Someone actually defends Peyton?

[Jules]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

When it comes to Basketball I know how great LeBron is but when you have guys like Jordan, Magic, Kareem that are at worse equal to him, doesn't Rings need to be the deciding factor there? Just asking, something has to be. If it's MVP's than LeBron ranks 3rd behind Kareem and Jordan, he had 1 more than Magic. In Football, Peyton has 5 which is the most.

 

I don't know what the real deciding factor is, I think it's a matter of personal opinion at times. Then you can tirelessly go through the history and the present and compare rosters the best players had around them, coaches, opponents in the playoffs/SB-finals and the list goes on and on and on and on until you have a migraine. Rules of today and the past etc. And yes rings and MVPs can be deciding factors in it too. And then fan bias such as hating this or that player and personal reasons why can be a big factor as well with us all sadly. And then you got personal records for individual players that is taken into account etc. etc. 

 

Well if we are going by MVPs and you say Lebron is third behind Kareem/Jordan then you might be selling me onto something now heeheee.  Peyton just got raised up a huge notch.  

 

I do get tired of the ring argument at times though since not that rings AREN'T important since thats also why they play the game, but now all you hear is "BRADY HAS 5!!!!!!!! MONTANA HAS 4!!!!!!!!!!! MJ HAS 6!!!!!!!!!!! MAGIC/KOBE HAVE 5!!!!!!!!!!!". And then like all other players and fans are what supposed to bow down and worship them?

[Synthetic]

7 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Marino smokes both I agree

 

Put Marino on that 2000 Ravens team in place of Dilfer, and they wouldn't have went an entire month without a scoring a touchdown and still would've won the SB, most definitely with far better stats. 

 

I like the 1991 Redskins a lot and they tend to be an easy example of this argument...I would argue they're probably the most well rounded great SB team in history, and I seriously think ANY quarterback wins the SB with that team. They had a historic offensive line that barely gave up any sacks all year, a receiving core with one of the greatest wide receivers ever (Jerry Rice is the only guy that should be put ahead of Art Monk), and a strong running game...and I think Rypien got sacked less than 15 times that year. I used to have 6 of their games on tape, and the only one he has any real pressure on is vs the Eagles who had Reggie White and Seth Joyner. Every other game, he has all day to throw behind that terrific o-line. 

Any QB is going to win on that team. And that's not even counting how awesome their defense was. That team down right humiliated and broke offenses with crazy defensive play. Probably the most dominant team ever in the SB era. Jim Kelly threw 5 interceptions on that defense in the SB. 

 

QB's should not be judged at the end of the day just by rings. Individual accomplishments are statistics and passing stats. A ring is a team accomplishment. If Dan Marino or other great QB's don't get rings, it just says something about the team around them. 

[Chrisaaron1023]

9 hours ago, Jules said:

I kinda cringe if the Pats do win it all again next year and Brady gets #6

Lol yupp... and you just KNOW it's gonna happen too. lol he won't stop until 6 and gets the all time TD and Yards Record. 

[GoPats]

11 hours ago, ColtsFanMikeC said:

 

We didn't stand a chance no matter who we had (whether it was Kerry Collins, Orvlovsky, or Painter or any one else) we went from a potential 12+ win team to being a joke.  Brady gets hurt and the Pats don't skip a whole lot of a beat, they are still considered a winning team and expect to make the playoffs. I think Painter or Orvlovsky would win at least 6 games on the Pats with Brady going down -- our whole entire team was changed losing Peyton.  The Pats are a winning team with or without Brady (likely not a SB caliber team, but they could still win games with that system regardless of who their QB is).

 

You can't say that without it being speculation though... I mean just look at the numbers. Orlovsky was the only guy who played pretty well but he only started 5 games. Painter started half the season and Indy pulled a 39-year-old Kerry Collins out of retirement... it was as bad a QB situation as any team I can recall. 

 

Painter in 2011:

54% completion rate, 6 TDs, 9 INTs, rating of 66...

 

Cassel in 2008:

63% completion rate, 21 TDs, 11 INTs, rating of 89.4...

 

So again, while I agree that the Patriots are a better-coached team, drawing conclusions from win/loss results in the absence of the usual starters is a flawed argument, because it would assume the backups were equal and they were clearly not. Cassel is still in the league earning paychecks. Where's Painter now? 

 

I don't know if you watched the first four games of the Patriots' season last year, but the drop-off from Brady to Garoppolo, except for the first quarter of the Miami game, was pretty evident. And they got shut out at home with Brissett starting against the Bills. The last time they were shut out with Brady playing was 11 years ago. 

 

As Jules pointed out, the 11-5 finish in 2008 was basically the same team that went 16-0 the year before. In 2009 the roster started undergoing a lot of turnover but I don't think they would have lost a game in 2008 if Brady hadn't gotten hurt. (Also speculation, but... I'm not stating it as fact, as you did.) 

 

 

[ColtsFanMikeC]

6 minutes ago, GoPats said:

 

You can't say that without it being speculation though... I mean just look at the numbers. Orlovsky was the only guy who played pretty well but he only started 5 games. Painter started half the season and Indy pulled a 39-year-old Kerry Collins out of retirement... it was as bad a QB situation as any team I can recall. 

 

Painter in 2011:

54% completion rate, 6 TDs, 9 INTs, rating of 66...

 

Cassel in 2008:

63% completion rate, 21 TDs, 11 INTs, rating of 89.4...

 

So again, while I agree that the Patriots are a better-coached team, drawing conclusions from win/loss results in the absence of the usual starters is a flawed argument, because it would assume the backups were equal and they were clearly not. Cassel is still in the league earning paychecks. Where's Painter now? 

 

I don't know if you watched the first four games of the Patriots' season last year, but the drop-off from Brady to Garoppolo, except for the first quarter of the Miami game, was pretty evident. And they got shut out at home with Brissett starting against the Bills. The last time they were shut out with Brady playing was 11 years ago. 

 

As Jules pointed out, the 11-5 finish in 2008 was basically the same team that went 16-0 the year before. In 2009 the roster started undergoing a lot of turnover but I don't think they would have lost a game in 2008 if Brady hadn't gotten hurt. (Also speculation, but... I'm not stating it as fact, as you did.) 

 

 

 

We were basically the same team that went 14-2 and 10-6 the previous 2 seasons (minus Raheem Brock -- not, by any means, a major loss). 

 

The Pats production may have looked worse with Garrapalo, but they still started the season 3-0 with him as their QB. 

 

Without Brady, the Pats still expect to win, it's been like that since he's been there.  When Peyton was a Colt, everyone knew without him our team would be doomed basically no matter who the back up happened to be.

 

We were lucky, Peyton was very durable/dependable for the vast majority of his career (except the season he missed, when we won 2 games total, with not the most difficult schedule -- Garrapalo won more game for the Pats in 4 games than we won that whole season...).

 

Brady is a solid QB, but he's certainly a product of his system.  He steps up and makes plays when he needs to, etc. etc.... but you could plug basically any back-up in the NFL into that system and they are still a 6-10 win team.  When Peyton was a Colt, there was no back-up in the league that would've won more than 4 or 5 games with the roster we had.

[GoPats]

42 minutes ago, ColtsFanMikeC said:

 

Brady is a solid QB, but he's certainly a product of his system.  He steps up and makes plays when he needs to, etc. etc.... but you could plug basically any back-up in the NFL into that system and they are still a 6-10 win team.  When Peyton was a Colt, there was no back-up in the league that would've won more than 4 or 5 games with the roster we had.

 

OK, lol... clearly there is no point in trying to discuss it, if you're going to stick to that stance. 

 

A good day to you sir! 

 

 

[BlacknGold77]

14 hours ago, ColtsFanMikeC said:

 

We didn't stand a chance no matter who we had (whether it was Kerry Collins, Orvlovsky, or Painter or any one else) we went from a potential 12+ win team to being a joke.  Brady gets hurt and the Pats don't skip a whole lot of a beat, they are still considered a winning team and expect to make the playoffs. I think Painter or Orvlovsky would win at least 6 games on the Pats with Brady going down -- our whole entire team was changed losing Peyton.  The Pats are a winning team with or without Brady (likely not a SB caliber team, but they could still win games with that system regardless of who their QB is).

 

 

I was talking about the 2011 Pats... regardless, when Peyton was on the Colts the team ran around him, specifically.  Any time Brady has had to miss time, whether due to suspension or injury, the Pats still count on winning and being a respectable team... the Colts without Peyton were a jerk, whereas with him we could count on winning 10+ games regardless of who else was on the roster, without Peyton they were the laughing stock of the league.

 

They were 5 games worse than the previous year with Brady.  If Cassel is put in front of an all time roster, that season looks a lot worse.  If 07 was a standard 12 win Pats team, that makes them 7-9 with Cassel in 08

 

And you're being facetious about the Colts team that fielded Painter.  They could've easily gotten a better QB in there but they saw a chance to get one of the top picks and took a chance on winning the Luck sweepstakes.

 

and for the record, the Patriots+Bill are 19-18 without Brady (5-11 in 00, 0-1 in 01, 11-5 in 08, 3-1 in 16)

 

Anyways, the whole 'yeah but what about teh system' argument is selectively applied and is a joke.  What is Montana without Bill Walsh and the West Coast Offense?  You going to tell me he didnt benefit from an all time coach and system?  What does Staubach win without Lombardi?

 

For what it's worth, I have Peyton 3rd all time:

 

Brady

Montana

Peyton

Staubach

Marino

 

[IcyRhythms]

It's all about personal opinion at the end of the day, but I will always side with guys like Shannon and course, others that defend Peyton.

 

We have to consider the full body of work when you talk about the most important position in all of sports.

 

5MVPs

Multiple time champion with two rings

Holds a ridiculous amount of records(most of the ones you would want as a successful QB Peyton is top 3 in)

 

I think these two are very telling:

 

Took four different coaches to a Superbowl

He's the ONLY starting QB in history to win a ring with two different teams

 

And just the eye test in general for me. Before Peyton came along I loved Marino. I'd put Marino top 3 all time with no Superbowls. The guy played with bums and put up huge numbers in a league that didn't favor cry baby QB's and the offense as much. Much to like about Marino's passing ability still hasn't been matched, but that's just me.

 

Watching Peyton play was just a thing of beauty in most games. When people start having these arguments, the goal post starts moving. "YEAH! I agree, Peyton is great, but what about the playoffs." As if the playoffs are the end all be all and the only thing we should consider when discussing the QB position. 

 

Or how about this:

 

Peyton Manning has well over 100 wins(post season included)when his defense was ranked 17th or less.

 

Tom Brady has 19, and the only one close to Peyton is Marino with 72. These kind of stats are very telling.

 

As far as I know, Tom Brady never won a Superbowl when his defense wasn't ranked at least 8th. 

 

Everything should be considered, including coaching staff. We can't just limit greatness or greatest by the number of rings a player holds. That's silly.

 

 

[Surge89]

I'll just put my biased opinion here and let everyone take what they will.

 

Statistics and Hardware I believe easily make Brady and Manning the best that have ever played.  If you disagree with that then I'm not sure any type of logical discussion will ever entertain you. 

 

But what sets these 2 apart at the top is the circumstances of their careers.  Brady was put in utter perfection of a scenario for a gifted QB which he took to the moon and back.  While Manning was in a nightmare of a scenario in which he too carried the distance.  While Brady enjoyed a complete and deep team his first 6 years Manning had lopsided teams with no depth.  When Manning had received his decent defenses his oline was in shambles.  Brady had fortresses for olines until the late 2010 and on seasons.  By the time Brady faced team adversity he was already a groomed hall of famer.  By the time Manning was a groomed hall of famer he was carrying a bunch of no name receivers and a terrible defense to a Superbowl where he lost one of his best defensive players... then injured and on a different team...

 

Completely different circumstances with identical results.  Which imo gives Manning the nod.  My last point to this pointless argument would be this.  Manning is the only elite QB in history to not have a revolutionary coach behind him.

[Chrisaaron1023]

1 hour ago, Surge89 said:

My last point to this pointless argument would be this.  Manning is the only elite QB in history to not have a revolutionary coach behind him.

But But Jim Caldwell almost went underfeated...

 

Just think about it.. if we went full board the last game and a half. It could've been 

Don Shula, Bill Belichick, and Jim Caldwell all in the same sentence  them some coaches right there

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

On 7/31/2017 at 7:04 AM, Jared Cisneros said:

I think most defend Peyton. I don't know anyone who would say he's worse than a top 5 QB of all time. Even if you just mean the media, most won't talk negatively about him unless it's comparisons to Tom Brady, which I can understand. Peyton is easily one of the top 3 greatest QBs of all time, and most won't dispute that. Even the Patriot crowd has respect for Peyton for the most part.

 

I Disagree   You can start your list with Johnny Unitas & Tom Brady add Joe Montana & that is your greatest 3 . As a Colt he is second to Johnny Unitas .I liked 18 very much as a COLT but he is maybe in the top 5 IMHO . 

 

Its not that i don't respect what Peyton Manning accomplished in his career as a COLT , he was the greatest Indianapolis Colt QB we'v seen since the Mayflowers arrived but greatest of all time ? No 

[Jules]

10 hours ago, Chrisaaron1023 said:

Lol yupp... and you just KNOW it's gonna happen too. lol he won't stop until 6 and gets the all time TD and Yards Record. 

 

We can stop it as fans. We can become the NFL Avengers.

[Yoshinator]

3 hours ago, Jules said:

 

We can stop it as fans. We can become the NFL Avengers.

We can do the Tonya Harding bit on Brady before the season starts lol!  

[Jules]

22 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

We can do the Tonya Harding bit on Brady before the season starts lol!  

 

He is 40 now. I think we can just let this thing ride out. I mean it has to end sometime.........right?

 

But, my big fear is that Jimmy G is going to be a stud.  You all know it's coming. Thats Steve Young 2.0.

[Yoshinator]

Just now, Jules said:

 

He is 40 now. I think we can just let this thing ride out. I mean it has to end sometime.........right?

 

But, my big fear is that Jimmy G is going to be a stud.  You all know it's coming. Thats Steve Young 2.0.

Lets all pray that doesn't happen. If enough people pray, it has to happen. Right? lol.

[ColtsFanMikeC]

On 8/2/2017 at 10:34 AM, GoPats said:

 

OK, lol... clearly there is no point in trying to discuss it, if you're going to stick to that stance. 

 

A good day to you sir! 

 

 

I'd like to hear of a QB who was a back-up at the time who would have excelled on that team.  The Colts were predicted by many to win the Superbowl (which was held in Indy) that season before news of Peyton being hurt.  Just about every analyst in football had them winning the AFC South that year (which was a very weak division).  They wound up with 2 wins and were an absolute laughing stock.  Our defense was ranked 28 overall (in part, IMO, due to the fact that our offense was lighting up other teams allowing our D to be one-dimensional in rushing the passer -- this is a major reason why we didn't win more SB's with Peyton, if our offense was not putting up major points and our D was forced to play against the run they were essentially awful). 

 

Brady has played with a team ranked with the 17th defense two times in his career and went 9-7 and 10-6, missing the playoffs once and losing in the divisional round the second time (2002 and 2005).  Every other year while Brady was playing and Peyton was still starting QB for Colts his D was ranked in the top 10.  Peyton on the other hand had defenses ranked in the bottom half of the league in 7 of his 13 seasons as staring QB for the Colts and went to the playoffs 5 of those times. 

 

Brady is an all-time great QB and he's got the rings, etc.  However, for most of his career he did not have to almost single-handedly win games for the Pats, he had a rock solid defense and running game to support him so long as he didn't turn the ball over or make major bone-headed plays.  For over half his time in Indy, Peyton's defense was terrible, yet he only had 2 losing seasons (his rookie year and 2001 when the D was 31st in the league).  Peyton had to basically will Indy to victory by performing at a dominant level during most of his tenure in Indy, he almost never had the luxury of being able to have a 'don't screw up and the D can win the game for you (sometimes even just keep you in the game)'.

 

As IcyRythms pointed out, Peyton won 105 games in his career with teams with defenses ranked in the lower half of the league.  No other QB ever came within 30 wins of that record.

 

 

On 8/2/2017 at 0:19 PM, BlacknGold77 said:

 

They were 5 games worse than the previous year with Brady.  If Cassel is put in front of an all time roster, that season looks a lot worse.  If 07 was a standard 12 win Pats team, that makes them 7-9 with Cassel in 08

 

And you're being facetious about the Colts team that fielded Painter.  They could've easily gotten a better QB in there but they saw a chance to get one of the top picks and took a chance on winning the Luck sweepstakes.

 

and for the record, the Patriots+Bill are 19-18 without Brady (5-11 in 00, 0-1 in 01, 11-5 in 08, 3-1 in 16)

 

Anyways, the whole 'yeah but what about teh system' argument is selectively applied and is a joke.  What is Montana without Bill Walsh and the West Coast Offense?  You going to tell me he didnt benefit from an all time coach and system?  What does Staubach win without Lombardi?

 

For what it's worth, I have Peyton 3rd all time:

 

Brady

Montana

Peyton

Staubach

Marino

 

 

No reason to count 2000 or the first 2 games of 2001 when Brady wasn't established as a starter and the Pats had a pretty solid QB in Drew Bledsoe (also, 2000 was Belichek's first year in NE he was in the process of buidling their monster).  If you take those years out and just count wins/losses without Brady when he was established as their starter they were 14-6. 

 

The Colts signed Kerry Collins (who got hurt) and made other attempts to get a better QB than Painter in 2011, there just wasn't a lot available.  I do not think they intentionally forfeited the season right when Manning went down, they were just that bad of a team without him. And if they were just in that season for the Luck sweepstakes, there is no reason why they would have won in weeks 15 and 16, which almost jeopardized the #1 pick.

 

Both Brady and Montana played with very good defenses and overall teams.  Yes, they're both great QBs and they've got the rings to go along with it.  However, they were never as responsible for their team's success (or failure) as Manning was for most of the time he was in Indy. 

 

And I don't think you can say the 'product of the system' argument is a joke.  Cassell has had one good year in the NFL since winning 11 games in NE after Brady got hurt.  He signed for a lot of money because he looked like a true #1 QB in NE, but he went on to prove he wasn't. 

 

Making the argument that Montana had Walsh and Staubach had Lombardi (and Brady has Belichek) helps Peyton's case.  He had an average coach in Jim Mora to start his career, he had a very good coach in Dungy for 9 years but Dungy was a defensive guru, a (IMO) below-average coach in Caldwell and then a pretty good coach in John Fox.  Peyton won SBs with 2 of those coaches.  You can say Tom Moore was a very good OC, but then you have to credit Peyton for mastering his offense (in two totally different systems between Indy and Denver) so well that he could call his own plays (Montana and Brady never really did that). 

 

Your logic that Cassell should be credited with a 7-9 season makes 0 sense whatsoever, he won 11 games.  The only major departure was all-pro DB Asante Samuel.  In 2009, the Patriots (with Brady starting 16 games) won 10 games, with the only key departures being Cassell and Rodney Harrison.  By your logic, Brady should be credited for a 6-10 season in 2009?  Get lost with that one.

 

Curtis Painter, or any back-up QB in the NFL, likely would have won more than 2 games with the 2008 NE Patriots team, which had the 8th ranked defense in the NFL and all-pro WR Wes Welker and future HOFer Randy Moss along with a very solid OL including Matt Light and Logan Mankins.  There are no back-up QBs I can think of that would have won 11 games with the 2011 Colts, though many experts were predicting the Colts to be SB winners before knowing Peyton was hurt.

 

It's impossible to say what Peyton would have done if he were on all those Pats teams or what Brady would have done if he were on the Colts teams.  If I had to guess, I think it's very likely that their number of rings would be reversed, and I'm not sure Brady would even have won any SBs.

 

Regardless, Brady was in a better system with a better coaching staff and a much better defense than Peyton for the majority of their careers.  Peyton, IMO, had more responsibility and pressure on him to do everything perfect to win, to check-in and out of plays, to put up massive amounts of points, etc. than Brady did for most of their careers.

[jimmy g]

23 hours ago, Jules said:

 

 

 

But, my big fear is that Jimmy G is going to be a stud.  

Well.......  I WAS, but I'm 63 yrs old now...

[Chrisaaron1023]

On ‎8‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 10:57 PM, Jules said:

But, my big fear is that Jimmy G is going to be a stud.  You all know it's coming

lol I might be the ultimate hater right now for what i'm about to say.. you may disregard

 

But I hope this may be the case. I hope the whole team stays in place and jimmy just slides in and makes it seamless (for a few years at least).. oooh the controversy *rubs hands together* 

[Jules]

20 hours ago, jimmy g said:

Well.......  I WAS, but I'm 63 yrs old now...

 

 Hey now, 63 is the new 33. 

 

 

6 hours ago, Chrisaaron1023 said:

lol I might be the ultimate hater right now for what i'm about to say.. you may disregard

 

But I hope this may be the case. I hope the whole team stays in place and jimmy just slides in and makes it seamless (for a few years at least).. oooh the controversy *rubs hands together* 

 

I think he is going to be good, I say this too since NE didn't move him in a trade. The Pats always move someone for value in a trade if they can. I thought Jimmy G also looked good last year in his time filling in for Brady.

 

The thing is with Brady, the Pats are the easiest picks around to pick to win the AFC but he just turned 40. Can the Pats defy logic yet again and have Brady be the first 40 year old QB to ever start in the Super Bowl?

 

Favre came OH SO CLOSE in 2009 but we know what happened. Favre was a monster though at 40 years old........

 

I also thought missing those 4 games last year HELPED Brady stay fresh. Actually for all the crap we got over the deflate thing, we helped Brady and he should thank us.