Peyton Manning,,,,,,,,
GRANDAM
Posts: 8,518 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
THE BEST!!!!!!
Nothing else needs to be said,,,,,,,,,
GrandAm
Nothing else needs to be said,,,,,,,,,
GrandAm
GrandAm 
0
Comments
Brady in '07 comes to mind and others, but overall I dont mind anyone arguing that Peyton is the best ever nor would I for a few others as well.
That is due to a couple of things:
1. His own talents and efforts;
2. His receiving corp which is turning out to be very, very good;
3. an offensive line that is giving him time to throw; and
4. enough of a running game to require that defenses defend against the pass and the run.
Now if only the Denver defense (particularly the pass defense) would stiffen up and chop about 7-10 points off of the PPG it is allowing the other teams to score. If that happened and the offense continues to play the way it has the first four games, Denver would be on track for a possible trip to the SB.
Manning has only led his team to one Championship, fair or not, that will enter the equation. Otherwise Marino would be considered (in my mind) the best.
Still, he is a fabulous QB certainly ONE of the best of all time.
For the last time: a team achievement is just that- team achievement. Peyton is on pace to be the greatest qb we've ever seen.
The fact of the matter is it gets counted against all great Quarterbacks that don't "win it all".
Remember Fran Tarkenton? At one time, he held all the important passing records. Unless I bring him up, he rarely if ever gets mentioned in the "best of all time" discussions.
Marino gets mentioned, although not as much as in the past.
Yet we hear about guys like Bradshaw and Aikman because they have all those rings.
By the way, aren't these discussions a TOTAL waste of time? How can we really come up with any kind of list (especially on QB's) that anyone can agree on?
I would certainly agree that Manning (Peyton) is one of the greatest of all time.
Lastly while I completely agree that using championships as a LARGE determining factor is unfar, QB's, more than any other player in football, have a HUGE effect on the outcome of games and thus championships.
<< <i>Too bad you guys can't read, FAIR OR NOT.
The fact of the matter is it gets counted against all great Quarterbacks that don't "win it all". >>
Only to those too dense or ignorant to look beyond one statistic.
<< <i>Remember Fran Tarkenton? At one time, he held all the important passing records. Unless I bring him up, he rarely if ever gets mentioned in the "best of all time" discussions. >>
How many QBs from his era get brought up these days? Not many. He, along with many who played along side him, have been passed up by better quarterbacks. It has absolutely nothing to do with his lack of rings.
<< <i>Marino gets mentioned, although not as much as in the past. >>
Because his career started nearly 30 years ago. How often is Montana being brought up in conversations these days? Not often. It's a fact of life. Older players fade into the background as newer players come in. This isn't exclusive to this discussion.
<< <i>Yet we hear about guys like Bradshaw and Aikman because they have all those rings. >>
We hear about them because they are prominent national broadcasters. Again, when is the last time Montana was brought up? He's not doing national football commentary, hence he's out of the discussion.
<< <i>By the way, aren't these discussions a TOTAL waste of time? How can we really come up with any kind of list (especially on QB's) that anyone can agree on? >>
When people continue to point to a team accomplishment as a means to discuss individuals, you're right, it is a waste of time. Refusing to acknowledge it takes a TEAM to win a title and not just one guy, then yes, it's an exercise in futility.
<< <i>Lastly while I completely agree that using championships as a LARGE determining factor is unfar, QB's, more than any other player in football, have a HUGE effect on the outcome of games and thus championships. >>
Elway is the perfect example of this. People refuse to remember how much better his TEAMS were when he was winning super bowls as opposed to those he lost. He's the perfect case study to show a great player on a great team as opposed to a very good one.
Tebow on the other hand doesn't do a darn thing, and the Jets are still paying him millions.
Tim is in more affordable care when he get can paid to do nothing.
Peyton is not in his class. Peyton actually works to earn his keep.
Therefore Tebow has worked the system much better then Peyton has.
<< <i>Yeah, Peyton's pretty darn good, but he has to work to get paid.
Tebow on the other hand doesn't do a darn thing, and the Jets are still paying him millions. >>
Of course you would come along and try to besmirch one of the all time greats with that fraud Tebow. However, since you brought him up, it's time to smack you around once again:
the Jets are no longer paying Tebow a dime. That's what happens when you cut/trade a player in the NFL. The only money guaranteed are signing bonuses (and even that can be taken back retoractively - just ask Barry Sanders.) Want proof?
>>
Jets Player Salaries
Try again, fitzy. But keep up the tebow man crush, you make it so easy to shoot you down!
Can't wait to see him win a playoff game with Denver. Still waiting for that.
<< <i>Now to get back on track about the great Peyton Manning, which this thread is all about.
Can't wait to see him win a playoff game with Denver. Still waiting for that. >>
At MOST, this year he will win two post season games.
<< <i>
<< <i>Too bad you guys can't read, FAIR OR NOT.
The fact of the matter is it gets counted against all great Quarterbacks that don't "win it all". >>
Only to those too dense or ignorant to look beyond one statistic.
<< <i>Remember Fran Tarkenton? At one time, he held all the important passing records. Unless I bring him up, he rarely if ever gets mentioned in the "best of all time" discussions. >>
How many QBs from his era get brought up these days? Not many. He, along with many who played along side him, have been passed up by better quarterbacks. It has absolutely nothing to do with his lack of rings.
<< <i>Marino gets mentioned, although not as much as in the past. >>
Because his career started nearly 30 years ago. How often is Montana being brought up in conversations these days? Not often. It's a fact of life. Older players fade into the background as newer players come in. This isn't exclusive to this discussion.
<< <i>Yet we hear about guys like Bradshaw and Aikman because they have all those rings. >>
We hear about them because they are prominent national broadcasters. Again, when is the last time Montana was brought up? He's not doing national football commentary, hence he's out of the discussion.
<< <i>By the way, aren't these discussions a TOTAL waste of time? How can we really come up with any kind of list (especially on QB's) that anyone can agree on? >>
When people continue to point to a team accomplishment as a means to discuss individuals, you're right, it is a waste of time. Refusing to acknowledge it takes a TEAM to win a title and not just one guy, then yes, it's an exercise in futility.
<< <i>Lastly while I completely agree that using championships as a LARGE determining factor is unfar, QB's, more than any other player in football, have a HUGE effect on the outcome of games and thus championships. >>
Elway is the perfect example of this. People refuse to remember how much better his TEAMS were when he was winning super bowls as opposed to those he lost. He's the perfect case study to show a great player on a great team as opposed to a very good one. >>
Well, here you go again taking what I said out of context. I should not be surprised.
I have read many of these "so and so's the greatest of all time" debates and when it comes to Quarterbacks winning championships is going to be a factor, maybe a small one, but bigger than any other player, because he is the offensive leader.
If you don't think that some of the players on the 1960's version of the Minnesota Vikings weren't overlooked because of their Super Bowl record, including Tarkenton, you are simply ignoring reality.
LIKE IT OR NOT winning a championship, especially for a quarterback, will be a factor in MANY peoples ratings. Your guy Elway was considered a flop til he won one. How about Jim Kelly, his team wins 3 or 4 of the Super Bowls he went to and people would be screaming that he was one of the best. It's a FACT that LOTS of sports fans include playoff performance as ONE OF the factors in determining who was "the best". CAN YOU HEAR THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF MY MOUTH?
For the record, I never said I was a big believer in winning championships being a determining factor in deciding "the best ever", I said many people do. I don't, put much stock in it at all.
Go ahead with the last comment here, I am not going to argue such an obvious point and am not going to be drawn "far afield" as you love to do. Thank you and good night.
<< <i>
Well, here you go again taking what I said out of context. I should not be surprised.
>>
Out of context? I am quoting you entirely and doing a point by point breakdown of where you thinking led you astray. Out of context? Impossible, as I have included each and every word you posted.
<< <i>I have read many of these "so and so's the greatest of all time" debates and when it comes to Quarterbacks winning championships is going to be a factor, maybe a small one, but bigger than any other player, because he is the offensive leader. >>
The only people who suggest championships are an indicator of a player's true ability simply don't or can't understand how the game is truly won and lost.
<< <i>If you don't think that some of the players on the 1960's version of the Minnesota Vikings weren't overlooked because of their Super Bowl record, including Tarkenton, you are simply ignoring reality. >>
No, it's the passage of time. Players from bygone eras, from super bowl winners to super bowl losers simply get replaced in the common lexicon by more recent players. It happens in every sport, and happens whether they won or lost.
<< <i>LIKE IT OR NOT winning a championship, especially for a quarterback, will be a factor in MANY peoples ratings. Your guy Elway was considered a flop til he won one. >>
He only won because he had an elite running game, and anyone with a functioning brain realizes that.
<< <i>How about Jim Kelly, his team wins 3 or 4 of the Super Bowls he went to and people would be screaming that he was one of the best. It's a FACT that LOTS of sports fans include playoff performance as ONE OF the factors in determining who was "the best". CAN YOU HEAR THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF MY MOUTH? >>
Even without super bowl wins, Kelly was never an elite level QB. He went to a handful of pro bowls and had a solid, above average career. He was never an MVP candidate, never considered a top flight QB. He had a career 84 QB rating, and his teams went to super bowls. Can you understand that he's not grouped with the greats of his era not because he didn't win super bowl(s), but because he just wasn't as talented?
<< <i>For the record, I never said I was a big believer in winning championships being a determining factor in deciding "the best ever", I said many people do. I don't, put much stock in it at all. >>
Then why for god's sake are you carrying the water for this argument? If you don't put much stock in it, why spend a single minute trying to argue for it? You just got done saying that the Vikings of the 60s and Jim Kelly would be more remembered if they had won super bowls!
<< <i>Go ahead with the last comment here, I am not going to argue such an obvious point and am not going to be drawn "far afield" as you love to do. Thank you and good night. >>
It's not a matter of trying to have the last word, but in debating your points. You claim not to believe in championships elevating and defining a player, but continue to try to draw example after example of it. You sure are an odd one.
<< <i>I'll just say this - for my money, Steve Young is the best QB I've ever seen. >>
You know, there is a part of mine that is right behind you on that.
""I'm sick of hearing about Peyton Manning this and that and that," said Dallas linebacker Ernie Sims, who expects to replace struggling starter Bruce Carter in the lineup Sunday. "We've got to go out and do what we've got to do. You hear it all the time. Guys walk in the locker room: 'Peyton Manning threw for four touchdowns,' this and that. I'm just sick of it.
"Yeah, he's a great player. Can't take that away from him, but at the end of the day, we're all competitors. Me being a competitor, I don't like that. I'm ready. I'm ready to play football.""
I'm thinking with the Cowboys struggling so much against the pass this year (they're allowing over 300 yards a game), Peyton will have a field day; 350+ yards and 3 or 4 TDs.
<< <i> debates and when it comes to Quarterbacks winning championships is going to be a factor, maybe a small one, but bigger than any other player, because he is the offensive leader. >>
The only people who suggest championships are an indicator of a player's true ability simply don't or can't understand how the game is truly won and lost. >>
Axtell, are you that dumb? Listen, I have argued countless times on overvaluing QB's due to championships won, and I have forgotten more about that dynamic(or any other dynamic), than you will ever know in your lifetime.
JoeBanzi states that winning championships is going to be a factor, and says clearly, "maybe a small one, but bigger than any other player, because he is the offensive leader."
In all of my debates on this topic, Bonzi's comment is probably about as reasonable and logical one I have heard. His statement clearly says that championships are a "small" factor, yet you got all crazy with your nonsense bashing what he said, thinking that he doesn't understand the game and such because he is over valuing championships.
He also states CORRECTLY that the QB, while only a "small" factor in winning the championships is "bigger than any other player." That is correct. There is no other single player on the field with the same impact as the QB. That does not mean the QB is the only 'reason' why it is won or lost.
<< <i>The fact of the matter is it gets counted against all great Quarterbacks that don't "win it all". >>
To which I stated that anyone using championships won to counting against a qb is an ignorant way of evaluating talent. Period. Now get lost, troll, I am done debating you because you're less interested in an honest debate than in just plain arguing. Good day, sir!
edit: spelling.
Tim Tebow on the other hand won two national championships, and was a great big game player for Florida.
Tebow was certainly the better college qb over Manning, but Manning so far has proven to be the better pro.
Peyton was a choker in college. Montana was amazing in college with his comeback ability even back then.
Elway and Steve Young were pretty awesome in college too.
Tebow was just a winner, and Florida fell off the map ever since he left the university.
<< <i>skin, I am beyond tired in your constant sniping and bickering just because you have an issue with me and why you're rushing to defend joe is beyond me.
<< <i>The fact of the matter is it gets counted against all great Quarterbacks that don't "win it all". >>
To which I stated that anyone using championships won to counting against a qb is an ignorant way of evaluating talent. Period. Now get lost, troll, I am done debating you because you're less interested in an honest debate than in just plain arguing. Good day, sir!
edit: spelling. >>
Yes, a good day it is indeed!
I like Joe, but that isn't why I did that. I did that because he made a good logical and valid post...however, you, on the other hand, could not see his simple valid point, as usual, and then made abrasive attacks on him.
I do like debating. However, I am not debating with you, because you have never made a valid unbiased point.
I'm not bickering at all...I'm simply enjoying pointing out all your inconsistencies, ignorance, and rudeness. If you want that to stop, then get rid of bias, listen, and don't ignore everyone whenever they show how your point was completely invalid. Then maybe there won't be a reason for people to get on you.
When I do 'engage' you on these boards, you inevitably end up painting yourself into a corner with your double talk. You may as well change your name to Sherwin Williams.
<< <i>Peyton Manning couldn't win the big game against Florida in college. Lost all four years as a starter. His senior year bowl game against Nebraska was a disaster too. >>
Last time I checked, football was played as a TEAM, not 1 on 11.
<< <i>Tim Tebow on the other hand won two national championships, and was a great big game player for Florida. >>
And who's had the better pro career? Thank you for playing!
<< <i>Tebow was certainly the better college qb over Manning, but Manning so far has proven to be the better pro. >>
So why even compare the two?
I am just waiting a couple of more weeks till he returns to Lucas Oil Stadium.
I still
Don't get me wrong,, Andrew Luck is looking to be a Top Tier Quarter back in his own right but the way Peyton was discarded by Jim Irsay leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
Granted it was the right long term move for Indy but
It was PEYTON for goodness sake. Peyton WAS the COLTS! !!!!!!