Better Player: Steve Young or Peyton Manning

[NJerseypaint]

3 minutes ago, SBLIII said:

would have been a lot more impressive if he did when he actually was great (2013). 2015 was all his defense. 

I dunno. Winning an SB against a top 5 defense without being able to throw further than 5 yards is pretty impressive. He might not have been vintage Manning, but he got the job done.

[NFLExpert49]

11 hours ago, Classic said:

My god does Young get overrated in these comparison threads lately. He isn't even a Top 5 QB of All Time. Manning would take those stacked 49ers of the 90's to 4 or 5 Super Bowls, even with the Cowboys of that time contending against them. 

Yeah, sure. Because Manning was so great in the postseason. 

I'm sure he would love playing in the slop at Candlestick, too. 

Manning also wouldn't be nearly as effective in that system. They would have to completely change the scheme in order to get anything like what Manning did during his time. A pure pocket passing guy who takes boatloads of snaps out of the shotgun, with heavy use of 3+ WR sets...heads to a team that literally never uses the shotgun, runs 95% of its offensive plays out of the pro set (only 2 WRs), and relies heavily on QB footwork and mobility.

You clearly haven't thought this through.

And I want to reiterate, Young would kill Manning in a QB drills contest. Manning couldn't even beat Michael Vick in an accuracy drill at one of the Pro Bowls. Young, meanwhile, came out of retirement to team with Jeff Garcia at Garcia's first Pro Bowl and absolutely humiliated him in the accuracy contest, with Young finishing first among all QBs with a score of 66, while Garcia finished dead last with 6. 

 

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

10 hours ago, SBLIII said:

you need to look far beyond scoring defense to measure a defense which you do not. Scoring defense (besides the obvious metrics RZ defense etc) is driven by offensive pace, offensive success and schedule which you seem to ignore.

Scoring defense is one of the most important statistic for a defense, obviously. The only one outdoing it is points/drive because it accounts for the pace of the game. Scoring defense isn't perfect, but neither is anything else. 

10 hours ago, SBLIII said:

I have no idea where you get your efficiency stats from but it was ranked 31st. Translation 2nd worst in the league, horrific.

Not sure what that is exactly, but when I say "efficiency" I'm referring to "achieving maximum output with minimal input." Which is what efficiency means. In this case, the input is drives and the output is points. 

Really, defensive efficiency is just points per drive. Which, in that respect the Pats in 2011 ranked 21st, which you're right is pretty bad, but as another mentioned, they were among the best in forcing takeaways which is extremely important. Overall, it was an average defense, not a terrible one. 

Regardless, this notion that Brady has won SB's with average defenses, and reached SB's with terrible defenses, is patently false. The only time, in Brady's entire career that he had a truly terrible defense, he didn't even make the playoffs. 

But yeah, you mentioned how pace plays a roll, and you're right. But if we do things on a per-drive basis, it accounts for the pace of the game. Let's look at his Super Bowl defenses: 6th, 1st, 4th, 8th, 1st, 7th. Objectively, not a single "average" defense, not even close. You're just blatantly wrong. 

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

11 hours ago, vikes635 said:

This was a tuff one but ultimately I went with Peyton. Both are in the Top 15 QB's of all time though.

Top 15?? You could make an argument for both being in the top 5, Peyton has no business being out of the top 3. 

Quote

 Is that what we call the defenses that limited 3 of the top 10 highest scoring offenses of all time? The defenses you are talking about are not even close to historically bad - but the offenses Pats have face were 100% historically good. And not just in regards to making it to 

This. Of the top 20 highest scoring offenses of all-time, the Patriots faced 6 of them in the playoffs, and held all 6 of them to less than their season average. Of those 6, they beat five of them, with thanks to their defense limiting them. Six of the greatest offenses in NFL history, scored an average of 16.8 PPG against the Patriots. 

[BullsandBroncos]

10 hours ago, SBLIII said:

would have been a lot more impressive if he did when he actually was great (2013). 2015 was all his defense. 

Yeah but I look at this part differently.

Any other QB besides maybe Brees or Brady tries to be a hero and win that game even though they don't have to.

Peyton knew all they had to do was run the ball and don't lose the game for the team.

And of course, that AFCCG the same year. 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

On 2/12/2019 at 3:31 PM, Classic said:

My god does Young get overrated in these comparison threads lately. He isn't even a Top 5 QB of All Time. Manning would take those stacked 49ers of the 90's to 4 or 5 Super Bowls, even with the Cowboys of that time contending against them. 

Not sure how you could say that with a a straight face. Manning has been on stacked teams before. And failed to elevate his play in the playoffs. On the road, or at home.

[childofpudding]

If you're talking peak prime, it's easily Young. He rolled in '94. Depending on what you pick for Manning's prime, he either put up 3 points in a playoff loss vs. NE or 8 points in the SB vs. Seattle. Neither come close to matching Young in '94.

If you're talking overall career, it's easily Manning.

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

On 2/19/2019 at 12:25 AM, PapaShogun said:

Not sure how you could say that with a a straight face. Manning has been on stacked teams before. And failed to elevate his play in the playoffs. On the road, or at home.

Oh yeah? Care to give any examples?

Quote

 

If you're talking peak prime, it's easily Young. He rolled in '94. Depending on what you pick for Manning's prime, he either put up 3 points in a playoff loss vs. NE or 8 points in the SB vs. Seattle. Neither come close to matching Young in '94.

If you're talking overall career, it's easily Manning.

 

So, their primes are defined by single seasons? Peyton had a ~12 year prime. His 

You realize that those 3 points were in the snow against the #2 scoring defense?

[childofpudding]

14 minutes ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

Oh yeah? Care to give any examples?

So, their primes are defined by single seasons? Peyton had a ~12 year prime. His 

You realize that those 3 points were in the snow against the #2 scoring defense?

OP said peak prime, so yeah, one season should suffice. If you want to expand it to two years, I'd still take Young in 93-94 over Manning in 03-04, 12-13 or 13-14.

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

3 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

OP said peak prime, so yeah, one season should suffice. If you want to expand it to two years, I'd still take Young in 93-94 over Manning in 03-04, 12-13 or 13-14.

Alright well that's fair. I disagree anyway. 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

2 hours ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

Oh yeah? Care to give any examples?

2003 Colts, 2004 Colts, and 2005 Colts. Both teams fell felt in the playoffs, with Manning playing particularly bad against New England twice, and the Steelers.

The 2014 Broncos as well. That was a stacked team.

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

10 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

2003 Colts, 2004 Colts, and 2005 Colts. Both teams fell felt in the playoffs, with Manning playing particularly bad against New England twice, and the Steelers.

The only team of the 3 that could be even remotely described as "stacked" is the 05' team. But in that game, Peyton had a 91 passer rating(this with no blocking whatsoever) and had a chance to tie the game but a game-tying FG at the end of the game was missed. So in the only case where the team could be described as "stacked", Peyton played fairly well in the game and most definitely not "particularly bad." 

The 03' Colts were the 20th ranked scoring defense and the 23rd in points/drive, the 04' team was 19th in scoring defense, and 23rd in points/drive. Considering historically defense is the more important side of the ball in the playoffs, and both those teams were garbage in that area, they weren't "stacked." And sure, Peyton played bad I guess in both games, but they were still both games in the snow(AKA not condusive to passing) and against one of the best defenses in the league. 

So as I expected, you're just blatantly wrong. 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

5 hours ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

The only team of the 3 that could be even remotely described as "stacked" is the 05' team. But in that game, Peyton had a 91 passer rating(this with no blocking whatsoever) and had a chance to tie the game but a game-tying FG at the end of the game was missed. So in the only case where the team could be described as "stacked", Peyton played fairly well in the game and most definitely not "particularly bad." 

The 03' Colts were the 20th ranked scoring defense and the 23rd in points/drive, the 04' team was 19th in scoring defense, and 23rd in points/drive. Considering historically defense is the more important side of the ball in the playoffs, and both those teams were garbage in that area, they weren't "stacked." And sure, Peyton played bad I guess in both games, but they were still both games in the snow(AKA not condusive to passing) and against one of the best defenses in the league. 

So as I expected, you're just blatantly wrong. 

Manning played horrible in that game against the Steelers. If you're analyzing a quaterback's performance by standard passer rating, then you're not actually watching the game. Passer rating doesn't take into account throws almost intercepted, doesn't take into account sacks, doesn't take into account handling pressure, doesn't take into account a touchdown being a bomb or a 50 yard screen pass, etc.

That game is over a lot sooner if not for Jerome Bettis' fumble, and the reversed call on Troy Polamalu that should have been an interception. The defense did it's job, giving the Colts' offense multiple opportunities to capitalize. Manning, and the rest of the unit choked. This team had the #1 offensive DVOA, and #8 defensive DVOA. They went 14-2, and had a first round bye at home. The team choked, and the offense in particular. I think Manning is still taking sacks from that game now. They were having protection issues, but a lot of those 5 sacks were Manning just feeling the pressure, and not adjusting at the line, which he always gets credit for. How about the offense going 3/13 on third downs? Manning wasn't playing well in spite of a bad unit. He was part of the problem that day. 

Enough. In 2003, and 2004 the Colts were stacked, and arguably the best team in the NFL. They could have easily won the Super Bowl both years. They were average on defense, but that wasn't the reason they lost in the playoffs against New England. Especially in 2004, when the offense scored 3 points. The same offense that had a quarterback throw 49 touchdowns. So what if it was in the snow. Bad excuse. If your quarterback can only play quality ball in the dome, then that's just a glaring weakness. If your QB needs perfect protection, that's a weakness. Young played his entire 49ers career at Candlestick outside. Ben Roethlisberger and Tom Brady play in snow. Deal with it.

And there is zero excuse for 2014 (which I see you conveniently didn't talk about in your reply). That Broncos team was also stacked, and got smacked like a ho in the Super Bowl. Manning has melted down in the playoffs on very good teams/stacked teams. Practically every quarterback that has had a HOF career has done so. 

You need to watch the game, and not just go off boxscores and highlights. 

[King Joffrey]

On 2/12/2019 at 11:36 AM, NJerseypaint said:

1. Do we have to stick Brady into every comparison? The title literally only asks to compare either Peyton or Steve Young.

2. Why are Pats fans conveniently re imagining the "bend but don't break" defense? You guys hail it when it wins you SB, but years later call it a historically bad defense because it doesn't fit your narrative? 6-1 when BB "gifts at least an average defense"? Is that what we call the defenses that limited 3 of the top 10 highest scoring offenses of all time? The defenses you are talking about are not even close to historically bad - but the offenses Pats have face were 100% historically good. And not just in regards to making it to the SB (which is a strange qualifier that I don't quite understand).

Now for the actual topic:

Peyton is the only QB to win super bowls with two different teams and that is what impresses me the most. Change the personnel, change HC, change the OC, and Peyton still wins an SB.

As a Pats fan I agree it's lame to inject Brady into every debate.  

 

Your other point I find odd considering Peyton threw 3 tds and 7 picks in the 06 playoffs and his 15 season and playoffs was worse than dilfer's 

[NJerseypaint]

12 minutes ago, King Joffrey said:

Your other point I find odd considering Peyton threw 3 tds and 7 picks in the 06 playoffs and his 15 season and playoffs was worse than dilfer's 

Are you saying that the 2006 Colts carried Peyton to a SB win? There's the case to be made for his 2015 win, but I don't see Osweiler beating the Pats and then the Panthers. Manning's arm was gone, but his mind was still there to make up for it.

It still stands though that he was able to change squads and win 2 SBs and appear in 4 (with 4 different HCs mind you).