50.

    It's also funny that you say that the Caldwell Super Bowl appearance was because of a weak AFC, but Brady played in a cakewalk division for his entire career. The AFC South wasn't the epitome of tough either but I think most years it was quite a bit better than the East. And the Mark Sanchez led Jets beat the Patriots IN New England just a week before the Colts beat them, correct?

    It's just interesting to me that you feel this way because I think you're on the record saying that Super Bowl success is a team accomplishment and not a player accomplishment. And Manning's best years statistically are quite a bit better than Brady's. So what makes Brady the goat? Longevity? Can't be because I'm pretty sure you say Frank Gore shouldn't go to the HoF because most of his accolades are due to playing for so long.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Bethlehem
    Posts
    40,601
    Quote Originally Posted by mgjohnson7851 View Post
    So Manning running his own offense is a negative now? Fox was really bad and you know he was.

    Sure Manning had a lot of help, but so did almost every QB in the top 5. Brady was on some unbelievably stacked teams... But his defense was ALWAYS good and more often then not, the team with the better defense wins the Super Bowl.... You should know that better than anyone after Super Bowl 50.

    It's also funny that you say that the Caldwell Super Bowl appearance was because of a weak AFC, but Brady played in a cakewalk division for his entire career. The AFC South wasn't the epitome of tough either but I think most years it was quite a bit better than the East. And the Mark Sanchez led Jets beat the Patriots IN New England just a week before the Colts beat them, correct?

    It's just interesting to me that you feel this way because I think you're on the record saying that Super Bowl success is a team accomplishment and not a player accomplishment. And Manning's best years statistically are quite a bit better than Brady's. So what makes Brady the goat? Longevity? Can't be because I'm pretty sure you say Frank Gore shouldn't go to the HoF because most of his accolades are due to playing for so long.
    Yeah your last paragraph is a pretty good one lol.

    I’d really have to look into these more because I probably have Brady up type due to the collectivity of everything but it’s no hard stance. I could be swayed.

    Not one to say SB mean everything but I could use it as a tiebreaker.

    Basically, if (without looking at everything) Brady is 95% of Peyton statistically, I’d give Brady the edge with playoff success.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack of Blades View Post
    I don't consider Brand New indie. I consider them ****ing awesome and don't belong to a genre.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    34,003
    Quote Originally Posted by mgjohnson7851 View Post
    So Manning running his own offense is a negative now? Fox was really bad and you know he was.

    Sure Manning had a lot of help, but so did almost every QB in the top 5. Brady was on some unbelievably stacked teams... But his defense was ALWAYS good and more often then not, the team with the better defense wins the Super Bowl.... You should know that better than anyone after Super Bowl 50.

    It's also funny that you say that the Caldwell Super Bowl appearance was because of a weak AFC, but Brady played in a cakewalk division for his entire career. The AFC South wasn't the epitome of tough either but I think most years it was quite a bit better than the East. And the Mark Sanchez led Jets beat the Patriots IN New England just a week before the Colts beat them, correct?

    It's just interesting to me that you feel this way because I think you're on the record saying that Super Bowl success is a team accomplishment and not a player accomplishment. And Manning's best years statistically are quite a bit better than Brady's. So what makes Brady the goat? Longevity? Can't be because I'm pretty sure you say Frank Gore shouldn't go to the HoF because most of his accolades are due to playing for so long.
    Peytons teams were always stacked by investing in a loaded offense and then a fast defense built to play with a lead. That’s conducive to piling up stats but leaves you vulnerable to certain matchups, particularly against physical teams because none of the receivers they invested in were gritty or tough guys. You go look at the numbers on those Colts defenses though and statistically they were often very good.

    Brady’s teams were stacked in a different way. They always built great depth. Whereas Indy always had their 3 WR set to wreak havoc, the Pats historically have been able to vary between 3 WR, 2 TE, heavy FB use. Not just year to year, but often even within the same season. They’d spread their money around to be able to check all of those boxes in most years. And the on defense it’s usually the same thing. They invest throughout the roster and at different positions so they always have great balance. It makes it so very rarely over the years do they get caught in “bad matchups”. However, while this is conducive to sustained success and not getting caught in those bad matchups, it’s also conducive to more conservative numbers for the QB.

    People like to pretend like there’s this great degree of separation. Put Brady on the Colts for his prime and he’d shatter the records like Peyton did (and like Brady himself did when he had that type of offensive unit). But he wouldn’t win as much because those teams would still have drawn the bad matchups based on how they were built.

    Put Peyton on the Pats and he’d rack up the wins just like Brady has, including Super Bowls. But it’d come at the sacrifice of his personal stats because he’d have to play with lesser offensive talent. And he’d also have to come to the realization that throws downfield and into tight windows are, by definition, low percentage plays. And repeated negative or unproductive plays hurt your chances of winning more than the occasional great play does on those lower percentage throws. In order to play winning football Brady’s has to sacrifice his individual highlight reels and stats and Peyton would have had to do the same.

    Realistically, the degree of separation is practically nonexistent between the top guys. Certainly nothing that anyone, especially us needs on an Internet forum, can pretend to be able to distinguish. But if I had to compare/contrast them...

    Peyton I think had a stronger arm. Better at zip passes into tight windows. Especially downfield. I think he’s better able to complete those tougher, low percentage throws.

    Brady had a better feel for the pocket and is more willing to take hits. People will pick out videos of him crying for flags but those usually come after he stood in the pocket to take a shot. Within the realm of pocket passers Brady is one of the tougher ones out there - just smart enough to complain for the 15 yards after the play too. Peyton never seemed to want any part of getting hit and would rush throws to avoid it.

    I think Brady is better able to process things in game speed. He’s quicker to recognize that the coverage isn’t what he thought and to live for the next play. Like I mentioned, Peyton is better at a lot of the tougher throws but that often worked to his detriment because in these situations him trying to do that led to more negative plays than Brady produces. A single negative or unproductive play does more to hurt your chances of winning than a single good or even great play does. Brady plays with a better understanding of that, I think in large part because he was less heralded.

    As I said though, I think Peyton would have been able to come to that realization given the Pats system and coaching. You can’t erase his background so you’d probably never get him as conservative and willing to live for the next play as Brady is but it’d come with some more spectacular plays.

    And if you put Brady on the Colts he’d pile up stats just like Peyton. Probably do it with a little less tough throws so you’d cut out some of the highlights reels but also cut down on some of those negative/unproductive plays that they dealt with in their tough playoff matchups.


    NE Patriots Forum HOF (Class of 2011)

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    34,003
    Also let’s stop the silly sensationalism or trying to have a “gotcha” moment. Frank Gores longevity is way different than Brady’s. For at least 15 years Brady has been at or near the top of QB lists. Gore has had one clear cut elite season and was never legitimately in discussion for best at his position. There’s not any sort of contradiction there. Not at all the same.


    NE Patriots Forum HOF (Class of 2011)

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    173
    "So Manning running his own offense is a negative now? Fox was really bad and you know he was."

    Pretty damn ironic in light of how John Fox coached two different teams to Super Bowls and the fact that Manning fans love to point out that Peyton quarterbacked two different teams to Super Bowls.
    But I guess he was "really bad." Either way....

    "Brady was on some unbelievably stacked teams... But his defense was ALWAYS good."

    Yeah that ALWAYS good Patriots defense was particularly effective against Nick Foles a couple years ago. Though they did in fact hold the Eagles under 50 points that day, so..

    In any event, here's the Patriots DVOA during their SB seasons;

    2001 - 13
    '03 - 2
    '04 - 7
    '07 - 11
    2011 - 30
    '14 - 12
    '16 - 16
    '17- 31
    '18 - 16

    Looks to me like that puts the Patriots right smack in the middle of overall defenses.
    ALWAYS good is a crock. They eye test could've told you that, much less the statistics.

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    20,217
    Quote Originally Posted by rc33 View Post
    "So Manning running his own offense is a negative now? Fox was really bad and you know he was."

    Pretty damn ironic in light of how John Fox coached two different teams to Super Bowls and the fact that Manning fans love to point out that Peyton quarterbacked two different teams to Super Bowls.
    But I guess he was "really bad." Either way....

    "Brady was on some unbelievably stacked teams... But his defense was ALWAYS good."

    Yeah that ALWAYS good Patriots defense was particularly effective against Nick Foles a couple years ago. Though they did in fact hold the Eagles under 50 points that day, so..

    In any event, here's the Patriots DVOA during their SB seasons;

    2001 - 13
    '03 - 2
    '04 - 7
    '07 - 11
    2011 - 30
    '14 - 12
    '16 - 16
    '17- 31
    '18 - 16

    Looks to me like that puts the Patriots right smack in the middle of overall defenses.
    ALWAYS good is a crock. They eye test could've told you that, much less the statistics.
    They were a top ten scoring defense almost every year...I hate when people try to over complicate things. In the NFL if you score more points than the other team, you win. It's easier to score more points when your defense allows fewer points... Can't believe I actually had to type that.

    As for Fox, ask any Broncos fan.... We made the Super Bowl in spite of him

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,951
    Quote Originally Posted by mgjohnson7851 View Post
    They were a top ten scoring defense almost every year...I hate when people try to over complicate things. In the NFL if you score more points than the other team, you win. It's easier to score more points when your defense allows fewer points... Can't believe I actually had to type that.

    As for Fox, ask any Broncos fan.... We made the Super Bowl in spite of him
    This is actually a really fair point. Stats like dvoa may be more predictive, but points is really what matters. It's similar to baseball fans. Fans love pointing to pitching stats like FIP as a more reliable indicator of a pitchers talent than ERA. And I agree that's entirely true when trying to be predictive, but when actually looking at the wins and losses, it's the points that matter. Now, you can argue stuff like points per possession and stuff like that, but at the end of the day, overall talent level and the "expected" performance of a defense are less valuable when discussing what the defense actually did to help Brady.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •