If Peyton Manning wins the SB....

[Philagape]

He is the greatest QB of all time. He's passing Montana in my eyes.

The guy just throws it wherever he wants at will. Today he made two kids named Garcon and Collie look like all-pros.

:hail:

[Ebenezer]

well, he's already better than Montana...too bad he isn't as good as Favre.

[hydro]

too bad he isn't as good as Favre.

How do you figure?

[Dr. Lecter]

I'm not sure he is the best QB in the NFL right now.........

[Ebenezer]

How do you figure?
career stats...although after this game if Manning was to win in two weeks I would have to agree that he is going down as the best...although Brady is up there, too.

[Syderick]

He'd be up there, I don't think he beat Montana yet. He's got better stats then Montana but Joe's got 4 Superbowls. They also played in different eras.

[Philagape]

Montana had better teams. He's been No. 1 IMO because of his clutch. If Peyton leads the Colts to a second SB win, then his clutch is up there with Montana's, and that's the final piece for him being No. 1.
Favre has numbers on paper, just from sheer quantity, but he screws up too much, as today showed once again.

[G Wolly]

career stats...although after this game if Manning was to win in two weeks I would have to agree that he is going down as the best...although Brady is up there, too.

Favre's been playing over twice as long as Peyton.

By the time Peyton reaches 40, he'll be in control of Brett's records.

[Novacane]

well, he's already better than Montana...too bad he isn't as good as Favre.



:rofl: OK. If you want to go by stats compiled because of longevity only. You did watch Farve throw away his teams shot at the winning FG yesterday or didn't you? Can't make the he's old excuse either. He did stupid things like that in his prime.

[YardRat]

Manning certainly does deserve consideration.

[X-Era]

He is the greatest QB of all time. He's passing Montana in my eyes.

The guy just throws it wherever he wants at will. Today he made two kids named Garcon and Collie look like all-pros.

:hail:
Hes been the best ever IMO for a while.

[The King]

Manning has already become the best ever IMO. Another Super Bowl just cements that.

[Ickybaluky]

Montana is still the best big-game QB ever, IMO. And he was hardly a product of the teams he played for, you only have to look at that 1981 team to show why. The guy played his best when the stakes were highest and elevated those around him. The only reason he didn't win more was injury. If he had a weakness as a player, it was that he wasn't the biggest guy and thus wasn't as durable. Also, when Montana played the rules were not tilted to the offense as much, as they allowed more contact on WR and you could actually hit the QB. The rules changes are a big reason why you see so many QB today putting up huge numbers. You have to take that into account when you rate all-time guys.

However, Manning has actually improved as a player in the last few years, which is remarkable considering how good he was to start. He is clearly the best QB of his time, even as a Pats fan I can concede that. In the last few years Manning figured it all out, and you just can't fool the guy anymore. He is a step ahead of the defense.

That is what makes him so great. Manning adjusts better than anyone, finding the weakness in the defense and getting the ball out quickly to the right guy. You can't fool him anymore, or at least not very much. Yesterday was a good example of that. Early on the Colts were going with an extra TE against the Jets sub package and the Jets were keeping them at bay. They adjusted and went 3 wide and were able to exploit the Jets by checking at the LOS to run/pass based on the defense. It was a clear example of what makes Manning great.

As for Favre, he is one of the greatest ever but he made too many negative plays to be as great as Manning or Montana. Sure Favre has big numbers, but he also has thrown more interceptions than anyone, both regular season and postseason. He has been a great gunslinger and thrower of the football, but he didn't win more because of those negative plays. He could make great plays nobody else could, but also made crappy plays that lost games.

[BILLSROCK1212]

I'm sorry guys, but if you take Peyton off the Colts this team has a top 5 draft pick. That's not the case with anyone else you could consider the best QB of all-time except Favre, but while Favre won more games than he lost for his team, he has lost more games for his team than Peyton has by a mile. Through that logic if Peyton wins the Super Bowl he is easily the best QB of all-time and although it wont show up in the stats this is easily his best season ever.

[Ebenezer]

Montana had better teams.

which is exactly why he isn't among the top three, ever - 4th...Favre/Manning/Brady...BF made greats out of noname wide outs and subpar RBs with almost little defense...Manning the same...Brady had a defense. Montana had Rice to help him along the way.

[RockStar36]

well, he's already better than Montana...too bad he isn't as good as Favre.

I can't believe you just wrote that. I seriously can't believe it.

Wow. My head almost exploded.

[Ebenezer]

I can't believe you just wrote that. I seriously can't believe it.

Wow. My head almost exploded.

:::

[Philagape]

which is exactly why he isn't among the top three, ever - 4th...Favre/Manning/Brady...BF made greats out of noname wide outs and subpar RBs with almost little defense...Manning the same...Brady had a defense. Montana had Rice to help him along the way.

Montana won two of his four SBs before Rice ever got there. My point was in comparison to Manning alone.
My list is based on how they played, as I observed them.

[Ebenezer]

Montana won two of his four SBs before Rice ever got there. My point was in comparison to Manning alone.
My list is based on how they played, as I observed them.


as is mine...i saw Montana play, i saw Favre play...I think Favre could do a lot more with less talent around him than Montana could...

[Philagape]

as is mine...i saw Montana play, i saw Favre play...I think Favre could do a lot more with less talent around him than Montana could...

Possibly, but that's more than negated by his too-many INTs

[RockStar36]

Favre is not the greatest. If stats are being used to judge, that will only further damn him.

Yesterday was exactly what I was talking about when I've talked about Favre for the past few years. He ALWAYS does it when it matters most.

Manning, Montana, Brady...they all squash Favre.

[Ebenezer]

Possibly, but that's more than negated by his too-many INTs


do the old flip flop...do you think Montana wins up to four SBs with GB? I don't. That line was never great. Without BFs mobility the Pack never win a title. Montana was just a little bit above statue status. He would have been Bledsoe back there.

[RockStar36]

do the old flip flop...do you think Montana wins up to four SBs with GB? I don't. That line was never great. Without BFs mobility the Pack never win a title. Montana was just a little bit above statue status. He would have been Bledsoe back there.

Wait.

To be equal, Montana would've only had to one one SB in GB. One.

Would Favre win 4 in SF?

[Philagape]

do the old flip flop...do you think Montana wins up to four SBs with GB? I don't. That line was never great. Without BFs mobility the Pack never win a title. Montana was just a little bit above statue status. He would have been Bledsoe back there.

Montana was more mobile than Favre. I dunno what players you were watching.
He was also more clutch, which is far more important. Montana could do better than Favre in the same environment because he didn't turn it over as much.

[Ickybaluky]

do the old flip flop...do you think Montana wins up to four SBs with GB? I don't. That line was never great. Without BFs mobility the Pack never win a title. Montana was just a little bit above statue status. He would have been Bledsoe back there.

Wow, you couldn't be more clueless. First of all, Montana was one of the most mobile QBs ever. He was more accurate throwing on the move than any QB I have ever seen. One of the reasons he was such a good fit for the WCO was his ability to move. Montana would have won with any team, and he was clearly superior to Favre, IMO. It isn't even close.

So much of Montana's greatness was he was so precise. That is what separates him from Favre, and most QBs.

[Cleve]

I wonder - how many J.P. Losmans does it take to equal one Peyton Manning?

[Syderick]

Johnny Unitas

[psubills62]

The Vikings won their division a year ago with freaking Tarvaris Jackson/Gus Frerotte at the helm. Favre improved them by a whole 2 games. The Jets improved what...3 games with Favre? Sorry, but I don't see the "Favre is the greatest of all time" claim. Especially considering he has ended two of the last three seasons...with an interception. Both times it cost his team a shot at the SB.

Manning should definitely be considered one of the best of all time if the Colts win the SB. He'll easily break Favre's all-time records (except probably not the INT's).

[Ebenezer]

OK...time to pull out numbers...

Brett Favre 317 INTs in 9,811 ATT...INT% 3.2
Peyton Manning 181 INTs in 6,531 ATT...INT% 2.8
Joe Montana 139 INTs in 5,391 ATT...INT% 2.6

I'm sorry, I just don't see the statistical difference...Favre threw more INTs because he was called upon to throw more passes.

[Ebenezer]

Wow, you couldn't be more clueless. First of all, Montana was one of the most mobile QBs ever. He was more accurate throwing on the move than any QB I have ever seen. One of the reasons he was such a good fit for the WCO was his ability to move. Montana would have won with any team, and he was clearly superior to Favre, IMO. It isn't even close.

So much of Montana's greatness was he was so precise. That is what separates him from Favre, and most QBs.


I'll conceded the mobility issue. I was reflecting on Montana being statue-esque at the end of his career...Favre hasn't been much better the last few years.

But the INT numbers are close (as I posted before). Montana had a 63% career completion percentage...Favre was 62%. Were they really that different as far as accuracy?

[Dr. Lecter]

OK...time to pull out numbers...

Brett Favre 317 INTs in 9,811 ATT...INT% 3.2
Peyton Manning 181 INTs in 6,531 ATT...INT% 2.8
Joe Montana 139 INTs in 5,391 ATT...INT% 2.6

I'm sorry, I just don't see the statistical difference...Favre threw more INTs because he was called upon to throw more passes.

Projecting Montana to 9,811 attempts would result in 253 ints. A full 64 fewer than Favre. In fact, Favre's Int rate is nearly 25% higher than Montana's.

Statistiscally speaking, without running the actual test, I am quite certain there is a significant difference.

[psubills62]

OK...time to pull out numbers...

Brett Favre 317 INTs in 9,811 ATT...INT% 3.2
Peyton Manning 181 INTs in 6,531 ATT...INT% 2.8
Joe Montana 139 INTs in 5,391 ATT...INT% 2.6

I'm sorry, I just don't see the statistical difference...Favre threw more INTs because he was called upon to throw more passes.

A 0.4% difference may not seem like much, but it can be fairly large when talking about those kind of numbers. If Manning's numbers are projected out to Favre's (in attempts), the INT's project to 272. That's a total of 35 fewer INT's (i.e. Favre threw 13% more INT's than Manning at the same number of attempts). That seems fairly significant to me.

And not just number of INT's...they've come at pretty crucial times. If QB's get credited for pulling through in clutch situations, QB's should also get the blame for throwing SB berths away.

[Philagape]

OK...time to pull out numbers...

Brett Favre 317 INTs in 9,811 ATT...INT% 3.2
Peyton Manning 181 INTs in 6,531 ATT...INT% 2.8
Joe Montana 139 INTs in 5,391 ATT...INT% 2.6

I'm sorry, I just don't see the statistical difference...Favre threw more INTs because he was called upon to throw more passes.

And because he was more reckless. That's where the watching comes in, on top of the numbers on paper (which certainly don't make any kind of a case for you).

[Ebenezer]

Projecting Montana to 9,811 attempts would result in 253 ints. A full 64 fewer than Favre. In fact, Favre's Int rate is nearly 25% higher than Montana's.

Statistiscally speaking, without running the actual test, I am quite certain there is a significant difference.


run it...64 INTs over how many years?? then run it over signficant games...Favre played in 97 more games...less than one INT per game...

[RockStar36]

Watching Brett Favre does a whole lot more telling than just looking at the numbers.

The guy just fires the ball into crowds as fast as he can and prays for a completion. Yesterday's first pick was right in between three Saints players.

[Ebenezer]

Watching Brett Favre does a whole lot more telling than just looking at the numbers.

The guy just fires the ball into crowds as fast as he can and prays for a completion. Yesterday's first pick was right in between three Saints players.


yup...his completion percentage was the same as Montana's because he "just fires it in there"...Montana was "accurate"...I got it. Thanks. Montana's receivers were stone hands or he would have been better.

[Dr. Lecter]

run it...64 INTs over how many years?? then run it over signficant games...Favre played in 97 more games...less than one INT per game...

So a rate that is 25% higher is not significant?

That is still Int's every 3 games. That is a pretty big number.

[Ickybaluky]

run it...64 INTs over how many years?? then run it over signficant games...Favre played in 97 more games...less than one INT per game...

I never said Favre sucks or anything. The guy is one of the best ever. However, he isn't Montana. I watched them both, and the difference is Montana would do whatever it took to beat you. Favre was a lot more talented, but Montana played the position better.

That is a big difference.

Besides, it is the big games that matter. In the playoffs Montana's Int% remained relatively flag at 2.9%. Favre's goes up to 3.8%.

Compare their playoff stats overall:

Montana:

460-for-734 (62.7%), 5,772 Yards (7.86 YPA), 45 TD, 21 Int, 95.6 QB Rating

Favre:

481-for-791 (60.8%), 5,855 Yards (7.4 YPA), 44 TD, 30 Int, 86.3% QB Rating

Favre's playoff record is 11-9, with 1 Super Bowl win.

Montana's playoff record is 16-7, with 4 Super Bowl wins.

That is the difference, IMO. Favre is a great player. Montana was a great winner.

[RockStar36]

yup...his completion percentage was the same as Montana's because he "just fires it in there"...Montana was "accurate"...I got it. Thanks. Montana's receivers were stone hands or he would have been better.

He doesn't? Are you arguing this? What were his two interceptions yesterday?

I know, I know, it was just Favre being a kid out there and just being a gunslinger. I got it.

[ddaryl]

Manning for his career deserves to be considered the greatest all time. He has been incredible for the majority of his career.

Another SB win would help that argument for sure

that being said, I have to go with the Saints. That is a franchise that has had a miserable history and the people of N.O. deserve the SB vixtory IMO...


Montana still is the supreme being for QB's. he just had that knack to pull it all together in the end. he wasn't flashy but he played the QB position better then the rest with Manning closing in on that greatness

[Philagape]

I never said Favre sucks or anything. The guy is one of the best ever. However, he isn't Montana. I watched them both, and the difference is Montana would do whatever it took to beat you. Favre was a lot more talented, but Montana played the position better.

That is a big difference.

Besides, it is the big games that matter. In the playoffs Montana's Int% remained relatively flag at 2.9%. Favre's goes up to 3.8%.

Compare their playoff stats overall:

Montana:

460-for-734 (62.7%), 5,772 Yards (7.86 YPA), 45 TD, 21 Int, 95.6 QB Rating

Favre:

481-for-791 (60.8%), 5,855 Yards (7.4 YPA), 44 TD, 30 Int, 86.3% QB Rating

Favre's playoff record is 11-9, with 1 Super Bowl win.

Montana's playoff record is 16-7, with 4 Super Bowl wins.

That is the difference, IMO. Favre is a great player. Montana was a great winner.

I was about to do the playoff stat comparison, when I remembered that it's not about stats; it's about who's better at helping his team win. That's the standard of greatness for all players. On that point, there is no debate.

[DynaPaul]

He'd be up there, I don't think he beat Montana yet. He's got better stats then Montana but Joe's got 4 Superbowls. They also played in different eras.

Absolutely true. Montana played in the era of powerhouse teams and Manning plays in the era of parity. I don't know if Manning is better than Montana yet but he's making a good run at it.

[Crazyfootball]

Manning has already become the best ever IMO. Another Super Bowl just cements that.
Yeah! Manning is un believable- love him or hate him .

Post edited. Please refrain from advertising on the Zone. If you want to advertise with us, feel free to contact on of the site's administrators who will be glad to help you out.

[Typ0]

Manning is hands down the best QB I have ever seen play. He does things that are unheard of and singlehandedly makes his team a powerhouse. He doesn't have to win the SB but he will. To think a few years ago people said he couldn't win it. He's just gotten better and better.

[Night Train]

Favre beat a really bad Patriots team and has made too many boners at critical times. Stats mean zero to me. Not even in the top 5.

He never carried an entire team like Elway did for years. Never impressed me in the 2 minute drill like Staubach, who owned it. Never produced incredible comebacks and delivered in the clutch over and over in college and pro's, like Montana. Never had the poise and accuracy of Manning. Steve Young may have been the most gifted guy to ever play QB but wasted away in Tampa and as a backup to Montana before finally getting his shot. In his prime, I'd take Young over Favre 10 out of 10 times.

Manning is getting there and it's not a stretch to say he may wind up as the best ever.

[Thief]

IMO, Manning is the best all time, but this guy was the best by a mile when compared to those in his era. 4 decades ahead of the times (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InEmsCnkbds&feature=related).

[Ebenezer]

guess we can slide Manning down that ladder now, eh??

[Typ0]

guess we can slide Manning down that ladder now, eh??


because of one throw?

[Ingtar33]

guess we can slide Manning down that ladder now, eh??


one bad pass? really?

[casdhf]

Seriously. I think Eb's been into the booze. He's posting like mitchell55 tonight.

[Typ0]

just like a ****ing what have you done for me lately bills fan. Most of us fit right in with Wilsons lack of vision.

[Ebenezer]

the comparison was made to throwing INTs in big situations...I just followed through on the volley...

[Philagape]

Yeah, Montana retains the title

[Syderick]

Manning choked but he's still got Superbowl Win and 5/6 years left to get another one.

[BuffaloBlitz83]

Only bad stat for Manning is 9-9 in postseason.