The Best Ever

by Brad Wells on May 30, 2007 2:02 PM EDT in Colts Analysis

See this guy? Yeah, Manning and Brady are better than him.

I'm now caught up on emails and news after coming back from an enjoyable Memorial Day weekend. I've done my weekly SB Nation podcast (funny show last night), and now I'm absorbing all the media swirling out there about the Colts and their chances to repeat. Also over the weekend, I cooled off a bit regarding ESPN, and I'll start referencing their crap again, especially when they write good stuff about Indy. Of course, I can't trust the lying ratings vampires again, but hey... if they want to call Peyton Manning the best QB in football, I'm not going to argue. All I'll say in response is this:

Duh!

We've all known this for some time, ESPN. Most people who know football, and who aren't some mindless drone born and raised in the New England area, know Peyton Manning is the best. He might be the best ever. If we're all fortunate enough to have him play another eight or nine years, he'll likely shatter just about every passing record, and win another Super Bowl or four. And unlike our New England brothers, who take every opportunity to bash the guy that has owned them the last few years, we loyal Colts fans have (and always will have) tremendous respect for Tom Brady. If Tom never wins another Super Bowl, if he falls on his face and questions start to mount that it is more Belichick's "genius" that helped win those titles than Brady's pose, we Colts fans will be some of the first to stand up and yell "bunk!"

As I've always said, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady will go down as the two best of all time. Manning, right now, is better than Montana, Elway, and Marino were in their primes. Yes, I know people still think those guys are better. Most of them are Broncos, 49ers, or Dolphins fans. It doesn't take a genius to see that Manning's play has raised the QB position to a new level. Teams like Cincy and Pittsburgh have adopted no huddle offenses that allow the QB more control over the playcalling. Such an offense went out of style in the 1970s. Manning brought it back.

We all know Brady is better than players like Steve Young, Phil Simms, or Terry Bradshaw. The only thing lacking from Brady's resume is proof he can win without a great defense. This is, of course, crap because no QB can win without a defense. Brady really just needs to put up some great livetime stats, win a league MVP, or maybe even another Super Bowl to completely cement his legacy. One of those things will happen before his career ends.

So again, guys like Montana, Elway, Unitas, and Marino are all inferior players to Manning and Brady. I know people don't like saying stuff like that. Sorry, but that's the truth folks. Joe Montana never threw 49 TDs in one season. Manning did. John Elway needed 15 years to win a Super Bowl. Brady needed just two years. It is no slight to these men that I rank Manning and Brady better. It simply puts into perspective just how unbelievably GREAT Manning and Brady are.

Like I always say folks, relish this. We may never see again, in our lifetime, two QBs as great as Brady and Manning playing at the same time.

Tweet Comment 21 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I dunno

"Joe Montana never threw 49 TDs in one season."

Good piece, and of course I disagree with some of the Manning/Brady stuff, but thats one debate that is rather old and worn out.

This line did strike me as interesting. I wonder to what degree you can legitimately compare the two QB's skill simply by looking at the TD numbers. Manning put those 49TD's up in a year following a rule change (or clarification) that really made passing a lot easier. Basically, he dealt with DB's who were a lot more hamstrung then those that Montana faced.

Rules that govern offensive play have changed over the years, and they never make it harder to score or get yards. So, basically, if you want to argue that Manning is better then Montana, you should do it another way then by simply looking at the raw stats, which will not tell the true story.

by CGM on May 30, 2007 3:23 PM EDT reply actions

Rule change?

There was no rule change following the 2003 season. The refs started ENFORCING the pass interference rules more following the AFCCG in 2004. The rule states that after 5 yards, you can't touch the guy. During the AFCCG game, after Patriots DBs all but raped Marcus Pollard, the league dedided (wisely) to tell the friggin' refs to start enforcing the damn rule.

So no, the new emphasis on the rule did not allow Manning to throw for 49 TDs. Remember, Marino threw for 48 in 1985 following the exact same "rules" Montana did. So it wasn't the rules.

Marino and Manning are just better QBs than Montana, period.

Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.

by Brad Wells on May 30, 2007 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Agreed

While I don't think you can place Manning and Brady above Montana, Elway and Marino all-time yet, you can justifiably say they are better in their primes than the previous two. Manning will end up with greater stats than anyone, and will end up with just as many Super Bowls as Elway. Brady won't have the stats of Marino, but his numbers will be better than Elway's or Montana's and me might win as more or more Super Bowls than Montana.

Either way, I think these two are playing the QB position at a higher level than we've ever seen. And the great thing for all football fans is that they're doing it against each other. Special rivalries like this don't come along very often. We should savor it.

by BSanders37 on May 30, 2007 5:11 PM EDT reply actions

Well said

I think you're right BS37. When comparing current players with former players, there needs to be a distinction made between peak years and career numbers. Manning and Brady in their primes project to be the best ever.

But I think they need a little more longevity. At this point, if either of their careers ended due to injury or some kind of Barry Sanders-esque surprise, I think they'd be rated as among the best, but perhaps not "the" best.

And you're right about the rivalry aspect too. Seriously, when was the last time there was a QB rivalry like this? Staubach/Bradshaw? There have certainly been QB rivalries since, but which have been as long-lived and as often dramatic as this one? As Colts fans, we are truly lucky to be living in a golden age....

by ctnyc on May 30, 2007 11:36 PM EDT up reply actions

The level of play is just that much greater now

Defences are faster and stronger now than they were 10, 15 and 20 years ago. This simple fact makes manning and brady superior. but I also find that its like you said, the way the colts and pats have allowed both their marksmen to have full control over their offences.

by torontocoltsfan on May 30, 2007 7:46 PM EDT reply actions

No...

Everyone in the game is bigger/faster/stronger. That's what equals it out and makes stats the best comparison.

I don't know why Brady and Manning are even being used in the same phrase. Brady is more like "the other guys" in that he is a great quarterback. Manning is a football god. While everyone else was "playing quarterback", Manning was inventing a new position that stands in the same place as a quarterback.

In fact, Manning is selling himself short by playing football. It's a ridiculous game and an idiot's focus. He should be running the world instead. Probably if the Colts had a more rugged looking backup than Sorgi, he would be. That must be Polian's trick to keeping Manning around.

by will on May 31, 2007 12:32 AM EDT reply actions

This is ridiculous Will

Manning should not be running the world.

Manning should be running the universe.

Sometimes it's like I don't even know you...

by ctnyc on May 31, 2007 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions

from Matt Mosley at ESPN.com

"This question will be debated for the next 50 years: Tony Romo or Peyton Manning?"

Mosley actually thinks Manning is the best, check out his full response here

by Terry @ Stampede Blue on May 31, 2007 9:20 AM EDT reply actions

Mosley is a funny guy.

by Skin Patrol @ Stampede Blue on May 31, 2007 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't understand

why Brady is better than Joe Montana. Besides having won fewer Super Bowls, completing a lower percentage of his passes, having a worse TD:Int ratio, having a lower YPC, being less of a total player, on what are you basing your assessment that Brady is necessarily better than Joe Montana? I think additional explanation is needed.

It can't be Pro Bowls, as Joe Montana has eight to Tom Brady's three.

So what is it?

by Skin Patrol @ Stampede Blue on May 31, 2007 5:29 PM EDT reply actions

Talent

Talent for one thing. Brady hs a better arm, and while his competition % is not that of Montana, it is important to note that Montana played in a "West Coast" offense, i.e. 3 yard slant turns into 15 yard gain. Montana's accuracy was great, but also enhanced by a offense that was built around the short, underneath pass. Montana also had Jerry Rice and Brent Jones to throw the ball to.

And while Brady has never won league MVPs or anything like that (the way Montana) did, I think we can all agree he will get a some if he plays for another 8 years or so. Brady also won 3 Super Bowls in the first 6 years of his career during the salary cap era. The Montana teams were absolutely loaded with talent all across the board with no salary restrictions.

So, while the stats don't seem to back up this claim of mine, I'll simply state that if stats are your guideline, that means guys like Bradshaw, Fouts, and Marino are better than Brady.

Sorry, but that's not the case. To quote Charlie Weiss, stats are for losers.

I just have a notion that, when it is all said and done, Brady and Manning will be ranked the best all time. Brady has already accomplished in 6 years what it took Montana 10 years to accomplish, and unlike Montana (whose career was really cut short by serious injuries), Brady will hopefully be around for another 8 years, building on his resume.

Hope that explains things. It's early, so I might sound like i'm rambling.

Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.

by Brad Wells on Jun 1, 2007 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions

Re:

Brady hs a better arm, and while his competition % is not that of Montana, it is important to note that Montana played in a "West Coast" offense, i.e. 3 yard slant turns into 15 yard gain.

Montana has a slightly better completion %, but it's comparable to Tom Brady. 63.2 vs. 61.9. Yet Joe Montana's YPA is a full .5 yards better than Tom Brady. Even higher if you only counted Joe Montana at this time in his career relative to Tom Brady. Please explain.

And while Brady has never won league MVPs or anything like that (the way Montana) did, I think we can all agree he will get a some if he plays for another 8 years or so.

Why would we all agree with that? But isn't the question really whether Brady is better than Joe Montana, not will Brady become better than Montana?

So, while the stats don't seem to back up this claim of mine, I'll simply state that if stats are your guideline, that means guys like Bradshaw, Fouts, and Marino are better than Brady.

Terry Bradshaw and Dan Fouts? Not really. I absolutely think Dan Marino and Tom Brady are in the same conversation.

What Tom Brady did better than Marino was win SBs. I'm not going strictly by statistics here either, as I counted Joe Montana's 4 SBs as evidence of his greatness. In what way was Tom superior to Montana besides "better arm" (which you haven't proven)?

unlike Montana (whose career was really cut short by serious injuries), Brady will hopefully be around for another 8 years, building on his resume.

If Tom Brady plays for another 8 seasons, he will have 15 years of experience. That's how long Joe Montana was in the NFL.

I don't think it's controversial to say that Tom Brady might finish his career better than Montana, but then again he might not. He certainly isn't there yet.

by Skin Patrol @ Stampede Blue on Jun 1, 2007 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions

And of course ...

The QB wins the Super Bowl all by himself.

That kind of thinking is ridiculous.

by PaytonMenning on Jun 4, 2007 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions

The deuce are you talking about?

So take away all the Super Bowls. What has Brady done that Joe Montana hasn't?

Teams win Super Bowls. Players win Super Bowl MVPs. Count Brady's, then Montana's, and let me know what you found.

by Skin Patrol @ Stampede Blue on Jun 4, 2007 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions

Where am I? What's going on?

Act lost in the face of a withering argument. If you take away the Playoffs/Super Bowl's Brady looks average at best.

That's what sets him apart - is his playoff cachet.

That's not enough to separate him from Montana in my book.

by PaytonMenning on Jun 4, 2007 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions

So your "withering argument"

is that you agree with me? I do not think Tom Brady is better than Joe Montana.

I was confused because you responded to my post with a sarcastic point about QBs not winning Super Bowls on their own. Where in my post had I insisted otherwise? Was it when I dismissed Terry Bradshaw (four Super Bowls) or praised Dan Marino credit (despite zero Super Bowls rings)?

by Skin Patrol @ Stampede Blue on Jun 4, 2007 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah, you read into my statement ....

IMHO, Montana > Brady.

Blue is the one who should take offense and argue. :-)

by PaytonMenning on Jun 4, 2007 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Ask and ye shall receive

BBS: Brady has a better arm, and while his competition % is not that of Montana, it is important to note that Montana played in a "West Coast" offense, i.e. 3 yard slant turns into 15 yard gain.

SP: Montana has a slightly better completion %, but it's comparable to Tom Brady. 63.2 vs. 61.9. Yet Joe Montana's YPA is a full .5 yards better than Tom Brady. Even higher if you only counted Joe Montana at this time in his career relative to Tom Brady. Please explain.

I think the fact that Joe Montana was throwing the ball to Jerry Rice, Brent Jones, Dwight Clark, and John Taylor has a lot to do with his .5 better yards per play average over Brady. Tom Brady has had receivers like David Patton, Deon Branch, Daniel Graham, and Troy Brown. Not exactly the caliber of receivers Montana had.

BBS: And while Brady has never won league MVPs or anything like that (the way Montana) did, I think we can all agree he will get a some if he plays for another 8 years or so.

SP: Why would we all agree with that? But isn't the question really whether Brady is better than Joe Montana, not will Brady become better than Montana?

All right. Brady has contributed to winning 3 Super Bowls in six years with less offensive talent around him than Joe Montana did. Brady has done more with less than most others. If Joe Montana, in his prime, played for the NE Patriots during their title years, I don't think we'd be talking about the 3 time champion Patriots. I think one of the reasons Montana was "clutch" in the playoffs was because he had tremendous talent around him. Brady has been "clutch" with less than stellar talent around him. This is one of the reasons Brady, now, is better than Montana when Joe was 29.

BBS: So, while the stats don't seem to back up this claim of mine, I'll simply state that if stats are your guideline, that means guys like Bradshaw, Fouts, and Marino are better than Brady.

SP: Terry Bradshaw and Dan Fouts? Not really. I absolutely think Dan Marino and Tom Brady are in the same conversation.

If Marino and Brady are in the same conversation, than you've proven my point for me. I don't care what anyone says: Dan Marino was a better QB than Joe Montana; no question. When Joe Montana throws 48 TDs in a season throwing to chumps like Mark Clayton and Mark Duper, call me. Marino never had Montana's talent around him. Never, in his ENTIRE CAREER, had a running game. Heck, his team didn't even get a defense until very late in his career, yet Marino consistently got his teams to the playoffs and won in the playoffs. Sorry, but this is one point that I will absolutely, positively no nuts over and defend tooth and nail with a chainsaw and a six pack of Old Milwaukee: Dan Marino was a better QB than Joe Montana. I say this as a Dan Marino-hater! I hated the guy. Loved watching his teams lose. However, what that guy did with the inept talent around him was remarkable, and if you think Marino and Brady are in the same category, than you must think Brady is better than Montana, because there is no rational, logical way anyone can debate Montana over Marino, imo.

SP: What Tom Brady did better than Marino was win SBs. I'm not going strictly by statistics here either, as I counted Joe Montana's 4 SBs as evidence of his greatness. In what way was Tom superior to Montana besides "better arm" (which you haven't proven)?

Well stats don't prove a "better arm." Watching the actual games does. And QBs do not win Super Bowls. Teams do. Like Terry Bradshaw, Montana had the luck to be on some truly amazing (and talent-stocked) during an era when there was no salary cap. Also Brady's second year, the Patriots had one of the best deep ball offenses in football. I can actually remember watching ESPN's Steve Young (former-49er) saying, "Is there a better deep ball passer in this league right now than Tom Brady?" In a game against the Colts (ugh) I saw him connect on a 91 yard TD to David Patten, I think. It still brings back nightmares. Brady was extremely accurate getting the ball down the field, and delivered it with great velocity and accuracy. Meanwhile, the entire "West Coast" offense was developed because SF's QB at the time, Joe Montana, couldn't get the ball downfield. They switched to an offense that utilized receivers slanting and hitches, utilizing timing and precision over speed and arm strength.

BBS: Unlike Montana (whose career was really cut short by serious injuries), Brady will hopefully be around for another 8 years, building on his resume.

SP: If Tom Brady plays for another 8 seasons, he will have 15 years of experience. That's how long Joe Montana was in the NFL.

I always forget that Montana was drafted in '79, and that he ended it in KC. He really could have gone on and achieved even more if his arm hadn't have been snapped in two in the NFCCG.

SP: I don't think it's controversial to say that Tom Brady might finish his career better than Montana, but then again he might not. He certainly isn't there yet.

I certainly think he is, having done more with less than Montana could have. What I find very amusing about this entire thing is we aren't debating Peyton Manning over Montana. I would think more people would have pitched a fit over that. Another funny nugget is that I, a Colts fan, am defending Tom "Use a Condom" Brady. When it is all said and done, I really feel that Joe Montana is one of the most over-rated players in NFL history. I don't say that because I think the guy sucked or anything. I feel that there were many QBs better than Montana, and when people call him the best all-time, it's really more because they don't know what they're talking about. Guys like Marino, Fouts, Elway, Manning, and Brady are better QBs than Montana. Take any of those guys and put them on those 1980s SF teams, and the debate ends. Montana was a great QB who was made to look better by the talent around him. Some make that same argument with Manning. How good would he be without the talent around him? I think he answered that last season, winning a SB without Edgerrin James. Brady has answered that question his whole career, winning SBs with lunchmeat at the WR and TE positions. Heck, it wasn't until 2004 that he actually got a real RB in Corey Dillon.

It's for these reason, and many others, that guys like Brady are simply better QBs than Montana. JMO.

Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.

by Brad Wells on Jun 6, 2007 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions

Re:

You don't think those guys benefitted from having Montana around? This might as well be chicken or egg. Would Jerry Rice be the receiver he is today if he hadn't played for Hall of Fame Quarterbacks? Are we really going to punish Joe Montana for being on good teams?

If Joe Montana, in his prime, played for the NE Patriots during their title years, I don't think we'd be talking about the 3 time champion Patriots. I think one of the reasons Montana was "clutch" in the playoffs was because he had tremendous talent around him. Brady has been "clutch" with less than stellar talent around him. This is one of the reasons Brady, now, is better than Montana when Joe was 29.

Useless speculation on a hypothetical you know we cannot recreate does not an argument make. You are entitled to your own opinion on where the Patriots would be with Montana instead of Brady. Who knows.

Re: what Tom Brady has "done", with inferior talent... Well yea, he has had worse players. He's also performed worse as well. Just talking about Super Bowls, Joe Montana has 11TDs on zero interceptions. Tom Brady has 6 on 1 pick. Montana has nearly 2 touchdowns per game in the postseason (1.97, actually) against Tom Brady's 1.43.

By the way, if you want to play the entire "Joe Montana had Jerry Rice" card, then you don't also get to judge Joe Montana at 29 against Brady at 29 without acknowledging that he didn't have Jerry Rice. Rice joined the team in the 1985 season, when Montana turned 29 and didn't lead the team in receiving until 1986. Roger Craig wasn't even the starting RB on the team until 1985, either. The defense of the 49ers through 1985 were very comparable to the Patriots. The difference in those teams isn't drastic enough or proven to rely on them for distinguishing either quarterback.

If Marino and Brady are in the same conversation, than you've proven my point for me. I don't care what anyone says: Dan Marino was a better QB than Joe Montana; no question.

This isn't an argument.

When Joe Montana throws 48 TDs in a season throwing to chumps like Mark Clayton and Mark Duper, call me.

For the record, I'm happy putting Dan Marino in the same conversation as Joe Montana.

But also, for the record, Joe Montana never threw the ball 564 times. Over the course of his career, Dan Marino threw a touchdown once every 20 passes. Incidentally that is almost exactly the ratio for Joe Montana.

Chumps like Mark Clayton and Mark Duper? Clayton went to 5 Pro Bowls and finished with more receptions, yards, touchdowns, YPC, and everything else relavent than Dwight Clark, by the way. Mark Duper only went to three Pro Bowls, but he also had more yards, touchdowns, and a higher YPC than Clark (who only went to 2 pro bowls, by the way). Those two guys were excellent receivers. When was the last time Marvin Harrison caught 18 touchdowns in a single season?

And QBs do not win Super Bowls. Teams do. Like Terry Bradshaw, Montana had the luck to be on some truly amazing (and talent-stocked) during an era when there was no salary cap.

Comparing the statistics of Terry Bradshaw and Joe Montana is instructive, and tells us a lot about how much each player influenced their respective Super Bowl teams. Which is to say, Joe Montana was a lot more important than Terry Bradshaw.

You still have not accounted for why Joe Montana has a higher YPA than Tom Brady. Insisting that he had a "weak arm" won't do it either, as we're demanding evidence outside of your anectodal, revisionist history of the 49ers "West Coast offense" (which is itself a misnomer, if you were familier with the history of the term).

I certainly think he is, having done more with less than Montana could have.

Opinions are like noses.

When it is all said and done, I really feel that Joe Montana is one of the most over-rated players in NFL history.

When all is said and done? He retired over a decade ago.

by Skin Patrol @ Stampede Blue on Jun 6, 2007 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions

By the way...

Guys like Marino, Fouts, Elway, Manning, and Brady are better QBs than Montana.

With the exception of Manning, which one of these Quarterbacks did more than Joe Montana? You keep saying "Well they didn't have the talent"... ok, I'm willing to grant that. They also didn't do nearly as much. With the 49ers they MIGHT have approached Joe Montana's production, but then again they might not have. All history can tell us is what these guys did or, in relation to Joe Montana, what they didn't do.

For the record, though, I don't juice over Joe Montana. Sammy Baugh was the best QB in history, better than even your Manning.

by Skin Patrol @ Stampede Blue on Jun 6, 2007 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions

I know we have to be over the top to be noticed...

But Brady is not in the same class as Montana. I'll leave all opinions about the other quarterbacks out for now. (Although NO ONE has a 2-minute drill like Manning. It should be called his 45-second drill, because that's how long he needs to run 8 plays with no timeouts)

Montana stood out as a quarterback above his peers at the time. Brady is typically a top-third rating type quarterback, good but not great, and he will continue to be so even with his all-star cast of WRs. Sure, Montana has a modestly better rating than Brady, but when you look at ratings relative to their peers, it really jumps out at you.

Brady does not have the comebacks and game-ending drives that Montana has, nor the presence at the end of games. Brady is OK if you need to lead your team to a field goal, but if you need a TD - probably not going to happen. His last two clutch playoff appearances ended in INT, INT. The football gods gave him one back, because they love Brady just like all of us do. Manning would have been "exposed" for the mediocre clutch player that he is with a performance like that.

An old, surgically rebuilt Montana led a middling Chiefs team to the AFC championship game at 37 years old. At 37, Tom Brady will have been a backup for 4 years.

Sure, Brady is a shoe-in for the Hall of Fame, but he's got two criteria locked up - 3 Superbowls and the QB position. All honest analysis of his skills disappeared years ago. Heck, it only takes one Superbowl victory to do that if your name is Brett Favre.

by SteveW on Jun 1, 2007 12:31 AM EDT reply actions