Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While I totally get what you are saying the discussions continues on Peyton Manning and just where he ranks among the all time greats. Some have even gone so far as to put him at the top. So like it or not playoff performances, and SB titles in particular, are the best way to rank them when we are talking about the greatest ever. And that's the way it should be, greatness is measured by how you did when it mattered most.
That's why Jeter is Jeter and A-Rod is A-Rod. It's why Montana is always ahead of Marino as he should be. And yesterday once again proved in my opinion why Peyton Manning does not belong at the top. We never saw Joe Montana put on a performance like Manning's yesterday when it mattered most.
That is exactly WHY I don't rank them in terms of this guy was #1 and this guy was #2. I typically say, Peyton is one of the top 5 QBs of all times and if you want to say Montana was better because he was 4-0 in the Super Bowl.. that's cool.. I think i could easily argue for or against 5 different QBs being the greatest of all time, therefore I just leave at that..
I don't think you can compare players from different eras any more than you can players who have 5 rings vs 1 or none. Its just not a fair comparison because they each have 10 other players (21 if you count the defense) surrounding them and if one of those other players has a bad game, the team could easily lose....
I would also argue that Joe Montana circa 1981 would have put up the same performance as Peyton did yesterday. Yesterdays game said much more about the Seahawks defense than it did Peyton Mannings performance.
While I totally get what you are saying the discussions continues on Peyton Manning and just where he ranks among the all time greats. Some have even gone so far as to put him at the top. So like it or not playoff performances, and SB titles in particular, are the best way to rank them when we are talking about the greatest ever. And that's the way it should be, greatness is measured by how you did when it mattered most.
That's why Jeter is Jeter and A-Rod is A-Rod. It's why Montana is always ahead of Marino as he should be. And yesterday once again proved in my opinion why Peyton Manning does not belong at the top. We never saw Joe Montana put on a performance like Manning's yesterday when it mattered most.
I saw Joe get crushed in the NFC playoffs several times. It's not the Super Bowl but by the time the NFC winner had made it that far they had already beaten their best competition. There's a lot more balance between conferences now as evidenced by the fact that blowouts are rare now - in Montanas day they were pretty common. But the point is Montana had several games in which he got pounded into the turf - he got benched in the NFC playoffs against the Vikings one year. I would actually agree that Montana was probably better than Manning but it has more to do with how he played and what he did in games...the ole eye test. One thing that Montana was excellent at that Manning isn't is in moving out of the pocket. Manning is more like Marino- he diagnoses coverages and relies on arm strength to beat them. But if the pocket collspses, he is in trouble
That is exactly WHY I don't rank them in terms of this guy was #1 and this guy was #2. I typically say, Peyton is one of the top 5 QBs of all times and if you want to say Montana was better because he was 4-0 in the Super Bowl.. that's cool.. I think i could easily argue for or against 5 different QBs being the greatest of all time, therefore I just leave at that..
I don't think you can compare players from different eras any more than you can players who have 5 rings vs 1 or none. Its just not a fair comparison because they each have 10 other players (21 if you count the defense) surrounding them and if one of those other players has a bad game, the team could easily lose....
I would also argue that Joe Montana circa 1981 would have put up the same performance as Peyton did yesterday. Yesterdays game said much more about the Seahawks defense than it did Peyton Mannings performance.
Would agree- the 1981 Niners were heavily reliant on passing. I know that we can't compare two teams 30 yrs apart but let's say the 49ers had played a team like the Raiders of 1983...they would have really struggled against that type of team. Now the later 49er teams? Those were some kinda good
Earlier I posted the skill players surrounding Montana on that '81 title team. It was Dwight Clark and a bunch of guys. To elevate a cast like that to a championship says more to me than pointing out a few rough playoff games. If we're going that route Peyton has had way more of them than Montana ever did.
I just think it's a fun discussion to have. But picking #1 is often easier then deciding between #5 and #6 don't you think?
Earlier I posted the skill players surrounding Montana on that '81 title team. It was Dwight Clark and a bunch of guys. To elevate a cast like that to a championship says more to me than pointing out a few rough playoff games. If we're going that route Peyton has had way more of them than Montana ever did.
I just think it's a fun discussion to have. But picking #1 is often easier then deciding between #5 and #6 don't you think?
Maybe when we look back we'll say the same thing about these Broncos? Probably not since Wes Welker's already an established name, and I'd certainly argue that Manning has a better backfield than the 49ers had. But would Wes Welker really be that good without having played with two of the most legendary quarterbacks of his generation? Would he be remembered any more than Eagles WR Cooper if he played for them all these years? And Decker? Who's that guy if #18's not throwing it to him? Only one guy on that Broncos team has breakaway speed and is capable of getting serious YAC, and that's Thomas. Everyone else? Pfff. Let's not forget too that in 1981 the 49ers were implementing a new offensive scheme that was catching the league off-guard. The Niners were also lucky to be playing the Bengals that year. If they had played a team like the Raiders (probably the equivalent to the Seahawks in that era), I think it's a different story.
I am glad that the NFC has taken over. Of course I wanted my Niners to be in the Super Bowl but whatcha gonna do? Glad the SB had no drama and the better team actually won. I wish the game was close and exciting but there was no doubt that Seattle came to win. I hope all the fans in NJ get home safely and you all enjoy the parade tomorrow. I think we will be able to hear the celebration all the way here in Portland!
I think the player shouldn't have to play in the Super Bowl to be MVP. Nor am I that happy with awarding it to a QB. It is the sort of mindless way awards get handed out. Think about it. These guys get stratospheric salaries. PLUS they are told they are the most valuable player on their team. I'd say the most valuable Bronco is anyone who keeps Peyton vertical.
They did win. Still doesn't change my opinion of Sherman & the extremely low standard that society sets on athletes. Thankfully there are some good parents and teachers out there who are trying to steer kids into the right path.
Again people are somehow commenting with extreme tunnel vision. Low standards apply across the board. Corporate brass. Accounting agencies. Drivers. Tax cheats. You could make an extremely long list of how little we expect of everyone. And why do we do this? It is our national definition of "freedom". When that definition collides with bad behavior, a hefty percentage of Americans treasure freedom more. Extremist politicians can stir up the crowds with claims that restraints are "an attack on our freedoms". We don't really sanction the worst behavior in any field. Even criminals become heroes to some people as "sticking it to the man". But where do we criticize? A black football player with dreadlocks on our TV screen. Yeh, sure, that's the worst. Not guys who beat up wives, enslave teenage girls for prostitution, overbill Medicare, wreck pension funds. Let's tick it to Richard Sherman, the most "evil" guy appearing on our TV reality substitute.
What in the world are you talking about in that incoherent paragraph? lol
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
