Peyton Manning is the greatest QB of this generation

[Second Honeymoon]

Manning was around before Brady and he just may be around after Brady.

If Manning played for the Patriots and Belicheat, he would probably have 4 or 5 rings already.

Manning > Brady but both are 1st Ballot HOF and its not like there isn't a case to be made for Brady > Manning

personal preference

 

[Texecutioner]

Brady is essentially 1 obscure rule & 3 wide right or left kicks away from being Jim Kelly...

If that's all you're bringing to the discussion, you might as well stop now.


And Joe Montana was a few drops away from being the same thing had Dwight Clark or John Taylor not caught those epic TD throws from Montana.

Talk about a moot point that doesn't mean anything. I could say that about hundreds of football players and their careers and achievements.

 

[Texan_Bill]

So are you indicating that passing yards is your ice breaker here Bill? I hope not. If Brady can stay healthy he can eclipse that in 4 more seasons as far as yards goes. But just like Joe, Brady has never been a big time stat QB in his career, because that hasn't ever been the way their team has tried to win games other than two years ago when they finally brought in real weapons.

How about talking to you right now with a 50 TD season in the only year that Brady ever has had an elite WR which was after already winning 3 SB's.


Whether people want to admit it or not, Brady is already right there in Montana's league easily.

And another thing to add is that the Niners team was so good that they were able to win another SB when Joe wasn't even there, that's how good that team was that Joe was getting to play with using Jerry Rice, John Taylor, Tom Rathman, and Roger Craig on offense. Tom Brady never had anything even remotely close to that as far as weaponry until the last season he played.

I'm not saying that Brady is better than Montana was, but he's right there, and plays just like Joe played in a lot of aspects.

No, it's not just about yards. It's about the entire body of work. IF Brady plays another six seasons, throws another 75 TD's, and has 5 more playoff appearances, then he would be mentioned in the same breath as Montana.



If you want to start splitting hairs, I want to through this out there: Montana played in era when defenders could rape wide recievers making completions and TD's much more difficult to come by. Today, if a DB looks funny at a wide reciever, it's called.

 

[Texecutioner]

No, it's not just about yards. It's about the entire body of work. IF Brady plays another six seasons, throws another 75 TD's, and has 5 more playoff appearances, then he would be mentioned in the same breath as Montana.

Mentioned in the same breath as Montana? He's already been mentioned in the same breath as Montana for years now. That road was crossed a while back.

If you want to start splitting hairs, I want to through this out there: Montana played in era when defenders could rape wide recievers making completions and TD's much more difficult to come by. Today, if a DB looks funny at a wide reciever, it's called.

You're reaching now Bill. If you're going to use that logic, then you're basically saying that we can't even put any QB's of this decade up there with QB's of the past then and that simply isn't a valid argument to use against QB's of this decade or ones for the future. WR's were putting up great numbers back then the same way they are now. It's not like there was a huge difference in stats by WR's to where they weren't able to produce back then. And Montana had a WR that no one in NFL history could guard.

 

[HoustonFrog]

Brady is essentially 1 obscure rule & 3 wide right or left kicks away from being Jim Kelly...

Well so is Joe Montana with a Taylor drop, etc. Anyone could say that about any great game. That makes no sense. 1 time maybe, 3 times is a trend of getting your team there. Please stop these.

If that's all you're bringing to the discussion, you might as well stop now.


And Joe Montana was a few drops away from being the same thing had Dwight Clark or John Taylor not caught those epic TD throws from Montana.

Talk about a moot point that doesn't mean anything. I could say that about hundreds of football players and their careers and achievements.

Seriously, didn't see or read this Tex...right!

Some of you need to read Simmons today. Did you know that if the Pats have a winning record this year they would be the first post cap team to have 9 straight winning seasons. Says something for the guy at the helm alot of that time.

Overall I still can't put Brady or Manning near Montana because watching that guy was like watching the others rolled up in one.

SB Trophies-Check
Runs Team in 2 Minute Drill--Check, Double Check
Calm Under Presssure/Clutch--Check
Faced Top Competition--Cowboys, Giants, AFC..Check

 

[Ckw]

Seriously, didn't see or read this Tex...right!

Some of you need to read Simmons today. Did you know that if the Pats have a winning record this year they would be the first post cap team to have 9 straight winning seasons. Says something for the guy at the helm alot of that time.

Overall I still can't put Brady or Manning near Montana because watching that guy was like watching the others rolled up in one.

SB Trophies-Check
Runs Team in 2 Minute Drill--Check, Double Check
Calm Under Presssure/Clutch--Check
Faced Top Competition--Cowboys, Giants, AFC..Check

I will have to check out the Simmons article sometime today.

By the way, everyone of the points in that list you just gave could apply to Tom Brady. No doubt, a lot is riding on this season. If Brady continues to play like he has, I might start to agree with those of you that believe Manning > Brady but as of right now, I am going to have to go with Brady.

The fact that gets lost on so many of you it seems is Manning has been throwing to two HOF WRs and a potential HOF TE. Before Moss got there, could any of his receivers have ever even dreamed of sniffing the HOF? Not a chance but when Brady finally did get a HOF WR, he seemingly broke every single major single season passing record. The guy is legit and anyone who says otherwise is just jealous.

Regardless, the debate is rather pointless just as for many, the Fitzgerald/AJ argument is pointless. When talking about the best QB today, you are talking about 1A and 1B. They are both incredible QBs and are both guaranteed hall of famers. But as for me, I'd give Brady the edge.

 

[disaacks3]

You're reaching now Bill. If you're going to use that logic, then you're basically saying that we can't even put any QB's of this decade up there with QB's of the past then and that simply isn't a valid argument to use against QB's of this decade or ones for the future. WR's were putting up great numbers back then the same way they are now. It's not like there was a huge difference in stats by WR's to where they weren't able to produce back then. And Montana had a WR that no one in NFL history could guard.

Not so fast - The reason those rules for DBs have largely been changed is due to the Patriots defenders getting away with MURDER prior to their introduction.

Yep, those are the same Patriots that Brady played for and got at least ONE of those SB rings with before the introduction of the "new rules". Don't even get me started on the "tuck rule" game. Brady shouldn't even have GONE to that SB.

Like I said before, there are MANY of those guys that I'd happily build a franchise around and Brady is one of them, but in the current generation, I'll still give the nod to Manning.

 

[disaacks3]

I will have to check out the Simmons article sometime today.

By the way, everyone of the points in that list you just gave could apply to Tom Brady. No doubt, a lot is riding on this season. If Brady continues to play like he has, I might start to agree with those of you that believe Manning > Brady but as of right now, I am going to have to go with Brady.

The fact that gets lost on so many of you it seems is Manning has been throwing to two HOF WRs and a potential HOF TE. Before Moss got there, could any of his receivers have ever even dreamed of sniffing the HOF? Not a chance but when Brady finally did get a HOF WR, he seemingly broke every single major single season passing record. The guy is legit and anyone who says otherwise is just jealous.

Regardless, the debate is rather pointless just as for many, the Fitzgerald/AJ argument is pointless. When talking about the best QB today, you are talking about 1A and 1B. They are both incredible QBs and are both guaranteed hall of famers. But as for me, I'd give Brady the edge.

The question then becomes, are they potential HOF'ers BECAUSE of Manning?

Moss is another "beast" altogether - in my mind, he may never be the greatest WR of all-time (that, for now is still Rice), but I believe he can be classified as the most physically gifted WR I've ever seen.

 

[Texan_Bill]

Mentioned in the same breath as Montana? He's already been mentioned in the same breath as Montana for years now. That road was crossed a while back.


You're reaching now Bill. If you're going to use that logic, then you're basically saying that we can't even put any QB's of this decade up there with QB's of the past then and that simply isn't a valid argument to use against QB's of this decade or ones for the future. WR's were putting up great numbers back then the same way they are now. It's not like there was a huge difference in stats by WR's to where they weren't able to produce back then. And Montana had a WR that no one in NFL history could guard.

By you, not me. A lot of people agree with me (and it's not just born out of hatred of the Patriots). Just because some ananlyst makes the comparison doesn't mean you have to agree with it.

Why am I reaching? When someone states an opinion, it is just that an opinion. You are no one to say whether it's right or wrong.

In a lot of ways that's what I'm saying. Look at receivers numbers today compared to yester-year. Lynn Swann's numbers look fairly pedestrian to numbers put up today. Was he a pedestrian wide reciever?? Hardly. I understand that the Steelers ran the ball quite a bit, but so what. The Titans do to, and Justin Gage already has half the yards in his career that Swann had his entire career.

Look at Roger Staubach. Brady has thrown for 5,000 more yards than Roger in his HOF career. I don't mention Brady in the same breath as Staubach (and my hate for the 'Gurls is widely known).

I can go on and on and on and on, but I'm tired and bored with it.

 

[HoustonFrog]

I will have to check out the Simmons article sometime today.

By the way, everyone of the points in that list you just gave could apply to Tom Brady. No doubt, a lot is riding on this season. If Brady continues to play like he has, I might start to agree with those of you that believe Manning > Brady but as of right now, I am going to have to go with Brady.

The fact that gets lost on so many of you it seems is Manning has been throwing to two HOF WRs and a potential HOF TE. Before Moss got there, could any of his receivers have ever even dreamed of sniffing the HOF? Not a chance but when Brady finally did get a HOF WR, he seemingly broke every single major single season passing record. The guy is legit and anyone who says otherwise is just jealous.

Regardless, the debate is rather pointless just as for many, the Fitzgerald/AJ argument is pointless. When talking about the best QB today, you are talking about 1A and 1B. They are both incredible QBs and are both guaranteed hall of famers. But as for me, I'd give Brady the edge.

I know when I made the list I thought that but many say that Manning has the 2 minute or hurry up mastered and Joe was as good as any..and I'm a Cowboy fan.

I also agree and stated earlier in this thread..page 2... about the talent surrounding guys. It is why, besides many of the things pointed out, that I have Brady higher. People are foolishly saying that Manning would have won on the Pats yet Manning had Harrison, Edge James at RB and then got Wayne and Clark in those time periods. Brady won those SBs with Troy Brown, David Patton, and Deion Branch. The RB was Antwain Smith. Even ex-Texan Gaffney got better there. All of those guys have fallen off since then. Branch was supposed to be a stud and has floundered with stats and injuries in Seattle. The others....gone. Gaffney does decent still. The colts surround Manning with talent in my book and still try to with who they bring in. The Pats, until Moss and Welker just had parts with Brady leading.

But to be clear, as DB said, all of these guy are great and HOFers

 

[Texan_Bill]

By you, not me. A lot of people agree with me (and it's not just born out of hatred of the Patriots). Just because some ananlyst makes the comparison doesn't mean you have to agree with it.

Why am I reaching? When someone states an opinion, it is just that an opinion. You are no one to say whether it's right or wrong.

In a lot of ways that's what I'm saying. Look at receivers numbers today compared to yester-year. Lynn Swann's numbers look fairly pedestrian to numbers put up today. Was he a pedestrian wide reciever?? Hardly. I understand that the Steelers ran the ball quite a bit, but so what. The Titans do to, and Justin Gage already has half the yards in his career that Swann had his entire career.

Look at Roger Staubach. Brady has thrown for 5,000 more yards than Roger in his HOF career. I don't mention Brady in the same breath as Staubach (and my hate for the 'Gurls is widely known).

I can go on and on and on and on, but I'm tired and bored with it.

Oh, and back to my other point: the way DB's are allowed to play today does affect the passing game. Think Lester Hayes could get away with his antics today??

 

[WWJD]

All these stats make my brain hurt...

I had the simplest formula..who has the best commercials?

PEYTON WINS!

 

[Texan_Bill]

All these stats make my brain hurt...

I had the simplest formula..who has the best commercials?

PEYTON WINS!

"Cut that meat" was really bad though..

 

[The Pencil Neck]

Ben was never a backup and the Steelers were a good football team before he got there. Stewart and Maddox both enjoyed success and made the playoffs.

Ben has helped take them to another level though. They were just good before they had a real franchise QB, now that they have a franchise QB they are great.

You're wrong.

Ben was the 2nd string at the beginning of his first year. Maddux got injured in the second game. They lost that game with Big Ben coming off the bench. Roethlisburger was the starter from that point on.

 

[HoustonFrog]

You're wrong.

Ben was the 2nd string at the beginning of his first year. Maddux got injured in the second game. They lost that game with Big Ben coming off the bench. Roethlisburger was the starter from that point on.

But as I said in an earlier post, he was drafted to be a franchise QB, not a backup and his backup stint lasted less than 2 games. Also, Maddox was banged up but there were already rumblings because of ineffective play. He wasn't this kid that came from backup obscurity. That kind of twists the facts. He ended up AFC Offensive Rookie of the Year.

 

[Texan_Bill]

You're wrong.

Ben was the 2nd string at the beginning of his first year. Maddux got injured in the second game. They lost that game with Big Ben coming off the bench. Roethlisburger was the starter from that point on.

Yes. His rookie year he played in 14 games and started 13.

 

[Ckw]

The question then becomes, are they potential HOF'ers BECAUSE of Manning?

Moss is another "beast" altogether - in my mind, he may never be the greatest WR of all-time (that, for now is still Rice), but I believe he can be classified as the most physically gifted WR I've ever seen.

This is definitely the right question to ask. In my opinion, I think all three of them would be Pro Bowlers without Manning. They might not all be hall of famers but certainly pro bowlers.

Definitely agree with you about Moss. The guy is an incredible player.

I know when I made the list I thought that but many say that Manning has the 2 minute or hurry up mastered and Joe was as good as any..and I'm a Cowboy fan.

That is the thing for me. No one seems to even come close to Brady in his ability to engineer game winning drives. The guy is almost as good, and maybe as good IMO, as Montana. He simply wills his team to victory and shows up when it counts. It is also hard to argue against a 14-3 playoff record as a starter.

I also agree and stated earlier in this thread..page 2... about the talent surrounding guys. It is why, besides many of the things pointed out, that I have Brady higher. People are foolishly saying that Manning would have won on the Pats yet Manning had Harrison, Edge James at RB and then got Wayne and Clark in those time periods. Brady won those SBs with Troy Brown, David Patton, and Deion Branch. The RB was Antwain Smith. Even ex-Texan Gaffney got better there. All of those guys have fallen off since then. Branch was supposed to be a stud and has floundered with stats and injuries in Seattle. The others....gone. Gaffney does decent still. The colts surround Manning with talent in my book and still try to with who they bring in. The Pats, until Moss and Welker just had parts with Brady leading.

But to be clear, as DB said, all of these guy are great and HOFers

Great post. It really is mind blowing just how pathetic Brady's surrounding cast has been for most of his career, yet somehow he wins with those guys and turns them into decent football players. The best way I would sum it up is Manning is probably the most physically as well as mentally gifted pocket passer the NFL has ever seen. He compares very favorably, IMO, to Marino. The thing with Brady is he just seems to have "it" much like Montana had "it". Brady just knows how to win.

Here is a good article from NFL.com that talks about the best QBs in the game today.

All these stats make my brain hurt...

I had the simplest formula..who has the best commercials?

PEYTON WINS!

Great formula and I definitely can't argue with that. Rep your way.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

But as I said in an earlier post, he was drafted to be a franchise QB, not a backup and his backup stint lasted less than 2 games. Also, Maddox was banged up but there were already rumblings because of ineffective play. He wasn't this kid that came from backup obscurity. That kind of twists the facts. He ended up AFC Offensive Rookie of the Year.

I haven't been reading this thread. I just saw something written that was incorrect.

He was a backup to start his career. He was only a backup for a short time but that's not really the issue. He was backing someone up. He was the second stringer. Therefore, he was the backup.

Sure, he was drafted in the first round and expected to be the franchise QB at some point but they appeared to be grooming him for the spot instead of throwing him out there. They didn't intend on throwing him out there that early.

 

[Mr teX]

If that's all you're bringing to the discussion, you might as well stop now.


And Joe Montana was a few drops away from being the same thing had Dwight Clark or John Taylor not caught those epic TD throws from Montana.

Talk about a moot point that doesn't mean anything. I could say that about hundreds of football players and their careers and achievements.

The difference is that Joe had to take his team all the way down the field into the end zone to win with little to no time left.....significantly harder. All brady had to do was move them into FG range. When Brady had to do just this in the AFC championship game against the colts in peyton's superbowl year & against the giants in the superbowl, what happened?

& I've already addressed what you had to say; you just chose not to respond & i'll take that you really can't refute any of it. No team has ever depended (offense & defense) on their Qb as much and for as long as the colts have on Manning. Everything brady is and has accomplished thus far is wrapped up in what those teams accomplished as a whole.

Last year showed what the patriots machinery could accomplish without Brady. The colts without manning fall flat on their face & to deny that is just being thick-headed.

& for all the talk about what peyton has had on offense to throw to, what about what brady has had on defense? Seymour, Samuels, Wilfork, Harrison were all at least top 3 at their positions when they made their run. & when you mix in heady players like Bruschi, Mcginest & Vrabel & a HOF defensive mind, you've got a very stout defense. You guys can't match up Brady & Manning on pure statistics b/c Brady loses so you try & gloss over the fact that Brady has always had a stout defense to lean on. that hasn't been the case for manning.

This debate is similar to joe & dan back in the day, the only difference here is that Manning (dan) has a ring which is the main reason no really puts dan above montana.

 

[BY1401]

Great googly moogly.

Texans fans having a Brady v. Manning debate?

You just think you've seen it all.

 

[kastofsna]

Last year showed what the patriots machinery could accomplish without Brady. The colts without manning fall flat on their face & to deny that is just being thick-headed.

i don't think this is a good argument because A) there's no proof at all of the Colts playing without Manning for any stretch of time in his whole career, and B) the Patriots are a great team, just because Brady goes down doesn't mean they can't keep going.

i think the Colts WOULD be good without Manning. again, they're consistently a good team, year in and year out. good TEAM. they wouldn't be as good without one of the best quarterbacks of all time, granted, but they'd still win games and sniff the playoffs. just like when Brady went down.

 

[Kaiser Toro]

i don't think this is a good argument because A) there's no proof at all of the Colts playing without Manning for any stretch of time in his whole career, and B) the Patriots are a great team, just because Brady goes down doesn't mean they can't keep going.

i think the Colts WOULD be good without Manning. again, they're consistently a good team, year in and year out. good TEAM. they wouldn't be as good without one of the best quarterbacks of all time, granted, but they'd still win games and sniff the playoffs. just like when Brady went down.

The Colts had zero, ten win seasons since the league went to a 16 game format prior to Manning arriving.

 

[kastofsna]

well duh.

the point is that it's a TEAM game, and they're not winning 12 games a year just because of one guy. the game is too complicated, too deep, and the coaches and players around the league are too good for that. good management, good coaching, lots of good players, and oh, having a hall of fame QB doesn't hurt, either, but don't pretend he's the only reason they're winning. it's that mentality that people thought Vince Young would be great because "he's a winner." blah blah

 

[Kaiser Toro]

well duh.

the point is that it's a TEAM game, and they're not winning 12 games a year just because of one guy. the game is too complicated, too deep, and the coaches and players around the league are too good for that. good management, good coaching, lots of good players, and oh, having a hall of fame QB doesn't hurt, either, but don't pretend he's the only reason they're winning. it's that mentality that people thought Vince Young would be great because "he's a winner." blah blah

Your definition of a consistently good team is set at a nine win season? You would fit in well with our sunshine club.

 

[kastofsna]

i'm not sure what you're referring to

 

[Grams]

i don't think this is a good argument because A) there's no proof at all of the Colts playing without Manning for any stretch of time in his whole career, and B) the Patriots are a great team, just because Brady goes down doesn't mean they can't keep going.

i think the Colts WOULD be good without Manning. again, they're consistently a good team, year in and year out. good TEAM. they wouldn't be as good without one of the best quarterbacks of all time, granted, but they'd still win games and sniff the playoffs. just like when Brady went down.

There is no proof they could win without Manning as he plays in all the games.

Without Manning the Colts would loose the large majority of their games. Without Freeney and Sanders their defense is just ok, without Manning - they have no offense.

 

[kastofsna]

there's no proof they couldn't win without him.

 

[Grams]

Nope - there is no proof either way.

But I would not place any $$ on them to win without Manning playing QB.

 

[Mr teX]

there's no proof they couldn't win without him.

Do you honestly think that Jim Sorgi could do what manning does, CONSISTENTLY?

 

[HOU-TEX]

Personally, I'd take Brady, but Manning would definitely not be far behind.

I don't think they can really compare to Montana. Manning and Brady have been successful with team's they've been with their entire careers. Would they be successful playing for a different team, or scheme? I don't know, but we all know Montana could.

 

[Texan_Bill]

Personally, I'd take Brady, but Manning would definitely not be far behind.

I don't think they can really compare to Montana. Manning and Brady have been successful with team's they've been with their entire careers. Would they be successful playing for a different team, or scheme? I don't know, but we all know Montana could.

And did.. 28-20

 

[BY1401]

There is no proof they could win without Manning as he plays in all the games.

Without Manning the Colts would loose the large majority of their games. Without Freeney and Sanders their defense is just ok, without Manning - they have no offense.

there's no proof they couldn't win without him.

Do you honestly think that Jim Sorgi could do what manning does, CONSISTENTLY?

2004
The season that Manning broke Marino's TD record.
Week 17 game at Denver: Manning starts, but the game is all on Sorgi. Sorgi throws 2 TDs to set a new team record for TD passes (which still stands), but the Colts lose 14-33.

Colts under Sorgi: 0-1

2005
After San Diego snaps the Colts undefeated streak and home field advantage is already secured throughout the playoffs, Manning gets the starts in the last two games, but they're in Sorgi's hands once again.
Week 16 game at Seattle: Colts lose 13-28.
Week 17 game against Arizona: Colts win 17-13. Keep in mind that the Cardinals were a 5-10 squad coming into the game against a 13-2 team, that it was in the RCA Dome, and that they held off a late-game surge by Arizona.

Colts under Sorgi: 1-2

2007
With a first-round bye locked-up and New England already having secured home field advantage, it's Sorgi time again.
Week 17 game against Tennessee: Colts lose 10-16.

Colts under Sorgi: 1-3

 

[infantrycak]

Colts under Sorgi: 1-3

Which while good research means nothing for "ordinary" games as the reason Sorgi was getting playing time was the games were meaningless and the Colts were coasting. Freeney, Harrison, Sanders, etc. also missed time in those games.

 

[HOU-TEX]

And did.. 28-20

Do you remember the huge knot Montana had on his elbow? It looked like a baseball under the skin.

 

[BY1401]

Which while good research means nothing for "ordinary" games as the reason Sorgi was getting playing time was the games were meaningless and the Colts were coasting. Freeney, Harrison, Sanders, etc. also missed time in those games.

True, but while watching the games, Sorgi doesn't display nearly the same command of the game that Manning has. There's so much more that Manning can do that Sorgi can't.

If Sorgi were to take over, I'd put the Colts at a middle-of-the-pack team at best.

 

[Mr teX]

And did.. 28-20

exactly..everyone here remembers how montana did us in the playoffs that one year. He didn't have rice & was at the tail end of his career & still nearly got back to the bowl.

Though i think Montana is the greatest by a smidge over Dan, I could easily see manning putting up close to the same numbers & winning the same if he played on another decent team. I'm not so sure Brady could win at the same clip if he didn't have belichick and a great defense to lean on.

 

[infantrycak]

True, but while watching the games, Sorgi doesn't display nearly the same command of the game that Manning has. There's so much more that Manning can do that Sorgi can't.

If Sorgi were to take over, I'd put the Colts at a middle-of-the-pack team at best.

I should have been more clear. I wasn't defending Sorgi, just pointing out he wasn't the only difference in those games. Take AJ, Mario and DeMeco out and let's see how the backup fares.

I wouldn't expect the Colts to go above .500 without Manning.

 

[BY1401]

I should have been more clear. I wasn't defending Sorgi, just pointing out he wasn't the only difference in those games. Take AJ, Mario and DeMeco out and let's see how the backup fares.

I wouldn't expect the Colts to go above .500 without Manning.

Gotcha.

And yes, I expect to see the post-Manning Colts slide back into the realm of suck. And when that day comes, I'd rather not see the Titans or the Jags take control of the division. So y'all better get your act together in the next five or six years.

 

[kastofsna]

Do you honestly think that Jim Sorgi could do what manning does, CONSISTENTLY?

nope. again, the colts CONSISTENTLY have a lot of talent at many positions, and i think they'd win CONSISTENTLY without him. the offense wouldn't be nearly the same.

 

[CoastalTexan]

I would say Manning is the best QB around, I hate watching him cause he calls the plays at the line and it takes forever to call them out, but for the coach to have that much confidence in him is telling. I wish we would do the same...

 

[Grams]

It use to be that all QB'S called their own game.

I will take Joe Montana over anyone else.

Brady and Manning and Marino are very, very good, but there was just something about Montana. With 2 min left in the game and down by a score, when he came on the field you just knew the 49er's were going to win the game.

 

[infantrycak]

I would say Manning is the best QB around, I hate watching him cause he calls the plays at the line and it takes forever to call them out, but for the coach to have that much confidence in him is telling. I wish we would do the same...

It use to be that all QB'S called their own game.

Used to be as in 40+ years ago.

In any event, Manning does not call plays in that sense. He doesn't just walk up and call any play he wants. He is given three plays, either 2 pass and 1 run or 1 run and 2 pass and then he picks one based on the D formation and has a number of audible options. At least that has been how it was under the old OC who was not just an inert lump on the sideline with no play calling responsibility.

 

[Texecutioner]

It use to be that all QB'S called their own game.

I will take Joe Montana over anyone else.

Brady and Manning and Marino are very, very good, but there was just something about Montana. With 2 min left in the game and down by a score, when he came on the field you just knew the 49er's were going to win the game.

Yeah, but it's been the exact same way with Tom Brady. He's done the exact type of thing that Montana used to do throughout his entire career as well.

 

[Double Barrel]

Used to be as in 40+ years ago.

In any event, Manning does not call plays in that sense. He doesn't just walk up and call any play he wants. He is given three plays, either 2 pass and 1 run or 1 run and 2 pass and then he picks one based on the D formation and has a number of audible options. At least that has been how it was under the old OC who was not just an inert lump on the sideline with no play calling responsibility.

Thanks for the clarification in this thread. Dungy talked about this exact subject prior to the MNF game. Manning IS NOT the OC on the field, folks. He's fantastic at reading defenses and picking one out of three plays sent to him, but he's not a one man coaching/coordinating/quarterbacking/sandwich-making machine out there.

 

[HOU-TEX]

Thanks for the clarification in this thread. Dungy talked about this exact subject prior to the MNF game. Manning IS NOT the OC on the field, folks. He's fantastic at reading defenses and picking one out of three plays sent to him, but he's not a one man coaching/coordinating/quarterbacking/sandwich-making machine out there.

Yep, he can definitely "pick his b---h", that's for sure. He can read where the weakness in the defense is on dang near every stinkin play. It'd be nice to have a QB that's allowed to make audibles on the fly like that.

 

[Hookem Horns]

Manning making a case for himself again tonight. That last drive was awesome.

 

[WWJD]

I think it was Collingsworth earlier who said that in his entire football career that Peyton has only had 3 systems he's had to work with...that builds the consistency alot of QB's lack coaching wise and it doesn't hurt that Peyton is a very smart guy.

The Colts are just very well coached and their players play smart football. Well except for the blocker running into the punt returner tonight....

 

[Double Barrel]

Manning making a case for himself again tonight. That last drive was awesome.

He's been amazing this entire season. Put a couple more rings on him and there would be a case to be made that he's potentially the best of all time.

(I'm not making that case, but just saying that it could be made.)

 

[El Tejano]

He's been amazing this entire season. Put a couple more rings on him and there would be a case to be made that he's potentially the best of all time.

(I'm not making that case, but just saying that it could be made.)

Well according to The NFL and ESPN who, when he plays on Monday night, turns the initials MNF to mean Masterbation Night Football - if you have one ring like Brett Favre, you are the best ever.

Peyton is already better than alot of the guys that came before him.

 

[Dan B.]

I think it was Collingsworth earlier who said that in his entire football career that Peyton has only had 3 systems he's had to work with...that builds the consistency alot of QB's lack coaching wise and it doesn't hurt that Peyton is a very smart guy.

The Colts are just very well coached and their players play smart football. Well except for the blocker running into the punt returner tonight....

I'm curious how many systems Brady, Montana, or Marino worked under. I wonder if Collinsworth mentioned that.