Page 42 of 45 FirstFirst ... 3239404142434445 LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 443
  1. #411
    Well, first off I don't think Manning will win the award. Peterson deserves and should win the award. Taking the Vikings to the playoffs on his back and running for 2000 says it all. Manning was similar statistically, however he led to Broncos to the number one seed in the AFC.... they had a better record than New England and he turned a putrid passing offense into one of the best offensive attacks in pro football. The broncos won 10 straight games to end the season and he was the best player on the hottest team for most of the year. Neck surgeries or not, all of the aforementioned is fact. Neither Rodgers or Brady was statistically dominant over Manning and in the regular season their teams were not as good. It is a regular season award. I would rate the MVP this year as follows

    1. Peterson
    2. Manning
    3. Rodgers
    4. Brady
    5. A. Morris


    Quote Originally Posted by ensbergcollector View Post
    my issue with using mvp's is this...let's just look at this year. Aaron rodgers, tom brady, and peyton manning all had pretty much equal years statistically. Yet much of the talk is that peyton deserves it because he has come back from neck surgery. So, he will get an MVP while the other 2 will not. So, how do you give credit to manning for winning an mvp and not to brady or rodgers who had just as good of years if not better?
    Hidden Content
    1. Main player wants- P. Manning/R. Moss/L. Tomlinson/D. Brees/M. Faulk
    2. If you ask for prices and don't reply with an answer I will not be replying to your "price" questions anymore. If not interested a simple no will do.

  2. Wata Photo
  3. #412
    i think the problem with your reasoning is you consider regular season "greatness" as stats. look at Ben's winning percentage - it's among the best ever. aikman was thrown to the fire his first year (much like manning) but after that his winning percentage is top notch. Bradshaw is in top echelon in winning percentage.

    MVP's and All-Pros are stats based. but is the most valuable player really the "most valuable"? not really - it's about stats. even this year - AP probably should win as he was far more valuable to the Vikings than Manning was to Denver. they won the division last year and they won it again this year. they don't give MVP's to guys that don't have great stats even if they were the most valuable.

    again, i think the difference between us is how much importance we put on stats. i'm not sure how old you are, but i grew up with football in the 70s when 300 yard games were rare, and if you got one, it was because your team was losing. it was almost seen as a bad thing. for a QB to throw the ball 30+ times means his team was trailing and he probably made some mistakes in the game that put them in that position.

    Stafford's stats are much, much better than Ben's stats, but Ben is a far better QB. But at the end of their careers, Stafford will probably throw for more yards and may even make more Pro Bowls because of his stats. What separates them is that Ben knows how to win games.

    In my top-10, virtually every QB started on a team that was not a powerhouse when they arrived. The Cowboys were terrible when Aikman got there. The Steelers were terrible when Bradshaw arrived. The Colts were terrible when Manning was drafted. The 49ers were terrible when Montana was drafted. And so on...

    The very best QB's lead their team to wins and championships. The argument that their teams were good does not hold water for me because their teams weren't good when they got there. They made their teams good. Sure, they had help, but without them their teams don't accomplish what they do. Dynasties ended when those QB's left. Yes, the Cowboys and 49ers won a Super Bowl without their guy, but within 2-3 years they were back to being mediocre teams or worse.

    "guys who never achieved any type of regular season greatness or dominance but played well in the post season."

    in the case of Aikman, Ben and Bradshaw, they didn't play any better in the playoffs than they did in the postseason. they played the same and they won. in other words, winning Super Bowls does not have to equate to being statistically dominant, and somehow we hold that against them. i just can't buy that line of thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by manningcollector View Post
    There are too many moving parts for me to consider Super Bowl's won as the over-arching criteria that defines a QB....... Just based on how you explained it, my opinion would be to have Fouts in the top 5-8. If he was the greatest passer I had ever seen; and against good teams at that...... then that is good enough criteria for me to elevate him that high. The argument against Manning can pile on and on about how he fizzled as the number 1 seed..... and that is fine. After this past weekend I can see why someone would have him at 9 or 10...... I wouldn't buy putting him outside the top 10 though. Basically Roethlisberger, Eli Manning, Aikman, Bradshaw to me are nothing more than josh beckett, curt schilling, andy pettite in baseball...... guys who never achieved any type of regular season greatness or dominance but played well in the post season..... that is the bottom line in my mind. I don't value average regular season performance on good teams..... Brady and Montana were not that, they were/are very good in the regular season and further elevated the legacy by winning as the stage got brighter.

    Also, I do not believe that MVP's or 1st team all pro appreances are very subjective at all.... For someone to have won an MVP.... not really a popularity thing, even though it is voted on. Please tell me one MVP winner in the last 20 years that was not deserving. I have looked and that seems to have been a pretty accurate award over the last 20 years.... and, even if you think it is subjective, how much so...... maybe instead of truly being the MVP they were top few....... either way the season had to have been outstanding and the team made the playoffs (almost all circumstances) becasue that player was a great leader and performer...... Manning has not been named 1st team all pro more times than Brady becasue he is more popular.... it is because the players respect his talent and ability in the regular season more than Brady..... when Brady threw his 50 td's he was given that honor...... When Brees went crazy the year they won the SB he was given that honor... the same for Rodgers...... so that doesn't really seem too inaccurate to me either.

    Team awards and accomplishments are so fluid and there are too many moving parts..... I don't think the "best" QB of all time can exist without having won 1 super bowl..... but one would be enough for me given all the extraneous variables. Individual accolates are important, especially when comparing them to what other greats have done during that time (this era with manning, brady, roethlisberger, brees, rodgers, eli manning.... is absolutely phenominal and there can be a lot of constructive comparisions made individually when the period is over). This day today, we will likely look back on and say it was the greatest individual period for QB's in the history of the NFL (to include the young crop of griffin, Kapernick, luck, dalton, wilson, ryan, etc )
    Collecting Autos of Kopitar, Robitaille, Dionne, Vachon, Kyle Clifford and Tretiak
    Hidden Content
    want list - Hidden Content

  4. #413
    I don't necessarily think that stats are everything and make or break someone.... but Aikman, I just don't see it. In an era where many guys threw the ball well and were efficient, he managed to throw 160 td's and 155 INT's... I can overlook a lot of stats but that is absolutely terrible. The cowboys may have turned around when he was there but I am very sure that emmitt, irvin, harper, haley, and a slew of great players were there too...... the draft pics acquired by the herschel walker trade allowed that dynasty to be built. Troy never one time threw for 20 TD's in one season yet he always had double digit interceptions. With the cowboys running game and great receivers Aikman in my mind was nothing more than average. I could see if he threw 15 td's and 5 pics.... that's fine, maybe they were run heavy and he made the plays when he needed to. That wasn't the case. He threw 16 td's and 15 pics on average....... stats don't tell everything but in his case they tell me he is an was extrememly over-rated and not efficient..... when he should have been very efficient with all the explosive talent around him. I know the game has evolved but Montana had a 2:1 ratio with 275 td passes...... to even mention Aikman in the same breath as Montana, Brady..... or even Fouts or Big Ben is just ridiculous in my mind. Ben can take over a game if need be, I think he is an outstanding player.... Aikman could not take over a game like that, he just wasn't that good.

    Quote Originally Posted by gretzky99 View Post
    i think the problem with your reasoning is you consider regular season "greatness" as stats. look at Ben's winning percentage - it's among the best ever. aikman was thrown to the fire his first year (much like manning) but after that his winning percentage is top notch. Bradshaw is in top echelon in winning percentage.

    MVP's and All-Pros are stats based. but is the most valuable player really the "most valuable"? not really - it's about stats. even this year - AP probably should win as he was far more valuable to the Vikings than Manning was to Denver. they won the division last year and they won it again this year. they don't give MVP's to guys that don't have great stats even if they were the most valuable.

    again, i think the difference between us is how much importance we put on stats. i'm not sure how old you are, but i grew up with football in the 70s when 300 yard games were rare, and if you got one, it was because your team was losing. it was almost seen as a bad thing. for a QB to throw the ball 30+ times means his team was trailing and he probably made some mistakes in the game that put them in that position.

    Stafford's stats are much, much better than Ben's stats, but Ben is a far better QB. But at the end of their careers, Stafford will probably throw for more yards and may even make more Pro Bowls because of his stats. What separates them is that Ben knows how to win games.

    In my top-10, virtually every QB started on a team that was not a powerhouse when they arrived. The Cowboys were terrible when Aikman got there. The Steelers were terrible when Bradshaw arrived. The Colts were terrible when Manning was drafted. The 49ers were terrible when Montana was drafted. And so on...

    The very best QB's lead their team to wins and championships. The argument that their teams were good does not hold water for me because their teams weren't good when they got there. They made their teams good. Sure, they had help, but without them their teams don't accomplish what they do. Dynasties ended when those QB's left. Yes, the Cowboys and 49ers won a Super Bowl without their guy, but within 2-3 years they were back to being mediocre teams or worse.

    "guys who never achieved any type of regular season greatness or dominance but played well in the post season."

    in the case of Aikman, Ben and Bradshaw, they didn't play any better in the playoffs than they did in the postseason. they played the same and they won. in other words, winning Super Bowls does not have to equate to being statistically dominant, and somehow we hold that against them. i just can't buy that line of thinking.
    Hidden Content
    1. Main player wants- P. Manning/R. Moss/L. Tomlinson/D. Brees/M. Faulk
    2. If you ask for prices and don't reply with an answer I will not be replying to your "price" questions anymore. If not interested a simple no will do.

  5. #414
    Aikman may have been a rare exception. i think just about everyone else on my list had pretty good stats. but hard to argue with 11-4 in the playoffs. he also went to 6 straight Pro Bowls (i know you like that), he threw for 23 TD's in 92 (the stats i looked up were not the same ones you found for some reason) and a SB MVP to go with his 3 rings. so it's not like he was a scrub. but Emmitt Smith was probably just as responsible for their success as Aikman was. plus he had a relatively short career, so i wouldn't argue with Aikman being knocked down a couple of spots.

    sadly, no equation is perfect (even mine!) and Aikman probably is more of the exception than the rule. but not as bad as Jim Plunkett - he really is the problem child for my theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by manningcollector View Post
    I don't necessarily think that stats are everything and make or break someone.... but Aikman, I just don't see it. In an era where many guys threw the ball well and were efficient, he managed to throw 160 td's and 155 INT's... I can overlook a lot of stats but that is absolutely terrible. The cowboys may have turned around when he was there but I am very sure that emmitt, irvin, harper, haley, and a slew of great players were there too...... the draft pics acquired by the herschel walker trade allowed that dynasty to be built. Troy never one time threw for 20 TD's in one season yet he always had double digit interceptions. With the cowboys running game and great receivers Aikman in my mind was nothing more than average. I could see if he threw 15 td's and 5 pics.... that's fine, maybe they were run heavy and he made the plays when he needed to. That wasn't the case. He threw 16 td's and 15 pics on average....... stats don't tell everything but in his case they tell me he is an was extrememly over-rated and not efficient..... when he should have been very efficient with all the explosive talent around him. I know the game has evolved but Montana had a 2:1 ratio with 275 td passes...... to even mention Aikman in the same breath as Montana, Brady..... or even Fouts or Big Ben is just ridiculous in my mind. Ben can take over a game if need be, I think he is an outstanding player.... Aikman could not take over a game like that, he just wasn't that good.
    Collecting Autos of Kopitar, Robitaille, Dionne, Vachon, Kyle Clifford and Tretiak
    Hidden Content
    want list - Hidden Content

  6. #415
    Yea, NFL Pro Football reference says 23 so I will go with that, not sure where I looked before. Haha, yea those 6 pro bowls really stand out. Ultimately I don't argue with the fact that Aikman was very good. It takes a special quality to lead a team with so many stars and allow them to mesh. He played well when the stakes were high and was mentally tough, that is for certain. However, he is in no way, shape, or form a top 10 QB of all time. I would have him somewhere in the 20 ballpark. I know I said earlier he wasn't a HOF'er.... but that was if you just looked at his stats in a vacuum and didn't put a name or time frame on it.

    When talking about wins, I try to leave guys like Plunkett and Dilfer out of the argument. Anyone can punch a hole through logic with names like that, I just feel my argument can be make even when considering the greats so I like to use them as examples.

    The more I think about the Manning thing, the more I think of really good college basketball teams. Many teams are constantly ranked high because they beat who they are supposed to beat. Manning over 13 regular seasons consistantly beat everyone he was supposed to beat, giving him those high playoff seeds.... but then when the competition got to be similar, maybe his teams just werent good enough to compete with better players, maybe he tried to do too much, players depended on him too much..... whatever the case may be, but like I mentioned first; an elite first class QB makes the difference when talent levels are similar.... and although he did that quite a few times and did take the prize.... he just left too much on the table for me to consider him number 1 or 2 any longer.



    Quote Originally Posted by gretzky99 View Post
    Aikman may have been a rare exception. i think just about everyone else on my list had pretty good stats. but hard to argue with 11-4 in the playoffs. he also went to 6 straight Pro Bowls (i know you like that), he threw for 23 TD's in 92 (the stats i looked up were not the same ones you found for some reason) and a SB MVP to go with his 3 rings. so it's not like he was a scrub. but Emmitt Smith was probably just as responsible for their success as Aikman was. plus he had a relatively short career, so i wouldn't argue with Aikman being knocked down a couple of spots.

    sadly, no equation is perfect (even mine!) and Aikman probably is more of the exception than the rule. but not as bad as Jim Plunkett - he really is the problem child for my theory.
    Hidden Content
    1. Main player wants- P. Manning/R. Moss/L. Tomlinson/D. Brees/M. Faulk
    2. If you ask for prices and don't reply with an answer I will not be replying to your "price" questions anymore. If not interested a simple no will do.

  7. #416
    Quote Originally Posted by manningcollector View Post
    Well, first off I don't think Manning will win the award. Peterson deserves and should win the award. Taking the Vikings to the playoffs on his back and running for 2000 says it all. Manning was similar statistically, however he led to Broncos to the number one seed in the AFC.... they had a better record than New England and he turned a putrid passing offense into one of the best offensive attacks in pro football. The broncos won 10 straight games to end the season and he was the best player on the hottest team for most of the year. Neck surgeries or not, all of the aforementioned is fact. Neither Rodgers or Brady was statistically dominant over Manning and in the regular season their teams were not as good. It is a regular season award. I would rate the MVP this year as follows

    1. Peterson
    2. Manning
    3. Rodgers
    4. Brady
    5. A. Morris
    first of all, i also think peterson deserves it so we agree there. However, for you, the fact that manning had 1 more win than brady gives him the edge in MVP? You say their teams were not as good but do you factor in strength of schedule? Does it matter that Manning got to beat up on the easiest division in football? That is what I mean by the MVP vote is purely subjective. One guy will give manning the nod because of his neck surgery story. Another because he has one more win than brady.
    the winner of the MVP is never a bad player so you are right in saying that the last 20 years have been accurate. My issue is, that in most years, at minimum the top 3 mvp vote-getters are equally deserving. Manning is probably the most adored football player by the media and has been for the last decade. Whose to say that hasn't effected MVP races?
    bucket:Hidden Content

    Wants: Anything mma as well as nice texans patches

  8. #417



    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,723
    Country
    Card Cash
    80.00
    Savings
    0.00
    Transferred Feedback
    TR (18)

    View my Inventory New
    View my store Beta
    josh freeman
    tim couch
    ryan leaf
    blaine gabbert
    drew bledsoe

  9. #418
    i agree with your take on Manning here - although it does seem that his teams were good enough to beat elite teams in the regular season but when the stakes were the highest and usually at home, he didn't perform. couldn't it just be that he wasn't a guy that performed his best under pressure? he wouldn't be the first guy.

    and for Aikman, he's like the anti-Manning. didn't have great stats, didn't have to throw it a lot, but found ways to win games. to me, that quality is by far the most important for a QB. give me the guy that finds a way to win vs. the guy that can throw a 20 yard out on a rope and rack up stats.

    i probably had him a couple of spots too high, but to me, if i have to win one game i take Aikman over Peyton every single time. and really, that's the most important factor for me in ranking QB's.

    Quote Originally Posted by manningcollector View Post
    Yea, NFL Pro Football reference says 23 so I will go with that, not sure where I looked before. Haha, yea those 6 pro bowls really stand out. Ultimately I don't argue with the fact that Aikman was very good. It takes a special quality to lead a team with so many stars and allow them to mesh. He played well when the stakes were high and was mentally tough, that is for certain. However, he is in no way, shape, or form a top 10 QB of all time. I would have him somewhere in the 20 ballpark. I know I said earlier he wasn't a HOF'er.... but that was if you just looked at his stats in a vacuum and didn't put a name or time frame on it.

    When talking about wins, I try to leave guys like Plunkett and Dilfer out of the argument. Anyone can punch a hole through logic with names like that, I just feel my argument can be make even when considering the greats so I like to use them as examples.

    The more I think about the Manning thing, the more I think of really good college basketball teams. Many teams are constantly ranked high because they beat who they are supposed to beat. Manning over 13 regular seasons consistantly beat everyone he was supposed to beat, giving him those high playoff seeds.... but then when the competition got to be similar, maybe his teams just werent good enough to compete with better players, maybe he tried to do too much, players depended on him too much..... whatever the case may be, but like I mentioned first; an elite first class QB makes the difference when talent levels are similar.... and although he did that quite a few times and did take the prize.... he just left too much on the table for me to consider him number 1 or 2 any longer.
    Collecting Autos of Kopitar, Robitaille, Dionne, Vachon, Kyle Clifford and Tretiak
    Hidden Content
    want list - Hidden Content

  10. #419
    1. Eli Manning
    2. Phil Simms
    3. Y.A. Tittle
    4. Fran Tarkenton
    5. Kerry Collins
    Hidden Content
    Buying: High end Sam Bradford, NEED PEYTON MANNING CONTENDERS, Whatever catches my eye from premium brands
    Buying: Derek Jeter, Babe Ruth AUTOS

  11. #420
    I hate to open up this can...... but what if a Manning or Brady was the signal caller on those cowboy teams..... if that is the case I think they win 5-6 super bowls. I know there is no way determine that, but I feel it's true. If you look at the absolutely dominant talent that the cowboys had..... then I do think all it would have taken was an average QB to win those games. Was Aikman really the difference, Deion Sanders leaves after winning in Dallas, then SanFrancisco was suddenly good enough to get over the hump...... Aikman was not the driving force on the Dallas teams of the 90's...... they were laced with stars and HOF players. Manning has not been, maybe he just doesn't perform as well in the biggest games..... but he doesn't perform poorly. His playoff games minus the few in 0 degree new england weather have been well above average... just not necessarily up to his standard....... however, Brady has done soooo much with very little talent.... tons of teamwork and what I think is the greatest schematic coach to ever stand on the sideline. I know we joked about Plunkett before...... but what Aikman did doesn't really impress me much more than that just because of the way it was done.


    Quote Originally Posted by gretzky99 View Post
    i agree with your take on Manning here - although it does seem that his teams were good enough to beat elite teams in the regular season but when the stakes were the highest and usually at home, he didn't perform. couldn't it just be that he wasn't a guy that performed his best under pressure? he wouldn't be the first guy.

    and for Aikman, he's like the anti-Manning. didn't have great stats, didn't have to throw it a lot, but found ways to win games. to me, that quality is by far the most important for a QB. give me the guy that finds a way to win vs. the guy that can throw a 20 yard out on a rope and rack up stats.

    i probably had him a couple of spots too high, but to me, if i have to win one game i take Aikman over Peyton every single time. and really, that's the most important factor for me in ranking QB's.
    Hidden Content
    1. Main player wants- P. Manning/R. Moss/L. Tomlinson/D. Brees/M. Faulk
    2. If you ask for prices and don't reply with an answer I will not be replying to your "price" questions anymore. If not interested a simple no will do.

Page 42 of 45 FirstFirst ... 3239404142434445 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •