Peyton Manning=GOAT
- Thread starter shack
- Start date
Most people who are "wannabe experts".In general I've just never been a fan of using championships to measure players in team sports. That is just me. Most people will disagree with me and that is fine.
Bruce Arthur in today's Star (BTW, he actually gets paid for his opinions):
We should remember some things, though. If Peyton Manning won his second Super Bowl by throwing for 141 yards and an interception, then we should by now recognize that quarterbacks aren’t the lone heroes of these mythic stories.
Before I start my response I have no particular side in the Peyton-Brady debate. Both are near equals in my view. And I thought Peyton has always got a bum deal for his playoff record.Looks like the only criteria against Peyton just took a big hit.
My response is merely that of a devil's advocate
The fact that people are using Manning's win last night as a positive in the debate, can easily have the tables turned against them. Manning has become a game manager at this point. And if your argument is managing the game and him just winning is a big plus, then in essence without knowing it you are making a stronger argument for Tom Brady.
My argument (in which I am also playing devil's advocate since I've repeatedly said that there is solid arguments to be made for Manning, Montana and Brady) is mostly based as a rebuttal to the "championships measure GOAT" and "it is all on the QB's shoulders" arguments.Before I start my response I have no particular side in the Peyton-Brady debate. Both are near equals in my view. And I thought Peyton has always got a bum deal for his playoff record.
My response is merely that of a devil's advocate
The fact that people are using Manning's win last night as a positive in the debate, can easily have the tables turned against them. Manning has become a game manager at this point. And if your argument is managing the game and him just winning is a big plus, then in essence without knowing it you are making a stronger argument for Tom Brady.
I may not actually put full faith in what I am posting, but I am ramming those arguments right back down the throats of people who sincerely believe that bull crap. Football is the ultimate team sport. No one player deserves so much credit or so much blame.
So we not that far off in our real viewpoint. So need to really further discuss between us anyway.My argument (in which I am also playing devil's advocate since I've repeatedly said that there is solid arguments to be made for Manning, Montana and Brady) is mostly based as a rebuttal to the "championships measure GOAT" and "it is all on the QB's shoulders" arguments.
I may not actually put full faith in what I am posting, but I am ramming those arguments right back down the throats of people who sincerely believe that bull crap. Football is the ultimate team sport. No one player deserves so much credit or so much blame.
My point exactly. But far too often fans and even some in the media reduce football to an individual sport like boxing or golf or tennis when it is actually the opposite.Most people who are "wannabe experts".
Bruce Arthur in today's Star (BTW, he actually gets paid for his opinions):
We should remember some things, though. If Peyton Manning won his second Super Bowl by throwing for 141 yards and an interception, then we should by now recognize that quarterbacks aren’t the lone heroes of these mythic stories.
I sort of blame this on the fact that a lot of fans don't want to think. They'd rather just look at stats on a piece of paper because it is easier to do but the problem is stats rarely paint the full picture.
And this doesn't only apply to QBs. Take Kuechly and Davis for example. Sure they are the best LB tandem in the league but part of the reason they make so many plays on the field is because 98 & 99 do such a GREAT job of occupying blockers keeping those backers clean.
Look at Denver's defense - how in the world did Malik Jackson not get selected for the Pro Bowl? Yeah, he wouldn't have played in it obviously since he was on one of the teams in the Superbowl but he was balling all season and he was making plays in almost every Broncos game I saw this season. And Derek Wolfe? Another underrated guy that doesn't get the credit he deserves. Miller & Ware deserve all the credit they get. Ware is a future HOFer and Miller is the closest thing to Derrick Thomas I've seen but not enough people talk about their interior people.
I am totally on the same page as you when it comes to measuring QBs with Superbowl rings. I honestly think using championships to measure QBs is lame and the type of thing I'd expect to hear on a playground at recess if I was in grade 5. I respect the fact that you are willing to step outside the box and think about something deeper than most people do.
Not a comment on Manning here. More a comment on statistics in general. Using statistics to make historical comparisons is problematic because every sport evolves. You don't think Drew Brees passing stats has been inflated by the fact that he played a lot of games in domes AND in a Sean Payton offense in a passing league (which the NFL has only become in the last 5 or 10 years)? Are ALL the backs that play for Mike Shanahan really as good as their stats indicate? Or are a lot of them inflated due to that Alex Gibbs zone-blocking scheme Shanahan runs?So you're rating PM's whole career based on one (Super Bowl!) game? Seems wrong.
Statistics and records would say otherwise.
If we use stats to measure guys than Aldon Smith was an ELITE pass-rusher in San Francisco. But was he really one of the best? Or did he benefit from Justin Smith's presence? Justin would often occupy double-teams and Aldon was the beneficiary of more one-on-one blocks than almost any other No. 1 edge rusher in the league. Also, San Fran used to run a lot of games with the Smith boys (stunts/twists) to create sack opportunities for Aldon. I even remember Aldon getting some sacks when he was UNBLOCKED. So I think a lot of his success in San Fran had a lot to do with the personnel around him as well as the scheme.
Not suggesting we should ignore stats. But as fans we need to be careful not to rely too much on stats on a piece of paper. For me the eye-ball test will ALWAYS trump stats.
Could not have said it better myself. And QB is also the most DEPENDENT position in team sport. Far too often QBs get too much credit/blame. One of my pet-peeves about the sport.Football is the ultimate team sport. No one player deserves so much credit or so much blame.
Football is equal parts offense, defense and special-teams. I've even always thought special-teams gets overlooked far too often as well. I remember I tweeted Shannon Sharpe a few weeks ago and the HOFer told me that fans would be surprised by how many games there are where special-teams is the difference between a win and a loss. I still vividly recall a Colts/Chargers playoff game from several years back where Mike Scifres was one of the STARS of the game. He put on a punting performance for the ages in that game!
Okay. What do your stats tell you about Clay Matthews play this year compared to previous years? Better? Worse?More passing yards than anybody else, more TDs than anybody else, more wins than anybody else, most games with a perfect passer rating, more 4th quarter comebacks than anyone else, more league MVPs than anyone else. Etc. Etc. When I eye-ball those stats, no one else even comes close. Regardless of era.
How else do we rate an individual player's performance over their career? By looking at their coaches and what kind of schemes they used and the personnel around them? No, we use stats.
Interested in your thoughts.
I think you missed the statement in my previous post. I started off by saying "Not a comment on Manning here". I was just making a general comment about measuring players with stats since there were people on this thread that were using stats to measure players. It wasn't like I was branching off onto a completely different topic.The thread is about Peyton Manning. Not Clay Matthews.
Tell who is better than PM. Interested in your thoughts.
You then replied..
"How else do we rate an individual player's performance over their career? By looking at their coaches and what kind of schemes they used and the personnel around them? No, we use stats."
Now I am trying to demonstrate that using stats can be flawed by using various examples.. I am debating your claim that stats is an accurate tool for measuring/comparing players.
So I was simply asking you what you think about Clay Matthews performance this year ? I understand the thread is not about Clay Matthews. I'm trying to demonstrate something.
Here are the stats..
http://www.nfl.com/player/claymatthews/80431/careerstats
How would you compare Darelle Revis' 2009 season to Ronde Barber's 2001 season?
http://www.nfl.com/player/darrellerevis/2495717/careerstats
http://www.nfl.com/player/rondebarber/2499530/careerstats
I''m gonna answer your question even though you refuse to answer mine. Quite honestly I dont understand why you are evading my question. I'm not asking you for your credit card numbers. And I'm not asking you to write an essay or solve a calculus problem. And you yourself said stats is the only way to measure these players. I provided you with the stats and you still dodge a couple simple questions I asked which shouldn't be difficult for someone who claims to have the ability to compare players with stats. It seems like you just want to dodge my questions to be difficult and nothing else.Don't care about your demonstrations, don't care about Clay Matthews or what kind of year he had.
Who is a better QB than Manning? What does your "eye-ball" tell you?
Well I'm going to answer your question. My answer is I don't know because I don't use stats to measure these players and iti is hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison. Manning had some HOF receivers in Harrison and Wayne and played in a dome. And does playoff performance not need to be weighted more than reg season performance since playoff games matter more? There certainly are QBs who performed better in the postseason than Manning right? Would Manning have the same numbers if he was drafted by PHI instead of IND and played outdoors in Philly? You don't think playing indoors inflates those numbers some?
Have to say though for a guy that claims to be able to compare players using stats it is surprising that you can't answer the questions I posed about Matthews, Revis and Barber. All you gotta do is look at the stats and tell me. Simple. It takes 2 seconds but you can't do it?
PM is the best reg season QB I have ever seen. I cant comment on all time as I did not see players before my time.The answer is; who gives a shit?
Go start another thread if you care about comparing all these players, year by year. This thread is about PM. Who is a better QB than PM? What does your "eye-ball" tell you?
PM is NOT the best playoff QB I have ever seen.
Do playoff games matter more than regular season games or not?
No? Then PM is best ever.
Yes? Then PM is NOT best ever.
I wasn't being combative. I just asked a question . It must have really bothered you that I asked you a question about Clay Matthews in a Peyton Manning thread. Sorry.The answer; who gives a flying fuck? The thread is about Peyton Manning. Not Clay Matthews.
Tell me, who is better than PM. Interested in your thoughts.
So how do you normalize for different factors? QB X may have better receivers than QB Y. QB X may have played a lot more games indoors than QB Y.Unless you watch every single game ever played by every single player in history, then your "eye-ball" test is bullshit.
So you are just going to look at stats and penalize QB Y for variables he has no control over?
I'm asking you the question since you are the guy that goes by stats. Not me.
You gonna dodge this one too?
That is why Tom Jackson always talks about the eye-ball test on Sunday Countdown. Don't tell me he doesn't because if you watch Sunday Countdown you know he does.Unless you watch every single game ever played by every single player in history, then your "eye-ball" test is bullshit.
Tom Jackson played in the league and he uses the eye-test.
And I think it is bullshit that you claim to have the ability to measure players with stats but when challenged to do so with Revis, Barber, Matthews you decline to do so.
Why so afraid to answer the question?
Who said anything about playoff wins? Show me where I said that sir. I said playoff performances as in how he performed in the playoffs individually.Unless you watch every single game ever played by every single player in history, then your "eye-ball" test is bullshit.
Judging PM based on playoff wins? I thought winning was a team effort and not placed solely on an individual. BTW, he's over .500 in the playoff now.
NEVER did I mention anything about playoff wins. So don't accuse me of judging PM on playoff wins.
Not sure where you got that from. Care to show me?
You wanna call my eye ball test bullshit? No problem.
Disagree with me all you want. But don't claim I said something that I didn't.
Probably best to just agree to disagree. You have your opinion and I got mine. Not sure we are getting anywhere with this debate.
Spot on . It was their edge rushers (Miller/Ware), secondary (especially the trio of CBs - Talib, HArris, Roby), as well as the underrated Malik Jackson (how the hell Malik Jackson was not selected to the pro-bowl is beyond me) and Derek Wolfe who were the stars of this game.Peyton Manning had virtually nothing to do with that Super Bowl. It was all the defense. Didn't throw for a single TD, picked once, threw for 141 yards, rushed for 0, 56.6 rating. He just happened to be the QB. We would be calling Brock Osweiler a Super Bowl champion if he started with that D behind him. His legacy was secure before this game, but last night neither added or took away from his legacy. He's still one of the all time greats, but he doesn't jump ahead of anyone because of his 2nd Super Bowl because we all know he wasn't a factor in the outcome.
Can't use Superbowls to measure QBs and I like to use the case of one Russel Wilson. He is a FAR superior QB now than he was in the two years he reached the Superbowl (winning one) as he has improved so much INSIDE the pocket. Russell Wilson of this season is WAY better than Russell Wilson of the previous 2 seasons. Yet the new and improved Russell Wilson 2.0 did not even reach the championship game while a lesser Russell Wilson reached 2 superbowls and won 1.
Not sure what that has to do with my post. And I think we actually agree that football is a team sport and wins and losses are determined by the team more than just a QB. We seem to be on the same page on at least that point.Marshawn Lynch was healthy when they won. And they had better receivers.
What I was saying is Wilson this season is FAR superior to the Wilson from the two previous years despite not winning the superbowl this year. His sandlot ability was always there but the big improvement this year was his play inside the pocket. Wilson made SIGNIFICANT improvements INSIDE the pocket this season. You disagree with my assessment on Wilson?
I said playoff games matter more than regular season games. So to me individual playoff performance matters more than individual reg season performance.Say again?
NEVER did I talk about playoff team wins. You are trying to twist my words.
Playoff games matter more than Regular season games. But I never ever talked about playoff team wins.
SAY AGAIN????
Again I'm not sure how that is relevant to the point I was making about Wilson. I wasn't discussing the reasons why SEA reached superbowls in the past and didn't this year. I was making the point that Wilson is a MUCH improved QB INSIDE the pocket this year. That post was directed at thewalker who was talking about Manning's legacy being unchanged by the superbowl victory yesterday which I completely agree with.Those were key factors that led to the Seahawks winning that year. Wilson had less pressure and more to work with.
However if you want to discuss the reasons SEA won the Superbowl that year I'm happy to do so. I think you left out a couple of key factors though.
a) They had way more depth on the defensive line that year compared to this year - they had 3 or 4 edge guys and 3 or 4 interior guys. A solid 7 or 8 man rotation which reminded me of the year the Giants won the SB with JPP, Tuck, Osi, Robbins, Cofield, Kiwanuka, et al.
b) Offensive line was much better the year they won the Superbowl. (they had O-line issues for much of the year this year. I still have visions of William Hayes whipping the RT in the STL game)
