Imagine a quarterback with Favre's arm, Peyton's brain, Vick's legs and Brady's

[mikey287]

45 minutes ago, footballhero1 said:

It honestly is unknowable. Belichick would put Manning through entirely different circumstances.

 

-Manning was the defacto OC on most of his teams, Belichick would never cede that much authority to Peyton, and Belichick has Kraft's backing. 

 

-Belichick would never stack an offense with Harrison, Wayne, and Clark and pay them all for years the way the colts did, he'd play most of his career with guys like Edelman, Welker, Branch, and Troy Brown.

 

-Belichick really doesn't like Brady zoning in on one receiver too much and has chewed him out for it. Peyton did that a lot with Harrison and Wayne.

 

So yeah maybe he could win as many, he's still really good, it's just you wouldn't talk about him the same way, he'd be viewed more like Brady. 

 

Yeah, it's not worth looking at the 1 to 1 shift over. If the question is: who is/was more talented. I think that's pretty clearly Peyton Manning. If you're scouting QB play, there's few that could top Manning in the history of the game and Brady is not all that close to being on that shortlist, with all due respect to him. So if the deal is: "hey, we swapped out an (just random numbers, a la a video game) 87 QB for a 95 QB, we'll be better!" then sure. But there's a ton of angles to consider there...

 

Would Manning have been held back statistically by the Patriots decidedly non-vertical offenses over the years? And if so, to what degree? 

 

How does Manning do with a better o-line into the twilight of his career? A better run game? 

 

What happens if Manning gets a better slot receiver than he ever had (Welker) and the best receiver he's ever had (Moss)...? 

 

I'm assuming the teams get built the same way or similar...more emphasis on defense. And I think Manning falls in line because he's all team. 

 

The tougher thing to predict is Brady. Frankly, and this is wildly unpopular in retrospect, if he lost that fumble that he did against the Raiders and that game ends, I don't think we hear much about him after that...I think they turn back to Bledsoe (they did for 2001 AFC Championship game as I recall, Bledsoe won it...my memory maybe fuzzy) the next season or at least it wouldn't be as cut and dry as it was...there was no chance Brady was gonna survive in a vertical offense like Indianapolis, he simply could not do that - particularly at the time. Having recalled Brady from his days in Ann Arbor, this wasn't exactly a noteworthy QB prospect in terms of talent. He developed unbelievably after a few seasons in New England, no question. But most QBs don't get a chance to stumble about for a few years. Christ, Brad Kaaya was already cut, he was drafted 25 minutes ago...also a 6th rounder, I think...

 

I'm not sure that Manning wins any more Super Bowls though than Brady if they switch spots...I mean, what more could he do than five? Five is a steep number, even in a hypothetical. Then again, this completely alters Manning's development arc. He developed to be a big play, vertical passer who was trained to work out of the shotgun and all this stuff...he wasn't really groomed to be a three-step and fire, West Coast guy...so, how he would have embraced that would have been interesting. Then again, he came out in 2013 or whatever with bolts sticking out of his neck and tore the league a new poop chute at the age of 3,000...so I'm guessing he would have worked on tightening his spiral a little bit more in New England instead of dropping dimes to Marvin Harrison from 60 yards out...

[GoPats]

54 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:

 

Mad ^

 

Ha, not even a little... I thought we were joking? Having fun? A little good natured ribbing? No? Are YOU mad now? Haha...

 

Anyway, I don't get mad at football message boards. As a Pats fan that would make me pretty foolish don't you think? I just come here because there are more Patriots related threads here than most actual Patriots boards. (Hyperbole but you get the idea.)

 

And in all honesty I liked Favre. One tough dude. It's just that "gunslinger" usually means "guy who often throws atrocious picks at the worst possible moments." 

 

 

 

 

 

[Colts_Fan12]

1 hour ago, BloodyChamp said:

 

Mad ^

He doesn't know what it's like to cheer for an actual talented QB that doesn't cheat

[horseshoecrabs]

1 hour ago, footballhero1 said:

It honestly is unknowable. Belichick would put Manning through entirely different circumstances.

 

-Manning was the defacto OC on most of his teams, Belichick would never cede that much authority to Peyton, and Belichick has Kraft's backing. 

 

-Belichick would never stack an offense with Harrison, Wayne, and Clark and pay them all for years the way the colts did, he'd play most of his career with guys like Edelman, Welker, Branch, and Troy Brown.

 

-Belichick really doesn't like Brady zoning in on one receiver too much and has chewed him out for it. Peyton did that a lot with Harrison and Wayne.

 

So yeah maybe he could win as many, he's still really good, it's just you wouldn't talk about him the same way, he'd be viewed more like Brady. 

So reverse the situation  how many could  Brady from the beginning have won on the colts remember Peyton

was drafted as a franchise QB  Brady was not so Manning's expectations were a lot higher

[BloodyChamp]

1 hour ago, footballhero1 said:

^ mad enough to make thread 

 

It was just a 1 liner. A meme without a picture really. And it still made ya'll mad.

[jvan1973]

On 9/4/2017 at 2:44 AM, BloodyChamp said:

...coach. 

They might get to a winning record of 8-8.  Possibly more

[mikey287]

8-8 is as high as it goes...that's perfect. It's 100%...right?

[BloodyChamp]

And if a certain * were the coach you would say he never had a losing record. Robot is low key working on eclipsing am the better not say it department. 

[Synthetic]

6 hours ago, BloodyChamp said:

There is no question about Belichik without Brady. Even if he didn't sack Elway in the endzone to all but put away that SB like Brady intercepted Wilson in the endzone to put away that SB, he's a good coach without Brady. If you had to think of a question it would be whether or not he was in the GOAT discussion or not. The guy won 2 rings as a DC, and had the Browns on the right track before Modell dropped that bomb. Ya'll act like he was 0-2 working on an 0-16 season they year Brady came in. I'm a homer to, the Ole Gunslinger, but I think Holmgren would have won a game or 2 in 1992 without Favre. O and he turned down a coaching gig if you remember. How often does that happen (to a guy looking for a job in the NFL anyway)? It doesn't happen unless the guy knows he's a good coach.

 

 

Don't forget Bill B's coaching in the 1990 SB vs the Buffalo Bills. Most people only remember Scott Norwood's missed field goal at the end (Even though Norwood was only 1 for 5 from 40 yards out, meaning this was a long shot to begin with), but they leave out the fact that the Giants had to crawl out of a 9 point hole, and they had the #1 ranked offense in the league shut down that entire game to just 19 points. Buffalo had not converted a third down all day long until that final drive where Thurman Thomas took off. 

 

It's always amazing to go back to that SB cause the entire lead up was how the Giants were old and their best players were near retirement and Buffalo's offense was supposed to be too much for them, and then they shocked the world with shutting them down. 

 

 

As for Holmgren, I'm still bitter he left Favre behind to go get a gig in Seattle. If Holmgren stays, I think Favre would've at least made it back to the SB and not been handcuffed down to Mike Sherman and McCarthy's bad coaching. 

 

[BloodyChamp]

13 minutes ago, Synthetic said:

It's always amazing to go back to that SB cause the entire lead up was how the Giants were old and their best players were near retirement and Buffalo's offense was supposed to be too much for them, and then they shocked the world with shutting them down. 

 

A guy or guys being to old then proving everybody wrong hmmmmm that sounds familiar. I'll give Brady credit in that regard but look whose always in the room at the same time. I don't know how anybody can deny there aren't dots to connect there, even if they don't know the history of Bill doing the same type of things in the past. 

 

Mike Sherman sucked. Seriously.

[footballhero1]

2 hours ago, horseshoecrabs said:

So reverse the situation  how many could  Brady from the beginning have won on the colts remember Peyton

was drafted as a franchise QB  Brady was not so Manning's expectations were a lot higher

I think he'd win at least one out of the 03-09 Colts. Peyton realistically had 7 good shots at a title in Indianapolis. He had his issues, the team had it's issues, sometimes they just got unlucky. Personally I do think Brady probably at least leads a comeback against the Saints and forces Brees to win the game or take the L in that crucial final drive. I also think Brady wouldn't have went out on downs like Peyton did in 05 and he probably has the same shot Peyton did in 06 once the defense came alive in the playoffs (it wouldn't have taken that much for Brady to match Peyton's output in the playoffs). Regardless of what happened against the Chargers in 07, he would not have got by New England in 07. Also Brady has always had the Steelers numbers. 

 

So 05, 06, 08, 09 would be the 4 where I think Brady has his best shot if he's on the Colts. I can see him winning potentially 2 out of that, as low as 1 and as high as 3. I also think if you go to the Broncos Brady would have made the 2013 Super Bowl more competetive and would have cake walked the 2015 title in the same situation. He would have loved a receiver like Sanders. 

 

He wouldn't win all of those, but I see the final tally's looking a bit different. I just trust Brady a lot more in big games at crunch time. Even when he loses, he generally gets pretty close. A good defense could usually psyche Peyton out in big games at bad times, mostly because his offense was so timing based that he had to be perfect and had alot of pressure on him to be that way.

[mikey287]

One advantage one might glean is that we wouldn't have had all of those momentum-breaking bye weeks to start the playoffs with Brady. Not in our style of offense. We're not a 12-win team every year with him. So, instead of taking off week 17 and the first round and not playing a game for 3 weeks, at least we'd be continuous right on through...

 

That said, Brady is better picking up from a standing start in the right style of offense...which I'm assuming would have been tailored to him in this hypothetical...Brady just isn't good enough beyond 15 yards from the LOS to have done any better on those mid-2000s teams...in the individual game scenarios laid out, on particular drives, sure, maybe Brady does something different with Tracy Porter...but there's no chance it plays out anywhere close to the same way over the course of the season leading up to that point...you can shave off at least a couple of wins in those years, unless Marvin Harrison was dealt for a better defense...

[ReMeDy]

7 hours ago, footballhero1 said:

-Belichick really doesn't like Brady zoning in on one receiver too much and has chewed him out for it. Peyton did that a lot with Harrison and Wayne.

 

Yea, that's a good point. Manning to Harrison was a huge redzone hook-up using the goal-line fade pass play. Harrison's routes were so crisp and his hands were so awesome that even when a defender knew it was coming it was hard to stop.

[Gramz]

6 hours ago, ReMeDy said:

 

Yea, that's a good point. Manning to Harrison was a huge redzone hook-up using the goal-line fade pass play. Harrison's routes were so crisp and his hands were so awesome that even when a defender knew it was coming it was hard to stop.

I miss those days.

 

[horseshoecrabs]

13 hours ago, footballhero1 said:

I think he'd win at least one out of the 03-09 Colts. Peyton realistically had 7 good shots at a title in Indianapolis. He had his issues, the team had it's issues, sometimes they just got unlucky. Personally I do think Brady probably at least leads a comeback against the Saints and forces Brees to win the game or take the L in that crucial final drive. I also think Brady wouldn't have went out on downs like Peyton did in 05 and he probably has the same shot Peyton did in 06 once the defense came alive in the playoffs (it wouldn't have taken that much for Brady to match Peyton's output in the playoffs). Regardless of what happened against the Chargers in 07, he would not have got by New England in 07. Also Brady has always had the Steelers numbers. 

 

So 05, 06, 08, 09 would be the 4 where I think Brady has his best shot if he's on the Colts. I can see him winning potentially 2 out of that, as low as 1 and as high as 3. I also think if you go to the Broncos Brady would have made the 2013 Super Bowl more competetive and would have cake walked the 2015 title in the same situation. He would have loved a receiver like Sanders. 

 

He wouldn't win all of those, but I see the final tally's looking a bit different. I just trust Brady a lot more in big games at crunch time. Even when he loses, he generally gets pretty close. A good defense could usually psyche Peyton out in big games at bad times, mostly because his offense was so timing based that he had to be perfect and had alot of pressure on him to be that way.

That's on the assumption  he would of developed into the Qb he is today

 

[horseshoecrabs]

Manning would have been Manning on pretty much any team that he ended up on when he was drafted

Can't say the same about  Brady, he became the QB he was by the system he was in. You can pretty

much say his confidence & play development made him what he is today by New England

 

[BloodyChamp]

1 hour ago, horseshoecrabs said:

Manning would have been Manning on pretty much any team 

 

 

This. I mean seriously. Denying this is to the rest of the whole NFL fanbase what underrating Brady is to homers.

[footballhero1]

1 hour ago, horseshoecrabs said:

Manning would have been Manning on pretty much any team that he ended up on when he was drafted

Can't say the same about  Brady, he became the QB he was by the system he was in. You can pretty

much say his confidence & play development made him what he is today by New England

 

There's several problems with this. Manning really became Manning circa 2003 when he had two top 5 WR's on his team. He had that set up the majority of his career in Indy. Manning also for the majority of his career (really from day one on his very last year on the Broncos when Kubiak changed everything) in the exact same system. When he went to Denver he played in a very similar system and had strong receiving corp yet again (arguably the strongest in the NFL). He arguably has always had the strongest receiving corp in the NFL from 2003-2008 and 2012-2015. 

 

Brady didn't really. His system and offensive schemes changed more frequently than Manning's did. He never routinely had the continuity at WR that Manning did and he never had the consistent quality of WR play that Manning did. 

 

There's alot of places Manning could have went where he would have been in a scheme he had never been in (there's less for Brady) and just as many if not more places where Manning's receiving corp would have been a downgrade (less than Brady would experience on average). 

 

There's really nothing to back that up besides Manning was viewed as somebody who should be good when he came into the league and Brady was more of a revelation. 

[mikey287]

15 minutes ago, footballhero1 said:

Manning really became Manning circa 2003

 

I have never heard anyone try to push that point before. It was pretty obvious early on that Manning was going to be something special. Even in the interception-laden rookie season, you could tell this was some kind of talent we had here. Six years into his career is not when "Manning became Manning"...that's a wild deflection and a very unsuccessful one at that...

[Gramz]

The wheels on the bus go round and round....

[DaColts85]

9 minutes ago, mikey287 said:

31 minutes ago, footballhero1 said:

Manning really became Manning circa 2003

 

I have never heard anyone try to push that point before. It was pretty obvious early on that Manning was going to be something special. Even in the interception-laden rookie season, you could tell this was some kind of talent we had here. Six years into his career is not when "Manning became Manning"...that's a wild deflection and a very unsuccessful one at that...

Not only is this a terrible statement but how can you overlook his second and third, or any year before the circa 2003 garbage you are saying.  mikey already mentioned you could see he was a special talent but stats don't lie and in his second year he had over 4,000 yards passing.  The next year just shy of 4,500 yards passing.  He did not have two top 5 WR's so how is this possible??  He literally never had less than 4,100 passing yards since his second year.

 

If your argument is about who had the most talent at WR then make that point.  But saying Manning was not Manning before 2003 when he still had nearly 17,000 yards from 1999-2002 defeats your point altogether!

[2006Coltsbestever]

IMO I think if we just put Tom and Peyton in the Top 2 we can call it a day. That seems like the only real debate on every discussion Board I ever read over the last 10 years. Even it isn't a debate because Tom has 5 Rings now it still is in a lot of ways because, Peyton won 2 SB's with 2 different teams and has 5 MVP's to Tom's 2. So Peyton will always be in this discussion along with Montana who I would be disrespectful to leave him out with his 4-0 in SB's and 0 INT's in all 4 games.

[footballhero1]

18 minutes ago, DaColts85 said:

Not only is this a terrible statement but how can you overlook his second and third, or any year before the circa 2003 garbage you are saying.  mikey already mentioned you could see he was a special talent but stats don't lie and in his second year he had over 4,000 yards passing.  The next year just shy of 4,500 yards passing.  He did not have two top 5 WR's so how is this possible??  He literally never had less than 4,100 passing yards since his second year.

 

If your argument is about who had the most talent at WR then make that point.  But saying Manning was not Manning before 2003 when he still had nearly 17,000 yards from 1999-2002 defeats your point altogether!

 

From 98-2002 he had one year where his completion percentage was over 65%. Aside from 2002 62.7 was the highest it's ever been. After 2003 he never had a year below 65 and 65 was a low he only had twice (excluding his final year).

 

Peyton Manning never had a passer rating above 95 from 1999-2002. He had several years in the 80's as well during that time frame. From 2003 on his passer ratings were 99, 121, 104, 101, 98, 95, 99.9, 91.9 (this was his lowest besides 2015, it was the 2010 season), 105, 115, 101, 67 (his final year on the decline)

 

So in the two big efficiency stats he was significantly better post 2003 than pre 2003.

 

His interception numbers were significantly lower and more consistent post 2003 than pre 2003. He had 100 INT from 98-02, averaging 20 a season. Post 2003 in 12 years he threw 151 interceptions, averaging 12.5 interceptions a season. It took 5 years to reach his first 100 interceptions, post 2003 it took 9 years to reach his next 100. 

 

Again significant improvement pre and post 2003. 

 

TD wise he only broke 30 TD's once in 5 years. Post 2003 he only went below 30 on 4 occassions, one obviously being his last season. He also broke 40 once and 50 once in that time period.

 

Yards are the only stat where he is consistent throughout. And no offense, but guys like Matt Stanford put up large yardage numbers pretty consistently. It's not a great indicator.

 

I'm not saying he was trash pre 2003, but he was significantly better in a most statistics post 2003 to the point where we wouldn't look at him as being as great if he kept the averages he had in his first 5 years over the course of his next 12. It's a big difference. 

 

 

 

[Synthetic]

15 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

IMO I think if we just put Tom and Peyton in the Top 2 we can call it a day. That seems like the only real debate on every discussion Board I ever read over the last 10 years. Even it isn't a debate because Tom has 5 Rings now it still is in a lot of ways because, Peyton won 2 SB's with 2 different teams and has 5 MVP's to Tom's 2. So Peyton will always be in this discussion along with Montana who I would be disrespectful to leave him out with his 4-0 in SB's and 0 INT's in all 4 games.

 

You left out Terry Bradshaw, the other guy who went 4-0 in the SB and played in a much different era. Easily the most disrespected great QB to ever play the game. 

 

I don't even get how Peyton is in this conversation. Brady already had won rings while Manning was still trying to win a playoff game. Probably the best regular season QB ever, but not the guy I would want in the playoffs...There's at least 5 other QB's I would trust before I trust Manning with home field advantage in the playoffs...

 

 

[Gramz]

[Gramz]

   Seriously,  it is very amusing to me the amount of time and effort, and stats gathering information some people have put into this discussion.    Good Grief.

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, Synthetic said:

 

You left out Terry Bradshaw, the other guy who went 4-0 in the SB and played in a much different era. Easily the most disrespected great QB to ever play the game. 

 

I don't even get how Peyton is in this conversation. Brady already had won rings while Manning was still trying to win a playoff game. Probably the best regular season QB ever, but not the guy I would want in the playoffs...There's at least 5 other QB's I would trust before I trust Manning with home field advantage in the playoffs...

 

 

You are only going by Championships when you say that though. Look at Terry's stats, he was the one guy where his D really carried him a lot. I would take Marino over Bradshaw and he won 0 SB's

[Synthetic]

3 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

You are only going by Championships when you say that though. Look at Terry's stats, he was the one guy where his D really carried him a lot. I would take Marino over Bradshaw and he won 0 SB's

 

I did look at Terry Bradshaw's stats, they're actually pretty good for the era he played in. They were good enough to win an MVP, lead the league in touchdowns at one time, and rack up SB MVP's. 

 

You are forgetting that Bradshaw played in what is called the "dead ball era". Every QB before 1977 had a 20-25% INT rate. Look at all the stats, and the only two QB's who consistently didn't rack up INT numbers, were Roger Staubach and Bert Jones, and even they had rough years where their TD/INT ratios aren't that impressive. 

 

Look up the Mel Blount rule. Prior to 1977, corners and safeties could bump and knock down receivers after 5 yards from the line of scrimmage. All QB's back then had inflated INT numbers. Even Manning and Brady would've been tossing them everywhere. 

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, Synthetic said:

 

I did look at Terry Bradshaw's stats, they're actually pretty good for the era he played in. They were good enough to win an MVP, lead the league in touchdowns at one time, and rack up SB MVP's. 

 

You are forgetting that Bradshaw played in what is called the "dead ball era". Every QB before 1977 had a 20-25% INT rate. Look at all the stats, and the only two QB's who consistently didn't rack up INT numbers, were Roger Staubach and Bert Jones, and even they had rough years where their TD/INT ratios aren't that impressive. 

 

Look up the Mel Blount rule. Prior to 1977, corners and safeties could bump and knock down receivers after 5 yards from the line of scrimmage. All QB's back then had inflated INT numbers. Even Manning and Brady would've been tossing them everywhere. 

 

 

212 TD's and 210 INT's = Average

[Synthetic]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

212 TD's and 210 INT's = Average

 

Right, let's look at other elite QB's numbers from that same era....

 

Bob Griese - 192 TD/172 INT

 

Kenny Stabler - 194 TD/222 INT

 

Roger Staubach - 153 TD/109 INT

 

They're average too, right?? Since Terry Bradshaw is average, I guess those guys are too....The only career SB winning QB of the whole 70's decade who had a brilliant TD/INT ratio is Staubach, and even he still threw 100+ INTs. If you are saying he was better than Bradshaw, I'd agree. But calling Bradshaw average just shows you aren't taking into consideration the era they played in. These guys didn't get pass friendly rules to help them out like QB's have had in every decade since then. 

 

You also are forgetting that there are people who think Stallworth and Swann have no business being in the Hall of Fame and them getting in was a big deal. They don't get in if Bradshaw isn't there to throw passes to them. I take it you haven't seen many Steelers games from the 70's...Yes, their defense was amazing, but the defense wasn't the entire team. They had an elite offense (at the time, in the era - go look up their stats, and you'll see them ranked in the top 5 of their SB years) that could score when needed.

 

Watch the SB rematch vs Dallas, where their defense completely collapsed and gave up 31 points...Yeah, that defense totally carried Bradshaw. They lose to Dallas if he isn't there to throw 4 TD's to them. Same thing again with the Rams in 1979. That Rams defense was one of the best to ever lose the SB, and the Steelers don't win if Bradshaw isn't there to throw bombs to Swann in the 4th quarter to put the game away. 

 

 

I see you conveniently didn't quote anything I told you about the Mel Blount rule. It was entirely different era back then. You can't just throw a QB of the 70's out there and compare them to every other era since rule changes. 

 

Here's the rule changes that ended the 'dead ball' era. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_NFL_season

 

 

Quote

The league passed major rule changes to encourage offensive scoring.^[2] In 1977 – the last year of the so-called "Dead Ball Era" – teams scored an average of 17.2 points per game, the lowest total since 1942.^[3]

• To open up the passing game, defenders are permitted to make contact with receivers only to a point of five yards beyond the line of scrimmage. This applies only to the time before the ball is thrown, at which point any contact is pass interference. Previously, contact was allowed anywhere on the field. This is usually referred to as the "Mel Blount Rule"
   
• The offensive team may only make one forward pass during a play from scrimmage, but only if the ball does not cross the line and return behind the line prior to the pass.
   
• Double touching of a forward pass is legal, but batting a pass towards the opponent's end zone is illegal. Previously, a second offensive player could not legally catch a deflected pass unless a defensive player had touched it. This is usually referred to as the "Mel Renfro Rule". During a play in Super Bowl V, Baltimore Colts receiver Eddie Hinton tipped a pass intended for him. Renfro, the Cowboys defensive back, made a stab at the ball and it was ruled that he tipped it ever so slightly (which he denied) into the arms of Colts tight end John Mackey, who ran for a touchdown. Later, this rule was also the one in question during the Immaculate Reception in 1972. But despite these two incidents, the rule change did not occur until this season.
   
• The pass blocking rules were extended to permit extended arms and open hands.
   
• The penalty for intentional grounding is reduced from a loss of down and 15 yards to a loss of down and 10 yards from the previous spot (or at the spot of the foul if the spot is 10 yards or more behind the line of scrimmage). If the passer commits the foul in his own end zone, the defense scores a safety.

 

 

Next time you watch a Raiders or Steelers game from before 1978, pay attention to how often their DB's shove receivers to the ground. Blount and Jack Tatum used to completely put receivers on the ground so no pass could go their way. 

 

This is also not taking into consideration how back then, you got an automatic intentional grounding penalty for throwing the ball out of bounds...This rule still existed in the 80's btw. 

 

The blocking rule that I bolded in the quote is major too. If you ever watch older SB's before 1978, you'll clearly see that there is a big difference in blocking before this rule change. Sometimes, the offensive line and defensive line just run into each other. 

 

These rule changes were major and opened up offenses. 1978 was the first year we had "inflated" stats for QB's. Archie Manning magically had the best year of his career after this rule change. Every QB benefited from it. Soon after it, the Air Coryell offense took off in San Diego and Dan Fouts put up record breaking numbers, and then in 1984, Marino broke the record books again. 

 

If you're going to call Bradshaw "average", then you better also say it about Griese, Stabler, Staubach and other QB's of that era before the rule change. None of their stats are pretty...If you want to cherry pick his bad stats, you can do that with all of them. There isn't a QB in that era before 1978 who really has amazing jaw dropping stats like QB's since then where the passing rule changes favor them. 

 

 

 

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

46 minutes ago, Synthetic said:

 

Right, let's look at other elite QB's numbers from that same era....

 

Bob Griese - 192 TD/172 INT

 

Kenny Stabler - 194 TD/222 INT

 

Roger Staubach - 153 TD/109 INT

 

They're average too, right?? Since Terry Bradshaw is average, I guess those guys are too....The only career SB winning QB of the whole 70's decade who had a brilliant TD/INT ratio is Staubach, and even he still threw 100+ INTs. If you are saying he was better than Bradshaw, I'd agree. But calling Bradshaw average just shows you aren't taking into consideration the era they played in. These guys didn't get pass friendly rules to help them out like QB's have had in every decade since then. 

 

You also are forgetting that there are people who think Stallworth and Swann have no business being in the Hall of Fame and them getting in was a big deal. They don't get in if Bradshaw isn't there to throw passes to them. I take it you haven't seen many Steelers games from the 70's...Yes, their defense was amazing, but the defense wasn't the entire team. They had an elite offense (at the time, in the era - go look up their stats, and you'll see them ranked in the top 5 of their SB years) that could score when needed.

 

Watch the SB rematch vs Dallas, where their defense completely collapsed and gave up 31 points...Yeah, that defense totally carried Bradshaw. They lose to Dallas if he isn't there to throw 4 TD's to them. Same thing again with the Rams in 1979. That Rams defense was one of the best to ever lose the SB, and the Steelers don't win if Bradshaw isn't there to throw bombs to Swann in the 4th quarter to put the game away. 

 

 

I see you conveniently didn't quote anything I told you about the Mel Blount rule. It was entirely different era back then. You can't just throw a QB of the 70's out there and compare them to every other era since rule changes. 

 

Here's the rule changes that ended the 'dead ball' era. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_NFL_season

 

 

 

 

Next time you watch a Raiders or Steelers game from before 1978, pay attention to how often their DB's shove receivers to the ground. Blount and Jack Tatum used to completely put receivers on the ground so no pass could go their way. 

 

This is also not taking into consideration how back then, you got an automatic intentional grounding penalty for throwing the ball out of bounds...This rule still existed in the 80's btw. 

 

The blocking rule that I bolded in the quote is major too. If you ever watch older SB's before 1978, you'll clearly see that there is a big difference in blocking before this rule change. Sometimes, the offensive line and defensive line just run into each other. 

 

These rule changes were major and opened up offenses. 1978 was the first year we had "inflated" stats for QB's. Archie Manning magically had the best year of his career after this rule change. Every QB benefited from it. Soon after it, the Air Coryell offense took off in San Diego and Dan Fouts put up record breaking numbers, and then in 1984, Marino broke the record books again. 

 

If you're going to call Bradshaw "average", then you better also say it about Griese, Stabler, Staubach and other QB's of that era before the rule change. None of their stats are pretty...If you want to cherry pick his bad stats, you can do that with all of them. There isn't a QB in that era before 1978 who really has amazing jaw dropping stats like QB's since then where the passing rule changes favor them. 

 

 

 

 

 

I said his Stats are Average calm down, he isn't better than Peyton Manning though which has been my whole point the whole point. If you Drafted Bradshaw with a crap team at best you get 8-8, Peyton could take a crap to 12-4 pretty quickly. He went 13-3 in year 2

[horseshoecrabs]

3 hours ago, footballhero1 said:

There's several problems with this. Manning really became Manning circa 2003 when he had two top 5 WR's on his team. He had that set up the majority of his career in Indy. Manning also for the majority of his career (really from day one on his very last year on the Broncos when Kubiak changed everything) in the exact same system. When he went to Denver he played in a very similar system and had strong receiving corp yet again (arguably the strongest in the NFL). He arguably has always had the strongest receiving corp in the NFL from 2003-2008 and 2012-2015. 

 

Brady didn't really. His system and offensive schemes changed more frequently than Manning's did. He never routinely had the continuity at WR that Manning did and he never had the consistent quality of WR play that Manning did. 

 

There's alot of places Manning could have went where he would have been in a scheme he had never been in (there's less for Brady) and just as many if not more places where Manning's receiving corp would have been a downgrade (less than Brady would experience on average). 

 

There's really nothing to back that up besides Manning was viewed as somebody who should be good when he came into the league and Brady was more of a revelation. 

The problem with your theory again is you keeping  leaving out is Manning was an elite top rated QB at Tennessee

Brady was not!  and Although yes he did have marvin  & reggie ectc... but he also developed players later by his 

ability to spread the ball around and make marginal players relevant, on both the Colts and Denver teams. I get it 

your a big Brady fan and I understand that But you have your theory and  I have mine so for the sake of argument

lets just leave it like that, unless you are one of those people who need to have the last word, and if my theory is right about that( which I hope it isn't) I'll be at least one up on you! that is um um , Theoretically  Speaking!

 

[Synthetic]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I said his Stats are Average calm down, he isn't better than Peyton Manning though which has been my whole point the whole point. If you Drafted Bradshaw with a crap team at best you get 8-8, Peyton could take a crap to 12-4 pretty quickly. He went 13-3 in year 2

 

You clearly have no understanding of the dead ball era. Every QB's stats are average from back then. I showed you a great deal of information, and you still ignore it and are comparing Bradshaw to a QB who played in a pass happy era with rules that greatly benefited QB's and wide receivers. I showed you stats of other QB's to prove he wasn't the only one who looked "average".

 

I compared Bradshaw to other QB's he played against during his era...That's much more fair than comparing him to a guy who played in a pass happy era where the rules benefited him. I'm pretty sure if you put ALL the top QB's from the 1970's into modern day with passing rules that benefit QB's, then they all would've had dramatically better stats. Not just Bradshaw, they all would've improved since the game benefits QB's now.

 

Put Peyton Manning in Bradshaw's era and with a bad team around him like you said, and he would look no better than his dad Archie did with the Saints...Completely different era...

 

Quote

Peyton could take a crap to 12-4 pretty quickly. He went 13-3 in year 2

 

Yeah a crap team that had Marvin Harrison and Edgerrin James - one is in the Hall of Fame, the other lead the league in rushing that year beating out Marshall Faulk. Manning had it sooooo tough throwing to a Hall of Famer and a great running back!

 

And he still went one and done that year.  How many times did Peyton go one and done at home with a stacked Colts team that went 12-4, 13-3 or 14-2? 

 

Manning is about the last QB you can use the argument of having a lack of talent around. Those Colts teams were loaded...They were almost like clones of the 90's Buffalo Bills in terms of firepower on offense. He had far more talent around him than most big name QB's during the 2000's. The opposite of Drew Brees, who didn't have a single Pro Bowl receiver in 2009. If you want to see a QB win it all with an average cast of B and C grade receivers, there you go. Manning on the other side of that SB, had a loaded team...

 

[footballhero1]

8 minutes ago, horseshoecrabs said:

The problem with your theory again is you keeping  leaving out is Manning was an elite top rated QB at Tennessee

Brady was not!  and Although yes he did have marvin  & reggie ectc... but he also developed players later by his 

ability to spread the ball around and make marginal players relevant, on both the Colts and Denver teams. I get it 

your a big Brady fan and I understand that But you have your theory and  I have mine so for the sake of argument

lets just leave it like that, unless you are one of those people who need to have the last word, and if my theory is right about that( which I hope it isn't) I'll be at least one up on you! that is um um , Theoretically  Speaking!

 

That doesn't mean anything, sorry. There are plenty of top rated QB's coming out of college who busted in the NFL, and plenty of under the radar guys who became great. Brady was 6th round and Montana was 3rd round. Montana led his team to national title and Brady came from behind multiple times to get his team into and win the Orange ball when that actually mattered. He was constantly winning, he was just underrated from a talent perspective, as Joe Montana the same. They were both guys who won a lot in college and physically scouts couldn't see why and they overlooked them despite Montana retiring with the highest passer rating of all time when he hung them up and Brady currently at number 3 all time. 

 

You know who was a highly rated prospect coming out of college. Ryan Leaf. There was actually expert debate over him and Manning. If ratings in college mattered, Leaf wouldn't have been a complete bust. Jamarcus Russell was highly rated. Bradford is a borderline joke getting as many starts as he has. 

 

Regardless, here's my point, there's a big push to say Peyton was automatic while Brady was an experiment. In both college and highschool Brady was low on the depth chart and then all of sudden worked his way into a starting role and helped his team win meaningful games in clutch fashion. When it comes to systems, Brady played in a more versatile and frequently changing system than Peyton Manning who had much more uniformity and less variation most of his career. When it comes to WR talent Peyton Manning was arguably the most fortunate QB of all time in that regard. Brady had one elite WR for 2 years and a few games. He had an elite TE for 7 years who has gotten injured in all but 2 years. Manning had either Harrison or Wayne for his entire 13 year tenure with the Colts and 6 of those years overlapped. Brady's WR corp now is composed of mostly different pieces from 5 years ago. Hell this year of his WR's Hogan and Mitchell came on the team last year, Cooks this offseason, Dorsett just now, and Amendola and Edelman (who is out of the year) were the only ones who had spent several years here. 

 

Brady's played in enough offensive schemes and systems, with enough different talent of variable scale and mostly below high level in the WR corp, to where it doesn't make sense to say a QB who hasn't was more of a lock to succeed anywhere than him. 

 

That comparison is usually based off on exactly what you said. Even if you didn't know who he was in college we were all told by scouts and analysts that Peyton Manning was going to be good. So when he got good we just took it for granted and never really questioned it. We never heard of Tom Brady, so when he got good we just looked for reasons why everybody missed it from the coach to the system etc. Even if those reasons really don't work a whole lot when you critically look at what the actual circumstances was. 

[horseshoecrabs]

12 minutes ago, footballhero1 said:

That doesn't mean anything, sorry. There are plenty of top rated QB's coming out of college who busted in the NFL, and plenty of under the radar guys who became great. Brady was 6th round and Montana was 3rd round. Montana led his team to national title and Brady came from behind multiple times to get his team into and win the Orange ball when that actually mattered. He was constantly winning, he was just underrated from a talent perspective, as Joe Montana the same. They were both guys who won a lot in college and physically scouts couldn't see why and they overlooked them despite Montana retiring with the highest passer rating of all time when he hung them up and Brady currently at number 3 all time. 

 

You know who was a highly rated prospect coming out of college. Ryan Leaf. There was actually expert debate over him and Manning. If ratings in college mattered, Leaf wouldn't have been a complete bust. Jamarcus Russell was highly rated. Bradford is a borderline joke getting as many starts as he has. 

 

Regardless, here's my point, there's a big push to say Peyton was automatic while Brady was an experiment. In both college and highschool Brady was low on the depth chart and then all of sudden worked his way into a starting role and helped his team win meaningful games in clutch fashion. When it comes to systems, Brady played in a more versatile and frequently changing system than Peyton Manning who had much more uniformity and less variation most of his career. When it comes to WR talent Peyton Manning was arguably the most fortunate QB of all time in that regard. Brady had one elite WR for 2 years and a few games. He had an elite TE for 7 years who has gotten injured in all but 2 years. Manning had either Harrison or Wayne for his entire 13 year tenure with the Colts and 6 of those years overlapped. Brady's WR corp now is composed of mostly different pieces from 5 years ago. Hell this year of his WR's Hogan and Mitchell came on the team last year, Cooks this offseason, Dorsett just now, and Amendola and Edelman (who is out of the year) were the only ones who had spent several years here. 

 

Brady's played in enough offensive schemes and systems, with enough different talent of variable scale and mostly below high level in the WR corp, to where it doesn't make sense to say a QB who hasn't was more of a lock to succeed anywhere than him. 

 

That comparison is usually based off on exactly what you said. Even if you didn't know who he was in college we were all told by scouts and analysts that Peyton Manning was going to be good. So when he got good we just took it for granted and never really questioned it. We never heard of Tom Brady, so when he got good we just looked for reasons why everybody missed it from the coach to the system etc. Even if those reasons really don't work a whole lot when you critically look at what the actual circumstances was. 

I knew you couldn't resist Your a stat guy  but you probably were not old enough to remember Joe Montana's last

bowl game he brought Notre Dame back to at the time in an unexpected last minute come back win in that bowl game

anyone who saw it knew he was someone who would be special and he proved them right sometimes you have to watch the games and  not only look at fantasy football facts 

[horseshoecrabs]

put away the smartphone and use less of the time looking up stats and enjoy the game 

 

[footballhero1]

1 minute ago, horseshoecrabs said:

I knew you couldn't resist Your a stat guy  but you probably were not old enough to remember Joe Montana's last

bowl game he brought Notre Dame back to at the time in an unexpected last minute come back win in that bowl game

anyone who saw it knew he was someone who would be special and he proved them right sometimes you have to watch the games and  not only look at fantasy football facts 

That's the thing I'm not too much of a stat guy. A stat guy would maybe argue for Peyton. Joe Montana was not highly rated coming out of college. He was drafted in the 3rd round. Tom Brady did something similar. His whole last season was marked by come from behind wins leading to the game to get into the orange bowl where he came from behind and the Orange Bowl itself where he came back to win. They were both very similar in that regard. More intangibles in college, overlooked by scouts. 

 

That was my whole point. The experts who predicted Manning and botched on Leaf were the same ones who overlooked Brady and Montana despite their intangibles and ability to win in crunch time.

[horseshoecrabs]

9 minutes ago, footballhero1 said:

That's the thing I'm not too much of a stat guy. A stat guy would maybe argue for Peyton. Joe Montana was not highly rated coming out of college. He was drafted in the 3rd round. Tom Brady did something similar. His whole last season was marked by come from behind wins leading to the game to get into the orange bowl where he came from behind and the Orange Bowl itself where he came back to win. They were both very similar in that regard. More intangibles in college, overlooked by scouts. 

 

That was my whole point. The experts who predicted Manning and botched on Leaf were the same ones who overlooked Brady and Montana despite their intangibles and ability to win in crunch time.

touche'

[horseshoecrabs]

8 minutes ago, horseshoecrabs said:

alright we  beat a dead horse long enough!

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, Synthetic said:

 

You clearly have no understanding of the dead ball era. Every QB's stats are average from back then. I showed you a great deal of information, and you still ignore it and are comparing Bradshaw to a QB who played in a pass happy era with rules that greatly benefited QB's and wide receivers. I showed you stats of other QB's to prove he wasn't the only one who looked "average".

 

I compared Bradshaw to other QB's he played against during his era...That's much more fair than comparing him to a guy who played in a pass happy era where the rules benefited him. I'm pretty sure if you put ALL the top QB's from the 1970's into modern day with passing rules that benefit QB's, then they all would've had dramatically better stats. Not just Bradshaw, they all would've improved since the game benefits QB's now.

 

Put Peyton Manning in Bradshaw's era and with a bad team around him like you said, and he would look no better than his dad Archie did with the Saints...Completely different era...

 

 

Yeah a crap team that had Marvin Harrison and Edgerrin James - one is in the Hall of Fame, the other lead the league in rushing that year beating out Marshall Faulk. Manning had it sooooo tough throwing to a Hall of Famer and a great running back!

 

And he still went one and done that year.  How many times did Peyton go one and done at home with a stacked Colts team that went 12-4, 13-3 or 14-2? 

 

Manning is about the last QB you can use the argument of having a lack of talent around. Those Colts teams were loaded...They were almost like clones of the 90's Buffalo Bills in terms of firepower on offense. He had far more talent around him than most big name QB's during the 2000's. The opposite of Drew Brees, who didn't have a single Pro Bowl receiver in 2009. If you want to see a QB win it all with an average cast of B and C grade receivers, there you go. Manning on the other side of that SB, had a loaded team...

 

I get what you are saying, I am old enough to remember watching Bradshaw play actually. You actually think Bradshaw is better than Peyton? I will be honest I don't even think its close, Peyton blows him away. Bradshaw may be Top 10 and that is only based on because he did win 4 SB's but without his Defense he doesn't win jack. Put a QB like Marino who is Top 10 without a doubt with defenses like than he never loses IMO nor does Peyton.