No defense. And the Hawks were firing on all cylinders. They played great!!!
Would take Manning in a heart beat over Elway, and yes I'm old enough to have seen them both. Elway scrambling is a moot point in this comparison. >>
Moot point? He was 3x more mobile than Manning, but sacked nearly 250 more times. Look at what Elway did with a decent team around him.....2 Super Bowl titles at age 37 and 38.
You think Manning puts up the numbers he has in the 80s, with those rules, those headhunting linebackers, and safeties like Ronnie Lott trying to kill his receivers......that's funny. >>
What makes you think Manning wouldn't be able to adapt to the rules of the game back then? He is playing in the game as it is played in his time. Just because the rules were different back thenm doesn't mean today's players would not have been able to adapt to those rules. The talent level is there regardless of the era win which you are playing. Guys that played linebacker back then are smaller than some cornerbacks today, >>
It's pretty obvious how he would have fared against defenses like that....see Super Bowl 48, and the New England Patriots 98-05.
But I'll bite...how about Elway in today's pass happy league, with his arm, athletic ability, a world class offense around him, and rules that won't let a defensive player touch him? >>
Well, if he had the benefit of playing with a back putting up arguably the greatest stats over a two-year span in NFL history with a top 10 defense to boot, he's probably do quite well, just as he did in '97 and '98.
Had he not had those benefits, see Super Bowls XXI, XXII and XXIII--during which the Broncos were outscored 136-40 and Elway threw 2 TDs and 6 INTs. His 19.4 QB rating in SB XXIII may even be a record low (I'm not sure offhand). >>
Sigh....Denver does not even play in those 3 Super bowls without Elway carrying them to those Super Bowls. Put Manning on THOSE teams in THAT era.....it would be UGLY. Now look at what Manning did do....With a consistent 1000 yard rusher, Marvin Harrison, and an offensive line who did not let him get sacked in a pass friendly league.....no Super Bowls until his 8th year.
My point- Manning has always had talent around him, is 1-2 in the Super Bowl and 11-12 in the playoffs. Elway is 14-7 in the playoffs, 2-3 in the Super Bowls and only had TD for 3 years. >>
Yes, but you're missing the point--Elway was 7-8 in postseason play before he got TD and a solid D after which point he was 7-0 at a point in time when he was nearing the end of his career. The SAME things people are saying about Manning now, people were saying about Elway back then before 1997, and even more so, because Manning after all already DOES have a Super Bowl ring AND a Super Bowl MVP while Elway obviously had neither. Is that a coincidence that Elway suddenly became a champion at age 37? No, not at all. He had the best running back on the planet for those two seasons and a pretty stout D (far better than any D that Manning has played with). Of course Elway was also great--no one here (I think) is suggesting otherwise, but my point in all this is that the QB gets too much blame when the team loses and probably too much credit when they win. Fans love a scapegoat, though, so it's not surprising that's how QBs are judged. Heck, even Brady was had a pretty disappointing last decade of postseason results.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
No defense. And the Hawks were firing on all cylinders. They played great!!!
Would take Manning in a heart beat over Elway, and yes I'm old enough to have seen them both. Elway scrambling is a moot point in this comparison. >>
Moot point? He was 3x more mobile than Manning, but sacked nearly 250 more times. Look at what Elway did with a decent team around him.....2 Super Bowl titles at age 37 and 38.
You think Manning puts up the numbers he has in the 80s, with those rules, those headhunting linebackers, and safeties like Ronnie Lott trying to kill his receivers......that's funny. >>
What makes you think Manning wouldn't be able to adapt to the rules of the game back then? He is playing in the game as it is played in his time. Just because the rules were different back thenm doesn't mean today's players would not have been able to adapt to those rules. The talent level is there regardless of the era win which you are playing. Guys that played linebacker back then are smaller than some cornerbacks today, >>
It's pretty obvious how he would have fared against defenses like that....see Super Bowl 48, and the New England Patriots 98-05.
But I'll bite...how about Elway in today's pass happy league, with his arm, athletic ability, a world class offense around him, and rules that won't let a defensive player touch him? >>
Well, if he had the benefit of playing with a back putting up arguably the greatest stats over a two-year span in NFL history with a top 10 defense to boot, he's probably do quite well, just as he did in '97 and '98.
Had he not had those benefits, see Super Bowls XXI, XXII and XXIII--during which the Broncos were outscored 136-40 and Elway threw 2 TDs and 6 INTs. His 19.4 QB rating in SB XXIII may even be a record low (I'm not sure offhand). >>
Sigh....Denver does not even play in those 3 Super bowls without Elway carrying them to those Super Bowls. Put Manning on THOSE teams in THAT era.....it would be UGLY. Now look at what Manning did do....With a consistent 1000 yard rusher, Marvin Harrison, and an offensive line who did not let him get sacked in a pass friendly league.....no Super Bowls until his 8th year.
My point- Manning has always had talent around him, is 1-2 in the Super Bowl and 11-12 in the playoffs. Elway is 14-7 in the playoffs, 2-3 in the Super Bowls and only had TD for 3 years. >>
Yes, but you're missing the point--Elway was 7-8 in postseason play before he got TD and a solid D after which point he was 7-0 at a point in time when he was nearing the end of his career. The SAME things people are saying about Manning now, people were saying about Elway back then before 1997, and even more so, because Manning after all already DOES have a Super Bowl ring AND a Super Bowl MVP while Elway obviously had neither. Is that a coincidence that Elway suddenly became a champion at age 37? No, not at all. He had the best running back on the planet for those two seasons and a pretty stout D (far better than any D that Manning has played with). Of course Elway was also great--no one here (I think) is suggesting otherwise, but my point in all this is that the QB gets too much blame when the team loses and probably too much credit when they win. Fans love a scapegoat, though, so it's not surprising that's how QBs are judged. Heck, even Brady was had a pretty disappointing last decade of postseason results. >>
I understand the point for sure.
Here's mine- Elway was 7-7 in the playoffs with 3 Super Bowl appearances with no consistent 1000 yard rusher, one of the worst offensive lines in the NFL, a receiving Corp who is unknown, in a league that was NOT pass/qb friendly. Once he got a team he DOMINATED the league, and got the titles.
Manning is 11-12 in the playoffs, 1-2 in the Super Bowl, WITH a consistent 1000 yard rusher, with a great line, with Marvin Harrison/Reggie Wayne/Decker/Thomas/Welker, in a league that IS pass friendly, and will throw a flag if the QB stubs his toe.
My point is to the people who are saying "Manning is better, by a longshot".....it's just not true. These people need to realize 3000 yards WAS a big deal in the 80s. Quarterbacks were not protected how they are now. Receivers could NOT run these post patterns a crossed the middle without risking their career. Pass interference was not called every other play.
Manning/Brady are the best OF their ERA. Elway/Montana/Marino were the best of their ERA. Comparing from different eras opens Pandora box.
Black, I think our opinions on both QBs are probably not that far apart. I would probably still take Manning over Elway, but I certainly don't believe he is better by a longshot. Elway was a terrific QB and I don't think you could go wrong taking him, either. I watched him play growing up and he was definitely one of the best all time. For that era, I'd rank him only behind Montana, actually.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Can we stop with the Manning would not be able to do anything in "Elway's era" nonsense? Dan Marino managed to do quite a bit in the same "ERA" and he was basically a statue in the pocket. Detailing how often Elway got sacked only shows you that he held on to the ball too long because he was so athletic and tried to do too much with his feet at times. Manning would have put up amazing stats whenever he played because he reads defenses so well, has a quick release, and gets the ball out of this hand so as not to be sacked very often. It is not like every defense in the 80s was so amazingly stout that no one could throw the ball.
There are plenty of mobile quarterbacks with strong arms in the league now. While Elway would have done well playing in the current day NFL the fact is that his skill set is not as unique now as it was when he played.
If I had to choose I would pick Brady or Montana over either Elway or Manning.
Manning isn't clutch. His only super bowl win was over Rex Grossman...seriously,I know you can' judge a team by who they played in the big game but if you rewatch that super bowl you will recognize maybe 3 players from the Bears. Manning will get in the hall of fame and they will need a LOT of extra cement/plaster to sculpt his forehead. Anyways as bad as manning sucked last night you do need to remember Wes Welker on a tv show a few years back claimed he Sold his soul to the devil to rehab a knee injury, and even though its just superstition or what not thats the kind of bad karma that gets you 0-3 in super bowls and maybe even proves God watches the games too. Id never take a quarterback in Denver or one throwing to Wes Welker, I pick Frank Tripucka
<< <i>Hey, GROTE, remember when you requoted me saying Manning was a gonna choke... That was the best requote so far this year!!!
1.UNITAS
2.MONTANA
BIG GAP
3. NOT MANNING HE CHOKES IN WAY TOO MANY BIG GAMES
Just to reiterate my pregame thoughts... I mean this in a positve way. Sorry about the poor form >>
You can't choke when your team is destroyed. Joe Montana would not have made a difference out there yesterday.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
What's peytons excuse for this one? >>
No defense. And the Hawks were firing on all cylinders. They played great!!!
Would take Manning in a heart beat over Elway, and yes I'm old enough to have seen them both. Elway scrambling is a moot point in this comparison. >>
Moot point? He was 3x more mobile than Manning, but sacked nearly 250 more times. Look at what Elway did with a decent team around him.....2 Super Bowl titles at age 37 and 38.
You think Manning puts up the numbers he has in the 80s, with those rules, those headhunting linebackers, and safeties like Ronnie Lott trying to kill his receivers......that's funny. >>
What makes you think Manning wouldn't be able to adapt to the rules of the game back then? He is playing in the game as it is played in his time. Just because the rules were different back thenm doesn't mean today's players would not have been able to adapt to those rules. The talent level is there regardless of the era win which you are playing. Guys that played linebacker back then are smaller than some cornerbacks today, >>
It's pretty obvious how he would have fared against defenses like that....see Super Bowl 48, and the New England Patriots 98-05.
But I'll bite...how about Elway in today's pass happy league, with his arm, athletic ability, a world class offense around him, and rules that won't let a defensive player touch him? >>
Well, if he had the benefit of playing with a back putting up arguably the greatest stats over a two-year span in NFL history with a top 10 defense to boot, he's probably do quite well, just as he did in '97 and '98.
Had he not had those benefits, see Super Bowls XXI, XXII and XXIII--during which the Broncos were outscored 136-40 and Elway threw 2 TDs and 6 INTs. His 19.4 QB rating in SB XXIII may even be a record low (I'm not sure offhand). >>
Sigh....Denver does not even play in those 3 Super bowls without Elway carrying them to those Super Bowls. Put Manning on THOSE teams in THAT era.....it would be UGLY.
Now look at what Manning did do....With a consistent 1000 yard rusher, Marvin Harrison, and an offensive line who did not let him get sacked in a pass friendly league.....no Super Bowls until his 8th year.
My point- Manning has always had talent around him, is 1-2 in the Super Bowl and 11-12 in the playoffs.
Elway is 14-7 in the playoffs, 2-3 in the Super Bowls and only had TD for 3 years. >>
Yes, but you're missing the point--Elway was 7-8 in postseason play before he got TD and a solid D after which point he was 7-0 at a point in time when he was nearing the end of his career. The SAME things people are saying about Manning now, people were saying about Elway back then before 1997, and even more so, because Manning after all already DOES have a Super Bowl ring AND a Super Bowl MVP while Elway obviously had neither. Is that a coincidence that Elway suddenly became a champion at age 37? No, not at all. He had the best running back on the planet for those two seasons and a pretty stout D (far better than any D that Manning has played with). Of course Elway was also great--no one here (I think) is suggesting otherwise, but my point in all this is that the QB gets too much blame when the team loses and probably too much credit when they win. Fans love a scapegoat, though, so it's not surprising that's how QBs are judged. Heck, even Brady was had a pretty disappointing last decade of postseason results.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
What's peytons excuse for this one? >>
No defense. And the Hawks were firing on all cylinders. They played great!!!
Would take Manning in a heart beat over Elway, and yes I'm old enough to have seen them both. Elway scrambling is a moot point in this comparison. >>
Moot point? He was 3x more mobile than Manning, but sacked nearly 250 more times. Look at what Elway did with a decent team around him.....2 Super Bowl titles at age 37 and 38.
You think Manning puts up the numbers he has in the 80s, with those rules, those headhunting linebackers, and safeties like Ronnie Lott trying to kill his receivers......that's funny. >>
What makes you think Manning wouldn't be able to adapt to the rules of the game back then? He is playing in the game as it is played in his time. Just because the rules were different back thenm doesn't mean today's players would not have been able to adapt to those rules. The talent level is there regardless of the era win which you are playing. Guys that played linebacker back then are smaller than some cornerbacks today, >>
It's pretty obvious how he would have fared against defenses like that....see Super Bowl 48, and the New England Patriots 98-05.
But I'll bite...how about Elway in today's pass happy league, with his arm, athletic ability, a world class offense around him, and rules that won't let a defensive player touch him? >>
Well, if he had the benefit of playing with a back putting up arguably the greatest stats over a two-year span in NFL history with a top 10 defense to boot, he's probably do quite well, just as he did in '97 and '98.
Had he not had those benefits, see Super Bowls XXI, XXII and XXIII--during which the Broncos were outscored 136-40 and Elway threw 2 TDs and 6 INTs. His 19.4 QB rating in SB XXIII may even be a record low (I'm not sure offhand). >>
Sigh....Denver does not even play in those 3 Super bowls without Elway carrying them to those Super Bowls. Put Manning on THOSE teams in THAT era.....it would be UGLY.
Now look at what Manning did do....With a consistent 1000 yard rusher, Marvin Harrison, and an offensive line who did not let him get sacked in a pass friendly league.....no Super Bowls until his 8th year.
My point- Manning has always had talent around him, is 1-2 in the Super Bowl and 11-12 in the playoffs.
Elway is 14-7 in the playoffs, 2-3 in the Super Bowls and only had TD for 3 years. >>
Yes, but you're missing the point--Elway was 7-8 in postseason play before he got TD and a solid D after which point he was 7-0 at a point in time when he was nearing the end of his career. The SAME things people are saying about Manning now, people were saying about Elway back then before 1997, and even more so, because Manning after all already DOES have a Super Bowl ring AND a Super Bowl MVP while Elway obviously had neither. Is that a coincidence that Elway suddenly became a champion at age 37? No, not at all. He had the best running back on the planet for those two seasons and a pretty stout D (far better than any D that Manning has played with). Of course Elway was also great--no one here (I think) is suggesting otherwise, but my point in all this is that the QB gets too much blame when the team loses and probably too much credit when they win. Fans love a scapegoat, though, so it's not surprising that's how QBs are judged. Heck, even Brady was had a pretty disappointing last decade of postseason results. >>
I understand the point for sure.
Here's mine- Elway was 7-7 in the playoffs with 3 Super Bowl appearances with no consistent 1000 yard rusher, one of the worst offensive lines in the NFL, a receiving Corp who is unknown, in a league that was NOT pass/qb friendly. Once he got a team he DOMINATED the league, and got the titles.
Manning is 11-12 in the playoffs, 1-2 in the Super Bowl, WITH a consistent 1000 yard rusher, with a great line, with Marvin Harrison/Reggie Wayne/Decker/Thomas/Welker, in a league that IS pass friendly, and will throw a flag if the QB stubs his toe.
My point is to the people who are saying "Manning is better, by a longshot".....it's just not true.
These people need to realize 3000 yards WAS a big deal in the 80s.
Quarterbacks were not protected how they are now. Receivers could NOT run these post patterns a crossed the middle without risking their career. Pass interference was not called every other play.
Manning/Brady are the best OF their ERA.
Elway/Montana/Marino were the best of their ERA.
Comparing from different eras opens Pandora box.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
There are plenty of mobile quarterbacks with strong arms in the league now. While Elway would have done well playing in the current day NFL the fact is that his skill set is not as unique now as it was when he played.
If I had to choose I would pick Brady or Montana over either Elway or Manning.
Robb
1.UNITAS
2.MONTANA
BIG GAP
3. NOT MANNING HE CHOKES IN WAY TOO MANY BIG GAMES
Just to reiterate my pregame thoughts... I mean this in a positve way. Sorry about the poor form
<< <i>Hey, GROTE, remember when you requoted me saying Manning was a gonna choke... That was the best requote so far this year!!!
1.UNITAS
2.MONTANA
BIG GAP
3. NOT MANNING HE CHOKES IN WAY TOO MANY BIG GAMES
Just to reiterate my pregame thoughts... I mean this in a positve way. Sorry about the poor form >>
You can't choke when your team is destroyed. Joe Montana would not have made a difference out there yesterday.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Love Manning, and maybe someday he will be #1 on my list, just not today. Still gonna take Elway and Montana before Peyton....Al