IF Peyton doesn't win a Super Bowl With Denver will he be a "bust"

[cdumler7]

I agree, Manning will cement his place among the top 3 of all time.

Heck even if Brady wins number 4, he still won't jump Montana.

This is what it will take IMO:

4 to 5 SBs (with a good to great record in SBs)
Post Season Winning % that is good (say 65% or better)
A good to great regular season record (65% or better)
Good to Great Stats (regular and post season)

Manning has the stats, he needs the other pieces which are not exactly easy to get with his track record
Brady has a good chance if he gets to 4. 5 would put him over the top (when you look at everything)

The following also could have a chance:

Rodgers
Luck
Wilson
Big Ben

Of those 4, Ben and Rodgers has the hardest path.

It's cool just gloss over my comment where you say Stats aren't everything but then use stats to try and prove your point. Your problem isn't that you don't like stats it is that you don't like when people don't use the stats that make your guy look better. See that is the great thing about stats in you can always find a stat or two that supports your point and destroys that of your opponent. Looking at Peyton's touchdowns, yards, regular season ability, passer rating in the playoffs, and all those things don't support Brady being the better quarterback so of course you discount them as not be as important as the ones that say Brady is the better guy.

Now to me I'm not big on putting one over the other. They both have a very good set of stats that can support them. I'm fine with just saying both are 1st ballot HOF quarterbacks and leaving it at that. No need to tear down one to build up the other.

 

[JasonCarrier]

It's cool just gloss over my comment where you say Stats aren't everything but then use stats to try and prove your point. Your problem isn't that you don't like stats it is that you don't like when people don't use the stats that make your guy look better. See that is the great thing about stats in you can always find a stat or two that supports your point and destroys that of your opponent. Looking at Peyton's touchdowns, yards, regular season ability, passer rating in the playoffs, and all those things don't support Brady being the better quarterback so of course you discount them as not be as important as the ones that say Brady is the better guy.

Now to me I'm not big on putting one over the other. They both have a very good set of stats that can support them. I'm fine with just saying both are 1st ballot HOF quarterbacks and leaving it at that. No need to tear down one to build up the other.

Manning isn't that much better stat wise in the post season. Plus the stats for both are not primary on the list. I said record first. That is much more important then numbers.

Brady has a 70% in regular and post season, 3-2 in Sbs
Manning has around a 70% in regular season, sub 500 in playoffs, 1-2 in Sbs
Post season stats are close
Regular season is Manning, but Brady isn't exactly bad either.

 

[cdumler7]

Record though is a team thing not individual (which I guess yes you could argue that no stat is individual in football but especially record cannot be what you primarily go off of for quarterback). I mean people that keep bringing up Montana seem to quickly forget he had a ton of HOF players on that team and a HOF coach that revolutionized the game. That makes things a bit easier as a quarterback when you have that around you. Everybody wants to credit Montana with those Super Bowls and not saying he wasn't a big part of it but again those kind of accomplishments only happen as a team not an individual.


So again you are using stats to try and prove your point...you are just using team stats instead of individual stats to prove your point. Again you are using the stats that prove your guy better where I can produce just as many that say Manning is better. Why in the world do we have to have these stupid debates and try to tear down a HOF type player just to boost our own?

 

[HubertJubberman]

Manning isn't that much better stat wise in the post season. Plus the stats for both are not primary on the list. I said record first. That is much more important then numbers.

Brady has a 70% in regular and post season, 3-2 in Sbs
Manning has around a 70% in regular season, sub 500 in playoffs, 1-2 in Sbs
Post season stats are close
Regular season is Manning, but Brady isn't exactly bad either.

You know what....keep pretending spygate never existed...go ahead. Brady cheated, you have to negate 3 of those super bowls. But you won't. Ignorance is bliss and you're a fool.

You have to live with your team being fucking cheaters. SUCK IT UP AND NEGATE IT!

 

[NEhomer]

Hubie, of your 500 posts, how many do you suppose are repeating yourself over spygate?

 

[JasonCarrier]

Record though is a team thing not individual (which I guess yes you could argue that no stat is individual in football but especially record cannot be what you primarily go off of for quarterback). I mean people that keep bringing up Montana seem to quickly forget he had a ton of HOF players on that team and a HOF coach that revolutionized the game. That makes things a bit easier as a quarterback when you have that around you. Everybody wants to credit Montana with those Super Bowls and not saying he wasn't a big part of it but again those kind of accomplishments only happen as a team not an individual.


So again you are using stats to try and prove your point...you are just using team stats instead of individual stats to prove your point. Again you are using the stats that prove your guy better where I can produce just as many that say Manning is better. Why in the world do we have to have these stupid debates and try to tear down a HOF type player just to boost our own?

Stats are team oriented just as much as records. However a QB is like a starting pitcher, they get the credit. People who say stats are more important then wins either have a bad team with an ok QB or in the case of Manning vs Brady have to come up with a way to say he is better by discrediting everything Brady has done.

 

[HammerDown]

Hubie, of your 500 posts, how many do you suppose are repeating yourself over spygate?

JasonCarrier has 160 posts. 161 of them accuse me of {gasp} "trolling."

 

[HammerDown]

Stats are team oriented just as much as records. However a QB is like a starting pitcher, they get the credit. People who say stats are more important then wins either have a bad team with an ok QB or in the case of Manning vs Brady have to come up with a way to say he is better by discrediting everything Brady has done.

So you're finally admitting that Peyton Manning is the GOAT? Wow, I'm proud of you!

 

[cdumler7]

Stats are team oriented just as much as records. However a QB is like a starting pitcher, they get the credit. People who say stats are more important then wins either have a bad team with an ok QB or in the case of Manning vs Brady have to come up with a way to say he is better by discrediting everything Brady has done.

Just because they get the credit doesn't mean they deserve it. I am a St. Louis Cardinals fan and have watched for the last couple of years as Lance Lynn has been right near the top of the league in wins. Now Lynn is a decent pitcher but nowhere near being the Ace that his record shows. He just happens to have some of the best run support of any starting pitcher over the last few years. So yes a Pitcher and a Quarterback are both credited with wins but it doesn't mean that they are the reason for the wins. They can play a big part in that but not all credit can go to them. They still have to get run support and have a defense behind them that helps when they don't strike a guy out.

Now I'm not saying that wins don't matter in the argument but if you look at every one of the stats you want to lose they all have to do with win percentage. You want nothing to do with the actual individual stats like yards, touchdowns, Quarterback Rating, and such. yes they are still a bit team oriented but they are more individualistic than the win column. To win games teams usually have to win 2 of the 3 main playing groups on the field of offense, defense, and special teams. So a quarterback only has control over one of those and even there is still limited some in how much they control that of the offense. Such as a quarterback can't help if his running back or receivers fumble 2-3 times in a game. Or if a perfectly thrown pass is then off the hands of the receiver and picked off. Or if they drive down the field to then only have the kicker miss an easy one. So again a quarterback when it comes to winning and losing can only control so much of that. Now Manning and Brady have probably been the two biggest quarterbacks in the league in making sure their teams win by their play but it still takes the other players on the team doing something for that to happen. So again pointing out team stats is just as idiotic as that of pointing to only individual stats. They both only show a piece of the picture not the whole thing. To not acknowledge one part of the picture is missing out on the whole thing.

 

[HammerDown]

Biggest troll thread in SportsHoopla history asks if Peyton Manning is a bust.

Immediately fills up with Tom Brady fans.

 

[theseymonsta]

If he wins another Superbowl or not he should be considered one of the best ever to play the position. (Top 5)

My top 5

Montana
Brady
Manning
Unitas
Marino

 

[TxHeat]

Hubie, of your 500 posts, how many do you suppose are repeating yourself over spygate?

I'll go out on a limb and say...496.

 

[HubertJubberman]

Hubie, of your 500 posts, how many do you suppose are repeating yourself over spygate?

About half

 

[HammerDown]

If he wins another Superbowl or not he should be considered one of the best ever to play the position. (Top 5)

My top 5

Montana
Brady
Manning
Unitas
Marino

So then assuming he wins at least one more SB and based on your criteria, how do you have Brady before Manning? And why isn't Eli on the list? Based on the criteria you used to include Marino?

 

[Chrisisjoker]

If he wins another Superbowl or not he should be considered one of the best ever to play the position. (Top 5)

My top 5

Montana
Brady
Manning
Unitas
Marino

Brady number 2? Jesus Christ you guys need to hop off of his dick for once. He's not number 2 all time by any means. I'll take Marino over Brady any day. Just because you win SBs doesn't mean you get put ahead of someone especially if you cheated for it or them. Manning is better then Brady. Marino is better then Brady. Johnny is better then Brady. You see the trend? He's not top 5 QB of all time.

 

[{+}Mother-Marge{+}]

Biggest troll thread in SportsHoopla history asks if Peyton Manning is a bust.

Immediately fills up with Tom Brady fans.

.....and one ~miserable~ titan's fan.....*wink*.

 

[HammerDown]

So then assuming he wins at least one more SB and based on your criteria, how do you have Brady before Manning? And why isn't Eli on the list? Based on the criteria you used to include Marino?

 

[Mondo Jay]

If he wins another Superbowl or not he should be considered one of the best ever to play the position. (Top 5)

My top 5

Montana
Brady
Manning
Unitas
Marino

Marino? Never won the big one and played his worst football in the playoffs.

 

[JasonCarrier]

So you're finally admitting that Peyton Manning is the GOAT? Wow, I'm proud of you!

He's not the GOAT.

Montana is

 

[JasonCarrier]

Manning has 1

Brady has 3

Manning wins it will be 2

3 is still better then 2

If Manning wins, he will be just about, if not a little better than 500 winning % and just a 500 % in the SB