Peyton Manning vrs Joe Montana.

[RobAllan]

Brady = greatest modern day.
Montana = greatest of a different era.

You can never compare and have a greatest of all time since they played in very different eras with very different rules,you can never decisively say we have one greatest QB of all time just many great in their respective eras.Just my opinion.

I'm going to take a moment to derail a senseless thread for hopefully good reason.

I have seen this statement a LOT over the past few years on this message board. I believe I have even made this statement at one time or another.

I have to say after more thought and time, I absolutely don't think it's true. I do think there's a need to define the stats differently, but I don't think it's difficult to compare Montana/Brady/Manning with even a simple eye test or even wins/losses.

Sammy Baugh, for example, played QB, DB, and Punter during his NFL tenure. He was one of the greatest of his era. I also have no idea how he stacks up to today's players because I can't imagine him not playing multiple positions any more than I can imagine Tom or Peyton being a gunner on a kickoff return. The two eras are FAR too different to compare Baugh to a contemporary.

Montana era, though? The position hasn't evolved THAT much. The salary cap has and the rules certainly favor passing more. But I can imagine each of them playing on one another's team and make my own best guess as to what would happen.

So I don't think we can quite separate Montana with Brady via "era" argument. I think there's a reasonable way to make the personal decision whom was better.

 

[ausbacker]

 

[patriotsdynasty12189]

Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning, based on what I see on film. Thats why TFB is better than Manning, I really dont know what these experts think they see how peyton is so much better than manning....i guess thats what happens when you are picked 198 picks after the 1st pick

 

[voluntarysaftey]

To all the people saying championships are the most important factor, would you also concede that since 2005 Eli Manning is better than Brady?

I think Brady has choked less than Manning in the playoffs; but skill-wise, I'd give Manning the edge. I also think if Manning had been on the Patriots, he would've had 2-3 championships

 

[ausbacker]

To all the people saying championships are the most important factor, would you also concede that since 2005 Eli Manning is better than Brady?

I think Brady has choked less than Manning in the playoffs; but skill-wise, I'd give Manning the edge. I also think if Manning had been on the Patriots, he would've had 2-3 championships

Peyton Manning is nowhere near as skilful as Tom Brady. What a ridiculous suggestion. Hell, the guy is throwing punts this season. Punts.

 

[Deus Irae]

To all the people saying championships are the most important factor, would you also concede that since 2005 Eli Manning is better than Brady?

I think Brady has choked less than Manning in the playoffs; but skill-wise, I'd give Manning the edge. I also think if Manning had been on the Patriots, he would've had 2-3 championships

 

[patsfan13]

Well, I'll take Bradshaw, and history would favor me with more rings.

No History would look at the number of Pitts D players in the HOF and reach different conclusion especially when they note that the Steelers were a heavily run based offense.

 

[pazrul72]

Really? It's nonsense!?

Please compare for the class Peyton Manning to Joe Montana in a way that isn't completely ridiculous.

Like all self respecting patriot fans I consider Brady as clearly superior to Manning and in a class with well basically Joe and no one else. In the last thread bashing Manning I made a list of my top 10 all time QB's and Joe was 1, Brady 2, and Manning 10. All of that said the people who rate Manning as highly as they do are not crazy or completely wrong, they just judge QB play on different criteria. Based purely on ability to throw the football, which is to some people (not me) the entire job of a QB Manning destroys Montana in every important stat.

Took the five mins to google stats off NFL.com

Manning 238 games played, 8,373 attempts with 5,475 completions for a 65.4%. 64,298 yards at an average of 7.7 yards per attempt. 483 TD's with 219 ints which is an int % of 2.6. All of that leads to a QB rating of 96.9

Montana 192 games played, 5,391 attempts with 3,409 completions for a 63.2%. 40,551 yards at an average of 7.5 yards per attempt. 273 TD's with 139 ints which is an int % of 2.6. All of that leads to a QB rating of 92.3

Manning has more completions then Montana has attempts! Not to mention how much more durable Manning is having played in almost 3 seasons worth more games. For all the talk about how much more efficient Montana was they have the same TD:INT ratio which I was shocked to discover. So to sum up over an entire career Payton puts the ball up more, further down the field, for more TD's all of which say he is a better passer then Joe Montana and one of, if not the, greatest of all time.

So to answer the OP's point, no its not because he gets to piggy back Brady it's because his stats are INSANE and he still has another season or two to pad them.

 

[condon84]

Comparing stats of QBs in different eras is misleading. The rule changes have greatly swung the balance in favor of a passing offense. Consider this, only one QB in history has ever passed for over 5000 yards in a season before 2008. Since then, it's happened 5 times, once by Brady and Stafford, 3 times by Brees.

At the same time, using rings as the main reason to rate one QB over another is moronic. Championships are a team accomplishments. This is not tennis or golf. It's not even comparable to basketball where one guy can truly carry a team on his back.

I prefer to use my eyes to judge how these guys stack up. I saw Marino and Montana play. For anyone who says Marino doesn't belong in the GOAT QB conversation is not credible IMO. Marino was an unbelievable QB. Montana played in better teams and was more clutch when he was in pressure situations. But if someone were to say "Marino was a better QB", then I would not even argue. If I had to choose one, I would go with Montana because of his clutchness. But you cannot deny that Marino is an all time great. Much like you cannot deny that Peyton is an all time great.

Patriot fans who refuse to accept Peyton as an all time great either has not watched him play at all, or are too much of a homer to have an unbiased opinion. Or they could just be clueless.

Lastly, just because one realize Peyton is an all time great doesn't mean Brady is any less of a player. I would still take Brady over Peyton for the simple fact that Brady has played better in pressure situations as well as put up ridiculous stats in the regular season.

 

[Salva135]

Peyton Manning is nowhere near as skilful as Tom Brady. What a ridiculous suggestion. Hell, the guy is throwing punts this season. Punts.

You can call him a choker, you can say he doesn't play as well in big games or in the cold, but HOLY **** at this statement.

 

[condon84]

You can call him a choker, you can say he doesn't play as well in big games or in the cold, but HOLY **** at this statement.

He was being sarcastic.

 

[Salva135]

He was being sarcastic.

Heh, thanks. Meter was way off there.

 

[Hael]

It's definitely a different game. Montana had a ridiculously accurate throw, the TFB/Brees of his era and he was putting touch on his passes that almost no qb has ever quite replicated. However, both Brady and Manning have bigger arms than Joe ever did.

Joe was closer to Rogers than either Brady or Manning from a playmaking standpoint as he was mobile.

In his era, he was routinely going up against defenses in the playoffs that were more talented than what we see today due to the smaller league size and lack of free agency, and of course the rules were much more d favorable. That's where his accuracy was important, but comparing stats is no good. He was on teams with strong running games, and it was not unusual to see only a dozen non check down passes a game.

The flip side is that Ds are more complex nowdays to try to counter some of the advantages the O has. Montana was a great football mind, but he never had to do the reads Brady or Manning make.

In short, a different era. For my money Montana was the best football player I've ever seen, but Brady is close and Manning isn't that far behind either.

 

[patsfan13]

Brady = greatest modern day.
Montana = greatest of a different era.

You can never compare and have a greatest of all time since they played in very different eras with very different rules,you can never decisively say we have one greatest QB of all time just many great in their respective eras.Just my opinion.

There is one characteristic of a QB that can be compared over eras, winning %, that is the job of a QB. QB is the single most important position in any team sport (perhaps a hockey goalie is comparable).

BY this measure a case can be made for Brady over Montana already, and Manning isn't even close. By the time Brady retires he will easily be the GOAT at his position. A case can be made for Otto Graham (whom I haven't seen play) but I would argue that the Modern QB position as we know it today didn't really exist, Unitas, Layne, Starr Tittle were the first of that group. I had a chance to see those guys (other than Layne) in their prime. Brady is the best.

 

[FirstAndGoal]

It's definitely a different game. Montana had a ridiculously accurate throw, the TFB/Brees of his era and he was putting touch on his passes that almost no qb has ever quite replicated. However, both Brady and Manning have bigger arms than Joe ever did.

Joe was closer to Rogers than either Brady or Manning from a playmaking standpoint as he was mobile.

In his era, he was routinely going up against defenses in the playoffs that were more talented than what we see today due to the smaller league size and lack of free agency, and of course the rules were much more d favorable. That's where his accuracy was important, but comparing stats is no good. He was on teams with strong running games, and it was not unusual to see only a dozen non check down passes a game.

The flip side is that Ds are more complex nowdays to try to counter some of the advantages the O has. Montana was a great football mind, but he never had to do the reads Brady or Manning make.

In short, a different era. For my money Montana was the best football player I've ever seen, but Brady is close and Manning isn't that far behind either.

My only counter to that statement is that Brady and Manning never had to play under the rules that Montana had to play under either. The receivers and qb were knocked around a lot more than the flag football they're playing now. Montana is the type that would do fine in any era.

I'm a Montana guy too and the person who suggested that people who like Montana were too young to see him play a snap is clueless. I was a grown man when I saw him play.

I don't fault anyone for picking someone else but I know what I saw and I've never seen anyone play with the composure that Montana played with before or since. I only go back to the 70s or I was too young but in that timeframe, I've seen a lot of flash and some who can hang with him but I haven't seen anyone that I would say played better.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

I think the major rule changes for passing came in 77 or 78. So Montana didn't play in a 3 yards and a cloud of dust era. Even in 84 Marino threw 48 TD passes. If you say teams had more defensive talent because of league size you would have to say they had more offensive talent for the same reason.

I think Montana's more pedestrian stats probably have more to do with his team being talented. He just didn't throw as much. His team being able to maintain talent probably has a lot to do with free agency. It's possible with free agency Montana would have to carry a poor team and may have better numbers. Part of the reason Brady threw 50 TD passes was that he had a useless running game with Maroney. Which is also part of the reason Brady got hit 50 times in the SB- no running game to counter.

I put Montana at #1, but I wouldn't say the gap is that large for Montana and Brady. Montana played some stinkers in the playoffs. Nobody really remembers now, but he wasn't perfect. He was just more perfect than most.

 

[Ring 6]

The point of playing the game is to win. The point of playing a season is to win a championship.
The most important consideration is winning the highest percentage of games and winning championships and how close you get to winning more. (For example losing the SB>losing the CCG>losing round 2>one and done>not making the playoffs.
Once you stack that up, then you look at the importance of the QB in that success. The argument that 'he had a good team' is almost irrelevant today because QB play is so important to winning that "good team" almost requires a good QB and a bad team is usually a QB away from competitive.
However the argument of Terry Bradshaw (or at least the perception based on the first SB Champ winning in spite of him) vs a modern day QB is valid because the role of the QB was very different.
The changing of the rules, as well as innovations in the passing game have made statistical comparisons across generations ridiculous.
Here is an example: (from NFL Leaders, Football Records, NFL Leaderboards - Pro-Football-Reference.com)

There are 240 qualifying QBs in career stats, and they show this.
Comp %
Out of the top 30 alltime 28 played in 2000 or later and the other 2 are Montana and Steve Young.
None of the bottom 30 played later than 1989 and only 3 played in the 80s.

Int %
4 of the best 29 finished their careers prior to 2000 (young, bono, montana, kosar, all playing late80s-late90s). No one in the bottom 40 played in the 90s. Actually Steve Grogan is 40th worst and his career end in 1990. No qualifying QB who has played in the NFL after 1990 had a higher Int % than Steve Grogan.

TD%
The only players in the top 25 who played after 1980 are Young, Manning and Rodgers. 21 or 25 were retired by 1977.
Only 10 of the bottom 27 played a game beyond 2000. The 10 had suckitude that transcends time:
Peete, Boller, Harrington, Kent Graham, Carr, Henne, Trent Edwards, Mirer, Dave Brown.

Yards Per Attempt
Only 11 of the top 49 played a game in the 2000s, 8 of which are active today.
The bottom rung is equally split with suckiness of all generations.

While many GOAT arguments rely on stat accumulation, since the number of games played, amount of pass attempts, pass blocking rules to keep defenders away from QBs and medical advances to keep them on the field have all improved, it really becomes an exercise in who came along later.

To really compare the greatest QBs of all time you have to consider all of these factors.
Did they win is by far the most important. Winning in the post season is the key consideration when talking about the GOAT. (If you are comparing slightly above average QBs who never won championships perhaps the level of post season success isn't as vital but since the point is to win championships you cant be the best without them) How much their play had to do with their winning is second. How their stats compared to the rest of the QBs in their era is more important than comparing across eras, becuase the rules have dramatically changed.

 

[Snake Eyes]

My only counter to that statement is that Brady and Manning never had to play under the rules that Montana had to play under either. The receivers and qb were knocked around a lot more than the flag football they're playing now. Montana is the type that would do fine in any era.

I'm a Montana guy too and the person who suggested that people who like Montana were too young to see him play a snap is clueless. I was a grown man when I saw him play.

I don't fault anyone for picking someone else but I know what I saw and I've never seen anyone play with the composure that Montana played with before or since. I only go back to the 70s or I was too young but in that timeframe, I've seen a lot of flash and some who can hang with him but I haven't seen anyone that I would say played better.

Not to take anything away from Montana but he also had some ridiculous talent around him. I think there's too much focus on the QB rather than the offense that he's a part of, take a look at the outstanding job the O-line does in Denver, take a look how open those receivers are. That offense is great yet people just credit Manning. If TFB had that O-line/weapons I think he'd already have 60tds by this point, and I think Manning would be putting up garbage numbers here with that noodle arm.

A great receiver can make a QB look a whole lot better than he is.

 

[goheels22002]

Really? It's nonsense!?

Please compare for the class Peyton Manning to Joe Montana in a way that isn't completely ridiculous.

Manning beats Montana at:

1 - # of times he exposed himself to a female student in college
1 - # of times a fellow student got paid off for dropping a complaint that he exposed himself in front of her (that we know of)
1 - # of times he threw a pick six to lose a Superbowl
3 to 4 - # of times the size of his forehead
1 - # of times he couldn't protect a 24 point lead
3 - # of fewer Superbowls won
1 - # of little brothers that look stoned all the time
1 -# of little brothers that have won twice as many Superbowls
> 260 million - # of Americans who think he is an overrated douche bag

 

[condon84]

It's definitely a different game. Montana had a ridiculously accurate throw, the TFB/Brees of his era and he was putting touch on his passes that almost no qb has ever quite replicated. However, both Brady and Manning have bigger arms than Joe ever did.

Montana's timing and accuracy was the best I've ever seen.

Marino had the quickest release to go along with a cannon arm.

Peyton to me is the best at pre-snap reads. He knows where to throw the ball even before the snap.

Brady IMO is the best at making quick and correct decisions based on what the defense is doing after the snap of the ball.