Peyton could end owning all NFL QB records - I'm so proud!!!

#76
#76
Master of hyperbole, wow.

No one is ascertaining that any obviously average QB who won a few super bowls (Rypien, Hostetler) is greater than an obviously more talented QB like Manning. No one. To say that is the 'obvious extension' of our argument is asinine.

We are comparing two qbs who are both HoF quality: Manning and Montana. That's it. Between the two, one clearly elevated his game in the most important games, and one regressed - most of the time. Yes, you can find individual examples where Montana played poorly in playoff/big games, just as Manning sometimes played very well. But overall, the trend is clear.

You say that Manning felt the pressure of having to score every time, and that's why he took chances and played poorly; isn't that the text book definition of choking? And were his TEAMS inferior when they were winning 12-14 games every year? Which is it? You seem to insinuate all their success is due to Manning, and all their failure is everyone else. Isn't it a team game?

Again, everyone here loves Peyton Manning. But some of us recognize he's not perfect. I still root for him every week. If the Niners don't win it all, I hope he does.
 
#77
#77
Montana had an untouchable Super Bowl run. But so did the rest of the players on the Niners team during that era. And it was all due to Bill Walsh. Much like the winning in New England is due to the Hood. Peyton is orchestrating this run on the record books on his own. He is the offensive leader and has been for years on his teams. Call it what you want, but Peyton is top of the line as far as quarterbacks go. Most of the all-time records have been eclipsed. The rest are set to fall in two years. One more ring and the argument against Peyton is pointless. But he is at least in the top group ever, already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#78
#78
Hacksaw said:
Honestly, it astounds me to see how people contort themselves trying to rationalize away Peyton's accomplishments. But oh, they're big fans of his! LOL!
Click to expand...
No worse than those who try to embellish his accomplshmets simply because he is a Vol.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#80
#80
wombat7477 said:
No one is ascertaining that any obviously average QB who won a few super bowls (Rypien, Hostetler) is greater than an obviously more talented QB like Manning. No one.
Click to expand...

No, not Manning. Marino and Tarkenton. They don't have SB rings, remember? Manning has one -- although I'm told he didn't really earn it.

And please. I realize you don't want to admit the flaw in your argument, but the SB ring is being held up here as the be-all and end-all in deciding QB greatness. All other criteria is being dismissed. So try to at least be honest about your argument.

We are comparing two qbs who are both HoF quality: Manning and Montana. That's it.
Click to expand...

I understand that you want to place limits on the conversation and not be bothered by inconvenient facts. But dismissing all other evidence and making it all about the SB rings is naturally going to invite critique of that premise.

Between the two, one clearly elevated his game in the most important games, and one regressed - most of the time. Yes, you can find individual examples where Montana played poorly in playoff/big games, just as Manning sometimes played very well. But overall, the trend is clear.
Click to expand...

One clearly played on a much better TEAM. One played on a team whose defense allowed an average of 17 points less per game than the other guy's team in those playoff games. But you throw that evidence out the window, too, right? All that matters is the rings, not how he got them.

You seem to insinuate all their success is due to Manning, and all their failure is everyone else. Isn't it a team game?
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? The team didn't throw for 60,000 yards. You're the one who wants to cite wins and championships and ignore individual stats. Let's at least try to have a real discussion here and not try to get cute. I've said all along that TEAMS win games and championships. You guys say Montana is the greatest because (presumably) he, alone, is responsible for the 49ers winning their SBs -- well, except for the one Steve Young won with most of the same guys after he took Joe's job.

Again, everyone here loves Peyton Manning. But some of us recognize he's not perfect.
Click to expand...

Heh...am I supposed to defend myself for trying to make an argument that Peyton is perfect now? Is that really what you have taken away from my posts?

If the Niners don't win it all, I hope he does.
Click to expand...

Aw, man! Why didn't you just say that at the beginning?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#81
#81
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
No worse than those who try to embellish his accomplshmets simply because he is a Vol.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

So on VolNation it's no worse to dismiss the accomplishments of one of our all-time greatest Vols than it is to be a fan?

I disagree. In fact, that may be one of the dumbest things I've read here.

And that assumes that my opinion of Peyton is based on blind fan loyalty, which is not the case. I have tried to back up my opinion with facts and stats. I have already said that I only recently allowed myself to believe that Peyton may be the GOAT and that I resisted allowing myself to think that for a long time -- because I realize that I AM biased. But more and more I am starting to hear a lot of knowledgeable football people speculate that he may go down as the GOAT. I posted a quote from Tom Brady giving his opinion, for instance.

However vehemently you may disagree with me, my opinion is based on more than just blind fan loyalty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#82
#82
I never stated any such belief that the ring was the ultimate measure of a QB. Where did you read that? I place a higher value on clutch play. And Montana is considered among the greats because of that AND because he's among the highest rated passers in history. He also has the stats, albeit not as gaudy. And if you please, tell me of the massive star power surrounding Montana in 1981, or when he took the chiefs to the AFC championship game?

You neglected to answer one question: were Manning's teams bad when they were winning 12-14 games each year? Or were they only bad when Manning was bad?

By your logic, Ty Detmer and David Klingler were superior college QBs. Just look at the stats. If only they had better teams...
 
#83
#83
I get the clutch performances argument. And I certainly wouldn't disagree that Peyton has had some of his worst performances in playoff games. But I still think that's more a function of being on TEAMS that failed to perform -- not just the QB.

When you have a Hall of Fame coach like Bill Walsh (who is widely considered to be one of the greatest coaches in the history of the game) and a slew of great coaches to support him (guys like Sam Wyche, George Seifert, Mike Holmgren, Ray Rhodes, Paul Hackett, Sherman Lewis and Denny Green), you end up with great players who execute and play together. And the 49ers were a juggernaut, loaded with some of the best players in the league throughout Montana's career.

In the interest of space, I'll leave off a lot of familiar names who were stalwarts (guys like Freddie Soloman, Riki Ellison, Bubba Paris and Tom Rathman) and just list the guys I could verify were all-pros. They include:

Randy Cross, John Taylor, Roger Craig, Dwight Clark, Russ Francis, Fred Quillan, Eric Wright, Jack Reynolds, Keena Turner, Dwight Hicks, Wes Chandler, Harris Barton, Guy McIntyre, Brent Jones, Jesse Sapolu, Steve Wallace, Charles Haley, Bill Romanowski, Michael Carter and Matt Millen. Now throw in Hall of Famers Fred Dean, Ronnie Lott and Jerry Rice. Yes, Montana was great. But he had a LOT of help.

I'll answer your question about whether Manning's teams were "bad" when they won 12-14 regular season games. I hope in return you will at least acknowledge that the 49ers holding their opponents to an average of 17 POINTS LESS than the Colts in the playoffs may have had something to do with the difference in each teams' success winning SBs.

No, Manning's teams weren't bad. They were just out-played by better TEAMS in the playoffs. It's as simple as that. Montana's TEAMS out-played their opponents. Of course Montana deserves a lot of credit. So do Terry Bradshaw, Joe Theismann and Bob Griese.

And of course Ty Detmer and David Klingler were great college QBs. Not in the pros, of course. But how else would you describe their college careers? Not sure what point you're trying to make there.
 
#84
#84
TNVolunteerGrad said:
That's what I'm saying. The man has lived and breathed football his entire life. He already will go down as one of UT's greatest representatives. I feel that once he is out of football he can still continue to contribute and support the program without actually being in charge or having a direct role in the administration.
Click to expand...

Nah,Im pretty sure he would want to move back here at age 50,which is where he d be at the time we run Jones off and coach our beloved team for us..sounds right
 
#85
#85
Hacksaw said:
I get the clutch performances argument. And I certainly wouldn't disagree that Peyton has had some of his worst performances in playoff games. But I still think that's more a function of being on TEAMS that failed to perform -- not just the QB.

When you have a Hall of Fame coach like Bill Walsh (who is widely considered to be one of the greatest coaches in the history of the game) and a slew of great coaches to support him (guys like Sam Wyche, George Seifert, Mike Holmgren, Ray Rhodes, Paul Hackett, Sherman Lewis and Denny Green), you end up with great players who execute and play together. And the 49ers were a juggernaut, loaded with some of the best players in the league throughout Montana's career.

In the interest of space, I'll leave off a lot of familiar names who were stalwarts (guys like Freddie Soloman, Riki Ellison, Bubba Paris and Tom Rathman) and just list the guys I could verify were all-pros. They include:

Randy Cross, John Taylor, Roger Craig, Dwight Clark, Russ Francis, Fred Quillan, Eric Wright, Jack Reynolds, Keena Turner, Dwight Hicks, Wes Chandler, Harris Barton, Guy McIntyre, Brent Jones, Jesse Sapolu, Steve Wallace, Charles Haley, Bill Romanowski, Michael Carter and Matt Millen. Now throw in Hall of Famers Fred Dean, Ronnie Lott and Jerry Rice. Yes, Montana was great. But he had a LOT of help.

I'll answer your question about whether Manning's teams were "bad" when they won 12-14 regular season games. I hope in return you will at least acknowledge that the 49ers holding their opponents to an average of 17 POINTS LESS than the Colts in the playoffs may have had something to do with the difference in each teams' success winning SBs.

No, Manning's teams weren't bad. They were just out-played by better TEAMS in the playoffs. It's as simple as that. Montana's TEAMS out-played their opponents. Of course Montana deserves a lot of credit. So do Terry Bradshaw, Joe Theismann and Bob Griese.

And of course Ty Detmer and David Klingler were great college QBs. Not in the pros, of course. But how else would you describe their college careers? Not sure what point you're trying to make there.
Click to expand...

My point was that statistically, they were better college players than Peyton. And my take on your argument is that the proof that Manning is the greatest is his statistical distance. Are you saying that they were better players than Peyton? I certainly disagree.

And good job googling every pro bowl player Montana ever played with, which wasn't my question. Artfully side stepped it. Manning played with some decent players himself, including two running backs I might argue were better than any Montana ever had. I won't bother googling a list though.

But you at least finally admitted that Manning tends to have bad games in the playoffs. That's all I was trying to point out. And it's why I'll take Montana every time.
 
Last edited:
#86
#86
Klingler and Detmer did NOT play against the same caliber of competition that Peyton did -- nowhere close. So that's a worthless comparison. You get that, right? I mean, I realize that you're trying really hard to make an argument for Montana. But that's beyond a reach.

Anyway, agree to disagree, I guess. I suppose Peyton should count himself lucky to have played with so many great players, while poor Joe toiled away, saddled with the dregs of the league back in the day -- LOL!

Still couldn't get you to acknowledge those 17 points, I see.
 
#87
#87
Hacksaw said:
Klingler and Detmer did NOT play against the same caliber of competition that Peyton did -- nowhere close. So that's a worthless comparison. You get that, right? I mean, I realize that you're trying really hard to make an argument for Montana. But that's beyond a reach.

Anyway, agree to disagree, I guess. I suppose Peyton should count himself lucky to have played with so many great players, while poor Joe toiled away, saddled with the dregs of the league back in the day -- LOL!

Still couldn't get you to acknowledge those 17 points, I see.
Click to expand...

If I'm trying hard to make an argument, then so are 90+% of all sports experts, players, and coaches. You know... The ones that consistently put Montana at the top of the all time lists. Delusional bunch, I guess.

And yes, I clearly indicated that Montana played with far less talent than Manning. At least, that's what someone with very poor reading comprehension might think. Actually, I was saying it was comparable, and not the vast difference you seem convinced of.

I didn't bother to acknowledge the 17 points because it was fairly irrelevant (and I didn't bother to verify its accuracy). Those were different times; I'd hazard to guess that league averages for scoring offense and defense were significantly lower across the board. But yes, some of the Niner teams had good defenses. As did some of the Colts teams. Relative to the competition.

Relative competition is actually something worth mentioning here. For each QB, there is the level of opponent that each played against. That seems a fair comparison. Consider this: in the regular season, each team played a mix of good, average, and poor teams. Both QBs played well through that competition, or they wouldn't have been in pro bowls.

And in the post season for each team, the level of competition rose; fair to say? Why then did one QB typically play BETTER against the tougher competition, while the other tended to play worse? Their team mates did not change; those same players were good enough to excel in the regular season. Did the entire Colts team regress? Maybe so....
 
#88
#88
wombat7477 said:
Master of hyperbole, wow.

No one is ascertaining that any obviously average QB who won a few super bowls (Rypien, Hostetler) is greater than an obviously more talented QB like Manning. No one. To say that is the 'obvious extension' of our argument is asinine.

We are comparing two qbs who are both HoF quality: Manning and Montana. That's it. Between the two, one clearly elevated his game in the most important games, and one regressed - most of the time. Yes, you can find individual examples where Montana played poorly in playoff/big games, just as Manning sometimes played very well. But overall, the trend is clear.

You say that Manning felt the pressure of having to score every time, and that's why he took chances and played poorly; isn't that the text book definition of choking? And were his TEAMS inferior when they were winning 12-14 games every year? Which is it? You seem to insinuate all their success is due to Manning, and all their failure is everyone else. Isn't it a team game?

Again, everyone here loves Peyton Manning. But some of us recognize he's not perfect. I still root for him every week. If the Niners don't win it all, I hope he does.
Click to expand...

Out of all his Manning's Indy playoff teams, maybe three were good enough to win the Super Bowl. Most of them just were not great teams--and in fact they only made the playoffs because of the greatness of the PM and the passing game. Indy rarely had a really good defense and rarely had a good running game. It's hard to win Super Bowls when all you do is pass the ball and your team is average--at best--at defense and running the ball. That's a fact. Manning has had a few clunkers, but passing teams are never going to do very well if they have to go play in the a place like New England in the snow. That's another fact. Could Montana have taken all those Indy teams to the playoffs year after year? Maybe.
 
#89
#89
I think next year might be Manning's last year. I think arm strength is an issue for him now. His arm is still good enough--but not by much. He could have won a Super Bowl last year. Maybe he will this year, with some luck.
 
#90
#90
Also, let's keep in mind that while Dungy is well respected, I doubt few NFL experts would choose him to coach a must-win game if they had their pick of Super Bowl-winning coaches. He is very well liked but, in my opinion, was overrated as a coach. Bill Walsh and Bill Belichick, he was not. And Manning played for a few years under Jim Caldwell--a strange choice, indeed.
 
#91
#91
I also think that Peyton will call it quits next year. He wants to go out on a high note, on his terms. Last year was a wasted opportunity for the Broncos, and I'm afraid this year could be as well. The Broncos D isn't good enough to stop the top teams, forcing Peyton to keep putting up points in a shootout. He's been getting pressured more and taking some hits. I'm just hoping he doesn't end his career with an injury.

In a perfect world, Peyton would lead the Broncos to a pair of rings, then retire at the top of his game. It may not work out that way, but he's had an amazing comeback and an outstanding Hall of Fame career. He's done UT proud.
 
#92
#92
If I'm trying hard to make an argument, then so are 90+% of all sports experts, players, and coaches. You know... The ones that consistently put Montana at the top of the all time lists. Delusional bunch, I guess.
Click to expand...

No, they're not delusional. But "experts" are notorious for being wrong -- or just slow to change. At one point in time, all the "experts" said the Earth was flat. And anyone who disagreed with them was criticized for not just accepting the consensus opinion. In time, I think most people will compare Peyton and Joe and agree that Peyton was the better QB. If we are both lucky enough to live long enough to see it, I promise not to say I told you so.
 
#94
#94
Re the "it's a different league now" argument, I wrote something in a different thread a while back that I was able to find. I'll cut and paste here.

The "different league" argument is actually a positive for Peyton, IMO. Because he is eventually going to be viewed as more than just another great QB. He is going to be viewed as a transformational player -- the rare player who changed the game.

Before Peyton Manning came along, a 4,000 yard passing season was something of a rarity. Joe Namath was the first one to do it. And he managed it only once, in 1967. Others followed -- some big names and some not-so-big. But it was still a pretty rare feat. And it was still considered to be a huge accomplishment.

Dan Marino broke the mold with six 4,000 yard seasons in his illustrious career. Before him, Dan Fouts was the only guy to have done it more than twice (3 times, actually). Warren Moon came along and did it 4 times. Steve Young did it twice.

Only 13 other QBs, before Peyton, had EVER thrown for more than 4,000 yards in a single season. And they had each only managed to do it once. John Elway was one of the guys who did it once. Joe Montana NEVER did it. Neither did Terry Bradshaw. In fact, a lot of guys who are considered to be among the greatest to ever play the QB position never did it in their careers -- way too many to name. Put it this way: think of some of the greatest QB names to ever play the game and chances are they never passed for 4,000 yards in a single season.

Think about that when you consider that Peyton Manning has AVERAGED more than 4,000 yards passing per season over the course of his career. Put that together with his high career passer rating, his plethora of NFL records (including most league MVPs) and his SB ring and you can make a pretty compelling argument for him being the GOAT.

4,000 yard passing seasons are becoming a lot more commonplace nowadays. But no one is even close to Peyton. And he started the trend. That makes him more than just another great QB.
 
#95
#95
More on the stats:

The Colts rushing game averaged 70 yards per game in Peyton's playoff games with them, compared to 117 for Brady's New England and 152 (!) for Montana's SF SB champs. The Colts running game contributed 2 whole TDs! Pats running game contributed 7 and 49'ers 15.

The Colts defense allowed opponents an average of 27 points per game. The Pats: 17. The 49'ers: 13.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#96
#96
The 49ers' record in 1992, when Montana was injured all year: 14-2

The Patriots without Brady in 2008: 11-5


The Colts without Manning in 2011: 2-14

...just sayin'...
 
#97
#97
Hacksaw said:
More on the stats:

The Colts rushing game averaged 70 yards per game in Peyton's playoff games with them, compared to 117 for Brady's New England and 152 (!) for Montana's SF SB champs. The Colts running game contributed 2 whole TDs! Pats running game contributed 7 and 49'ers 15.

The Colts defense allowed opponents an average of 27 points per game. The Pats: 17. The 49'ers: 13.
Click to expand...

Are those numbers strictly playoffs? Type of offense and being ahead/behind would contribute to those obviously. The colts with edge and Faulk clearly could run, but the play calling tended to abandon the run. Whether it was the OC or Manning I don't know. I followed those teams closely. They weren't balanced mostly by choice/circumstance, until edge left
 
#98
#98
Hacksaw said:
The 49ers' record in 1992, when Montana was injured all year: 14-2

The Patriots without Brady in 2008: 11-5


The Colts without Manning in 2011: 2-14

...just sayin'...
Click to expand...

Could the quality of backup have anything to do with that? Steve Young was another great regular season QB (who mostly sputtered in the postseason until 94). Cassell has some quality years. Manning has never had a backup any better than me :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#99
#99
Hacksaw said:
The 49ers' record in 1992, when Montana was injured all year: 14-2

The Patriots without Brady in 2008: 11-5


The Colts without Manning in 2011: 2-14

...just sayin'...
Click to expand...

Replaced by Steve Young....a Hall of Famer.

Brady was replaced by Matt Cassel, who started for the Chiefs and is currently starting for the Vikings.

Manning was replaced by Kerry Collins, Curtis Painter, and Dan Orlovsky. Collins was pretty much retired and lasted less than half the season, Painter was released after the season, sat out 2012 and is now a 3rd stringer for the Giants, and Orlovsky was also released and is now the backup for the Bucs.

The Colts backups couldn't start for any other team.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top