I agree with your statement, my father-in-law is 80 years of age and we talk football all the time and he runs off names of the old time players like they are still playing. In his opinion he feels the great QB's of the past could play in this league, but he also feels that the great QB's of our generation could play in his era, his explanation to me is that, the biggest thing they have in common is that they have a knack for playing the game in the same way, with intellect and skill. However they all have one thing in common and that is skilled players around them. But he did say that he would put Joe Montana #1 on his list of he were to start a team.
Wait...So Marino is 8-10 in the postseason and 0 rings... Manning is 9-9 with 1 ring... Yet junc takes him over Manning... And for Peyton to not even be in your Top 10...Junc, this Layne, Dawson stuff...Who are the Top 10 QBs YOU'VE seen?
Bradshaw,Staubach,Montana,Elway,Aikman,Unitas,Brady....That's seven in seven seconds, and I'd put Manning (As I said back several pages) on a level with Steve Young right now...
Steve Young had a hot 7 seasons. Manning has been en fuego for 11 straight seasons, and still has 3-4 years of elite football left. 10 4,000 yard seasons as well? They both have 1 ring. How is Manning on the same level as Young? Well unless you want to count the rings Young won with Montana at QB.
I have no issue with someone having the opinion that Manning is better than Marino but I also have no issue with people who believe Marino is better. Marino was a superb QB with freak like skills. Maybe the best pure thrower ever?
TDs are great and he has the edge there mainly b/c he was a better deep threat on a team w/ very few weapons. Wayne has played on a team that has many more weapons to spread the ball around to. Harrison was a 1st rd pick, I remember going into that draft where Sterling Sharpe was breaking down the WRs and said Harrison was the best WR in that draft(the year Key was picked 1st). harrison was very good his first 3 years, he blossomed w/ manning as Manning blossomed w/ him. As far as the Jets and Chiefs, who was the more productive WR btw Maynard and Taylor? Both teams had weapons for their QBs to throw to and that really is the point. Dawson gets slammed for winning w/ his weapons for some reason. I implied it by writing the following? "Eason in the 3 AFC playoff games was 29-42, 367 yds, 5 TDs, 0 INTs and a 135 rating. Craig james helped carry them after they beat us but eason wasn't making mistakes and he led their O to an average of 23 PPG. " Nowhere did I say it was all on Eason, nowhere did I say the D didn't deserve a huge amount of credit. I just pointed out that Eason played well and didn't hurt his team. Welcome to the discussion. I would siuggest you read all the posts before you attack though. It's not all about postseason success, IN MY EDUCATED OPINION I believe manning has had SB caliber talent around him most of his career while I believe Marino did not. I believe marino elevated average talent to the playopffs nearly every year and he made as many AFC title games as Peyton did anyway. The difference in SB wins is Marino had to face one of the grteatest teams of all time led by Joe Montana, manning got to beat a team led by rex Grossman. My top 10 is different than most, it's more than just #s. If I was starting a team trying to win SBs I'd rank my top 10 like this(I can remember games back to 1981): 1. Montana 2. Brady 3. Marino- i know he never won a SB but he never really had the talent around him to do so. 4. Elway(I have no problem flip flopping marino and Elway, I think they were that close) 5. Aikman 6. Warner 7. Ben 8. Manning 9. Kelly 10. Favre
You keep saying that the Dolphins had very few weapons to spread the ball around yet look at all of the people that had more than 30 receptions for them 1984 Tony Nathan Mark Clayton Nat Moore Mark Duper Dan Johnson 1985 Nathan Clayton Moore Hardy Duper 1986 Hampton Nathan Clayton Duper Hardy Moore 1987 (strike shortened season) Stradford Clayton Duper 1988 Stradford Davenport Jensen Clayton Edmunds Duper 1989 Jensen Clayton Duper Edmunds Banks There were plenty of options for Marino to go with the ball. He didn't just have Duper and Clayton as you have been suggesting. It depends on how you define productive. Otis Taylor was very productive in the system they ran. Maynard put up the better stats but the Jets threw more. Each of them had competition for the ball. Dawson played in a system that was run heavy with a strong defense. You implied it with this post: I am simply pointing out that the QBs are NOT the reason they made the Super Bowl..
Warner being this high on your list is a bit confusing. I love Warner and really wish he would not have retired. But he threw TWO INTs that were returned for TDs in his two SB losses; one was at the goaline. Both of those TDs were the difference in the game. But you go out of your way to criticize Manning......
he had Nat Moore at the end of Nat's career. Dan johnson was terrible Bruce Hardy was mediocre Lorenzo hampton, troy Stradford? Ron davenport, Ferrell Edmunds, Jim Jensen, Fred banks- really? You cannot be serious? You don't have to be in a pass happy system to be a great QB. I stated a fact that they made a SB w/ those QBs, nowhere was it implied that they were the reasons they made it.
He also brought his teams back in those SBs and tied or gave his team the lead. He lost to 2 of the greatest clutch QBs of his generations who led legendary drives to beat them. Manning's INT for a TD was the end of the SB, Warner's teams had plenty of time to come back and they did. Also, Warner took not one but TWO inept franchises to the Super Bowl. SL was terrible before him and terrible again soon after he left, Arizona was the worst franchise in all of sports and he led them to a SB. A year ago he may nopt have been as high but after leading Ari to the SB then nearly pulling off the upset I moved him up.
We're not talking about Marino, we're talking about the fact that he had other weapons to throw to other than Clayton. Your response was predictable though
He threw 2 INTs that were returned for TDs. Both of those INTs resulted in the difference in the game. Who cares when he threw them. One of them happened when they were on the goaline that took points off the board. Warner was on the Cardinals for a few years before they got good. Why did it take so long? Maybe their success had a little to do with good coaching and a solid defense....just guessing.
Young, unlike Manning had to wait for playing time. In his prime, he was the best player in the game. They both had great casts around them. They both produced One ring....AND..... Everyone on that list, played PRIOR To the Manning (Ty Law) rules....
Predictable b/c those 'weapons" were a joke. Most were barely NFL caliber players. They weren't the difference in the game, the difference was 2 HOF QBs on the other side led their teams to the GW points. When Manning threw his pick the game was over and his team had no hope, when warner threw his their teams still had time and he led them all the way back in each game. In his 2nd year as a sattert he had Ari at .500 for the first time in a decade and only the 3rd time since 1985. He had Dennis Green as his coach who was a good coach, not a championship coach but he could get teams to postseason. It's hysterical how when you argue for peyton it's all him why Indy has success and he gets no blame but other QBs like warner and Brady it's all about other factors besides them. Young had to wait b/c he forced his way out of TB b/c he wasn';t good enough to elevate lesser talent. he thought he was going to start in SF and thought it was easy to win w/ that talent. When he did get the job he inherited a team that had won 2 of 3 SBs and been in 3 straight title games and he led them to just ONE SB in his career.
No question good coaching and more talent had much to do with AZ getting better. However you can't ignore the fact that the reason Warner was essentially a bench player was he was damaged goods. The reason he was dumped by the Rams and the Giants was he had a bad thumb on his throwing hand which essentially destroyed a good portion of his career. The guy got healthy on the bench. If you remember a QB named Jim Plunkett who had the shit kicked out of him for years in New England, when he got a chance to sit and heal for a bit ended up doing pretty well when he was healthy and had a good supporting cast. Warner when healthy is clearly one of the great trigger men in football. I put allot more blame on Matz for failing to run the ball for the SB loss to the Pats. The WR were being mugged and he has one of the great runnning backs in the game and literally ignored him to prove what a great designed passing game he had.
Those jokes of weapons caught a lot of passes that didn't go to Clayton or Duper. Nathan averaged 48 receptions a year from 84-89 (7th most for RBs) and Troy Stradford averaged 43 receptions per season (87-89). Edmunds averaged 33 per season (88-89) and Bruce Hardy averaged 26 (84-89). I don't care about their talent level, the fact is they were targets for Marino to go to. You keep adjusting your argument. On one hand you blast Manning for throwing a pick 6 but you give Warner a pass for a pick 6 thrown at the goaline and another pick 6 in the other SB. At this point you have flipped and flopped all over the place. Those INTs WERE the difference in the games. BTW - Roethlisberger is not a HOF QB yet...relax a little
My point on Warner is that he gets a pass by nyjunc for throwing 2 INTs that were returned for TDs but he will blast Manning for doing the same thing. He playing two sides of the argument. Personally I am a big fan of Warner's. I wasn't so sure if he was a HOF last year, but when I looked at his career again I realized I was wrong. He is no doubt a HOF'er despite his odd career.
Junc is all over the place with his argument. Personally I watch Manning play and I marvel at his passing ability particularly the deep touch passes. Every game he throws a couple of balls that are just wow. On the other hand Drew Brees, who I never was over impressed by totally outplays him and Manning chokes in a big spot and you have to wonder about his head. I always contend that Manning is asked to do to much, particularly in today's game. Still that's not an excuse for essentially mental errors in big spots. While he has gotten to some big spots because of his talent and smarts, he has choked in many of them.
It doesn't matter how many recs those guys had, they were below average NFL players(most of them). I have not adjusted anything, Warner's INTs were nowhere near on the same level as Manning's game ending INT. Warner brought his team back but his D blew those games. He led his O in SL to 14 pts to erase a 14 pt deficit in the 4th qtr of one SB and he led ARi to 14(of the 16) pts in the 4th qtr against Pitt to give his team the lead. Did manning do that last week? has he ever done that in postseason to see the D lose it? One INT cost his team any chance at winning, the other 2 were early and he was able to overcome them. They are in no way alike. Please show examples of how I am all over the place w/ this argument? How is a guy throwing 2 1st half INts for TDs the same as throwing one w/ the game on the line late in the 4th qtr?
