Originally posted by mrgneissguy:Originally posted by NinerFan1979:Originally posted by 49erRider:Originally posted by blunt_probe:Originally posted by SanDiego49er:Originally posted by blunt_probe:Originally posted by SanDiego49er:What a load of crock. You guys make it sound like Manning has nothing and isn't playing in a more pass friendly era. The real reason everyone says Montana is because of how clutch he was. Ask yourself this. One drive to win it at all. Who do you choose: Manning or Montana? /discussionOriginally posted by Niners99:Originally posted by krizay:Originally posted by Shaj:
Joe cool didn't lose a superbowl and never played like Brady is in today's playoff game. There was lack of clarity and conviction on this debate a couple of years ago. No more. When the big games come, the debate is over. Joe Montana is the better QB.
Discuss.....
I agree with you.
But Peyton > than Montana
lol. 4 super bowls > 1 super bowl
Peyton Manning is Dan Marino with 1 ring.
Joe Montana is the greatest player in NFL postseason history. period.
4 Super Bowls has something to do with the team you are on. The biggest myth in the world is that it's all the QB. And people right here on this very WZ believe that.
Montana had Ronnie Lott, Charles Haley, Fred Dean, Jerry Rice just to name a short few. It was pre salary cap era and nobody was as big of a spender as Eddie D. The 49ers fieled the best O Lines and best defenses year in and year out. And they had outstanding WR's, TE's and good special teams.
Montana didn't do that by himself. In fact in the salary cap era my bet would be he wouldn't win 4 times. Maybe 1 or 2.
He doesn't have as much as Montana had. Not even close.
People on this site have idolized and glorified Montana because it is a 49ers fan site. He is envied here. But they fail to take into account the POWERHOUSE teams he was on year in and year out over the course of his career.
So, he doesn't have nothing which is my point. To be considered the G.O.A.T in my eyes, the most important attribute is how clutch one is. Manning is a consistent choker in that department. Even the year they won it all, it was the D, not him that carried the team. Hell, he nearly blew it against the Chiefs. He's a glorified Marino with a ring.
You're looking at the whole situation as negatively as possible as it pertains to Peyton Manning. The year they won the Super Bowl, their defense was ranked dead last in the league. They finally started playing decent defense with the return of Bob Sanders and that was all Manning needed to win it all. Every QB brought up in GOAT conversations has had defenses that did their share, EXCEPT Peyton Manning.
Here is a stat that disproves what you are saying.
Peyton is 0 - 3 in Playoff games after a first round bye. So, Peyton hasn't had great teams according to you, yet (including this year) it is the 4th year they have had the top 1 or two record in the AFC (plus as we know they have won more games than any team in NFL history in this past decade - obviously not good teams according to you) and Peyton loses that first game. Those loses are not because his teams were not good, but because he was confused in the playoffs and played poorly.
Wait, so the team got them to the playoffs and Manning lost the playoff games? Look, I'm not saying that Manning hasn't had bad games in the playoffs before, but I live in Indiana, and I've seen them play virtually every game since before Jeff George was their QB. Manning has not had a consistently good defense until this year. He has had offensive weapons, most definitely, but he has not had a defense. The Colts make no secret of the fact that in the Manning era there, the defense has been designed to play with a lead. The team was set up to get an early lead, forcing the opponents' to have to abandon the run so that Freeney and Mathis could just pin their ears back and get at the QB. Whenever an opponent was able to run early and successfully, playing that time of possession game against the Colts, the whole thing would fall apart. The defense wasn't designed to stop a run game, and they would inevitably get tired from being on the field too long, allowing the opposing offense to have a field day. This, in turn, forced Manning and the offense to be more aggressive and take more chances, which didn't always work.
Look at the teams they have struggled against in the playoffs...the Patriots (interesting that the Colts have been on the winning side now that the Pats are a pass happy team), the Steelers, the Chargers...all with very strong running games. Add to that those teams play 3-4 defenses, which the Colts rarely faced back then, meaning that both Manning and the O-Line could not be as confident in their reads. That was a recipe for failure, for a team failure.
I have a feeling that the Colts this season will have a much better chance against the Chargers if they end up facing them in the playoffs. The 3-4 defense is much more prominent today, so the Colts have more familiarity of it. In particular, the Colts have faced the Chargers several times in the last few years, so Manning now has a few pages of notes on them that he didn't have before. And this year's Colts defense is designed differently. They can stop the run, they have depth in the front seven meaning they don't get tired as easily (notice that against the Pats this season, the Colts D seemed fresh at the end while the Pats D could barely keep on their feet they were so winded). But today's Charger team is more of a passing team than they have been in the past, which actually helps the Colts defense. With a stronger defense, the offense doesn't necessarily have to worry about scoring every drive. They don't have to take chances if they get behind like they used to.
It should be a really good game assuming they can get past the Ravens again.
But back to the point...Montana, Brady, Manning. They play(ed) completely different styles, and in the case of Montana, in different eras. Comparing them is really not something that can be done.
I agree that it is impossible to compare. But to say that Manning never had good teams and that is why they lost is bulls**t. If you don't have good teams you don't consistently win 13+ games a year only to lose in the playoffs. And no, it is not always on Manning for losing. But as you said, when they play 3 - 4 teams he gets confused. That is on him. You can't give some bulls**t reason that they rarely play those types of teams so it is tough for them to adjust. Adjust is what being a clutch good QB did. Montana was able to do that. Now yes, Montana had bad games, had games where he lost the game by his play. But as history has shown there are many many more occasions where Joe was clutch, Manning there is not that case yet.
Ding ding ding.....it was never Joe vs Brady....
...In addition brady is the biggest baby on the field..earlier this year he pointed to the ref that his knee almost got hit and the ref gave him a penalty..I would've loved to see how he would've done getting clobbered like Joe did against the Giant,Cowboys,Bears, and Redskins defenses of the 1980's and early 90's