So you think Manning played better than Brady this year? Seriously?
NFL 2016
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
So you think Manning played better than Brady this year? Seriously?
Who was the last man standing? Do you think Manning cheated? If not, then what's your issue? Are you going to say that Newton and Rodgers and Brady and whoever else outplayed Manning this year, but somehow still Manning won the trophy? He won. If you want to compare supporting statistics that's fine and I just now understand the importance of doing that, but that's after we settle the ring issue. This season, one and only one QB wound up with a ring, and that was Peyton Manning. Was it ugly? Ugliest anybody's ever seen, stat wise. Nobody's going to argue that this season was historical, but Manning's the one getting fitted for a new ring, and nobody else.
And Manning has two, and Brady has four. 4 > 2. You've convinced me that Montana's 4 is more than Brady's 4---I see it, I acknowledge it, I appreciate it, and that's where stats matter. Montana's 4 are less likely to be flukes than Brady's because stats. So stats matter.
After rings. And I don't think that's me as a fan talking, unless you don't believe in winning championships as being the end all be all of measuring any athletic team's performance.
brewmama
New member
He was on the better team.
Yep. And teams win or lose championships. What's funny to me is that some of the people who gave Peyton the responsibility for playoff losses and assigned him the inane "best regular season qb" even though when that label was first applied his post season play was better than Brady's (it slipped marginally below that immediately after the SB disaster with the Seahawks) became some of the first to be certain to credit his team with this win. :chuckle:
In point of fact, it's always a team win or loss, absent some horrific play that skews individually, like throwing four or five picks in a game.
None. The last team standing was Denver led by their defense.
I agree completely with the proviso that statistical anomalies are not mere coincidences. That's why I said you're arguing for coincidence. Both Montana and Brady, and Archie teaching his sons, deserved four rings. Else it's coincidence when somebody ends up with one for each knuckle. And I can't accept coincidence, even though I can and do accept that Joe Montana is the best QB to play the game, because of the stats and story behind his four rings. If Joe Montana won one or two SBs, or none, we wouldn't be talking about him and nor should we be talking about him like he was God's gift, but he was God's gift, so it's fair and square that we talk about him like that.
Because of the stats. After the rings.
Yep. I don't know that they get there without Peyton and he helped, but that game was a team victory, spearheaded by great defensive play.
Does Peyton have two rings, yes or no. Or are you going to say that his defense has this last ring and not him?
'Ring's a ring.
No, it's not that the position doesn't matter. It's that absent a statistically unusual production, negatively or positively, no one person determines the game. A qb has more impact than any other position, being like a point guard for a basketball team, but he rarely sinks the team or wins for the team. He only makes it possible or easy or unlikely or hard.
Fair enough in one sense. Montana was terrific in the regular season, but the big game really separates him from an enormously talented pack. He had composure that you just haven't seen the like of...the narrative of his winning drive in the 89 SB against the Bengals sums it. Down and needing a drive late, he points to the stands and says, "Hey, isn't that John Candy?" Then he goes back into game mode, drives his team nearly the length of the football field and throws a strike in the end zone for six with half a minute on the clock.
We're close, but the rings just don't tell the entire story. In an all things being they can and do distinguish, but Marino was a much better qb than many of those who actually have a ring. Phil Simms, who had a freakish game that remains the highest rated game for the position, won't tell you he is in the same league as Marino.
Correct.
No, they don't, as we've proven with Archie and Brady and Montana. Montana is better, but they all have four rings. That's 12/50=6/25=24% of all rings won so far.
Marino and Simms just aren't in this race, except for speculative conjecture.
Well here we go folks!!
What will be the stories of 2016 in the NFL??
Will Peyton ride off into the sunset?
Will Johnny "Football" make it out of suicide watch?
Can the Broncos defense propel them to a repeat championship?
Will Carolina bounce-back?
How about the Patriots, do they have anything left in the tank?
Who will be this years surprise teams and emerging stars?
And who will be this years biggest flops?
One thing we know for sure is... the Denver Broncos are world's champs.
Chiefs will be next year's champion. :banana:
You heard it here first. :readthis:
:noid:
Marino is in the HOF. That's not speculation. He's widely regarded as one of the very best to ever play the position. You want a list of SB winning qbs who aren't so regarded? Phil Simms, Joe Theismann, Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler, Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, Jim Plunkett.Correct.
No, they don't, as we've proven with Archie and Brady and Montana. Montana is better, but they all have four rings. That's 12/50=6/25=24% of all rings won so far.
Marino and Simms just aren't in this race, except for speculative conjecture.
No one will ever make the case that Trent Dilfer is comparable to Dan Marino at the position, by way of underscoring.
:AMR: Are you trying to say that the QB of the Super Bowl winning team is always to be considered the best QB of the year?
A ring is a ring, you're a champion if you're on the team no matter how well or poorly you played, but you can't deny that people contribute varying amounts to the success of the team.
:up:
The argument was never about a ring or two but four.
I said the team wins. Americans are the biggest sports idiots I have ever met.
Americans? Where are you from?
The USA.
So you're not American but you are from the USA?
- Status