Hard to say.  How would Peyton do with the rules back then?  Could he take the hits?  Fun to talk about but it is very difficult to compare the players from different eras.

Incorrect. Efficiency is measured by the QB passer rating system. And the highest all-time pass rating is held by Aaron Rodgers, and it's not even close between he and Peyton (#2). Favre might have had the most touchdowns, but he was reckless, which is why he is WAY down the chart in efficiency/passer-rating...but still ahead of Jay Cutler ).  

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_rating_career.htm

Some of those are a bit surprising (if you haven't seen them before), because who would expect John Elway to be in 63, and Jay Cutler to be in 25th?

You can say the same about his records in regards to his team.  His entire career he has been surrounded by a great O-line.  I would be curious to see how he handled an average or sub par O-line for an entire season.  

His track record is less than stellar when his O-line isn't firing on on cylinders.  He doesn't have the ability to deviate from the script and make things happen like several other great QB's.

He's a great QB no doubt.  Probably the most fundamentally sound hard working QB to ever play the game but lacks the ability to make things happen when pressured.  

1.) Montana

I agree partially with this statement.  If you really are one of the top 4-5 all time great QBs, you should be able to will your team to at least a ring or 2.  The filp side is it is a team game no matter how you look at it, and I don't care how good you are, you can't win multiple SBs without a complete team around you (unless you're Eli)...


Marino has ZERO rings.  I don't know anyone that would argue that Aikman was a better QB than Marino just because he had a better team around him.  No one is gonna argue that Aikman is better than Elway just because he has one more ring.  I've been a Cowboys fan all my life and Aikman was my favorite QB, but he is not in the same league as Marino as a pure QB.  Look at Elway too.  Once they finally got the right pieces around him, he was able to win 2 in a row.  He struggled for a long time and was almost there with Marino.

He would suck without a good line, because he is too slow and not very evasive.

But he can improvise, and is good at calling audibles. He just needs great protection to do it....unlike some guys (like Rodgers) who are great at slipping out of a defenders grasp and making some miraculous throw on the run.

Eli has had some really good defenses too. Think back to how badass a few of those Super Bowl d-lines were

Better than Joe Montana? I don't think so, and Joe never ever got blown out in a super bowl or choked in big games like Peyton does all the time.

Ask a scout or talent evaluator which is the most useless stat in football. Most will tell you it's the exact stat you're pushing.

I need to check and see some numbers I guess.

What I remember when Peyton was setting records for most consecutive 12 win seasons, was that he consistently had one of the worst defenses around. Not to mention a sub par running game.

Belichick  put some pretty good defenses on the field.  You know, back when Brady was collecting those rings a decade ago.

Double tap

Sigma six methodology comes to mind when I watch him play.  He knows the defense inside and out and mistakes are few and far between but trip him up or rush his method and he shuts down.

How many has Brady won since the Patsies got caught cheating?

Manning is great, but the greatest quarterback of all time was Johnny Unitas.  He actually invented the modern quarterback position--the two minute drill, timing patterns etc.  


Without Johnny U, there would be no Manning and no Brady.

Completing 30% of your passes all the way to the Super Bowl!

Bullshit! It's useless to consider touchdowns, interceptions, yards, and pass completion percentage? How else would you rate a QB's performance? The passer rating is a compilation of those stats. Anyone who says those are useless stats is a fucking moron. It doesn't tell you everything about a QB, and you need to take it with a grain of salt, but it tells you a lot. It's not a coincidence that most of the great QBs are high on that list. The only flaw in it is that it doesn't take into consideration what that QB has to work with. For example, Brett Favre threw a lot of picks, which killed his rating, but he also had a shitty O-line for most of his career, along with some mediocre receivers (although there were a few greats like Sharpe and Driver), so he usually had to get rid of the ball really quickly and make some risky throws. And if you have a shitty running game, so the D is mostly playing the pass, it's pretty tough to have a high passer rating. It wasn't all just his reckless nature; he just didn't have much choice, a lot of the time. If Favre would have had a better line, there is no doubt that he'd be higher on the list, but still wouldn't be at the top, because taking chances was just in his nature. Troy Aikman is down in 47th place on the all-time list, despite having a great O-line for much of his career, which says a lot about how overrated he is/was (and he is also a shitty fucking announcer who should be fired ).

Manning would probably concur. But id say manning has done just as much in reinventing the position.

I will respectfully disagree. I think those two could make any modern system but the read option work. They just never had the need or chance.

That's a humongous paragraph.  But it's not bullshit.  That stat is bullshit.

It's not a stat; it's compilation of stats: completion percentage, yards, touchdowns, and interceptions. Which one of those stats do you think is bullshit, and why do you think it's not an accurate measure of a QB's performance?

Being an innovator certainly deserves respect, but it doesn't make you the "all time" best at it. If Johnny Unitas were in his prime today, and you could choose between him, Joe Montana, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, John Elway, and Dan Marino (all in their prime), would you honestly pick Unitas?


BTW, I have a feeling that in another ten years, people will be talking about Mathew Stafford along with those other guys. He has a ton of potential, and the Lions are really building a solid team.

I understand exactly (well as much as one can) what it is.  I can see some value in it from a simple numbers perspective.  I just know it doesn't necessarily correlate with winning or losing the game, which is what matters.

I heard a group of pundits and scouts on NFL network discussing it and one of the older guys pointed out that most evaluators considered it the most useless stat ever. Then I kinda thought about it and I agree.

It can be very misleading due to the nature of a given game, as well as being rewarding to those who are risk averse. Which doesn't exactly tend to help teams win.  (At least if you mean the QB actually winning the game for the team as opposed to a game manager)

If you like it you like it but to act like it's a critical stat is not looking big picture. In my opinion

That's bullshit, because it's the opinion of one guy, and again, passer rating is not a stat; it is a compilation of the critical stats that judge a QB's performance, regardless of whether the team won or lost. If it was considered useless by "most evaluators", it would not be in common use at all, but it most certainly is. I'll ask you again, if you are going to judge a QB's individual performance, how are you going to do it, if not by completion percentage, yards, touchdowns, and interceptions? And since those are the stats which comprise the passer rating, which one of those stats do you feel is "useless" in evaluating a QB's performance? If your team has a spectacular offense and the QB throws a 140 passer rating, but they lost the game because the defense is the worst in the league, don't you feel that the rating system at least shows it wasn't the QB's fault, and is a fair evaluation of his performance?

Some people don't feel the passer rating is fair, because they feel it's too heavily weighted against someone who throws a lot of picks. I disagree, because the turnover ratio decides so many games, it is extremely important. A team with a +2 turnover margin wins about 90% of the time!

Peyton is the GOAT.

Look at the other QBs in the conversation that folks argue for because they have the rings.  They all played on teams that had great defenses towards the top of the league when they won.  Joe Montana's 49ers took off and starting winning superbowls when they overhauled the Defense completely in 1981.  Tom Brady's Patriot superbowl teams all had great Belichick coached defenses.  People forget that he didn't get to his first superbowl on his own...Drew Bledsoe won the AFC championship game to get them there after Brady was injured in the 1st half.  And Brady won the SB MVP by default...he was a meager 16 of 27 passes for 145 yards and a touchdown.  He didn't win the superbowl...Vinatieri and the Defense won it.  The rams offense smoked the Pats but the Pats D caused THREE turnovers to win.  

Go down the list...all those guys with a fistful of rings had great defenses.  Peyton's defenses have always sucked.  The Colts defense was always a liability...the year the won the Superbowl they were terrible but managed to string together a good playoff run.  Denver's D is not much better, but have had injuries to key players.  Last year the superbowl winning Seahawks were the best D in the league for points allowed...Denver?  22nd.

Defense wins championships.  NFL history is filled with amazing offensive teams who did not win.  In fact, if you look at the 12 best offensive teams in NFL history...only one of them ever won the Superbowl.  Really.  Here

So comparing rings when trying to determine who the best position player was in a team sport is dumb, especially when talking about the offensive side of the ball.  

Peyton has the requisite ring (which itself is silly because Marino should be in the conversation.)  And his stats kill just about everyone else and he is pulling away.  

Add to his ridiculous stats this...of all the QBs who you might legitimately compare with stats anywhere like Manning's.....they all ran the plays their offensive coordinator called for them.  Peyton calls the plays.  Well, that is a bit of mythology, but he calls plays to an extent none of the others in his class do.  As his former OC Tom Moore explained:



So when you are comparing Peyton and his peers, you have to factor in that of all them them, Peyton is the only one effectively acting as the offensive coordinator as well.  And as his offenses are routinely top ranked, that means he is simultaneously one of the 5 best QBs in the game and 5 best coordinators in the game.  That's insane.

IMO, Peyton is in a class by himself.  He only have peers if you ignore one of the major aspects of his game...the ability to run the offense as a playcaller.  ONLY if you ignore that and ONLY if you give artificial weight to rings which are a team accomplishment (and more heavily favored towards great defensive teams) ONLY THEN do other QBs belong in the same conversation.

Stats are Stats, but wins matter.

Peyton is great, but Eli has more rings, and is physically much tougher.

That's a giant ass paragraph lol. Hard to read.

That said,  it wasn't one guys opinion. There was consensus. Not that that matters. After contemplating it, it is now my opinion.

Also, a compilation of stats, IS a stat. Sheesh, it's a number used to compare one player to another, or a group of others. Lol, it's a stat, but not sure how germane that is or why it bothers you.


My well considered opinion is this.  If I were building an all time fantasy team,  there's one guy I'm taking at qb. It's Peyton Manning. Number 2 is Kurt warner.  Then probably Montana.
hey man its sports. Disagreeing is fun.

Peyton had his jaw broken, sat out one play, and was back in.

An interesting point on manning's records is that there are several games where he completely sat out.  Played one series of downs and then was out of the game.  He was also routinely benched in the 4th quarter of games they were running away with.

I think that was stupid on the part of the colts, but thats what they did.

The year he had 49 touchdowns he didn't play the 16th game of the season.

The ball for TD #509 was taken away by a guy reported to be a rep of the Hall of Fame.

Will every touchdown  football from here on out be taken as well?

Yeah it kills me when people call him soft because he accepts a sack when its inevitable to minimize turnovers.

Until he was forced to have surgery he was the league iron man closing in on Farves record for most consecutive starts.

He's one of the toughest guys in the league, not the alternative.

That wasn't a huge paragraph, and I didn't break too many rules of grammar, so what was so hard to read?

Rather than essentially saying "passer rating sucks", why won't you answer my question? Which one of the passer rating stats do you feel is "useless" in evaluating a quarterback's performance? Is it completion percentage, yards, touchdowns, or interceptions?

And yes, disagreeing is fun.

So all of you agreeing that Manning is the best QB based on some stats...do you also think Emmitt Smith is the best RB over Jim Brown, Walter Payton, and Barry Sanders?

Barry was the truth.

Fuck no, he might not even be top ten. It's tough to say, because he had such a phenomenal O-line. Barry is #1 in my book.

I've answered, but I'll say that I think all those stats can be useful. Combining them all and acting as if they are the critical stat judging qb's is useless. It's a rare situation where the sum of the parts is less valuable than the parts.

Look through them, you'll find many instances where an utterly useless qb,  as it pertains to winning a game for his team,  posts a great passer rating.  The stat is not very worthwhile.

On some stats...

He will litterly own every major stat for the position except interception, that is Farves.


There is a chance that he could stop with about 600 TDs when its all said and done, that is almost 2x the number that Elway threw. Think about that.

thats up to Peyton

 

It's a simple question...is Emmitt Smith the best RB of all time? He owns most YDS, Most TD's, and Most 100 yd games.

Given that he has a couple of superbowls to go with it , probably.

From what I've seen, in my lifetime,  barry sanders was hands down the best back I've ever seen. From a talent and effectiveness perspective for sure.

Lol but that doesn't mean that just because he didn't have the best stats that a qb who DOES can't also be the best.

It certainly wouldn't be an absurd suggestion....

Offer 32 NFL coaches the choice between the two and it would be unanimous.  It also wouldn't be Eli.  Smarter + better arm > tougher, if you're an NFL quarterback.

Individuals don't win rings, teams do.

It sucks but it's true.

Hopefully Denvers D is good enough this year.  Would love to see the guy get another ring.

And ware.

Passer rating should be considered as statistics (plural), not as a singular statistic, because it's just a way of adding up their multiple stats to rate their overall performance.

The only ways to have a great passer rating and still lose the game are

A) have a really shitty defense that gives it away
B) play against an even better offense that outscores you

You can't play a shitty game and still have a good passer rating. It is mathematically impossible.

Sure so long as a shitty game means having low percentage of completions and thrown picks.

But you can completely fuck your team and still have a good qbr.

The stats, individually matter, but rolling then all into one and acting as if it is an accurate representation of the effectiveness of a given qb is folly.

One doesn't necessarily have to correlate with the other.

Would much rather know how likely a qb is to direct a last minute come from behind victory. Even if he only hit  50%of his passes in the first half.

Say what? You can't "fuck your team" and still have a good rating. A good rating requires high rate of completions, plenty of yardage and touchdowns, and few or zero picks. If the QB did that but lost, then he did his job, but the D didn't do enough. That has happened to Rodgers too much in recent years. He plays a great game that should have won with even a mediocre defense, but they gave up insane amounts of yards and lost ( it seems to be a bit better this year, but still not great).

It's one tool to assess the performance of a quarterback, not the only one. I'd still put Brett Favre in my top twenty, despite his mediocre pass rating. But it's not a coincidence that most of the guys near the top of the passer rating list are great QBs. Aaron Rodgers at #1, and Peyton at #2.