Guys who try to diminish the value of championships :chuckle:
Guys who confuse team performances with individual performances...or, why Barry Sanders is still arguably the second greatest running back of all time. :chuckle:
No miracles, just the Giants hitting their peak at the post-season.
Two word rebuttal: helmet catch.
Two more guys are among the greatest...... to never win a Superbowl. Just like Kelly, Cunnigham, McNabb, Fouts and Tarkenton. They're all great players, HoF material when you consider their careers as a whole but they never raised their team to championship team status.
Kelly and Tarkenton helped their teams get to multiple Super Bowls. If we limit the greatest to that metric then Trent Dilfer tops Dan Marino.
And no one without a serious head injury even suggests Dilfer for consideration in the Hall.
Peyton did it once, props for that but come on, with no ring you've only proved that you played on either mediocre to bad teams or you didn't have the clutch leadership gene to put your team over the top.
He made it twice. And he was arguably even better in the loss than he was when he won the MVP of the first one. As for the quality of the teams he advanced, the year he wasn't under center they were so bad they got Andrew Luck. What was their win total the year before his injury? 10 games, a little off their streak of 12 or better, something he'd led them to for the prior eight seasons, that's a pretty good record.
That team without him? 2-14
So mostly a team thing, which is why his post season individual stats are pretty darn good.
3 Superbowl games and one championship is only slightly less disappointing than 4 SB appearances and no championships.
Yes. I'm sure he would love to have won all of them.
How many HOFers on those SF teams? How many on Peyton's? Likely only a couple of wrs and I wonder why that is...
Winning 4 Super Bowl championships isn't like winning the lottery.
No, it takes tremendous coaching and a great cadre of players. Or a great coach, qb and kicker surrounded by a really solid group of dedicated and exceptionally skilled (if not great, a la Teddy B) players. Only the Steelers and the Niners have managed it within the life of a particular cadre. And Joe could have as easily won the ring Steve managed.
Winning in the playoffs doesn't come down to flukes.
No, it doesn't.
People have found consistent success there, like Montana, Bradshaw and Brady.
Only two of those belong in that sentence. Brady has lost two of his attempts and won the first one by putting up less than 150 yards.
They have great regular season stats as well as championships. Yes there were on good teams, but like a Michael Jordan, they inspired those teams to be better than they should have probably been. You honestly can't say the chemistry between the niner players would have been the same if Manning were at the helm. Thinking you could just change out Montana with Manning diminishes Montana's achievements.
Did Steve Young's win diminish Montana? No, it didn't.
Yes he had great teams and a couple lucky catches go his way but the Giants still won, I wouldn't diminish their achievements just because Eli is lazy in the regular season occasionally.
Eli isn't lazy, he's just not the quarterback his big brother is and there's no shame in that. But he's had better teams and more complete coaching and the result is one more win in the big game than his brother.
People don't take him as serious as they should but there it is.
Most people don't know football, only the talking points that suit their disposition. Same is true with any sport.
Numbers mean nothing if they culminate in constant losing.
That's just wrong. A great hitter on a bad team is still a great hitter. John Stockton is still one of the greatest point guards to ever play the game, with or without a ring. Marino is still one of the greatest without the ring. The reason so many push on Peyton is, I think, because he is so obviously great and has, compared to that greatness, less to show for it than feels right. But that's the way it is sometimes. The way it was for Barkley in basketball.
I grew up in Tennessee and I've been a fan of the Vols all my life basically. I watched Manning's career and rooted for him constantly. I always want the best for him but that doesn't change that fact that he doesn't get the job done when it counts the most and that affects a legacy.
I thought he was a smart college player on a decent team in the strongest conference. A lot of good players and some great NFL players never got a college championship. Again, that's a team and not an individual accomplishment. I did think he should have won the Heisman over Woodson, but that's life for you.
Montana, Bradshaw, Brady are all far ahead of him in legacy when it comes to QBs.
Now you're just nuts or novice. No one puts Bradshaw ahead of Manning...except maybe Bradshaw.
When they polled the HOF quarterbacks a couple of years ago everyone except Montana had Peyton as a better quarterback than Brady (and this was after Brady's three rings). And Montana liked them both. Bradshaw was a home run hitter in the post season, but his defense won the first ring, much like Brady's first ring was on the foot of his kicker.
Montana is simply the best I've seen. But I wouldn't feel cheated or worried if I had Peyton or Brady under center on those teams of his.
Big Ben and Eli are ahead of him too.
No, they really aren't except by the deceptive singular metric confusing team with individuals. I think Ben is underrated by the public, but I'd take Brees ahead of him and Brady and Peyton ahead of Brees. Eli...I wouldn't be surprised if he misses out on the Hall absent either significant improvement in the regular season or another trip and solid performance in the SB.
You can't diminish wins and championships to make stats seem more important when it comes to legacy.
Rather, you can't diminish who and what Barry Sanders was because he didn't play for great teams or have a great coach. Peyton overcame some of that because his greatness was at the most important position on the team and he out did Elway and Marino, by taking a weaker team to the dance and winning with it, supra.
