Peyton Manning's Legacy

[jose melendez]

Folks who want to give Manning a pass and blame it on his teammates, should note that the Denver defense had an okay game.  They got out of the disasterous first quarter down 15-0.  They also only allowed 13 points in the first half.  The Broncos D allowed 341 yards of total offense... blame the whole of the Broncos offense and special teams, to be sure, but the Broncos defense has almost nothing to do with why they lost that game.

 

[Stitch01]

Broncos pass defense was terrible, they got no pressure on Wilson and he carved them up on third down.  Run defense wasnt bad. 

 

[Jungleland]

 
Perhaps.  But this is one of the things that so infuriates Brady/Patriots fans, because the fact that the Pats lost the last two games by such a small margin leads people to the explicit or implicit point "Surely, if Brady is so good, he could have overcome such a small deficit.  Manning?  His whole team collapsed in those losses!  Not his fault!"

 
Yup. I can't bear to look up game logs for either of the Giants Super Bowls so my memory might be slightly hazy on the numbers but Brady had the Pats up with 5 minutes to go in both games, and in both cases the defense blew it. Sure, the games ended with the ball in Tom's hands but in absolutely unfavorable clock situations. Not saying that's the smoking gun in the Brady/Manning debate or anything, but I feel like that gets glossed over an awful lot. Brady goes into the Welker incompletion drive having hit like 12+ passes in a row and almost definitely would have been the MVP had Eli not made one of the best passes I've ever seen to Mario Manningham.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Folks who want to give Manning a pass and blame it on his teammates, should note that the Denver defense had an okay game.  They got out of the disasterous first quarter down 15-0.  They also only allowed 13 points in the first half.  The Broncos D allowed 341 yards of total offense... blame the whole of the Broncos offense and special teams, to be sure, but the Broncos defense has almost nothing to do with why they lost that game.

Yes, I said that during the game too.  In the first qtr, it reminded me of the 2011 SB vs. the Giants.  Pats D was on the field most of that 1st quarter due to that safety, yet held them in the game.  Big difference here was that Denver and Peyton couldn't do jack on offense to bring them back.

 

[thehitcat]

Dan Wetzel thinks that Peyton is a nice guy so therefore the dump he took on the field last night should not tarnish his legacy.

 
 
The writing in that story, horrific...anyway I want to pick on my favorite choice of words that I've heard across all media today (and not meaning to pick you RW.)  "last night should not tarnish his legacy"  It didn't, it burnished his legacy as a quarterback that has a knack of coming up small in big spots.  Peyton's legacy is that he is one of the best regular season quarterbacks ever (as good or better than Marino) and that he is the best dome quarterback we have seen (unless Brees plays for a lot longer) and that he has consistently taken the field leading teams with better talent than the opponent and lost in big games more than anyone else.  Is his legacy that he is a top ten all time quarterback? You bet , in my mind right in there with Favre and Marino in the 6-9 range.  In fact I posit that winning last night would have tarnished his legacy but good old Peyton came through.   

 

[smastroyin]

The worst unit on the field by far was the broncos offensive line.

 

[bankshot1]

Peyton's "legacy" was in question for the past 2 weeks, and has been debated here for the past few years, because his post-season performance was at a huge variance to his regular season -record.
 
We heard from the pundits that if he won the SB 48 his legacy would be cemented.
 
He didn't win, he played another poor big-game.
 
That may be his legacy.

 

[ivanvamp]

Yes, I said that during the game too.  In the first qtr, it reminded me of the 2011 SB vs. the Giants.  Pats D was on the field most of that 1st quarter due to that safety, yet held them in the game.  Big difference here was that Denver and Peyton couldn't do jack on offense to bring them back.

 
Very good points you guys.  In SB 46, the Pats got down 9-0 early, but the defense did a pretty good job from there and Brady avoided the big mistake that would have allowed NY to add to the lead.  And then, in fact, Brady put up 10 points to give NE a 10-9 halftime lead.
 
Last night, Denver got down 8-0, but then Peyton threw the horrible pick to Chancellor that led to a Seahawks touchdown to make it 15-0, and then on the following possession, as Denver was driving to get back into the game, Peyton throws the pick-six to give Seattle a 22-0 lead, and game over.
 
So when faced with similar situations - down 9 and 8 points early, respectively, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning performed completely differently.  Brady got his team right back into the game.  Manning essentially gave Seattle 14 more points and drove the nails into his own coffin.
 
Night and day.

 

[Stitch01]

Brady played better in that game than Manning played yesterday, particuarly before he got banged up towards the midpoint of the game, but the Seahawks defense is leaps and bounds better than the '11 Giants and were playing in peak form to boot.

 

[jose melendez]

Broncos pass defense was terrible, they got no pressure on Wilson and he carved them up on third down.  Run defense wasnt bad. 

Wilson through for 206 yards with 2 TDs with only two passes over 20 yards ( and another at 19)  The Denver offense sucked and gave short fields all night.
 
The game story is the Seattle defense was awesome and the Denver offense was horrible.

 

[Stitch01]

Wilson through for 206 yards with 2 TDs with only two passes over 20 yards ( and another at 19)  The Denver offense sucked and gave short fields all night.
 
The game story is the Seattle defense was awesome and the Denver offense was horrible.

Sure.  Denver's pass D sucked too though. 
 
No sacks, no turnovers, Seattle moved the ball through the air with ease when the game was in doubt.  They played OK in the red zone.  They weren't the primary culprit for losing, but the pass D sucked.

 

[loshjott]

 
Very good points you guys.  In SB 46, the Pats got down 9-0 early, but the defense did a pretty good job from there and Brady avoided the big mistake that would have allowed NY to add to the lead.  And then, in fact, Brady put up 10 points to give NE a 10-9 halftime lead.
 
Last night, Denver got down 8-0, but then Peyton threw the horrible pick to Chancellor that led to a Seahawks touchdown to make it 15-0, and then on the following possession, as Denver was driving to get back into the game, Peyton throws the pick-six to give Seattle a 22-0 lead, and game over.
 
So when faced with similar situations - down 9 and 8 points early, respectively, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning performed completely differently.  Brady got his team right back into the game.  Manning essentially gave Seattle 14 more points and drove the nails into his own coffin.
 
Night and day.

 
When the score was 8-0, who was thinking (like me), uh oh, Seattle is wasting their red zone chances and here comes the Broncos offense...
 
It never materialized, and as you are saying it got worse.
 
This "Peyton's legacy" conversation is identical to what happened last time he lost a Super Bowl. He may not get another chance this time.

 

[Homar]

The question of GOAT is a cousin to the old "if you had one game and your life depended on winning it, who would you choose as your QB/starting pitcher/goalie?"  It's a fun conversation to have over a brew, though it doesn't always yield to hard analysis.  
 
But if I have one game, and my life depended on winning it, there is no way that I choose Peyton Manning as my QB.  Montana or Brady.  That's the conversation for me.  Anyone here choose Manning for that?  

 

[Hendu for Kutch]

Brady played better in that game than Manning played yesterday, particuarly before he got banged up towards the midpoint of the game, but the Seahawks defense is leaps and bounds better than the '11 Giants and were playing in peak form to boot.

 
Sure, but you can flip that coin and point out the offensive talent available to Manning was much better than Brady had in '11.  His only weapons were really Welker and Hernandez.  Gronk could barely move, Branch was a shell of his former self, and Ocho was just taking up space.

 

[mascho]

The question of GOAT is a cousin to the old "if you had one game and your life depended on winning it, who would you choose as your QB/starting pitcher/goalie?"  It's a fun conversation to have over a brew, though it doesn't always yield to hard analysis.  
 
But if I have one game, and my life depended on winning it, there is no way that I choose Peyton Manning as my QB.  Montana or Brady.  That's the conversation for me.  Anyone here choose Manning for that?  

 
Well...is it a regular season game in a dome?  Might choose Manning for that.

 

[Stitch01]

 
Sure, but you can flip that coin and point out the offensive talent available to Manning was much better than Brady had in '11.  His only weapons were really Welker and Hernandez.  Gronk could barely move, Branch was a shell of his former self, and Ocho was just taking up space.

Yes, that's valid.  I dont think the situations were more that superficially comparable. 

 

[Stitch01]

The question of GOAT is a cousin to the old "if you had one game and your life depended on winning it, who would you choose as your QB/starting pitcher/goalie?"  It's a fun conversation to have over a brew, though it doesn't always yield to hard analysis.  
 
But if I have one game, and my life depended on winning it, there is no way that I choose Peyton Manning as my QB.  Montana or Brady.  That's the conversation for me.  Anyone here choose Manning for that?  

 
Id feel good with either Brady, Manning, Marino, or Montana at their peak.  You could let me pick any of those four from a hat and Id be about equally happy. 

 

[Stitch01]

If Denver had Montana or Brady instead of Manning yesterday, anyone think they win that game?  I dont, which is one of the reasons I hate heavily weighting one game in these discussions.

 

[steveluck7]

If Denver had Montana or Brady instead of Manning yesterday, anyone think they win that game?  I dont, which is one of the reasons I hate heavily weighting one game in these discussions.

Probably not but i feel comfortable in saying that the 2 INTs don't happen with Brady as the QB.

 

[Saints Rest]

The football media is fucking terrible, so this is true, but I think the whole media construct of legacies riding on one game is pretty much bullshit too.  It was stupid two weeks ago as well.
 
 
Agree mostly.  I have a slight quibble with this only because I dont see how whether a guy caught a ball with his helmet or not matters enough to swing whether Montana or Brady is better.

If 2007 SB ends with the Pats hoisting the trophy at 19-0, no one would be having any of these discussions as Brady would be ensconced as GOAT.  The near miss of that historic season will always be the greatest disappointment of Brady's career.  
 
As to today's topic, I agree with what many have posted that last night's loss may not be a MINUS in the Manning column, but it definitely prevents it from being a plus.  Buck asked Aikman late last night if this game changes anything, and Aikman said no, but qualified by saying one game wouldn't matter either way.  I disagreed with that.  If Manning won last night, he would have -- rightly or wrongly -- made all of this week's discussions about GOAT.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

If Denver had Montana or Brady instead of Manning yesterday, anyone think they win that game?

 
I definitely don't think they win but I bet they lose by less.
 
Any way you cut it, Manning's two picks simply crushed whatever win equity his team had and both of those were bad picks.  The Chancellor play was simply awful, his receiver was actually quite open and while Manning got slightly moved off his spot he had a pocket to step into and throw.  The pick six play he got hit but the smart play was probably to take the sack, as it didn't look like his receiver was open and I'm not sure it would have been a first down anyway.
 
I've seen both Tom Brady and Joe Montana make plenty of bad plays but lets be honest, Peyton played leaps and bounds worse than Brady or Montana ever played in a Super Bowl.  It wasn't the worst QB performance in a Super Bowl ever by a long shot.  But among guys with a legitimate case for being among the top QBs of all time the only performance that's really comparable in utter crappiness is Elway in the 55-10 game against SF.  So I think almost any top QB would play better simply because hardly any top QB has ever played worse in that venue.
 
What we draw from that in terms of legacy I don't know.  I'm generally in the "ranking QBs is stupid" camp anyway.

 

[EvilEmpire]

Peyton Manning's legacy is tarnished relative to the guy he outplayed all season and who he beat in the playoffs? Manning was no more able to elevate the Broncos over a better Seahawks team than Brady was able to elevate the Patriots over a better Broncos team.

You guys are great fans, but the amount of team fault, individual credit, and SSSing you manipulate in different ways to elevate Brady and detract from Manning is entertaining.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

If Denver had Montana or Brady instead of Manning yesterday, anyone think they win that game?  I dont, which is one of the reasons I hate heavily weighting one game in these discussions.

 
Fine so long as you are consistent and a great performance by Manning yesterday wouldn't have changed your opinion of him that much one way or another.
 
I tend to agree with you overall but, again, we all know how it would have played itself out in the media if Denver had won and thrown 4 TDs.  So this thread is just reveling in that. 

 

[soxfan121]

The etymology of the word "legacy" includes, from the 12th century, the word "ambassador" - one who represents certain principles and imparts those wherever he goes.

So the analogy I keep thinking of is these great QBs show up at your door, seeking to impart who they are and what they represent. Wouldn't the introductions they give be remarkably similar to what we already hear in media, in bar discussions?

"Hi, I'm Joe Montana, ambassador of clutch."
"Hi, I'm Dan Marino, ambassador of all stats, no wins."
"Hi, I'm John Elway, ambassador of needed a running back to go over the top."
"Hi, I'm Warren Moon, ambassador of accumulation."
"Hi, I'm Jim Kelly, ambassador of almost unthinkable disappointment."
"Hi, I'm Brett Favre, ambassador of impressive but typically reckless improvisation."

You guys tell me how the Brady and Manning intros at your front door go. I think the latter guy sounds a lot like the second one above and I really don't know what Brady's might be.

 
"Hi, I'm Tom Brady ambassador of impregnating your wife."
Or, seriously..
"Hi, I'm Tom Brady and I'd like to introduce you to my co-ambassador and hetero-football mate Bill Belichick."
 
"Hi, I'm Peyton Manning, ambassador of controlled or perfect weather conditions."
 

 
Well...is it a regular season game in a dome?  Might choose Manning for that.

 
I so concur. 
 
And yes, I'm adding last night as a data point fo the Manning Cold Weather Problem theory. Yeah, I know it wasn't actually cold. But he sucked like it was sub zero out there.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Peyton Manning's legacy is tarnished relative to the guy he outplayed all season and who he beat in the playoffs? Manning was no more able to elevate the Broncos over a better Seahawks team than Brady was able to elevate the Patriots over a better Broncos team.

You guys are great fans, but the amount of team fault, individual credit, and SSSing you manipulate in different ways to elevate Brady and detract from Manning is entertaining.

 
Did Manning have a horseshit game in the SB yesterday or did he not? I mean, hell, the Pats weren't good in Denver two weeks ago but Brady played much better there than Manning did last night.
 
 
I'm not a Manning hater, I thought his post-game presser was about as classy as possible under the circumstances. And he changed his game for the better years ago once it was clear the Pats were kicking his ass six ways to Sunday under his old ways. I mean, Manning's got a SB ring, and he deserves praise for that. But Rex Grossman was the opposing QB; does it really count? I'm kidding, of course, but still.
 
I guarantee you had Brady thrown up a horrid hairball like Manning did last night there would be entire forests felled to make papers full of stories tearing down Brady's career legacy. Instead, Manning plays like Kordell Stewart and out comes the excuse train. It's....interesting, to say the least.

 

[Stitch01]

 
Fine so long as you are consistent and a great performance by Manning yesterday wouldn't have changed your opinion of him that much one way or another.
 
I tend to agree with you overall but, again, we all know how it would have played itself out in the media if Denver had won and thrown 4 TDs.  So this thread is just reveling in that. 

It wouldnt have changed it much, Im pretty sure I have a post before the AFCCG about that.  Media would have, for sure, but the NFL media is fucking stupid.
 

Any way you cut it, Manning's two picks simply crushed whatever win equity his team had and both of those were bad picks. The Chancellor play was simply awful, his receiver was actually quite open and while Manning got slightly moved off his spot he had a pocket to step into and throw. The pick six play he got hit but the smart play was probably to take the sack, as it didn't look like his receiver was open and I'm not sure it would have been a first down anyway.
 

He played turrable.  No question about that.  Didnt protect the football.

If 2007 SB ends with the Pats hoisting the trophy at 19-0, no one would be having any of these discussions as Brady would be ensconced as GOAT. The near miss of that historic season will always be the greatest disappointment of Brady's career.

Which is what makes the whole discussion so silly to me.  The difference between Brady being definitive GOAT or not is a ball a guy caught with his helmet while Brady wasn't even on the field? 

 

[rodderick]

Peyton Manning's legacy is tarnished relative to the guy he outplayed all season and who he beat in the playoffs? Manning was no more able to elevate the Broncos over a better Seahawks team than Brady was able to elevate the Patriots over a better Broncos team.

You guys are great fans, but the amount of team fault, individual credit, and SSSing you manipulate in different ways to elevate Brady and detract from Manning is entertaining.

Brady has gotten it done in big games far more often. He essentially doesn't need to prove anything anymore in that department. His worst SB performance is as good as Manning's best. The argument doesn't revolve solely around this season.

And yeah, the guy who had Julius Thomas, Demaryus Thomas, Eric Decker and Wes Welker outplayed the guy who had Julian Edelman, a banged up Danny Amendola, Kembrel Thompkins and Hoomanawanui. What a fucking surprise.

 

[bankshot1]

Peyton Manning's legacy is tarnished relative to the guy he outplayed all season and who he beat in the playoffs?
 

Yes it is. But to be fair, Brady did not have the toys Manning did. And Brady did lead the Pats back from a 24-0 deficit to Peyton that you might have overlooked.
 

Manning was no more able to elevate the Broncos over a better Seahawks team than Brady was able to elevate the Patriots over a better Broncos team.
 

But even in the AFCCG loss, Brady almost got the Pats back into a game, they shouldn't have been in. 
 

You guys are great fans, but the amount of team fault, individual credit, and SSSing you manipulate in different ways to elevate Brady and detract from Manning is entertaining. 
 

 
Its what we do. The Broncos were almost historically terrible last night in all three phases of the game, although when was the last time a 3 point favorite lost a SB by 35 points? Seriously I don't see a BB/Brady team losing a game by 35 points. They fight back.

 

[jose melendez]

For me the issue is that the Manning vs. Brady debate remains open.
 
There was lots of speculation that a Manning win last night would have ended the discussion.  Now you can make arguments for both still.    

 

[Oppo]

If Denver had Montana or Brady instead of Manning yesterday, anyone think they win that game?  I dont, which is one of the reasons I hate heavily weighting one game in these discussions.

But it's not just one game. It's one game added to several previous failures.

 

[Fishercat]

Peyton Manning's legacy is tarnished relative to the guy he outplayed all season and who he beat in the playoffs? Manning was no more able to elevate the Broncos over a better Seahawks team than Brady was able to elevate the Patriots over a better Broncos team.

You guys are great fans, but the amount of team fault, individual credit, and SSSing you manipulate in different ways to elevate Brady and detract from Manning is entertaining.

 
I haven't really chimed in on the topic, but I think this is a false equivalency.
 
The Broncos were 2.5 point favorites in Vegas at the time of the game but I believe Seattle opened up as the favorite. The line, I think we can all agree, was off, but by and large these were considered two very even football teams (in different ways). They were the only two teams with +180 in point differential, both teams were 13-3 (best in football), and outside of selected samples, the picks were pretty well split.
 
The Broncos were 4.5 point favorites in Vegas against the Patriots (down from 6+). The Broncos had a better record, better point differential, home field, and was facing a Patriots team that even people who don't like the team could agree was decimated by injury as bad as anyone in football.
 
The Broncos/Seahawks, by most pre-game accounts, were very similarly capable football teams in different ways. And even if the game ended 35-31 Seattle (Manning having 350, 3 TDs, 2 INTs or something like that), I bet the tenor is very different. But this was a shellacking where Manning, among many others, made crucial mistakes that contributed to it. Hell, so did Brady in his game, but the gap between Pats-Broncos and Broncos-Seahawks isn't really close to equal.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

It's always been a point of contention for me when people point to the Patriots defense when comparing Brady/Manning. The only argument (and it's a good one) to establish Manning's greatness comes down to his numbers and stat's. If you're going to compare teammates, it only makes sense to do so with the players surrounding the QB's (offense).
 
I've removed each QB's "injury year".
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
Pro-Bowl offensive players on Peyton Manning teams, 15 years
 
Quarterback: Peyton Manning, 13 Pro-Bowl's
 
Left Tackle: Tarik Glenn, 3 Pro-Bowls (2004-2006); Ryan Clady, 1 Pro-Bowl (2012). 4 Pro-Bowls
Left Guard: Zane Beadles, 1 Pro-Bowl (2012). 1 Pro-Bowl
Center: Jeff Saturday, 5 Pro-Bowls (2005-2007, 2009-10). 5 Pro-Bowls
Right Guard: Louis Vasquez, 1 Pro-bowl (2013), 1 Pro-Bowl
Right Tackle: None
 
Tight End: Ken Dilger, 1 Pro-Bowl (2001); Dallas Clark, 1 Pro-bowl (2009); Julius Thomas. 1 Pro-Bowl. 3 Pro-Bowls
 
Wide Receiver: Marvin Harrison, 8 Pro-Bowls (1999-2006); Reggie Wayne, 5 Pro-Bowls (2006-2010); Demaryius Thomas, 2 Pro-Bowl's (2012-13). 15 Pro-Bowl's
 
Running Back: Marshall Faulk, 1 Pro-Bowl (1998); Edgerrin James, 4 Pro-Bowls (1999-00, 2004-05); Joseph Addai, 1 Pro-Bowl (2007). 6 Pro-Bowl's
 
Total: 35 Pro-Bowl's (minus Manning)
 
 
 
Pro-Bowl offensive players on Tom Brady teams, 12 years
 
Quarterback: Tom Brady, 9 Pro-Bowl's
 
Left Tackle: Matt Light, 3 Pro-Bowl's (2006-07, 2010). 3 Pro-Bowl's
Left Guard: Logan Mankins, 6 Pro-Bowl's (2007, 2009-13). 6 Pro-Bowl's
Center: Damien Woody, 1 Pro-Bowl (2002); Dan Koppen, 1 Pro-Bowl (2007). 2 Pro-Bowl's
Right Guard: Brian Waters, 1 Pro-Bowl (2011). 1 Pro-Bowl
Right Tackle: None
 
Tight End: Rob Gronkowski, 2 Pro-Bowl's (2011-12). 2 Pro-Bowl's
 
Wide Receiver: Troy Brown, 1 Pro-Bowl (2001); Randy Moss, 1 Pro-Bowl (2007); Wes Welker, 4 Pro-Bowl's (2009-2012). 6 Pro-Bowl's
 
Running Back: Corey Dillon, 1 Pro-Bowl (2004). 1 Pro-Bowl
 
Total: 21 Pro-Bowl's (minus Brady)
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
Anyone that uses the talent excuse is full of absolute dog shit. If Manning's #1 best case for GOAT are his fantastic numbers, then it's pretty easy to see that he's always been surrounded by exceptional talent. Do great QB's make the talent around them better? Yes. But that can be said for both Brady and Manning, so I don't give Manning more credit for doing that with better talent surrounding him.
 
Anytime these two guys are on the field, their teams are generally favored, so a win-loss record doesn't tell the entire story. They both have great W-L records.
 
But how do Manning/Brady teams perform against the spread?
 
Between 2001-2012 (Only records I found, although i didn't search further because...well, I've spent enough time researching for this stupid post):
 
Tom Brady lead teams: 106-66-4 ATS (.614%)
Peyton Manning lead teams: 93-79-4 ATS  (.540%)
 
Manning has more talent around him, has performed poorly in the playoffs, and is significantly worse against the spread (which tells me that he doesn't play as well as the general public gives him credit for). This is without touching on his indoor/outdoor splits, or his trouble in cold weather games (both of these things are real factors).
 
I think Manning is one of the greatest QB's of all time, which is a great accomplishment in it's own right. I just have a hard time placing him above either Brady or Montana.
 
Hell, for all the talk about Manning putting up "The all-time greatest regular season for a QB !!1!", it beat Brady's 2007 season by 5 TD passes and 671 yards. That was by throwing 81 more passes (Brady averaged 36 attempts a game in 2007, so more then 2 full games worth of passes) and against significantly worse defenses (I outlined this in another thread, but trust me, the defenses Manning played were significantly worse then the ones Brady played).
 
Again, Manning is one of the best, but I just have a hard time putting him above Brady regardless of my allegiances.

 

[Super Nomario]

By the way...could anyone even tell what the hell the Broncos' gameplan was yesterday? I mean maybe it's unfair to ask because they were down 15-0 in the blink of an eye, but looking back I don't know if I could even tell you how they planned to attack the Seahawks' defense.

They ran a lot of screen passes out of bunch formations early, but the Seahawks' D was too fast and the Broncos' receivers couldn't get the YAC they normally do, especially early. They also seemed to line up Decker on Sherman's side to give Thomas more favorable matchups against Maxwell et al - Manning was just 1-of-3 for 4 yards throwing to Thomas when Sherman covered him; he was 12/13 for 114 yards and a TD with everyone else (and that one could have easily been DPI on Earl Thomas). That's one reason Decker didn't do much yesterday.

 

[johnmd20]

Probably not but i feel comfortable in saying that the 2 INTs don't happen with Brady as the QB.

 
That first INT especially. That was an atrocious pass. The 2nd INT, pick 6, is harder to call Manning out for. It wasn't like he threw a duck. He got hit as he was throwing. Maybe he should have had better pocket presence, but if you get hit like that and the ball pops in the air, it's not really an INT b/c it was a bad pass.
 
And I am not defending Manning. He had a terrible game and that first INT was remarkably bad. And that quick snap safety, which set the negative tone, is at least partially on Manning. It was his job to get the team relaxed and ready and on the first play, something happens that is shockingly bad. They weren't ready.

 

[H78]

Which is what makes the whole discussion so silly to me.  The difference between Brady being definitive GOAT or not is a ball a guy caught with his helmet while Brady wasn't even on the field? 

 
No. The difference was Brady didn't put up more points earlier in the game so the "helmet catch" could have been rendered meaningless.
 
I love Brady, but can we please not forget that there was more football outside of the "helmet" catch that was played with the ball in Brady's hands where points were not scored?

 

[Stitch01]

But it's not just one game. It's one game added to several previous failures.

 Right, and both guys have played hundreds of games.  Unless we are going to put an extraordinary amount of weight on things like clutchness and intangibles, I think using the whole sample size of hundreds of games is the right way to go (trying to adjust, imperfectly, for factors like indoor/outdoor split, talent, etc).
 
The resumes of the top guys end up being pretty damn close.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

The Manning vs. Brady thing to me is not worth getting into.  You can make arguments for both depending on how you want to slice the numbers.  The point of this thread to me is that we all know what the story would have been if Manning had won.  The pundits would have used it to elevate him past Brady (and Montana) and he would have been the GOAT, no questions asked.
 
So for me I enjoy watching the apologists who had their GOAT columns already written twist themselves into a pretzel to point out how this game didn't really change anything.  Plus I just really dislike Peyton so I enjoy watching him fail.

 

[Stitch01]

 
No. The difference was Brady didn't put up more points earlier in the game so the "helmet catch" could have been rendered meaningless.
 
I love Brady, but can we please not forget that there was more football outside of the "helmet" catch that was played with the ball in Brady's hands where points were not scored?

 
Yes, but if the Pats hold on and win that game 14-10 the same Brady is definitely GOAT argument would still be made because four Super Bowls and 19-0.  Which makes it a somewhat arbitrary way to make a definitive statement.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

 
Yes, but if the Pats hold on Asante Fucking Samuel holds onto a gift INT and they win that game 14-10 the same Brady is definitely GOAT argument would still be made because four Super Bowls and 19-0.  Which makes it a somewhat arbitrary way to make a definitive statement.

 
FTFY.
 
Fucking Asante.

 

[Stitch01]

The Manning vs. Brady thing to me is not worth getting into.  You can make arguments for both depending on how you want to slice the numbers.  The point of this thread to me is that we all know what the story would have been if Manning had won.  The pundits would have used it to elevate him past Brady (and Montana) and he would have been the GOAT, no questions asked.
 
So for me I enjoy watching the apologists who had their GOAT columns already written twist themselves into a pretzel to point out how this game didn't really change anything.  Plus I just really dislike Peyton so I enjoy watching him fail.

  
That to me is another lol media thread, I had been using this to discuss what we should actually think of his legacy but always up for some lol media.

 

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

If Denver had Montana or Brady instead of Manning yesterday, anyone think they win that game?  I dont, which is one of the reasons I hate heavily weighting one game in these discussions.

 
but it's not one game at this point.  there is a large enough sample size at this point of Manning not doing what you would expect the best QB of all time to do in big spots.
 
There are some people being over the top in this thread and that's fine, it's a day for many to celebrate.  But I think you are missing the larger point.  Peyton's history to this point was full of shaky playoff performances, he did nothing to reverse that last night.  He continued that trend. 
 
At this point I think we have a pretty good feel for what Peyton is.  And when lots of people look at the body of work they see, a fantastic QB, a generational talent, but not the best to ever play the game. 
 
I think it's as simple as that.

 

[EvilEmpire]

The Broncos/Seahawks, by most pre-game accounts, were very similarly capable football teams in different ways. And even if the game ended 35-31 Seattle (Manning having 350, 3 TDs, 2 INTs or something like that), I bet the tenor is very different. But this was a shellacking where Manning, among many others, made crucial mistakes that contributed to it. Hell, so did Brady in his game, but the gap between Pats-Broncos and Broncos-Seahawks isn't really close to equal.

I agree equivalencies of any kind in football are hard to make -- that is a big part of why these kinds of discussions are so entertaining. So you could well be right about the gap between Pats-Broncos and Broncos-Seahawks. I just think the Broncos were exposed as not being as good as they looked on paper. The Seattle defense was so much faster, stronger and more physical than what Denver could handle, I think those teams could play 10 times and the Broncos would be lucky to win twice.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

  
That to me is another lol media thread, I had been using this to discuss what we should actually think of his legacy but always up for some lol media.

 
Well based on the first post of the thread I thought this was more of an LOL media and LOL Peyton thread.  But to each his own I guess.

 

[Stitch01]

 
but it's not one game at this point.  there is a large enough sample size at this point of Manning not doing what you would expect the best QB of all time to do in big spots.
 
There are some people being over the top in this thread and that's fine, it's a day for many to celebrate.  But I think you are missing the larger point.  Peyton's history to this point was full of shaky playoff performances, he did nothing to reverse that last night.  He continued that trend. 
 
At this point I think we have a pretty good feel for what Peyton is.  And when lots of people look at the body of work they see, a fantastic QB, a generational talent, but not the best to ever play the game. 
 
I think it's as simple as that.

 
Brady playoffs:    590-950 62.1% 43 TD 22 Int 87.5 rating 6.63 AY/A
Manning playoffs: 572-889  64.4% 37 TD 24 Int 89.2 rating 7.03 AY/A

Looks pretty similar to me
 
Two other all time greats. 
 
Montana playoffs: 460-734   62.7% 45 TD 21 Int 95.6 rating 7.86 AY/A
Marino playoffs:   385-687   56%  32 TD  24 Int  77.1 rating 6.56 AY/A

 

[jon abbey]

 
I haven't really chimed in on the topic, but I think this is a false equivalency.
 
The Broncos were 2.5 point favorites in Vegas at the time of the game but I believe Seattle opened up as the favorite. The line, I think we can all agree, was off, but by and large these were considered two very even football teams (in different ways). They were the only two teams with +180 in point differential, both teams were 13-3 (best in football), and outside of selected samples, the picks were pretty well split.
 
The Broncos were 4.5 point favorites in Vegas against the Patriots (down from 6+). The Broncos had a better record, better point differential, home field, and was facing a Patriots team that even people who don't like the team could agree was decimated by injury as bad as anyone in football.
 
The Broncos/Seahawks, by most pre-game accounts, were very similarly capable football teams in different ways. And even if the game ended 35-31 Seattle (Manning having 350, 3 TDs, 2 INTs or something like that), I bet the tenor is very different. But this was a shellacking where Manning, among many others, made crucial mistakes that contributed to it. Hell, so did Brady in his game, but the gap between Pats-Broncos and Broncos-Seahawks isn't really close to equal.

 
I jthink this is all because there were no interconference games between SEA/SF and DEN/NE this year, so the extent of how much better SEA/SF were than the rest of the league wasn't fully grasped (although plenty of people called the NFC Championship game the real title game at the time, obviously quite rightly in retrospect).
 
The amazing thing to me is that SF might have actually been better than SEA on a neutral field, but either way, both were head and shoulders above everyone else. 

 

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

ummm look at the TD to INT ratios between Brady/Montana and Manning/Marino.
 
And you conviently left off W/L record.

 

[Al Zarilla]

 
I spent a good portion of last night thinking about what excuses could be made for Peyton's performance, because you know certain types (Peter King) are going to try to find SOMETHING else to blame (his receives, O-line, etc). But after last night I think most of the world knows the truth - the guy's a great quarterback, but he's not great at making plays when he has to. If everything breaks in his favor, he knows how to take advantage of those breaks, but when the going gets tough, last night happens. That's his career in a nutshell. He rarely "wills" his team and himself to victory.
 
 

King was lambasting Peyton during the game with the best of them. 
 
Peter King ‏@SI_PeterKing15h
RT @lake_21117: Any comment on Peyton's play so far? ... Yes. It's awful, and he's being suffocated, and he's forcing throws.

 

[bankshot1]

I hope last nights 34-for-49 completions (70%) are in the above Manning stats.
 
34 of the most meaningless 5 yard passes in SB history.
 
Outside of the W/L record (omitted) the TD/int ratio is the more telling stat

 

[Euclis20]

 
Brady playoffs:    590-950 62.1% 43 TD 22 Int 87.5 rating 6.63 AY/A
Manning playoffs: 572-889  64.4% 37 TD 24 Int 89.2 rating 7.03 AY/A
Looks pretty similar to me
 
Two other all time greats. 
 
Montana playoffs: 460-734   62.7% 45 TD 21 Int 95.6 rating 7.86 AY/A
Marino playoffs:   385-687   56%  32 TD  24 Int  77.1 rating 6.56 AY/A

 
It was posted earlier in this thread, but Brady was a much more consistent playoff performer.  Manning has made a habit of fattening up on wild card opponents, only to crumble later:
 

I mentioned this a couple of years ago, but Manning has been much higher variance in the playoffs than Brady:
 
Avg. QB rating in the playoffs:
Brady: 89.4
Manning: 89.1
 
Standard deviation of QB rating in playoffs:
Brady: 24.6
Manning: 32.7
 
Best five playoff performances by QB rating:
Manning: 158.3, 145.7, 138.7, 123.6, 118.4
Brady: 141.4, 137.6, 130.5, 116.4, 115.0
 
Worst five playoff performances by QB rating:
Manning: 31.2, 35.5, 39.6, 62.3, 69.3
Brady: 49.1, 57.5, 57.6, 62.3, 66.4

 
Credit to cannonball 1729.  To add onto that, most of Manning's playoff games were played in a dome, an environment conducive to good passing numbers.  Most of Brady's playoff games were played outdoors in the New England winter, not an environment conducive to good passing numbers. 

 

[Ed Hillel]

No. The difference was Brady didn't put up more points earlier in the game so the "helmet catch" could have been rendered meaningless.

I love Brady, but can we please not forget that there was more football outside of the "helmet" catch that was played with the ball in Brady's hands where points were not scored?

Sure, but let's not similarly forget that Brady played with a broken foot. He wasn't the same player in either the San Diego or Giants game after that.