Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Now that it's established by 93henfan that Joe Flacco is an Elite QB, because of his Super Bowl MVP last year. Which of this year's young QB's, Kappy or Wilson, will become elite, or will Manning/Brady become eliter by winning the Super Bowl MVP.

Manning wins his second Superb Owl and becomes the elitest of the elites.

Grizalltheway wrote:Manning wins his second Superb Owl and becomes the elitest of the elites.

Vidav wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:Manning wins his second Superb Owl and becomes the elitest of the elites.

If anyone is saying Joe Flacco and taking odds, let me know!

Wait a minute. How is P. Manning better than Starr, Montana, etc.?

SuperHornet wrote:Wait a minute. How is P. Manning better than Starr, Montana, etc.?

you're a maroon

SuperHornet wrote:Wait a minute. How is P. Manning better than Starr, Montana, etc.?

He's not. Is that a real debate?

rkwittem wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:Wait a minute. How is P. Manning better than Starr, Montana, etc.?

He's not. Is that a real debate?

Lemme guess, you think SB rings are the only measure of a QB's greatness? Hooray Trent Dilfer!

rkwittem wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:Wait a minute. How is P. Manning better than Starr, Montana, etc.?

He's not. Is that a real debate?

He is certainly better than Starr. Perhaps Montana.

A retarded discussion. Comparing players from completely different eras is just stupid.

And for my money I'd take Montana, then Starr, then Peyton. Marino proved that stats don't mean shit.

AZGrizFan wrote:A retarded discussion. Comparing players from completely different eras is just stupid.

And for my money I'd take Montana, then Starr, then Peyton. Marino proved that stats don't mean shit.

marino...and Dilfer....proved regardless the QB you have it takes a full team to win a title

AZGrizFan wrote:A retarded discussion. Comparing players from completely different eras is just stupid.

And for my money I'd take Montana, then Starr, then Peyton. Marino proved that stats don't mean shit.

Marino proved you can be great at the QB position without winning the big one, just like Dilfer proved you can win one if you're mediocre and have a good enough team around you. Using soley stats or rings to assess greatness is silly.

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:A retarded discussion. Comparing players from completely different eras is just stupid.

And for my money I'd take Montana, then Starr, then Peyton. Marino proved that stats don't mean shit.

Marino proved you can be great at the QB position without winning the big one, just like Dilfer proved you can win one if you're mediocre and have a good enough team around you. Using soley stats or rings to assess greatness is silly.

When it comes to THAT, I'll take Fouts right alongside Marino. They were BOTH good, but just didn't have the supporting cast, other than for a couple of years for Fouts and one year for Marino.

Grizalltheway wrote:

rkwittem wrote: He's not. Is that a real debate?

Lemme guess, you think SB rings are the only measure of a QB's greatness? Hooray Trent Dilfer!

No, but I don't think stats are a good measure of a QB's greatness. Clutch moments are. Peyton Manning has never had an Ice Bowl-level moment like Starr. The 1967 Cowboys would have beaten the piss out of ANY of Peyton's teams in that weather. They were lucky to be in that game against the Packers. Starr came up huge when the Packers needed him- keep in mind that GB used mostly backup RBs in that game because of injuries. Starr had to save their bacon and he did. I don't need to bring up Montana's resume because his DWARFS Manning's in every meaningful category.

Manning and Marino are meant for each other. Montana and Brady are meant for each other. Starr and Aikman are meant for each other. Just don't cross-pollinate those three pairs.

rkwittem wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:

Lemme guess, you think SB rings are the only measure of a QB's greatness? Hooray Trent Dilfer!

No, but I don't think stats are a good measure of a QB's greatness. Clutch moments are. Peyton Manning has never had an Ice Bowl-level moment like Starr. The 1967 Cowboys would have beaten the piss out of ANY of Peyton's teams in that weather. They were lucky to be in that game against the Packers. Starr came up huge when the Packers needed him- keep in mind that GB used mostly backup RBs in that game because of injuries. Starr had to save their bacon and he did. I don't need to bring up Montana's resume because his DWARFS Manning's in every meaningful category.

Manning and Marino are meant for each other. Montana and Brady are meant for each other. Starr and Aikman are meant for each other. Just don't cross-pollinate those three pairs.

What was Montana's road record in the playoffs?

rkwittem wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:

Lemme guess, you think SB rings are the only measure of a QB's greatness? Hooray Trent Dilfer!

No, but I don't think stats are a good measure of a QB's greatness. Clutch moments are. Peyton Manning has never had an Ice Bowl-level moment like Starr. The 1967 Cowboys would have beaten the piss out of ANY of Peyton's teams in that weather. They were lucky to be in that game against the Packers. Starr came up huge when the Packers needed him- keep in mind that GB used mostly backup RBs in that game because of injuries. Starr had to save their bacon and he did. I don't need to bring up Montana's resume because his DWARFS Manning's in every meaningful category.

Manning and Marino are meant for each other. Montana and Brady are meant for each other. Starr and Aikman are meant for each other. Just don't cross-pollinate those three pairs.

You mean they rode great coaching, great defense (and in Brady's case cheating) to their SB wins?

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:A retarded discussion. Comparing players from completely different eras is just stupid.

And for my money I'd take Montana, then Starr, then Peyton. Marino proved that stats don't mean shit.

Marino proved you can be great at the QB position without winning the big one, just like Dilfer proved you can win one if you're mediocre and have a good enough team around you. Using soley stats or rings to assess greatness is silly.

The difference between Marino and Peyton is that Marino almost never had a running game or the weapons Manning did. Manning has done a lot with tons. Marino did as much with less...and did it in an era that gave the passing game no gold tickets like they do today. Manning is a victim of his era and his track record is brutal in the postseason

Grizalltheway wrote:

rkwittem wrote:
No, but I don't think stats are a good measure of a QB's greatness. Clutch moments are. Peyton Manning has never had an Ice Bowl-level moment like Starr. The 1967 Cowboys would have beaten the piss out of ANY of Peyton's teams in that weather. They were lucky to be in that game against the Packers. Starr came up huge when the Packers needed him- keep in mind that GB used mostly backup RBs in that game because of injuries. Starr had to save their bacon and he did. I don't need to bring up Montana's resume because his DWARFS Manning's in every meaningful category.

Manning and Marino are meant for each other. Montana and Brady are meant for each other. Starr and Aikman are meant for each other. Just don't cross-pollinate those three pairs.

You mean they rode great coaching, great defense (and in Brady's case cheating) to their SB wins?

Ah yes, the patented "the Pats are cheaters" argument. I don't care if you're a Steelers fan, but Bill Cowher doesn't think it mattered and Dick Vermeil doesn't think it did either.
http://espn.go.com/blog/pittsburgh-stee ... of-spygate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Pats are the modern day 49ers to be sure, but people today still regard Montana highly. And Brady has rarely had the offensive support than Manning does (other than a few years of Moss and Welker and one healthy year of Gronk and Hernandez with Welker). Brady hasn't won with elite offensive talent, but he won 3 rings with "subpar" talent.

Also, if we're going to point the finger of shame at cheaters, point it right at Seattle.

Peyton Manning has to get his playoff record over .500 to be even in the conversation...
Good lord even Jim Kelly (Bills) who was in 17 playoff games won more than half
(and he lost 3 super bowls)

I'm not completely sold on Peyton just yet...

Gil Dobie wrote:Now that it's established by 93henfan that Joe Flacco is an Elite QB, because of his Super Bowl MVP last year. Which of this year's young QB's, Kappy or Wilson, will become elite, or will Manning/Brady become eliter by winning the Super Bowl MVP.

Tarvaris Jackson is next. Manning & Wilson will both get horrifically injured in the first quarter and Jackson is way better than Osweiler.

Mvemjsunpx wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:Now that it's established by 93henfan that Joe Flacco is an Elite QB, because of his Super Bowl MVP last year. Which of this year's young QB's, Kappy or Wilson, will become elite, or will Manning/Brady become eliter by winning the Super Bowl MVP.

Tarvaris Jackson is next. Manning & Wilson will both get horrifically injured in the first quarter and Jackson is way better than Osweiler.

so he'll be another Doug Williams?

Chizzang wrote:Peyton Manning has to get his playoff record over .500 to be even in the conversation...
Good lord even Jim Kelly (Bills) who was in 17 playoff games won more than half
(and he lost 3 super bowls)

I'm not completely sold on Peyton just yet...

Yeah, we all know you're a Brady fanboi. Move along.

tampajag wrote:

Mvemjsunpx wrote:
Tarvaris Jackson is next. Manning & Wilson will both get horrifically injured in the first quarter and Jackson is way better than Osweiler.

so he'll be another Doug Williams?

Kinda, except that Williams ultimately got the starting job in the end because Jay Schroeder wasn't very good.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Peyton Manning has to get his playoff record over .500 to be even in the conversation...
Good lord even Jim Kelly (Bills) who was in 17 playoff games won more than half
(and he lost 3 super bowls)

I'm not completely sold on Peyton just yet...

Yeah, we all know you're a Brady fanboi. Move along.

Not actually correct ^
But do you have anything to add to my observation?



Can you be in the "greatest of all time" conversation
and be a sub .500 playoff quarterback..?

That's a legit question

Chizzang wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Yeah, we all know you're a Brady fanboi. Move along.

Not actually correct ^
But do you have anything to add to my observation?



Can you be in the "greatest of all time" conversation
and be a sub .500 playoff quarterback..?

That's a legit question

Yes. Football is a team game and you can't pin losses completely on the QB, just like you can't give Brady all of the credit for his 3 SB wins.