Tom Brady Ranks Peyton Manning as 'Greatest Of All Time'

by **Enigma869** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 10:46 am

Sorry Tommy Boy...Don't agree with this, at all!

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2 ... 1%7C217892

Tom Brady ranks Peyton Manning as 'greatest of all time'
.
Staff report
Sporting News Text size A A A
Tom Brady might be No. 1 in the eyes of his peers, but the three-time Super Bowl winning quarterback ranks Peyton Manning as the greatest of all time.

The NFL Network concluded its Top 100 countdown Sunday night, and to no one's surprise, Brady was voted the best player of 2011.

"It's very flattering," Tom Brady told the NFL Network of the honor of being named the No. 1 player. (AP Photo)“To me, he’s the greatest of all time,” Brady told the NFL Network after the unveiling, referring to Manning.

“He’s a friend of mine, and someone that I always watch and admire, because he always wants to improve, he always wants to get better, and he doesn’t settle for anything less than the best. So, when you watch the best and you’re able to learn from the best, hopefully that helps me get better.”

The Colts quarterback finished No. 2 in the voting, followed by Adrian Peterson, Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, Troy Polamalu, Andre Johnson, Darrelle Revis, Drew Brees and Julius Peppers.

“It’s very flattering,” Brady told the NFL Network of the honor. “I’ve been, I think, very fortunate over the years to play with an incredible organization and an incredible group of players. And this year was, really, a great year for our team, you know, in the regular season, and we accomplished some great things.

“The thing that I love about football and I’ve always loved, which I think draws each player in the NFL to this game, is that it’s a team sport. So, you know, every teammate that I’ve ever had, the teammates that I’ve had this year … nobody would really accomplish anything without the help of every single guy on that team and every coach."

by **donnaplease** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:09 am

I can agree with this. Me loves me some Manning boys...

by **conversationpc** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:09 am

Their career numbers are pretty close with each guy have an edge over the other in a few categories. However, Brady's team has three Super Bowl wins to one for Manning, so you gotta give the edge to him.

by **Enigma869** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:21 am

conversationpc wrote:Their career numbers are pretty close with each guy have an edge over the other in a few categories. However, Brady's team has three Super Bowl wins to one for Manning, so you gotta give the edge to him.

We're talking all-time here. Montana wins this argument, easily for me! As for Manning being the greatest of all time...It's laughable to me. Manning is a REALLY good QB, but I've seen that guy puke on his cleats a whole lot in really big games, and because of that, he's simply not even in the discussion for me.

by **slucero** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:37 am

The goal is the Super Bowl, and Peyton has only has one win... so he's not even in the running. Brady has 3 wins... but Montana and Bradshaw have 4 each.

Quarterbacks with multiple Super Bowl wins

Wins Player
4 Terry Bradshaw
4 Joe Montana
3 Troy Aikman
3 Tom Brady
2 John Elway
2 Ben Roethlisberger
2 Bob Griese
2 Jim Plunkett
2 Roger Staubach
2 Bart Starr

by **Enigma869** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:42 am

slucero wrote:The goal is the Super Bowl, and Peyton has only has one win... so he's not even in the running. Brady has 3 wins... but Montana and Bradshaw have 4 each.

Quarterbacks with multiple Super Bowl wins

Wins Player
4 Terry Bradshaw
4 Joe Montana
3 Troy Aikman
3 Tom Brady
2 John Elway
2 Ben Roethlisberger
2 Bob Griese
2 Jim Plunkett
2 Roger Staubach
2 Bart Starr

Super Bowls matter and matter a whole lot. That said, there is more to being a great NFL QB than just winning Super Bowls. Manning is a better QB than many of the guys on that list. He is a FAR better NFL QB than Terry Bradshaw or Troy Aikman ever were. I just feel that he should have won a lot more than he did, because he's played with some talented players and a hall of fame receiver for most of his entire career.

by **ebake02** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 12:25 pm

Who gives a rat's ass about the NFL.

by **slucero** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 12:53 pm

Enigma869 wrote:
slucero wrote:The goal is the Super Bowl, and Peyton has only has one win... so he's not even in the running. Brady has 3 wins... but Montana and Bradshaw have 4 each.

Quarterbacks with multiple Super Bowl wins

Wins Player
4 Terry Bradshaw
4 Joe Montana
3 Troy Aikman
3 Tom Brady
2 John Elway
2 Ben Roethlisberger
2 Bob Griese
2 Jim Plunkett
2 Roger Staubach
2 Bart Starr

Super Bowls matter and matter a whole lot. That said, there is more to being a great NFL QB than just winning Super Bowls. Manning is a better QB than many of the guys on that list. He is a FAR better NFL QB than Terry Bradshaw or Troy Aikman ever were. I just feel that he should have won a lot more than he did, because he's played with some talented players and a hall of fame receiver for most of his entire career.

Peyton is great... and while he should have won more... he hasn't yet...

If the litmus test is stats only, then the list is different, and maybe Peyton ranks higher... if the litmus test is stats & Superbowls, then the number of Superbowl wins have to factor heavily in ranking... and as good as Peyton is, he'd fall short.

I don't like to use stats because they are misleading.. modern QB's have benefited from schemes (like the West Coast offense) and racked up some passing stats that old QB's can't compete with because offensive schemes were different then...

I'd bet if you asked any of those QB's... including Peyton.. I'd bet to a man they'd say the only thing that matters is winning the Superbowl.

by **YoungJRNY** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 12:56 pm

I agree with Brady when he made the comment about football being one of the ultimate team games in all of sports. Brady is unflappable and is one of the calmest QB's in the game.

He deserves every credential and honor that comes his way, an obvious future Hall of Fame quarterback that will be talked about with the greats to ever play the game but the landscape and what makes up of the Patriots team (coaching staff, organization, ownership, etc) certainly helped him reach that status. It seems like every player who has been apart of that Patriots team for this entire decade has been phenomenal in their craft and Brady benefits from that as well, regardless if he "worked with less" because I've seen those "less" players make plays AFTER the football was thrown to them as well.

I've balanced the Brady/Manning as one and two in my own mind over the years and sometimes they flip flopped occasionally. I agree with it this time, however. I'd have Brady #1 and Manning #2 only because Brady is BIGTIME in BIGTIME situations while Manning has failed to deliver on MANY occasions during his career (like Favre) and it was because of Tom Brady being on the opposite end of things for the most part of Manning's career.

With that said, when your talking importance to each team, I think Manning is way more important to the Colts than what Brady is to the Pats. The Pats have it all together and are more of a solid football team as a whole while the Colts lay most of their chips on Manning and his decisions as well. Manning literally controls the Colts offense, even over his offense coordinator and there is no other that studies like him so he's more valuable in terms of value to a system. Matt Cassel played very well in 2008 and the Patriots didn't miss a beat when Brady went down & they won 10 games with Cassel in there. Manning has more of the offense stemming off of his mind than Brady does with New England. That's the glaring difference.

If Jim Sorgi went in for a full season for Indy, the Colts are a 2 win team while I can still see the Pats win 7-8 games without Brady at the helm since we've already seen it. Just my .2cents. I have Brady at #1, Manning #2 in terms of big-time quarterback in stone-cold moments.

by **slucero** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:15 pm

Don't forget about Earl Morrall... the dude has 2 rings.. and he was a backup both times..

In 1968, Johnny Unitas was injured in the final exhibition game before the season, Earl Morrall became the team's starter. Morrall proceeded to lead the Colts to a 13-1 record, then added two playoff victories en route to winning the NFL's Most Valuable Player award, leading the Colts into Super Bowl III, where they lost to the Jets. Two years later, Morrall again replaced an injured Unitas in Super Bowl V, but the occasion proved to be much happier as the Colts won 16-13 over the Dallas Cowboys.

In 1972 Morrall was claimed on waivers for $100 by the Miami Dolphins, and replaced the injured Bob Griese for the Dolphins during the team's October 15 win over the San Diego Chargers. The victory gave Miami a 5-0 record, with Morrall building on that win to lead the team to the first undefeated regular season in the NFL since 1942 and only undefeated season ever, starting 12 out of 17 games that year.

by **SF-Dano** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:41 am

Enigma869 wrote:
conversationpc wrote:Their career numbers are pretty close with each guy have an edge over the other in a few categories. However, Brady's team has three Super Bowl wins to one for Manning, so you gotta give the edge to him.

We're talking all-time here. Montana wins this argument, easily for me! As for Manning being the greatest of all time...It's laughable to me. Manning is a REALLY good QB, but I've seen that guy puke on his cleats a whole lot in really big games, and because of that, he's simply not even in the discussion for me.

I may be biased, but Montana is the best I have seen in my lifetime. Can't speak about the QBs that came before the early 70s since I simply have no reference to rank them on other than "numbers". Many QBs have better stats than Montana, but the guy had so many "intangables".

And I would not say Manning is a "FAR" better quarterback than Bradshaw or Aikmen. He is damn good, but I just don't see the major seperation between him and the others mentioned.

by **Rick** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:02 am

SF-Dano wrote:
Enigma869 wrote:
conversationpc wrote:Their career numbers are pretty close with each guy have an edge over the other in a few categories. However, Brady's team has three Super Bowl wins to one for Manning, so you gotta give the edge to him.

We're talking all-time here. Montana wins this argument, easily for me! As for Manning being the greatest of all time...It's laughable to me. Manning is a REALLY good QB, but I've seen that guy puke on his cleats a whole lot in really big games, and because of that, he's simply not even in the discussion for me.

I may be biased, but Montana is the best I have seen in my lifetime. Can't speak about the QBs that came before the early 70s since I simply have no reference to rank them on other than "numbers". Many QBs have better stats than Montana, but the guy had so many "intangables".

And I would not say Manning is a "FAR" better quarterback than Bradshaw or Aikmen. He is damn good, but I just don't see the major seperation between him and the others mentioned.

I agree. Steve Young was great as well. San Francisco had some monster years with those two taking snaps.

by **S2M** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:09 am

Well, *IF* the Giant's O-line wasn't holding on Eli's throw to David Tyree....Brady would have 4 as well....and then the discussion would really begin.

by **Enigma869** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:13 am

SF-Dano wrote:
And I would not say Manning is a "FAR" better quarterback than Bradshaw or Aikmen. He is damn good, but I just don't see the major seperation between him and the others mentioned.

We'll agree to disagree. Bradshaw and Aikmen probably rank one and two for the worst statistics for a QB in the history of the NFL HOF. Both guys were average NFL QB's on great NFL teams. Aikman only threw for 20 TD's once in his entire career and threw for 15 or fewer TD's in 8 of his 12 seasons. That's less than one TD per game, which is putrid, in my opinion, for a top NFL QB. Bradshaw at least managed to throw for more than 20 TD's four times during his career. Just for perspective, Manning has never (including his rookie season) once thrown for fewer than 26 TD's and has thrown for more than 4000 yards in all but one season. Manning's "worst" season (in terms of yards and TD's) is better than any season Bradshaw or Aikman ever had in their careers! I certainly don't and wouldn't minimize the rings that Aikman and Bradshaw won, but in my opinion, Manning is a FAR, FAR better QB than either of those guys, even in spite of the fact that I believe Manning should have more rings than he has.

by **Enigma869** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:15 am

S2M wrote:Well, *IF* the Giant's O-line wasn't holding on Eli's throw to David Tyree....Brady would have 4 as well....and then the discussion would really begin.

Brady is certainly in the discussion. The truth is that Brady won a whole lot more with FAR less talent around him than Montana ever had. I saw Montana's entire career and loved the guy. You still can't ignore the fact that Montana spent his entire career in SF with the greatest receiver in the history of the NFL and Brady won three Super Bowls without a single receiver who will get a single vote for HOF consideration!

by **Peartree12249** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:20 am

I'd have to go with Joe Montana on this one. Payton Manning???? Not even close.

by **RedWingFan** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:44 am

S2M wrote:Well, *IF* the Giant's O-line wasn't holding on Eli's throw to David Tyree....Brady would have 4 as well....and then the discussion would really begin.

And if the fumble would have been correctly ruled a fumble, he would be back down to 3. :lol:

by **S2M** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:46 am

RedWingFan wrote:
S2M wrote:Well, *IF* the Giant's O-line wasn't holding on Eli's throw to David Tyree....Brady would have 4 as well....and then the discussion would really begin.

And if the fumble would have been correctly ruled a fumble, he would be back down to 3.

Don't hate the rulebook....I agree with you. But the rules say otherwise. :lol:

by **YoungJRNY** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:39 pm

Enigma869 wrote:
S2M wrote:Well, *IF* the Giant's O-line wasn't holding on Eli's throw to David Tyree....Brady would have 4 as well....and then the discussion would really begin.

Brady is certainly in the discussion. The truth is that Brady won a whole lot more with FAR less talent around him than Montana ever had. I saw Montana's entire career and loved the guy. You still can't ignore the fact that Montana spent his entire career in SF with the greatest receiver in the history of the NFL and Brady won three Super Bowls without a single receiver who will get a single vote for HOF consideration!

He didn't win one WITH a Hall of Fame receiver in Randy Moss in a season where BOTH of them scorched the NFL in total numbers. Just because he won with "less talent" doesn't mean the team as a whole was a bunch of scrubs and what they were doing as a team-concept didn't work only because they didn't have Hall of Famers or big names on the roster. What they did to beat teams simply worked.

Brady won 3 Super Bowls because the team was red-hot and their coach was at the peak of his career as well by orchestrating the entire team. New England was stout at all positions, not only the Quarterback position. From QB right down to K they were as discipled as EVER. Brady being the type of clutch QB just made them that much better as a team. Brady even went down in the 2001 AFC Championship game against Pittsburgh and it was their Special Teams who put 14 of their 24 points on the board. In all those years against Indy, it was the defense that tortured a more polished Peyton Manning.

They simply beat teams in EVERY way possible. Brady is phenomenal & a HUGE part of N.E's Lombardi Trophies but don't make it sound like he played on a bad team and miraculously winning them all by himself. After all, if Vinatieri misses those 40+ yard kicks against the Rams (48 yards) and the Panthers (41 yards), Brady goes from 3 SB wins to 1 in the matter of seconds.

by **SF-Dano** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:37 am

Enigma869 wrote:
S2M wrote:Well, *IF* the Giant's O-line wasn't holding on Eli's throw to David Tyree....Brady would have 4 as well....and then the discussion would really begin.

Brady is certainly in the discussion. The truth is that Brady won a whole lot more with FAR less talent around him than Montana ever had. I saw Montana's entire career and loved the guy. You still can't ignore the fact that Montana spent his entire career in SF with the greatest receiver in the history of the NFL and Brady won three Super Bowls without a single receiver who will get a single vote for HOF consideration!

Montana won two superbowls before Jerry Rice was around. Superbowls XVI & XIX. Just saying. This stuff of who is the best is definitely arguable though.

by **Frontiers65** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 6:22 am

SF-Dano wrote:
Enigma869 wrote:
S2M wrote:Well, *IF* the Giant's O-line wasn't holding on Eli's throw to David Tyree....Brady would have 4 as well....and then the discussion would really begin.

Brady is certainly in the discussion. The truth is that Brady won a whole lot more with FAR less talent around him than Montana ever had. I saw Montana's entire career and loved the guy. You still can't ignore the fact that Montana spent his entire career in SF with the greatest receiver in the history of the NFL and Brady won three Super Bowls without a single receiver who will get a single vote for HOF consideration!

Montana won two superbowls before Jerry Rice was around. Superbowls XVI & XIX. Just saying. This stuff of who is the best is definitely arguable though.

Also...Montana took the Kansas City Chiefs one win away from the Super Bowl in his first year on the team in 94.

by **S2M** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 6:51 am

Frontiers65 wrote:
SF-Dano wrote:
Enigma869 wrote:
S2M wrote:Well, *IF* the Giant's O-line wasn't holding on Eli's throw to David Tyree....Brady would have 4 as well....and then the discussion would really begin.

Brady is certainly in the discussion. The truth is that Brady won a whole lot more with FAR less talent around him than Montana ever had. I saw Montana's entire career and loved the guy. You still can't ignore the fact that Montana spent his entire career in SF with the greatest receiver in the history of the NFL and Brady won three Super Bowls without a single receiver who will get a single vote for HOF consideration!

Montana won two superbowls before Jerry Rice was around. Superbowls XVI & XIX. Just saying. This stuff of who is the best is definitely arguable though.

Also...Montana took the Kansas City Chiefs one win away from the Super Bowl in his first year on the team in 94.

krieg was every bit responsible for that season....and in the first playoff game against Pitt. In the 2nd game Moon outplayed Montana. Houston fumbled SEVEN times - only lost 2. Montana threw 2 picks. Chief's defense won that 2nd game.

And we all know how the 3rd game went....Buffalo smoked the Chiefs 30-13. Only KC TD was from Marcus Allen.

MR

Tom Brady Ranks Peyton Manning as 'Greatest Of All Time'

Tom Brady Ranks Peyton Manning as 'Greatest Of All Time'

Who is online