As fans and media, we overvalue championships.
No, really. We do. Way overvalue them.
If you win rings, you are awesome. If you don't, you suck. That's pretty much what it all boils down to when people evaluate the greatness of one player over another. However, when you try and apply logic to this extremely vapid and lazy criteria, it all falls apart... kind of how the Patriots defense kind of fell apart in the fourth quarter of Super Bowl XLVI.
The most recent example of overvaluing championships are articles like this one, articles where writers are actually asking the question as to whether a quarterback with zero league MVPs and a career rating of 82.1 is better than one who has won four league MVPs and has a career rating of 94.9.
Of course, we're talking about the moronic 'Is Eli now better than Peyton' question, a question so insulting to your intelligence it should make flames shoot out of your eye sockets.
The Big Lead's Jason Lisk seems equally annoyed with people already talking about the 'legacy' of the Manning brothers, and how Eli is possibly already better than his older bro Peyton.
So what is Eli Manning’s Legacy? The first thing I could do is point out that declaring a Legacy now is antithetical; it is the transient move. Don’t believe me? What is Tom Brady’s "Legacy"? Is it different now than it was in 2001, or 2004, or 2007? (Don’t answer that, Eric Wilbur.) Something is not defined mid-painting, and it is the safer play to wait ’til the die is completely cast and then write as if it was all so certain to begin with. The perception of Eli – his legacy as people will say – can change due to himself, and of course due to what others outside his control do.
The reason the Manning legacy question is getting asked is because Eli Manning now has two Super Bowl victories while Peyton has one. Naturally, in the eyes of sages like Deion Sanders, this puts Eli one notch ahead of Peyton.
"Your legacy is based on what?" said Deion Sanders, the Hall of Fame cornerback and NFL Network studio analyst. "It's based on wins. It's based on Super Bowls. It's not based on statistics. If you want to talk about legacies, then statistically you'd have to mention Dan Marino. But when you're talking about the greatest ever, I always hear Elway. Or I always hear Montana. So Eli, if he wins this game, he would win that particular battle because he would do something his brother wouldn't do. He won twice."
While it is obvious to me and just about everyone else in this business that Sanders is a clueless chatterbox who brings about as much insight to NFL Network's gameday coverage as Snookie would if she had a featured guest seat next to Rich Eisen every Sunday, his point articulated above is indeed what many people feel truly defines 'greatness.'
However, once again, if you apply logic to this lazy sort of analysis, it all kind of falls apart.
Eli Manning has two Super Bowl wins. I guess that now means he's better than Peyton. He's also better than Drew Brees, Steve Young, and Brett Favre.
Let's toss it around further: David Carr won a ring last night because he's the backup quarterback of the Giants. This now means he's just as good as Peyton, and he is better than Matt Schaub, the Texans quarterback who replaced Carr after years of futility in Houston.
I mean, seriously. I'm barely trying here, and Deion's argument makes it sound like it was argued by a fourth grader.
Sadly, this is how people measure excellence these days. Think of how frustrating it must be for Dan Marino to listen to morons like Sanders prattle on about greatness. All Marino ever did was hold some of the greatest records in NFL history for decades, records that have only recently been broken because the NFL re-arranged its rules to prevent defensive backs from dry humping receivers up and down the field (as Sanders was known for doing), and thus making it easier to play pitch-and-catch.
When it comes to the Manning question of 'who is better,' I'm thankful that we aren't getting too many silly articles outright declaring Eli better. Personally, I think it's a bit cowardly to leave it all as an open-ended question. Sure, Eli might win another ring. Is he going to win four MVPs? Is he going to take the Giants to the playoffs ten straight years? Is he going to pass for 54,000 yards and 400 TDs?
No. He probably won't.
In the end, as Lisk accurately and effectively points out, attempts to define Eli's legacy now are a waste. If you are calling Eli 'better' than Peyton now solely because Eli has another ring, that too is a waste. If all we are going to do is value people who win, then we need to start being a little more consistent in our arguments. If Eli is a winner, so is David Carr. If Peyton is less of a quarterback because he has 'only one ring,' then so is Drew Brees.
Let's also take our arguments outside the quarterback position, because quarterbacks do not win games in football. Teams do. Are Chris Doleman, Cortez Kennedy, Cris Carter, and Tim Brown losers because they never won rings? NFL Network's Mike Lombardi got nasty on Twitter this weekend when Charles Haley was snubbed for the Hall of Fame once again, this time for Doleman. His argument:
No Charles Haley. You have to be kidding me. Doleman was great but No Super BowlsHaley had 5.
— Michael Lombardi (@michaelombardi) February 4, 2012
Maybe they're putting stupid juice in the water over there at the NFL Network studios. Charles Haley has 105 career sacks. Chris Doleman has 150. Doleman also played at a high level for 15 years. His last year in the league (1999), he had 8 sacks.
Doleman never won a ring though. Never even played in a Super Bowl. Yet, despite his career being clearly better and more deserving of the Hall of Fame than Haley's, here's yet another yuckster tossing out the whole 'BUT HE'S A WINNER!' argument.
Flames. Eye sockets.
Maybe I'm old fashioned. Maybe I'm just a loser who, instead of rewarding winning, rewards overall great play. Maybe I just don't understand how things work because I place more value on the quality of a player's overall career than whether or not he won anything. As Lisk stated in his article, how we define someone, whether they are a Hall of Famer, that will eventually take care of itself.
I just wish we were a tad more sophisticated when we make those definitions.
3 recs | 82 comments
I just saw an ESPN video
Kordell Stewart, Bayless and a thurd guy. Stewart and the thurd think Eli is better. They together have the brain of one insect. Seriously retarded guys, how can they work in tv. None of them used the word “team”.
And again, whatever happens, Peyton takes the hit of the media, even when he is out the whole year.
Ty46 - February 6, 2012
Skip Bayless
oh man, that guy has gotta be the worst in the industry. Does he take pride in being the constant butt of jokes and simply knows pushing the idiot card further and further will only help his popularity/infamy?
JHetfield99 - February 6, 2012
This time, he was the only not retarded
Ty46 - February 6, 2012
They work on TV, because they're something you're not, professionals
They’ve got resumes of being a pro, a journalist, and stars. You might not like them, but just like you, they are entitled to their own opinion. I don’t agree with Skip Bayless most of the time, but I understand his point, whether it’s with Peyton, Tebow, or LeBron. Show some respect.
KBUnitz - February 6, 2012
no
skip bayless and deion deserve no respect
omahacolt - February 6, 2012
You deserve no respect.
KBUnitz - February 6, 2012
i disagree
omahacolt - February 6, 2012
I'd say Deion deserves more respect that Skip.
But that’s because Deion is one of the game’s best ever. Skip is just a blowhard.
andyprocombat - February 6, 2012
Professionals, LOL, they are talking empty heads
Ty46 - February 7, 2012
Eli vs. Peyton
I live in New York and I won’t be able to listen to a sports radio station or read the sports section of a newspaper for at least a week because of the Eli vs. Peyton nonsense. The same Giants fans who were ready to dump him (and Coughlin by the way) less than two months ago now want him to go directly from Indy to Canton. I don’t agree with the David Carr analogy because the conversation should be limited to QB’s who actually play in the Super Bowl. That said, Doug Williams, Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson (just to name a few) all have more Super Bowl rings than Dan Marino. Can anyone say with a straight face that any of them even belong in the discussion with Marino?
Being from New York I know first hand what the fans and media are like here. There is no objectivity. Your are either the worst or the greatest ever. As difficult as it was, I was actually rooting for the Patriots so I wouldn’t have to deal with this. It figures that to one game I want them to win, they lay an egg.
newyorkcoltsfan - February 6, 2012
I can deal with the stupid question, and yes, it was expected.
But, I seriously would have had a much harder time dealing with a Patriot’s victory and the ridiculous gushing that would follow. The best scenario would be for the Colts to win it all. But, since that didn’t happen, the next best thing is to keep it in the family.
Ayrshire - February 6, 2012
Fair point. My problem is I am now surrounded by morons who think more rings equals better QB. Not fun. Just gotta tune them out until baseball season, and I'm a Mets fan!!
newyorkcoltsfan - February 6, 2012
You've got to be kidding...
Your statement “The same Giants fans who were ready to dump him…less than two months ago” is about as disingenuous a statement as I’ve seen. Please don’t pretend that because you apparently are from NY that you can make false statements about the media and fan tone here. I would say 2% of people wanted to ’dump" Eli and that 2% is a margin of error. Everyone was saying that he was the only person continually carrying the Giants. Even after the ’Skins game, people gave him a pass because of dropped balls and the way he was playing so well the rest of the season. I listen to the WFAN and ESPN1050 radio everyday on my way to work and never heard one bad thing about Eli this season and even the Coughlin detractors recognized what he has done for the Giants and simply stated that he may have ’lost the team". Which is not completely out of nowhere considering the 3rd straight second half collapse well under way.
NJGIANTYankee - February 12, 2012
Football is a team sport - to say that a single player is better based on how a team plays is absurd
Super Bowl Championships are won and lost 53 players at a time. This is the NFL, not tennis.
BoilerUp1982 - February 6, 2012
Comparisons are a Joke In General
I always hate the comparison of whose better, Brady or Manning and now Manning or Manning. All of this is just subjective on who you think is better; nothing much else.
However, I will go on a limb and say that Eli does tend to step up when the lights are at their brightest and his brother always seemed to regress when it counts the most. Peyton for what ever reason never seems to his best when it counts as this is his fatal flaw. When you look at P Mannings regular season .vs post season stats they are just not the same and other than the big win against the Pats in 2006 there really aren’t that many career defining playoff moments but more more missed opportunities. Maybe when Manning and Irsay divorce he can got to a Defense heavy team and win another championship to help squash these types of comments.
mcrobert125 - February 6, 2012
Well, I think we all can acknowledge Peyton is a better QB than Eli.
However, the NFL, and all major sports today, are about 1 thing: winning championships. That is why the teams spend hundreds of millions of dollars – to win rings. If you don’t win, you are looked upon as not having succeeded.
- the Bills were a great team that played in 4 Super Bowls, but are looked upon as failures because they didn’t win.
- the Braves in MLB won 12 division titles, and 1 ring. They are looked upon as underachieving failures.
- LeBron is the most physically talented player in NBA, but he has no rings and is looked upon as needing a championship to cement his status as one of the best ever.
Again, I believe everyone knows Peyton is the more talented of the brothers, but Eli has more rings – and since he is still relatively young and may get another 1 or 2 – and that’s what teams play the season for.
JPQ! - February 6, 2012
Who's better Phil Simms or Dan Marino
Daddygr33nJeans - February 6, 2012
Agree on post, but some added flabor.
Just one comment. LeBron has to win at least 3x rings to be in the top echelon of NBA players. Not even one ring will work.
This is the same problem that Peyton will always have that you as proclaimed the best ever, but how come you went 1 for 2. I hope if Peyton leaves he goes to the Cardinals and wins another ring. I feel that in his case 2 of 3 would put him in top honors.
mcrobert125 - February 6, 2012
It is simple
Peyton is the best regular season quarterback in the history of the NFL. However, when comparing Eli to Peyton, Eli is the better big game quarterback. Eli has won his last 5 playoff ROAD games! Peyton has had at least 5 one and done in the playoffs.
Peyton is the King of stats and One and Done. If I had to choose between Eli and Peyton in the playoffs, hands down, Eli.
ItsALLgood - February 6, 2012
I take Peyton
See 2007 AFC Championship Game
stonewall12345678 - February 6, 2012
That's great.
Too bad it’s 2012, and Peyton has had 3 neck surgeries and is 36.
JPQ! - February 6, 2012
Dude no need to be hostile
All I said is that I would take Peyton and said why.
stonewall12345678 - February 6, 2012
Sorry, didn't mean to seem hostile.
JPQ! - February 6, 2012
you didnt seem hostile
omahacolt - February 6, 2012
Why were the Giants on the road?
Because they choked with their superior talent in the regular season.
Ty46 - February 6, 2012
Who cares?
I don’t think a team worries what their regular season record was when they are enjoying the Super Bowl Championship Parade in their home city.
JPQ! - February 6, 2012
Yes, but there is a reason they have to win on the road
They have the talent to be a 13 win team in regular season, but they are inconsistent
Ty46 - February 6, 2012
Understood. But I would rather have my team go 8-8 in the regular season...
get in playoffs as a wild card, and win the Super Bowl – than to have them go 18-0 and lose in Super Bowl (hahahaPatriots).
Winning the Super Bowl wipes everything else clean.
JPQ! - February 6, 2012
Both of you guys are right.
The Giants have been inconsistant in the regular season (for the most part), and nobody gives a rat’s patootie what your record during the regular season was when you are standing on that podium with the T- shirt over your pads and the Lombardi held high.
When comparing (which is REALLY tough to do) great teams from different eras people can look at the regular season. But we all know what these organizations pay for, what GM’s build for, what coaches coach for, and what players play for.
tommy d. - February 6, 2012
Isn't it possible Eli hsa more road wins because his Giants teams were better prepared to play? I don't want to take anything away from Eli, but defense and coaching matters too; not just QB play.
newyorkcoltsfan - February 6, 2012
I have given alot of thought to this.
And I did a detailed Fanpost on this about two months ago on Big Blue View. That in the Coughlin Eli era the Giants are better on the road because of a variety of reasons. In essence, it is a team-wide phenomena, it is real, and there are a multitude of games to point to to prove it.
tommy d. - February 6, 2012
Agreed. I would also add that at this point in time, I would take Eli over Tom Brady.
Peyton and Brady are on the downslope of their great careers. Eli has years ahead of him, and, as you point out, has proven he is clutch when it matters most. Fourth quarters and postseason and 2-0 in Super Bowls.
JPQ! - February 6, 2012
What about Dungy
The Colts had a great coach in Dungy in 2005, 2007, and 2008. So why didnt they win a Super Bowl then? They had one of the best Defenses in the league in 2007 and a good one in 2008, but nothing more than a couple one and dones to the Chargers.
mcrobert125 - February 6, 2012
Defense was not good in 2008
Not to mention the offense had massive injury issues. In 2007, losing Freeney hurt but yes we should’ve done better.
stonewall12345678 - February 6, 2012
Also in 2005, Dungy's son committed suicide late in the season
stonewall12345678 - February 6, 2012
and nick harper's crazy wife stabbed him during the week
Phillycolt - February 6, 2012
No Excuses
Manning wasn’t that great in that game, only throwing 1 touchdown. I expect more from him. That was an easy Super Bowl win we let get away. Dont tell me the Broncos or Seahawks would have beaten that team.
mcrobert125 - February 6, 2012
And how about that pick that iced the game against the Saints?
That wasn’t clutch.
JPQ! - February 6, 2012
Look at the tapes bro
You can’t blame just Peyton, Reggie ran bad route
stonewall12345678 - February 6, 2012
Or how about in 2007 loss against the Chargers
Manning did throw for 400 yards and 3 TD, but he threw 2 big interceptions and the Colts had 4 opportunities at the Chargers goal line to get a score, but he couldn’t do it.
mcrobert125 - February 6, 2012
The Colts would have beaten them
You think the Pats would be able to do anything with Belicheck devastated by a son’s death?
stonewall12345678 - February 6, 2012
What was so great about him?
Ayrshire - February 6, 2012
Rings matter, but . . .
Rings are and should be a factor in these “who is greatest?” arguments, but to make them the sole, or even primary criteria is silly. Does anyone think Terry Bradshaw is the first or second best QB of all time? On the other hand, those rings did get him in the Hall of Fame. And Joe Montana’s rings do get him consideration for “Best Ever”. Similarly, you seldom hear Dan Marino mentioned as best ever anymore because he was so similar to Peyton, but Peyton has a ring.
Eli is now one of very few QB’s who have won two Super Bowls as a starting QB. That’s a pretty good legacy which will at least get him considered for the Hall of Fame. But it shouldn’t put him over guys like Peyton, Brees, Marino, Favre, etc. who have been consistently superior to him in other categories.
ex-Viking fan - February 6, 2012
Agreed.
At this point, Eli is not as good as any of those guys and probably never will be. It’s just obvious. But Eli is doing things in the fourth quarter and at the end of games that are already at all-time great levels, and he is heading toward standing alone as the best big moment in the big game QB.
tommy d. - February 6, 2012
Playoff Comparison
If you want to make an objective comparison of the two here are their post season facts.
P. Manning Playoff Record: 9 Wins and 10 Loses (47% Win Percentage)
E. Manning Playoff Record: 8 Wins and 3 Loses (72% Win Percentage)
~
P. Manning Playoff Comebacks: 1
E. Manning Playoff Comebacks: 3
~
P. Manning Playoff Game-Winning Drives: 1
E. Manning Playoff Game-Winning Drives: 5
mcrobert125 - February 6, 2012
did you also factor in the defensive stats on both sides
Phillycolt - February 6, 2012
This is off a stats website.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com
mcrobert125 - February 6, 2012
I can detail the Giants opponents in these playoffs.
In general terms there is not a cupcake defense among them. Plus, again in general terms, you should also look at opportunity vs. success or failure in these game winning situations. That is a more important indicator than how good the defense Eli or Peyton was facing. Either you did it when it was needed or you didn’t.
How many times did ELi succeed in late game, gotta have a winning drive to tie it or win it situations in the playoffs, vs. how many times Peyton succeeded or failed in similar situations.
tommy d. - February 6, 2012
Objective comparison?
You mean like how in eight years Eli has only won playoff games in two of those years? 25%
And how Peyton has won playoff games in four years out of 13? 30.5%
Or how Peyton has taken his team to the playoffs in 11 of his 13 years? 84.6%
And how Eli has only taken his team to the playoffs in 5 of his 8 years? 62.5%
Or how Eli has made two Pro Bowls in 8 years?
And how Peyton made it 11 times in 13 years?
James Broschat - February 6, 2012
Great stuff James...
Peyton gets dinged because his team makes the playoffs more often than any other team. That makes sense.
Yougotme - February 6, 2012
I know this will sound crazy but i blame Micheal Jordan for this.
Phillycolt - February 6, 2012
Actually, that is a GREAT point.
I hadn’t thought of that, but you are spot on.
JPQ! - February 6, 2012
that's why i said it
Can you remember a time when everything was pinned on one player before him.
Phillycolt - February 6, 2012
Not really.
Yogi Berra has 10 rings, and no one ever runs around screaming he was the greatest baseball player of all time.
JPQ! - February 6, 2012
Cause no one was around then, so its hard to relate to that.
mcrobert125 - February 6, 2012
And Yogi Berra was part of one of the greatest Yankee lineups in the history of Major League Baseball
No ever runs around screaming he was the greatest baseball player because he wasn’t one of the greatest baseball players ever. Michael Jordan, on the other hand, is the greatest basketball player ever.
BoilerUp1982 - February 6, 2012
I'm saying since Jordan that's all you hear.
QB’s when championships all the media crap started with him.
Phillycolt - February 6, 2012
So true.
JPQ! - February 6, 2012
Oh yeah.
Bird vs. Magic.
Marino vs. Montana.
Wilt vs. Russell.
Bradshaw vs. Staubach.
tommy d. - February 6, 2012
My most hated athlete ever
CF4L - February 6, 2012
peyton is better than eli
anyone saying other wise is an idiot. it truly is that simple.
omahacolt - February 6, 2012
Eli is better in the Postseason
No one questions that P Money is better in the regular season, but the facts are is that Eli is better in the Post Season.
mcrobert125 - February 6, 2012
Look I'm not saying either way
But the facts say that Eli’s team was better. We have no way of automatically comparing just the two of them face to face.
stonewall12345678 - February 6, 2012
his defense was better also
but no one brings that up.
Peyton has the most playoff loses with a Passer rtg over 90 no one brings that up.
Phillycolt - February 6, 2012
eli has better stats in the post season
still doesnt make him a better qb.
omahacolt - February 6, 2012
PEYTON MANNING
had a much narrower margin for error than Eli. The Colt’s defense was never that good and that made Peyton’s responsibility for victory that much greater. He couldn’t rely on his defense to shut down the opposition like Eli could. When Peyton’s defense and running game played well they won the Super Bowl.
In Eli’s Super Bowl victories the opposition scored 14 and 17 points.
javen - February 6, 2012
Dan Marino
I think Marino has always been looked at as somewhat of a failure for not getting a ring and Montana as godly. Its just the name of the game you have to win Championships. And the big difference is that no body expected Eli to get 2 championships. Everyone expected Peyton Manning to have multiple and create a dynasty.
mcrobert125 - February 6, 2012
I came to the conclusion this season that other people's opinions dont matter much to me regarding who is better than who
People can make a strong argument for a lot of guys, but for me being a Colts fan, there will probably never be anyone greater than Peyton Manning. I also agree that judging someone by the # of championships is patently absurd. I think BBS pointed out in another article that Tom Brady is now a better QB than he was when he won his 3 rings, so all of a sudden Brady isn’t as good because he hasn’t won a SB since 2004, yet his play has gotten exponentially better? Absurd. I think after 2004 lots of people were (at least I was) classifying Brady as a Terry Bradshaw like QB who won in the post season, but never lit it up, but that has since changed.
danorocks17 - February 6, 2012
Good point about the
Brady and Bradshaw comparisons. That is exactly how Brady was viewed and it was valid. He wasn’t asked to, nor did he have to throw the ball all that much to win. His stats reflect this. That Patriot defense was awesome back then.
tommy d. - February 6, 2012
people forget that Football is a team sport… winning championships is a team thing.
coltsftw - February 6, 2012
Yes but the QB has more influence over the outcome of a football than anyone else on the field.
That is why they get the big bucks. That is also why, if you look at the list of teams that win championships, there are multiple HOF QB’s, great QB’s, etc. The list of Brad Johnsons (who was a pro bowler in 2002 BTW), and Jeff Hostetlers is very short indeed.
tommy d. - February 6, 2012
No matter how you spin it, and no matter how good or bad the QB is, he will always rely on his teammates to help him win games.
QBs do not play defense. They do not play special teams. They do not blitz, they do not receive, they do not return, they do not cover, they do not tackle (well, sometimes they do). HOF quarterbacks have had crappy Super Bowl games, and crappy quarterbacks have had remarkable SB games. There are too many variables in play and in place at any given moment on game day to anoint a single player as the reason a team wins and loses. QB Coaches, WR Coaches, LB Coaches, RB Coaches, Coordinators for your offense, defense and ST, place kickers who are observers for 99% of the game and then are asked to decide their team’s fate in the waning seconds.
To say that a QB has more influence than any other player is an intentionally misleading way to phrase your argument. Here’s what you need to if you really want to find out which player has the most bearing on the outcome of games: you break the game down into 1/3s (Offense, Defense and ST), because those are the 3 phases of any game. Already the offense cannot be more important than the defense, and special teams has just as much of a right to claim the “most influential” title than the other two. Within the offense, a QB relies on his offensive line for protection, relies on his RB to pickup the blitz, relies on his receivers and tight ends to not only run the correct routes and get open, but also to catch the ball. Every component of this team must be working together in order for it to succeed. Any football player or coach will tell you that.
I could still drop a paragraph or 4 on the offense alone, without even getting into how the defense, ST, coaches and coordinators have just as much influence on the outcome of the game than a single QB.
Simply saying the QB has more influence on the game is lazy and short-sighted. It’s a media-drive mindset in this era of the quarterback in the NFL. Tom Brady, one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time, would’ve probably gone down in many people’s books as the absolute greatest of all time this past Sunday if Aaron Hernandez, Deion Branch and Wes Welker don’t forget how to catch footballs that hit them square in the hands. Did Brady lose that game because his receivers dropped the passes? Most people are blaming the receivers. Flip the script for a second and imagine what the headline would be if they catch those passes – because of the glorified QB era, Brady would get all the credit if Welker makes that catch and the Pats win the game. Sure, Welker would get a pat on the back, but Brady would get the MVP, Brady would get the limelight. It’s an unbalanced, media-driven love affair with quarterbacks that dominates the NFL today…but it’s a wholly inaccurate representation of what it takes and all the components that are a part of winning.
QBs are great, but they aren’t everything.
BoilerUp1982 - February 7, 2012
Ahhh,
You are speaking to me as if I am someone who is just learning the game of football. Not even close. I kept reading though, because you did take the time to continue with the ‘lesson’ and even though it was all well thought out, makes complete sense, and I agree with ALL of it, it was unnecessary. I usually put it in these terms: While the QB is the most important player on the team, her is also the most dependent player on the team.
Your last line about QB’s being great but not being everything, said the same thing without all the bluster. And I agree with that. But they still are the most important player on a football team and when you have a very good one, or a great one, you’re in good shape.
tommy d. - February 9, 2012
Aparently there are those that think football is played by a collection of individuals
but every team achievement can be applied to any individual we deem appropriate (QB most often) and there are those (myself included) that believe that all the achievements are to be attributed to the the team and to the team only.
How do you quantify the contribution of the QB to a team win, even on a last drive of a game, when you have so many people involved, an offensive line that needs to block, receivers that need to catch, running backs that need to get yards? It’s beyond me.
codrutc - February 6, 2012
Objectivity
I knew that was going to happen. Football is a team sport; however, the qb receive the more accolade or the most blame. Obviously as of right now Eli has more rings than Peyton; however, Peyton is still the best qb I have seen since I started following football.
Not only that because Peyton was a selected number 1 on the draft, he has been the most criticized QB from a long time (Tebow does not count.) For example, everybody goes gaga about Brady because he never had a “decent” weapon. Gronkowski, hernadez were 4th and 5th picks. Instead, according to media he had always 1st picks weapons like Wayne, Harrison, Clark, Garcon, Collie, Faulk. Media always name these names as that people that the colts selected for Peyton even though Harrison and Faulk were selected a year/ years before peyton got to Indy and Collie/Garcon were 4th and 6th round picks. Peyton like Brady has always put us in position to win a post-season game; however, our defense under Dungy has always had gruesome penalties that never happened under the regular season. I still recall the sack that we had to stop San Diego but at the end of the play our player yank the facemask of rivers not to mention the stupid timeout from our previous HC.
k1 - February 6, 2012
i truly appreciated this bit of writing
it was a perfect blend of funny and accurate
muncie_in_this - February 6, 2012
i thought steve young had 3 championships?
and 2 superbowl MVPs?
muncie_in_this - February 6, 2012
I'll take Peyton in regular season, Eli in playoffs
Peyton is the best regular season QB ever. I’ll take him to take the the team to something like 13-3. I’ll take Eli in the playoffs though. Eli has been more clutch than Tom Brady. I’ll take Eli with 2 minutes to go, down by 4. He’ll get it done 9-10 times.
KBUnitz - February 6, 2012
Peyton
has been in the playoffs more often. Eli’s championship teams happened to come together at the right time (not that he didn’t play well himself), but he and his Giants have choked away playoff berths. That’s not clutch. Besides those championship years, he hadn’t really done anything else. Peyton was one game away from having two rings. There was an onside kick, missed field goal, dropped pass. How does a difference of one game all of a sudden make Eli better than one of the best qbs to ever play the game? I like Eli, and I’m from New York, but it’s a little short-sighted to even compare Eli to him. Maybe somewhere down the road, I mean it would be hard to argue with like 3 or 4 rings.
Adam McDougal - February 6, 2012
Many points well taken
Peyton is a better QB…than just about anyone who has ever suited up. Eli being ‘better’ is a few things, as I suspect you probably know. It’s a storyline for the media first and foremost. It gives people something to talk about. It’s also that most of us have short memories, and he just won his second SB to Peyton’s one.
One difference between the two that is huge is that Peyton can carry a team EVERY week, while Eli can do it sometimes, if not often. Each year he seems to be able to do it more often, and at 31, he is now in his prime with the arrow still pointing up so one might assume more great play.
The thing that people will point to, and it is valid because of it’s importance, is how he has played in these two title runs. Each culminating with a game winning drive that resulted in a TD to win a SB. The enormity of that can’t be understated. And let’s not forget, Peyton had a chance to lead his team for a score in the final minutes of SB 44, and he threw a pick 6. I know there is debate about Marvin’s level of blame, but people make these judgements on results, and Eli stands alone in history with leading his team to two game winning TD drives in a SB. That will give some people ammo to say Eli is a better big game QB, and he might be, but Peyton is an overall better QB, to me, because of sustained eliteness.
tommy d. - February 9, 2012
Two rings are better than one
And, let’s look into the crystal ball. I give Eli a better chance to add to the two rings than Peyton has to add to his one. The Giants are built to win now. Peyton’s lease on a future NFL life is barely hanging on in Indy. I think he has to go somewhere else to have a chance at another ring and he just may get that chance, because I don’t see the Colts giving him that $28 million in another month. If they do give it to him and they don’t trade him, that seals it in favor of Eli. The Colts won’t be seeing any Super Bowl action in the near future.
Rip Jersey - February 7, 2012
Throw Peyton
on to the Giants as QB, Jets as QB, or the Ravens as QB, and you have a SB win pretty much wrapped up…..
The difference between Eli/Brady and Peyton is simple…..their defenses have been and generally are better than Peyton’s defense….
You can argue that topic until you are blue in the face….but that is still a fact…
DevilsReject - February 9, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Stampede Blue to post a comment.