What current QBs are in your Hall of Very Good

[SkippyX]

Manning sure was good in the regular season and he beat up on Denver twice in the playoffs and KC once(nicknamed Red Carpet Defense).

• 12 TDs to 1 pick in those 3 playoff games  (3-0)
• 28 to 26 for the other 25 games combined. (11-13) 🤣

And he had a fantastic 2nd half against Brady in the AFCCG to get to his first SB (where he was about the 9th best Colt)

Addai, Rhodes, O-line, Hayden

 

Peyton Manning worship is so incredibly lame!

14-13 in the playoffs!

Edited September 25, 2020 by SkippyX

[SkippyX]

The point of the original discussion was to clarify Warner's bonafides.

If anyone does not see them then they are clowns.

 

The point of my Manning reality posts is to frame him in the proper context of all-time great first ballot HoF QBs.

• Manning had a 49 TD and a 55 TD season.
• He has 2 Lombardis.
• He owns (or owned) a bunch of records.
• He was 186-79 in the regular season.

He does not need people pretending he is greater than he was.

IMO he's top 10 all-time and he belongs in the discussion of top 5.

He's also nowhere near Montana or Brady.

 

If you are the kind of person who thinks regular season is more important than playoffs then I will never understand you.

Edited September 25, 2020 by SkippyX

[ET80]

1 hour ago, SkippyX said:

The point of the original discussion was to clarify Warner's bonafides.

I don't think anyone discredits Warner's accomplishments. He's a HoF QB, he experienced successful stints with both St Louis and Arizona.

He's still behind Manning, though. Flaws and all.

1 hour ago, SkippyX said:

The point of my Manning reality posts is to frame him in the proper context of all-time great first ballot HoF QBs.

Ok, something here confuses me. You sat this, then you say this:

1 hour ago, SkippyX said:

IMO he's top 10 all-time and he belongs in the discussion of top 5.

So... is top 10 all-time, top 5 discussion NOT first ballot HoF to you? Because the way you frame your first statement of comparing him to all-time great HoF QBs makes me believe you DON'T think Manning is not first ballot worthy.

Skip on the stats, answer this one question: Is Peyton Manning a First Ballot Hall of Famer?

1 hour ago, SkippyX said:

He's also nowhere near Montana or Brady.

I won't argue Brady. I'll argue Montana, simply because Montana's availability over the course of his entire career is spotty. He always got hurt at some point every year - over his 15 year career, he only played a full season three times.

When you're splitting hairs over top guys, that matters. I'll take 14-13 playoff record with two rings over four rings with over 90 games missed in 15 years. You won't, I get that - but others will.

1 hour ago, SkippyX said:

If you are the kind of person who thinks regular season is more important than playoffs then I will never understand you.

If you're the type of person who ignores any and all Regular Season stats, then I'll never understand you.

Peyton Manning is who he is - if you're going to compartmentalize him by only talking about his Post Season flaws, then you need to also acknowledge he's possibly the greatest Regular Season QB to ever play. 

Put both of those together, you have a guy who is worthy of this conversation.

[ET80]

1 hour ago, SkippyX said:

If you are the kind of person who thinks regular season is more important than playoffs then I will never understand you.

Emmitt Smith >>> Barry Sanders.

Emmitt Smith >>> Walter Payton.

Troy Aikman >>> Aaron Rodgers.

Troy Aikman >>> Steve Young.

Michael Irvin >>> Calvin Johnson.

Michael Irvin >>> Cris Carter.

I mean... right? Your logic is dictating as such.

[AkronsWitness]

5 hours ago, SkippyX said:

Manning sure was good in the regular season and he beat up on Denver twice in the playoffs and KC once(nicknamed Red Carpet Defense).

• 12 TDs to 1 pick in those 3 playoff games  (3-0)
• 28 to 26 for the other 25 games combined. (11-13) 🤣

And he had a fantastic 2nd half against Brady in the AFCCG to get to his first SB (where he was about the 9th best Colt)

Addai, Rhodes, O-line, Hayden

 

Peyton Manning worship is so incredibly lame!

14-13 in the playoffs!

Go look at the average defensive ranking of Peytons Colts teams compared to Bradys defenses with the Patriots and tell me if you see the correlation between playoff success and failure

[SkippyX]

22 minutes ago, AkronsWitness said:

Go look at the average defensive ranking of Peytons Colts teams compared to Bradys defenses with the Patriots and tell me if you see the correlation between playoff success and failure

Crying about average defensive ranking for a guy who was literally smothered with talent by Bill Polian. 🤣

His ONLY 2 championships came behind GREAT defensive play.

So your point is that Manning was just a replacement level schlub who needed great teammates on offense AND great defenses in order to ever have a chance?

That's a fine quality argument there.

 

Drew Brees had far worse defenses and he's only got 3 one and dones.

Brees had 8 TDs and ZERO picks on his Super Bowl run where he led the way like a great QB.

Take those 3 games away and he still a 26 TD 12 pick QB in his other 13 playoff games.

 

 

[lancerman]

5 hours ago, ET80 said:

Emmitt Smith >>> Barry Sanders.

Emmitt Smith >>> Walter Payton.

Troy Aikman >>> Aaron Rodgers.

Troy Aikman >>> Steve Young.

Michael Irvin >>> Calvin Johnson.

Michael Irvin >>> Cris Carter.

I mean... right? Your logic is dictating as such.

These are bad examples because you are comparing guys who were part of a super team to guys who were clearly on mediocre teams that had one bite at the apple.

So you are removing context. Like yes Aikman/Smith/Irvin won more but they did it together and you have to add Deion in there at one point. Most fans understand that situation. People aren’t saying remove all context. 
 

It’s better to compare similar instances where Young inherited Montana’s team and despite being a statistically better QB in the regular season and having a better prime, Montana had far more playoff success and Young was fighting to get the monkey off his back and therefore Montana was called the GOAT for years and Young is somewhat under appreciated for how good he was.

Or for a guy like Peyton Manning who (despite revisionist history by some people) did in fact have some of the most talented teams of his era with HOF level talent, yet had a lot of duds in the playoffs and needed to be carried by his defense to get his rings while Brady and Montana who had talented teams were always pulling off playoff heroics that helped their team accomplish the ultimate goal. That’s where you determine the difference. 

[lancerman]

32 minutes ago, AkronsWitness said:

Go look at the average defensive ranking of Peytons Colts teams compared to Bradys defenses with the Patriots and tell me if you see the correlation between playoff success and failure

Go look at Manning’s stats in his two SB runs. Then look at what his defense did in 2015 and how much he was relying on defensive scores and kicking in 2006. 

Also if ppg is going to be the stat you use for defense..... go look at how despite Brady played 21 more games he still has 69 less interceptions (read as: if you adjust for the same amount of games played, when Brady matched Manning he still had nearly 90 less INT), which is a lot,  so he was throwing his defense out there more and having them make up for a significant higher magnitude of his mistakes 

Also if we are going to do this let’s also talk about how Manning almost always had the best WR corps in the NFL, had 2 HOF RB’s (Brady and Montana never did) and he played with Vinatieri (arguably the GOAT kicker) only 1 year less than Brady had him. And this is before he went to a Denver and had a team that was carrying Tebow to the playoffs, and ultimately carried him. 
 

Then look at all the big comebacks Brady made in the playoffs from basically being a rookie and having to get a game winning drive on arguably the best defense in football knowing if he screwed up he would effectively be giving the best offense in football a chance to score, having a barn burner coming back twice in the 4th against the Panthers, knocking out a better Chargers team on the road, coming back from 14 twice against Baltimore, tying the SB comeback record against Seattle, breaking the SB comeback record against Atlanta, going on the road to win a duel a shootout against Mahomes in his MVP year and compare that to Manning’s pick six vs the Saints when he was trying for a comeback, his pathetic 3 and out when he was trying to comeback vs the Steelers in 05 (the one he almost got bailed out of because his defense got a turnover for him), having his record breaking Colts offense in 04 held to 3 points and having his record breaking Broncos offense in 13 held to 8, and for some reason choking against Chargers teams that were not as good as his Colts teams at the time. Hell even one of the few years Brady got pantsed in the playoffs by Sanchez, Manning decided to be nice and join the party.

His reputation in the playoffs is very well earned. Nobody at the time was saying “wow the Colts/Broncos just aren’t talented enough to win it all”. No they were routinely amongst the best teams in the league. So I don’t know where the revisionist history of Peyton not being surrounded by enough to win cake from. He literally had the guy who was considered the best GM in football during his era building teams for him and then had Elway build him both a historically great offense and a historically great defense in the 4 years he was there 

[ET80]

56 minutes ago, lancerman said:

These are bad examples because you are comparing guys who were part of a super team to guys who were clearly on mediocre teams that had one bite at the apple.

Fine. Would you qualify Troy Aikman over Kurt Warner? Emmitt Smith over Marshall Faulk? Michael Irvin over either Torry Holt or Isaac Bruce?

That's superteam vs superteam. One had more playoff success than the other, so - according to @SkippyX position:

6 hours ago, ET80 said:

If you are the kind of person who thinks regular season is more important than playoffs then I will never understand you.

I'd personally take Warner, Faulk and Holt... Despite the lack of playoff success vs the Cowboys trio.

I ultimately understand the point (you missed what I was getting at) and was discounting this take that playoff success and ONLY playoff success determines superiority across players. It's flawed beliefs such as this that get Lynn Swann and Joe Namath in the HoF.

[Jlowe22]

Yet another QB thread devolving to Brady v Manning.

[lancerman]

1 hour ago, Jlowe22 said:

Yet another QB thread devolving to Brady v Manning.

Well most of the world is settled on it. I don’t know why on here you still get people pretending Manning was on bad teams his entire career, but that’s besides the point 

[lancerman]

9 hours ago, ET80 said:

Fine. Would you qualify Troy Aikman over Kurt Warner? Emmitt Smith over Marshall Faulk? Michael Irvin over either Torry Holt or Isaac Bruce?

That's superteam vs superteam. One had more playoff success than the other, so - according to @SkippyX position:

I'd personally take Warner, Faulk and Holt... Despite the lack of playoff success vs the Cowboys trio.

I ultimately understand the point (you missed what I was getting at) and was discounting this take that playoff success and ONLY playoff success determines superiority across players. It's flawed beliefs such as this that get Lynn Swann and Joe Namath in the HoF.

That’s a tough one, like I think Kurt’s better. But he really was only on a super team from 1999-2001. Then they fell apart. Now they had the opportunity to win 3 SB’s but basically got edged out two years in a row by a field goal. 
 

The Cowboys were together most of 1990’s and they didn’t win right away 1991, they lost in 1994, then they didn’t win in 1996. So you are basically comparing having extra bites at the apple. Also until 2001 I think the Cowboys had a much better defense on top of a dominant offense. They even eventually poached Sanders and Haley. 
 

Fair point, but basically you are asking Kurt to go 3 for 3 while Aikman got to go 3 for 7 and after going 2 for 4 got to find the best secondary player ever to join his team. 
 

And Kurt did go to as many SB’s as Aikman. He the GOAT coach have the GOAT QB who was having his first big clutch run get them in field goal range for the GOAT kicker to ice it after a masterful defensive plan to keep it close. Then he dragged a mediocre Cardinals team to a SB against an incredible Steelers team and went shot for shot with him. That wasn’t a SB team either. 
 

Aikman is a bit underrated, but between the fact that Warner had a shorter time window, his team wasn’t quite as stacked, he did drag one godawful team to a SB, the two MVP’s, doing it later in age. 
 

Also people kinda tend to ignore that Kurt got injured in 2002.

Like yeah it’s good example, but not exactly the best apples to apple. Especially when one team was a pre cap super team and other was post cap. 

[ET80]

8 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Like yeah it’s good example, but not exactly the best apples to apple. Especially when one team was a pre cap super team and other was post cap. 

So, you can concede my overall point on this? That looking as playoff performances only (which is what @SkippyX was doing before he went radio silence on me) isn't the only tool to judge these guys?

9 hours ago, ET80 said:

I ultimately understand the point (you missed what I was getting at) and was discounting this take that playoff success and ONLY playoff success determines superiority across players. It's flawed beliefs such as this that get Lynn Swann and Joe Namath in the HoF.

I mean, this is NOT Brady v Manning. Look through everything that's been said to this point by me - hell, I even said there's no argument anymore, Brady won:

16 hours ago, ET80 said:

I won't argue Brady.

There it is. In black and white.

But Manning v Warner, insomuch as to who was the more successful "two team" QB? I mean, c'mon now - in what universe was Kurt Warner more successful with St. Louis/Arizona than Peyton Manning was with Indianapolis/Denver?

That's my argument. You're right, people have conceded Brady for at least the past three years (at least I have, if someone else is arguing that, that's on them). But now we're trying to bring in other QBs vs Manning, that's not acceptable; Brady is a certain argument against Manning, Montana is debatable but anyone else is heavily slanted towards Manning. That shouldn't be up for discussion.

[lancerman]

30 minutes ago, ET80 said:

So, you can concede my overall point on this? That looking as playoff performances only (which is what @SkippyX was doing before he went radio silence on me) isn't the only tool to judge these guys?

I mean, this is NOT Brady v Manning. Look through everything that's been said to this point by me - hell, I even said there's no argument anymore, Brady won:

There it is. In black and white.

But Manning v Warner, insomuch as to who was the more successful "two team" QB? I mean, c'mon now - in what universe was Kurt Warner more successful with St. Louis/Arizona than Peyton Manning was with Indianapolis/Denver?

That's my argument. You're right, people have conceded Brady for at least the past three years (at least I have, if someone else is arguing that, that's on them). But now we're trying to bring in other QBs vs Manning, that's not acceptable; Brady is a certain argument against Manning, Montana is debatable but anyone else is heavily slanted towards Manning. That shouldn't be up for discussion.

I think the argument is that nobody is saying “only count playoffs”. But when they are generally close and one is a little better regular season but they other craps on them in the playoffs, then it’s like okay well I value the higher concentration of games against good teams in higher stakes for the ultimate goal more than being a little better in the regular season. 
 

Contextually Warner destroys Aikman regular season and went to as many SB’s as him often dragging slightly worse teams. He just lost a couple close games while Aikman won two more. 

 

[ET80]

39 minutes ago, lancerman said:

I think the argument is that nobody is saying “only count playoffs”.

Start here:

Find me a single reference to something outside the playoffs or Super Bowl, and I'll concede your point. It's only about a half page worth of discussion, but pretty much every argument about Manning is under the context of "he wasn't good in the playoffs, ergo I'm rating guys like Warner ahead of him".

Let's get to brass tax here - Manning or Warner? Your thoughts?