Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
18to87

Best Measurement of Greatness for a QB

Recommended Posts

I think a great argument can be made that the best measurement of greatness for a QB should be how a team performs when they are not on the field. We have seen how the Colts performed with Peyton and Luck injured during their prime, although this argument is looking shaky for Luck at the moment. Much fanfare has also been made that the Denver D carried Peyton to a Superbowl and while there is some truth to that, look how they have done since then. There is no question his presence and leadership made a massive contribution to getting a ring (and beating NE in the AFCCG where he played well). 

Without Brady, the Patriots have performed at around 95% of their standard level, being one of the very few sides to miss the playoffs with an 11-5 Cassell, and then going 4-0 when Brady was suspended. Drew Brees has had the luxury of being alongside an offensive genius for his career and the side is excelling in his absence. 

It also be interesting to see how KC performs over the next few weeks. 

 

Certainly football is the ultimate team sport and many factors come in to play, but is it not the easiest way to see how one player contributes to the whole football operation, by simply to remove him from playing? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2019 at 7:47 PM, 18to87 said:

I think a great argument can be made that the best measurement of greatness for a QB should be how a team performs when they are not on the field. We have seen how the Colts performed with Peyton and Luck injured during their prime, although this argument is looking shaky for Luck at the moment. Much fanfare has also been made that the Denver D carried Peyton to a Superbowl and while there is some truth to that, look how they have done since then. There is no question his presence and leadership made a massive contribution to getting a ring (and beating NE in the AFCCG where he played well). 

Without Brady, the Patriots have performed at around 95% of their standard level, being one of the very few sides to miss the playoffs with an 11-5 Cassell, and then going 4-0 when Brady was suspended. Drew Brees has had the luxury of being alongside an offensive genius for his career and the side is excelling in his absence. 

It also be interesting to see how KC performs over the next few weeks. 

 

Certainly football is the ultimate team sport and many factors come in to play, but is it not the easiest way to see how one player contributes to the whole football operation, by simply to remove him from playing? 

 

You also have to take into account what the backup has accomplished in other places so it's not quite that simple.   

 

That said this is why I don't think Brady is the GOAT QB.  He's an elite QB, one of the best of all time but not the best of all time who has managed to play on a team what is coached by the greatest coach of all time and run by the greatest GM of all time.

 

The fact that he's won with entirely different teams around him is not an indication that he's the GOAT QB but an indication that Belichick is the greatest GM of all time.

 

I would also point out that the Pat's defense, a side that Brady has nothing to do with has consistently been one of the top defenses in the NFL year in and year out.  

 

I would also note that Belichick as part of his managing abilities has had several QB's as backups to Brady who where pretty good in their own right.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Peyton and hate Brady as much as anybody here but it looks like this topic was strategically thought out to make Peyton sound perfect and Brady to sound ah skip it...

 

There is no measurement. It’s a game not a math problem. I still say Favre was the best because he could do anything that a quarterback has ever done better or as good as every other quarterback. That includes things Peyton and Brady have never done. But even that has gaping hole is in it and I’m a homer if I deny it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with this logic is that it assumes backups are all created equal. 

 

In 2008, Cassel played himself into a multi-million dollar contract with KC and made a Pro Bowl. Garoppolo is something like 14-2 as a starter with most of those games being played as a 49er. Teddy Bridgewater is a former #1 pick with a lot of inherent talent. 

 

Point being, none of those guys were awful, and they've all enjoyed relatively successful NFL careers. 


Curtis Painter and (the corpse of) Kerry Collins are not in the same category as either of those guys as far as backups are concerned. The Colts were ill-prepared the year Manning sat, and that - more than anything - is why the team performed so poorly. It's also worth mentioning the prevailing thought outside of Indy that the Colts didn't try very hard to right the ship that year... "suck for Luck," right? 

 

Also, FTR, the Patriots weren't 4-0 when Brady was suspended, they were 3-1. The loss was a shutout loss, at home, to Buffalo, with Brissett starting. 

 

I'm done with the debate, personally. You guys will believe what you want to believe, and so will I. It's all good. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, GoPats said:

The problem with this logic is that it assumes backups are all created equal. 

 

In 2008, Cassel played himself into a multi-million dollar contract with KC and made a Pro Bowl. Garoppolo is something like 14-2 as a starter with most of those games being played as a 49er. Teddy Bridgewater is a former #1 pick with a lot of inherent talent. 

 

Point being, none of those guys were awful, and they've all enjoyed relatively successful NFL careers. 


Curtis Painter and (the corpse of) Kerry Collins are not in the same category as either of those guys as far as backups are concerned. The Colts were ill-prepared the year Manning sat, and that - more than anything - is why the team performed so poorly. It's also worth mentioning the prevailing thought outside of Indy that the Colts didn't try very hard to right the ship that year... "suck for Luck," right? 

 

Also, FTR, the Patriots weren't 4-0 when Brady was suspended, they were 3-1. The loss was a shutout loss, at home, to Buffalo, with Brissett starting. 

 

I'm done with the debate, personally. You guys will believe what you want to believe, and so will I. It's all good. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I personally think you can't go wrong with any of the three being Brady, Montana, or Peyton to lead a team. Peyton didn't win as many SB's as the other two have but also the other two had better Coaching. Dungy was great in his own right but he is not Belichick or Walsh IMO. Those 3 QB's are the best to ever do it IMO and I will leave it at that. Brady has 6 Rings, Montana 4, and Peyton has 2 but did win as a starter with 2 different teams. Something Brady or Montana has not done. Peyton winning 5 League MVP's is really impressive as well, Brady has 3, Montana only 2.

 

The 2 most important things to win are the SB and 2nd would be MVP of the League.

 

Tom Brady - 6+3 = 9

Peyton Manning - 2+5 = 7

Joe Montana - 4+2 = 6

-During the SB era, those 3 QB's have been the best combining those 2 things.

 

It is not just about that either but I am going by my eye test and to me those 3 QB's have been the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peyton virtually always had a HOF wide receiver in Indy; Marvin and Reggie, plus add Addai, Clark, as well as many others.

 

It’s much easier to be a successful quarterback when you have every weapon at your disposal.  Let’s not pretend that Brady and Peyton’s offenses were equal either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no one best measure of greatness for a QB. Greatness is subjective.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, NFLUp said:

Peyton virtually always had a HOF wide receiver in Indy; Marvin and Reggie, plus add Addai, Clark, as well as many others.

 

It’s much easier to be a successful quarterback when you have every weapon at your disposal.  Let’s not pretend that Brady and Peyton’s offenses were equal either.

Having a great Defense is just as important, lets not pretend in 2003 and 2004 that Brady's defense didn't help him bigtime.  It is helping him now lmao . Also Bill Belichick is the greatest coach of all-time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*has gaping holes in it 

 

Glad to see Addai get a name drop. He was the GOAT at blocking LBs up the middle. He could have been a HoF FB in another era. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Brady has 6 Rings, Montana 4, and Peyton has 2 but did win as a starter with 2 different teams. Something Brady or Montana has not done

 

I've always wondered why this 'fact' seems to hold so much weight...or any at all...for some people. What is so impressive about winning with two teams if it happened the way it did: being released, hand picking your next team, and then being Trent Dilfered and Brad Johnsoned to a championship.

 

Don't get me wrong, Brady and Peyton were 1A and 1B during this generation and the all time conversations will always be fun...I just don't understand why the 'he won with two teams while the others only won with one' sentiment even enters the debate. Is it supposed to somehow tip the scales more for a guy if he wins 2 titles with 2 teams than if he won 4 titles with 1 team or if he won 6 titles with 1 team? Brady hasn't even been on 2 teams...why should Peyton get credit for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only method is the eye test, over time, of any given individual.

All 'greatests' are 'IMO' only, and only meant to prompt conversation.

 

I'm the 10th comment here, so.....good job.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dynasty13 said:

 

I've always wondered why this 'fact' seems to hold so much weight...or any at all...for some people. What is so impressive about winning with two teams if it happened the way it did: being released, hand picking your next team, and then being Trent Dilfered and Brad Johnsoned to a championship.

 

Don't get me wrong, Brady and Peyton were 1A and 1B during this generation and the all time conversations will always be fun...I just don't understand why the 'he won with two teams while the others only won with one' sentiment even enters the debate. Is it supposed to somehow tip the scales more for a guy if he wins 2 titles with 2 teams than if he won 4 titles with 1 team or if he won 6 titles with 1 team? Brady hasn't even been on 2 teams...why should Peyton get credit for it?

1. You are in the minority here but most Pats will do anything to try and downgrade anything that Peyton has accomplished. Just like Peyton winning 5 MVP's to Brady's 3, to most Pats fans they dismiss that as well.  

 

2. Denver's defense was the main reason why they won the SB in 2015, nobody has said otherwise. Having said that, Peyton played well vs Pittsburgh and the Pats to win the Conference. So he wasn't exactly "Trent  Dilfered" to a Championship. If I remember right Tom Brady put up crap stats in his 1st SB win vs the Rams, was he Trent Dilfered to Championship then too? Pats won that SB because of their defense mainly. Brady drove them down for a game winning FG, blah, blah but he still played a mediocre SB. Ben Roethlisberger stunk up the joint in his 1st SB as well but they won. Peyton proved he could win with 4 different coaches actually, if you do not find that impressive I do not know what to tell you. Also no way Brock Osweiler gets the Broncos to the SB in 2015. I can hear you now, well he beat the Pats in the Regular Season so he could've lmao . Typical Pats fan thinking. He would've crapped his pants against the Pats in an AFC Title Game environment against BB and Brady. Just Peyton's presence alone had BB going for it on 4th down in that game instead of taking sure points with FG's.

 

3. If it is so easy winning a SB as a starter with 2 different teams, why is it Peyton is the only player in NFL history to do so? Montana tried with a good KC team and failed. Warner tried it with a good Cards team and failed.

 

4. Brady has played with 1 coach his entire career, put him on just another good team with a different coach and the chances of him winning a SB would be slim. I say that because only Peyton has done it. 

 

One thing I have always done at least is give Brady credit for the most part and even have been on record calling him the GOAT. I have mad respect for Brady, guy is simply great but so is Peyton.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dynasty13 said:

 

I've always wondered why this 'fact' seems to hold so much weight...or any at all...for some people. What is so impressive about winning with two teams if it happened the way it did: being released, hand picking your next team, and then being Trent Dilfered and Brad Johnsoned to a championship.

 

Don't get me wrong, Brady and Peyton were 1A and 1B during this generation and the all time conversations will always be fun...I just don't understand why the 'he won with two teams while the others only won with one' sentiment even enters the debate. Is it supposed to somehow tip the scales more for a guy if he wins 2 titles with 2 teams than if he won 4 titles with 1 team or if he won 6 titles with 1 team? Brady hasn't even been on 2 teams...why should Peyton get credit for it?

 

You're right, it's just as dumb as the "team loyalty" argument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2019 at 7:47 PM, 18to87 said:

I think a great argument can be made that the best measurement of greatness for a QB should be how a team performs when they are not on the field. We have seen how the Colts performed with Peyton and Luck injured during their prime, although this argument is looking shaky for Luck at the moment. Much fanfare has also been made that the Denver D carried Peyton to a Superbowl and while there is some truth to that, look how they have done since then. There is no question his presence and leadership made a massive contribution to getting a ring (and beating NE in the AFCCG where he played well). 

Without Brady, the Patriots have performed at around 95% of their standard level, being one of the very few sides to miss the playoffs with an 11-5 Cassell, and then going 4-0 when Brady was suspended. Drew Brees has had the luxury of being alongside an offensive genius for his career and the side is excelling in his absence. 

It also be interesting to see how KC performs over the next few weeks. 

 

Certainly football is the ultimate team sport and many factors come in to play, but is it not the easiest way to see how one player contributes to the whole football operation, by simply to remove him from playing? 

I disagree the one thing that stands out for the greatness of a QB are 4th quarter comebacks. Manning, Brady, Brees all excelled at that! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

1. You are in the minority here but most Pats will do anything to try and downgrade anything that Peyton has accomplished. Just like Peyton winning 5 MVP's to Brady's 3, to most Pats fans they dismiss that as well.  

 

2. Denver's defense was the main reason why they won the SB in 2015, nobody has said otherwise. Having said that, Peyton played well vs Pittsburgh and the Pats to win the Conference. So he wasn't exactly "Trent  Dilfered" to a Championship. If I remember right Tom Brady put up crap stats in his 1st SB win vs the Rams, was he Trent Dilfered to Championship then too? Pats won that SB because of their defense mainly. Brady drove them down for a game winning FG, blah, blah but he still played a mediocre SB. Ben Roethlisberger stunk up the joint in his 1st SB as well but they won. Peyton proved he could win with 4 different coaches actually, if you do not find that impressive I do not know what to tell you. Also no way Brock Osweiler gets the Broncos to the SB in 2015. I can hear you now, well he beat the Pats in the Regular Season so he could've lmao . Typical Pats fan thinking. He would've crapped his pants against the Pats in an AFC Title Game environment against BB and Brady. Just Peyton's presence alone had BB going for it on 4th down in that game instead of taking sure points with FG's.

 

3. If it is so easy winning a SB as a starter with 2 different teams, why is it Peyton is the only player in NFL history to do so? Montana tried with a good KC team and failed. Warner tried it with a good Cards team and failed.

 

4. Brady has played with 1 coach his entire career, put him on just another good team with a different coach and the chances of him winning a SB would be slim. I say that because only Peyton has done it. 

 

I'm not discrediting Peyton for his championships, nor did I say it was easy to win a Superbowl as a starter for two different teams. I just don't see why he somehow gets 'bonus points' for the fact that it was with two teams. Every situation is different...you referenced Montana who ran into Marino come the playoffs and Warner who did make it to another Superbowl. 

 

The fact is that many Superbowl winning quarterbacks don't change teams, and more recently if they do, it was because they were traded and not always sent to as good a situation as Peyton was able to pick out in Denver.  And honestly, that's fine...again, I'm not discrediting him for it...I just don't understand why it's somehow more impressive. If I wanted to, I could make the argument that Brady HAS won with two different teams, since no player from the 2001/03/04 championship run was still on the team for the 2014/16/18 run. Literally the only difference is that the uniform didnt change color and it was the same head coach.

 

If Brady was released and signed with that Denver team, do you think he would have won? If Aaron Rodgers was released and signed with that Denver team, do you think he would have won? Roethlisberger? Russel Wilson? There's a good chance of it, but as I said, most Superbowl winning quarterbacks don't get the opportunity to find a situation like that, so we just don't see it often. 

 

Winning the Superbowl is freakin' hard, let alone doing it twice or more. I just don't understand why someone would get more credit simply because it was with two different jerseys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dynasty13 said:

 

I'm not discrediting Peyton for his championships, nor did I say it was easy to win a Superbowl as a starter for two different teams. I just don't see why he somehow gets 'bonus points' for the fact that it was with two teams. Every situation is different...you referenced Montana who ran into Marino come the playoffs and Warner who did make it to another Superbowl. 

 

The fact is that many Superbowl winning quarterbacks don't change teams, and more recently if they do, it was because they were traded and not always sent to as good a situation as Peyton was able to pick out in Denver.  And honestly, that's fine...again, I'm not discrediting him for it...I just don't understand why it's somehow more impressive. If I wanted to, I could make the argument that Brady HAS won with two different teams, since no player from the 2001/03/04 championship run was still on the team for the 2014/16/18 run. Literally the only difference is that the uniform didnt change color and it was the same head coach. If Brady was released and signed with that Denver team, do you think he would have won? If Aaron Rodgers was released and signed with that Denver team, do you think he would have won? Roethlisberger? Russel Wilson? There's a good chance of it, but as I said, most Superbowl winning quarterbacks don't get the opportunity to find a situation like that, so we just don't see it often. 

 

Winning the Superbowl is freakin' hard, let alone doing it twice or more. I just don't understand why someone would get more credit simply because it was with two teams. 

That is a fair post. I think most people give Peyton credit for doing so, because no other QB has done it. Favre even tried it in Minnesota and came close but no cigar. That Minnesota team was stacked but lost in the NFC Title Game, KC with Montana also lost in the AFC Title Game. Warner got to a SB but lost with the Cards.

 

I agree winning the SB is really tough. Only 12 QB's have won 2 or more, I am glad Peyton is one of them. Brady with 6, Montana 4, Bradshaw 4, and Aikman 3. After that you have only 8 with 2. Marino won 0, Favre ended with only 1. Brees, Rodgers, and Wilson as great as they are all only have 1. Getting that 2nd one for most QB's seems really tough. Young as great as he was only won 1 as a starter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, dynasty13 said:

If I wanted to, I could make the argument that Brady HAS won with two different teams, since no player from the 2001/03/04 championship run was still on the team for the 2014/16/18 run. Literally the only difference is that the uniform didnt change color and it was the same head coach.

 

I think the main point of that argument IS the head coach (Brady having Belichick his whole career, while Manning did it with 2 different HCs on 2 different teams).

 

It's kind of a catch-22 argument, though, because to try to take anything away from Brady, you have to give extra credit to Belichick, and vice versa.  :dunno:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, GoPats said:

The problem with this logic is that it assumes backups are all created equal.

 

Manning and Brady being equal, the fact that the TEAM built around Brady was better than the team built around Manning is a testament to Belichick.

 

But it also shows that you could attribute about 10 wins a year to Manning when he was a Colt.  We'll probably never know how many wins a year can be attributed to Brady because we'll probably never see such a poor team have to play without Brady under Belichick.  :dunno:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I think the main point of that argument IS the head coach (Brady having Belichick his whole career, while Manning did it with 2 different HCs on 2 different teams).

 

It's kind of a catch-22 argument, though, because to try to take anything away from Brady, you have to give extra credit to Belichick, and vice versa.  :dunno:

That is the main point, you nailed it. Brady has always had the same coach and same system. Peyton hasn't and won with different systems. Gary Kubiak is an average coach at best. Kudos to Brady for being loyal but who wouldn't be if you had BB as coach. IMO, BB is the GOAT regarding coaches.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

That is the main point, you nailed it. Brady has always had the same coach and same system. Peyton hasn't and won with different systems. Gary Kubiak is an average coach at best. Kudos to Brady for being loyal but who wouldn't be if you had BB as coach. IMO, BB is the GOAT regarding coaches.

 

Although Colts fans have always said the Peyton WAS the system...that he WAS the coach ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dynasty13 said:

Winning the Superbowl is freakin' hard, let alone doing it twice or more. I just don't understand why someone would get more credit simply because it was with two different jerseys.

 

Personally, it's a distinction that doesn't hold a lot of weight with me. I think the fact that Manning played for four different HCs and four different OCs is more relevant than the fact that he won with two different teams. Especially if we're making a comparison with Brady (not that we have to, just saying that Brady being with Belichick is a relevant distinction in my mind).

 

I also never really agreed that Peyton was the system, or the coach. That all got overplayed, IMO. He was critically important to the system, especially as time went on in Indy, and definitely with John Fox in Denver. And he was given a ton of control of the offense, including at times when the coaches on the team weren't all that great. I think he deserves credit for his role in running the offense, but it's a stretch too far to say he was the system, or that he was the coach. None of that is true.

 

Of course, end of the day, we can split hairs all day long, and we can talk about who our favorites are, and whatnot. But no QB has had a greater career than Brady, no one has accomplishments or accolades that Brady hasn't or won't match (regular season MVPs is the only one he probably won't get), and there are no holes in his resume. Just wanted to state that for the record. My involvement in this discussion is not for the sake of discussing who deserves that GOAT title, or who doesn't. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Personally, it's a distinction that doesn't hold a lot of weight with me. I think the fact that Manning played for four different HCs and four different OCs is more relevant than the fact that he won with two different teams. Especially if we're making a comparison with Brady (not that we have to, just saying that Brady being with Belichick is a relevant distinction in my mind).

 

I also never really agreed that Peyton was the system, or the coach. That all got overplayed, IMO. He was critically important to the system, especially as time went on in Indy, and definitely with John Fox in Denver. And he was given a ton of control of the offense, including at times when the coaches on the team weren't all that great. I think he deserves credit for his role in running the offense, but it's a stretch too far to say he was the system, or that he was the coach. None of that is true.

 

Of course, end of the day, we can split hairs all day long, and we can talk about who our favorites are, and whatnot. But no QB has had a greater career than Brady, no one has accomplishments or accolades that Brady hasn't or won't match (regular season MVPs is the only one he probably won't get), and there are no holes in his resume. Just wanted to state that for the record. My involvement in this discussion is not for the sake of discussing who deserves that GOAT title, or who doesn't. 

All good points. It is tough to say who the GOAT is in reality. We can say it's Brady because he is more accomplished than anyone by leading a team to 6 SB wins. Question is, does winning the most SB's  make one the GOAT? Peyton has more MVP's with 5 to Brady's 3. Peyton being chosen the most valuable player to his team 5 times means a lot too. The voters are basically saying in 5 different seasons that the Colts without him wouldn't be the same. A lot of it is subjective and by the eye test so if someone would say Peyton was better than Brady it would be hard to argue unless someone basis everything on SB Titles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Question is, does winning the most SB's  make one the GOAT?

 

The answer to that is no, always has been, always will be. Wins is a team stat, not a QB stat, including (especially?) in the playoffs.

 

But take virtually any other criteria for discussing the GOAT at QB -- stats, accolades, accomplishments, w/l record, longevity, playoff stats, comebacks, whatever -- and Tom Brady is top five basically across the board. There's no hole in his resume. Then add in the fact that he has six SB rings, and I don't see where there's room for argument.

 

I also think it's okay to acknowledge that there's a difference between "greatest," "best," and "favorite." I think Brady having six rings speaks to his greatness, but I don't think that by itself necessarily makes him better than anyone else. It certainly doesn't make him worse...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

The answer to that is no, always has been, always will be. Wins is a team stat, not a QB stat, including (especially?) in the playoffs.

 

But take virtually any other criteria for discussing the GOAT at QB -- stats, accolades, accomplishments, w/l record, longevity, playoff stats, comebacks, whatever -- and Tom Brady is top five basically across the board. There's no hole in his resume. Then add in the fact that he has six SB rings, and I don't see where there's room for argument.

 

I also think it's okay to acknowledge that there's a difference between "greatest," "best," and "favorite." I think Brady having six rings speaks to his greatness, but I don't think that by itself necessarily makes him better than anyone else. It certainly doesn't make him worse...

I agree, I look at the whole resume myself. Of course SB wins, but also League MVP's, Yards, TD's, Clutchness, etc.. You are right, Brady has no holes. I would personally say he is the GOAT but Montana and Peyton both have an argument. Peyton really has no holes in his resume either. He has won 2 SB's himself, 5 League MVP's, and a SB MVP. Peyton's stats speak for themselves as well. The only thing that separates Brady from Peyton is, he has more Championships. Stats wise those guys are pretty even and Peyton has more League MVP's. MVP is an individual award as you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resume breakdown

 

Tom Brady

=6 SB wins, 3 League MVP's, 4 SB MVP's

=72506 Yards, 528 TD's, 175 INT's, 64.1 Comp%

 

Joe Montana

=4 SB wins, 2 League MVP's, 3 SB MVP's

=40551 Yards, 273 TD's, 139 INT's, 63.2 Comp%

 

Peyton Manning

=2 SB wins, 5 League MVP's, 1 SB MVP

=71940 Yards, 539 TD's, 251 INT's, 65.3 Comp%

 

All of those resumes are great. Brady has the best one but the other 2 are great. Montana played when the league wasn't as pass happy so his stats aren't near Brady's or Peyton's but that is understandable.

 

Here are Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers Resumes:

Drew Brees 

=1 SB win, 0 League MVP's, 1 SB MVP

=74845 Yards, 522 TD's, 235 INT's, 67.3 Comp%

 

Aaron Rodgers

=1 SB win, 2 League MVP's, 1 SB MVP

=44963 Yards, 351 TD's, 82 INT's, 64.8 Comp%

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2019 at 5:14 PM, GoPats said:

The problem with this logic is that it assumes backups are all created equal. 

 

In 2008, Cassel played himself into a multi-million dollar contract with KC and made a Pro Bowl. Garoppolo is something like 14-2 as a starter with most of those games being played as a 49er. Teddy Bridgewater is a former #1 pick with a lot of inherent talent. 

 

Point being, none of those guys were awful, and they've all enjoyed relatively successful NFL careers. 


Curtis Painter and (the corpse of) Kerry Collins are not in the same category as either of those guys as far as backups are concerned. The Colts were ill-prepared the year Manning sat, and that - more than anything - is why the team performed so poorly. It's also worth mentioning the prevailing thought outside of Indy that the Colts didn't try very hard to right the ship that year... "suck for Luck," right? 

 

Also, FTR, the Patriots weren't 4-0 when Brady was suspended, they were 3-1. The loss was a shutout loss, at home, to Buffalo, with Brissett starting. 

 

I'm done with the debate, personally. You guys will believe what you want to believe, and so will I. It's all good. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're that unprepared when Manning goes down... in the end the only thing that ever made this team great was peyton manning. Everyone else was 100% replaceable. And then he goes down and exposes Polian for the completely and utterly overrated GM that he was... Chris Polian that is. Unfortunately he was replaced by Grigson who used shiny things to convince irsay to sign him... Again we had a QB who carried this team on his shoulders for 6 of 7 years that he played in the NFL... 

 

I would say based on 3 years of Ballard he is neck and neck with Bill Polian on many levels. Hes the only guy I trust with the team to be quite honest. And I just feel the same way when I'm watching Brissett. Yeah I get nervous before the game, but when he starts slinging that pigskin I feel at ease. And I think the whole team does. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2019 at 8:14 AM, GoPats said:


Curtis Painter and (the corpse of) Kerry Collins are not in the same category as either of those guys as far as backups are concerned. The Colts were ill-prepared the year Manning sat, and that - more than anything - is why the team performed so poorly. It's also worth mentioning the prevailing thought outside of Indy that the Colts didn't try very hard to right the ship that year... "suck for Luck," right? 

 

 

Just thought I would add that the Colts finished strong that year behind Orlovsky. They almost finished the year with three straight wins, losing by 6 in week 17 - a game which could have changed the course of NFL history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Popular Now

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It's a risk benefit decision. Do you want a QB that raises the level of your WRs and removes stress form your D, or a QB that lowers the level of your WRs and adds stress to your OL (time to throw) and requires your D to play perfect.....  
    • If we win next week and Houston loses, we would once again be in the lead in the South, as crazy as that sounds. Hypothetically, let’s say we win and the cows lose In order of tiebreakers: 1. Record- 7-5 v 7-5, next tiebreaker 2. Head to Head- 1-1 v 1-1, next tiebreaker 3. Division Record- 4-1 (I) v 3-1 (H) Well hot damn, somehow we may escape this impending doom. There’s my glimmer of hope for this season I’ve been searching for    
    • Expecting JB to perform like Luck is just plain silly.  There is a huge difference talent wise between the two.  2017s team was garbage.  2018 team developed nicely and Luck took advantage with TY, Inman a veteran who was signed off the street, and Ebron who had a great year.  This year it's TY and that's it and he's missed three games and played hurt last night.  Everyone else is nothing special due to the injuries.  No real weapons for JB.  Plain and simple. 
    • hahaha! I love European slang.  American slang is mostly vulgar, which can be useful.  But most the time, even when we cuss at other people, it's in good fun.  And british slang (? right word?) makes me laugh a lot more.  Maybe cuz it's new, but still, it's fun.
    • how exactly does houston have the tiebreaker for the division?  we split with them but we havent lost to the titans or jax yet.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...