Schefter says Manning and Brady will be the 2 greatest QB's of all time

Originally posted by SybErkRimInAL:
Manning is the best all around QB IMO.

Based on what criteria?

Originally posted by Psinex:
I don't think you can say that either Manning or Brady can be compared to Joe Montana. They could be compared to someone like Elway or Marino, but Montana was a winner, plain and simple. When Manning or Brady have 3 Superbowl rings, we can have that conversation.

Umm, Brady does have three, and four AFC championships. And is young enough for a few more.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by Psinex:
I don't think you can say that either Manning or Brady can be compared to Joe Montana. They could be compared to someone like Elway or Marino, but Montana was a winner, plain and simple. When Manning or Brady have 3 Superbowl rings, we can have that conversation.

Montana was PRE SALARY CAP ERA. And he had EDDIE D. Eddie D. would routinely spend the most money year in and year out to field by far the most talented team in all of football. Montana was great but he had one hell of a team surrounding him and the best organization in all of sports as well.

Montana always had great O LINES, WR's, TE, RB, and Defenses holding down the other team.

Don't get me wrong he was great but he really had a heck of a lot of factors in his favor as well. He was in a great situation.

It's like you're saying there is parity in the league now or something.

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by SybErkRimInAL:
Manning is the best all around QB IMO.

I think he is too cerebral. He controls environments well, but in a pure chaos situation he gets overwhelmed.

couldn't have said it better

Brady and Manning will be in the discussion for greatest of all time, they really are that good. But if I owned a team and had to choose one quarterback to lead it, I'm taking Montana every time, no question.

Originally posted by Strwy2Hevn:

Originally posted by SybErkRimInAL:
Manning is the best all around QB IMO.

+1

Joe Montana

Career QB rating: 92.8
Playoff Career QB rating: 95.5
Playoff Record: 16-7

Peyton Manning

Career QB rating: 95.3
Playoff Career QB rating: 85.0
Playoff Record: 7-8

Just sayin.

I don't even think there is a comparison here. When it's time for the big boys to play, Montana shined. There was something magical about Joe Montana. He not only defeated, but demolished 2 hall of fame quarterbacks in super bowls and had the come from behind 92 yard drive against the bengals in Super Bowl 23.

You *might* be able to compare Tom Brady, but Montana didn't need the kicker to win it for him, Montana never lost in the big game, and Montana never had Walsh talking in his ear telling him where the blitz was coming from illegally. Now I know most people want to move past the cheating, but the fact is THEY cheated. When you get that type of punishment... you get the point.

At the end of the day I'll take the guy who elevates his play EVEN higher when it counts.

Remember it well, then... this night, this
great victory. So that in the years ahead, you can say, I was
there that night, with Arthur, the King! For it is the doom of men
that they forget.

Merlin~Excalibur 1981


It's amazing to me how easily people forget and dismiss the legend that helped deliver us 4 super bowl titles. Best Quarterback Ever.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by Psinex:
I don't think you can say that either Manning or Brady can be compared to Joe Montana. They could be compared to someone like Elway or Marino, but Montana was a winner, plain and simple. When Manning or Brady have 3 Superbowl rings, we can have that conversation.

Montana was PRE SALARY CAP ERA. And he had EDDIE D. Eddie D. would routinely spend the most money year in and year out to field by far the most talented team in all of football. Montana was great but he had one hell of a team surrounding him and the best organization in all of sports as well.

Montana always had great O LINES, WR's, TE, RB, and Defenses holding down the other team.

Don't get me wrong he was great but he really had a heck of a lot of factors in his favor as well. He was in a great situation.

Because Brady and Manning have it so tough.

Too much emphasis/blame is put on a quarterback when a team wins/loses.

Yes, Joe is the greatest of all time, but don't you think Peyton would have won at least 3 with our Niners? He's not exactly a chump.

Originally posted by pantstickle:
Too much emphasis/blame is put on a quarterback when a team wins/loses.

Yes, Joe is the greatest of all time, but don't you think Peyton would have won at least 3 with our Niners? He's not exactly a chump.

Yeah I don't know for sure, but weren't the Colts defense pretty bad for a couple of years? Maybe that was already asked in here

Originally posted by pantstickle:
Too much emphasis/blame is put on a quarterback when a team wins/loses.

Yes, Joe is the greatest of all time, but don't you think Peyton would have won at least 3 with our Niners? He's not exactly a chump.

I agree and believe that Manning would have won several championships with the Niners. Who knows... maybe the Niners would have won more. Remember that Montana got knocked out of 2 playoff games against the Giants and I dont think Manning ever misses a game.

Regardless, Manning and Brady need to be in any conversation of the all time greats.

Originally posted by Rivers77:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by Psinex:
I don't think you can say that either Manning or Brady can be compared to Joe Montana. They could be compared to someone like Elway or Marino, but Montana was a winner, plain and simple. When Manning or Brady have 3 Superbowl rings, we can have that conversation.

Montana was PRE SALARY CAP ERA. And he had EDDIE D. Eddie D. would routinely spend the most money year in and year out to field by far the most talented team in all of football. Montana was great but he had one hell of a team surrounding him and the best organization in all of sports as well.

Montana always had great O LINES, WR's, TE, RB, and Defenses holding down the other team.

Don't get me wrong he was great but he really had a heck of a lot of factors in his favor as well. He was in a great situation.

Because Brady and Manning have it so tough.

Brady won his first with a severely limited offense around him, his third with a defense that was so decimated by injury they had Troy Brown playing Nickel. If we look at which QB's won with the least amount of talent, it has to be Brady.

That said, the amount of super powered teams that were around in the eighties demolishes what the Pats and Colts have to deal with, which is usually just each other.

And to be real, if it wasn't for Belichick, Montana would have won a few more rings.

Montana at crunch time was unreal. Brady however, is the only QB I have seen who can raise the play of absolute scrubs the way he can. Even more than Montana could.

meh its apples to Oranges. Brady has just had weapons recently, look at the 2001 and 2003 super bowl teams he really didn't have much.. only their last SB appearance did they have Moss, Welker, and the like. Manning has had much superior offensive talent compared to Brady, though certainly the Pats have usually always had the better defense. I would take Manning once he wins another title tho, he does make the guys around him better, not sure u can say that so much about Brady look at last year even Matt Cassel was lighting things up.

Not to start a thing, but Roethlisberger is years younger than both these guys and has won 2 super bowls (one he played awful the other he was great). He just needs a lot better passing stats.

Originally posted by pantstickle:
Too much emphasis/blame is put on a quarterback when a team wins/loses.

Yes, Joe is the greatest of all time, but don't you think Peyton would have won at least 3 with our Niners? He's not exactly a chump.

But how can you say that based on Manning's stats in the playoffs? He doesn't get better and tends to crumple in big games. Montana is the opposite in big games.

Originally posted by geturembedder:

Originally posted by Rivers77:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by Psinex:
I don't think you can say that either Manning or Brady can be compared to Joe Montana. They could be compared to someone like Elway or Marino, but Montana was a winner, plain and simple. When Manning or Brady have 3 Superbowl rings, we can have that conversation.

+ Show all quotes
Montana was PRE SALARY CAP ERA. And he had EDDIE D. Eddie D. would routinely spend the most money year in and year out to field by far the most talented team in all of football. Montana was great but he had one hell of a team surrounding him and the best organization in all of sports as well.

Montana always had great O LINES, WR's, TE, RB, and Defenses holding down the other team.

Don't get me wrong he was great but he really had a heck of a lot of factors in his favor as well. He was in a great situation.

Because Brady and Manning have it so tough.

Brady won his first with a severely limited offense around him, his third with a defense that was so decimated by injury they had Troy Brown playing Nickel. If we look at which QB's won with the least amount of talent, it has to be Brady.

That said, the amount of super powered teams that were around in the eighties demolishes what the Pats and Colts have to deal with, which is usually just each other.

And to be real, if it wasn't for Belichick, Montana would have won a few more rings.

Montana at crunch time was unreal. Brady however, is the only QB I have seen who can raise the play of absolute scrubs the way he can. Even more than Montana could.

If I knew what the defense was doing at all times, I could make stars out of scrubs too.

Originally posted by Rivers77:

Originally posted by pantstickle:
Too much emphasis/blame is put on a quarterback when a team wins/loses.

Yes, Joe is the greatest of all time, but don't you think Peyton would have won at least 3 with our Niners? He's not exactly a chump.

But how can you say that based on Manning's stats in the playoffs? He doesn't get better and tends to crumple in big games. Montana is the opposite in big games.

Don't make too much out of statistics. They're often misleading, especially QB rating.

Also, you're greatly exaggerating the impact of Belichick's cheating.