Dear Mr. Manning ...

[Denver Native (Carol)]

I am not a sports reporter, not an NFL analyst, not a former player.

I've never studied film, and I've not catalogued all the best and worst moments in football history.

I know the game of football well, though I still can't figure out why you can challenge a first-down spot but not a pass interference call.

What I have done is played some seriously rugged flag football games, donned blue and orange every Sunday from August to January for the past 43 years, sat through some unbelievably frigid games at Mile High (once while 7 months pregnant) and cheered for the Denver Broncos since before I can remember ... even during the heart-crushing games.

rest - http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_25077270/dear-mr-manning

[Simple Jaded]

I thought Manning's first SB was supposed to end the question of legacy? Apparently Manning is judged by different standards, which is perfectly fine (refreshing in Broncocountry, considering the standards he has to live up are actually higher), but the simple fact is Manning's Top 5 of All Time legacy was cemented before he ever came to Denver.

This "legacy" debate is nothing more than a media product for public consumption, basically the ESPN's and NFL Networks know the average fan is a mindless nose picker who is perfectly content to let someone else formulate their opinion for them, so low hanging fruit is an endless supply of programming they need to fill 24/7/365 of air time.

[Joel]

That's a nice idea, Jaded; admirably objective principle. Yet the sad truth is, just about everyone who's not a fan of one of their teams ranks Montana, Elway and Marino in that order for a reason. Fran Tarkenton retired with pretty much every passing record in existence, and each held till Marino systematically broke it; most folks who watched them still agree Staubach's better, and some would even argue Griese or even Bradshaw were.

They'll say Bart Starr was better than Don Meredith for the same reason: Meredith threw a pick in the end zone when his team needed a TD to reach SB I; Starrs QB sneak got HIS team to SB II.

[Simple Jaded]

That's a nice idea, Jaded; admirably objective principle. Yet the sad truth is, just about everyone who's not a fan of one of their teams ranks Montana, Elway and Marino in that order for a reason. Fran Tarkenton retired with pretty much every passing record in existence, and each held till Marino systematically broke it; most folks who watched them still agree Staubach's better, and some would even argue Griese or even Bradshaw were.

They'll say Bart Starr was better than Don Meredith for the same reason: Meredith threw a pick in the end zone when his team needed a TD to reach SB I; Starrs QB sneak got HIS team to SB II.
I don't remember a SB win being a barometer in the debate till the 90's, specifically John Elway, now it appears a SB win just a starting point.

Imo it's not even a difficult process, I don't need a SB to tell me Warren Moon was a far, far better player than Russell Wilson, but due to this ridiculous line of thinking, it is now up for debate.

[aberdien]

Peyton's legacy has been set in stone for years. If he had lost his SB vs the Bears and won last week's, there would be zero talk about him never being able to win the big game. But since he won his superbowl years ago, people seem to forget about it and make excuses so as to make that win seem illegitimate. He won a superbowl and he has exhibited the utmost class both on and off the field. It's just laughably dumb for certain talking heads to say that the loss to Seattle takes him out of the conversation between Elway/Montana/Brady/etc. Scrutinizing every single move he's made the past year or so just takes away focus from the privilege of enjoying seeing one of the greatest sportsmen in history play. I guess it's their loss.

1. Elway
2. Montana
3. Peyton

If you need a laugh: Skip Bayless put Roger Staubach #2 behind Montana on his GOAT list.

[Simple Jaded]

Peyton's legacy has been set in stone for years. If he had lost his SB vs the Bears and won last week's, there would be zero talk about him never being able to win the big game. But since he won his superbowl years ago, people seem to forget about it and make excuses so as to make that win seem illegitimate. He won a superbowl and he has exhibited the utmost class both on and off the field. It's just laughably dumb for certain talking heads to say that the loss to Seattle takes him out of the conversation between Elway/Montana/Brady/etc. Scrutinizing every single move he's made the past year or so just takes away focus from the privilege of enjoying seeing one of the greatest sportsmen in history play. I guess it's their loss.

1. Elway
2. Montana
3. Peyton

If you need a laugh: Skip Bayless put Roger Staubach #2 behind Montana on his GOAT list.

Baseless is a Cowboy fan, if that helps.

[Joel]

I don't remember a SB win being a barometer in the debate till the 90's, specifically John Elway, now it appears a SB win just a starting point.

Imo it's not even a difficult process, I don't need a SB to tell me Warren Moon was a far, far better player than Russell Wilson, but due to this ridiculous line of thinking, it is now up for debate.
Well it was, whether you remember it or not; I do. Even 25 years ago THGoFs chapter on QBs had a whole section on folks overvaluing SB wins (and losses,) including the wonderfully dated line on losers that "the jury is still out on Eason, Elway and Marino" after each reached just one SB and their teams got buried. "Remember," they weren't DEFENDING the logic, but explicitly criticizing it—and noting with some frustration that's just how most people figure the equation. Back then the only post-merger HoFer with NO SB wins was Tarkenton, and he wasn't first ballot either.


Peyton's legacy has been set in stone for years. If he had lost his SB vs the Bears and won last week's, there would be zero talk about him never being able to win the big game. But since he won his superbowl years ago, people seem to forget about it and make excuses so as to make that win seem illegitimate. He won a superbowl and he has exhibited the utmost class both on and off the field. It's just laughably dumb for certain talking heads to say that the loss to Seattle takes him out of the conversation between Elway/Montana/Brady/etc. Scrutinizing every single move he's made the past year or so just takes away focus from the privilege of enjoying seeing one of the greatest sportsmen in history play. I guess it's their loss.

1. Elway
2. Montana
3. Peyton

If you need a laugh: Skip Bayless put Roger Staubach #2 behind Montana on his GOAT list.
You think Staubach should be higher, or Montana lower? Maybe; Montana was surrounded with an awful lot of talent on both sides of the ball, but most people look at that 4-0 SB record, and no further. In another decade or two, after he's hammed it up on another few thousand hours of sports shows, the consensus may declare Bradshaw was elite.

The worst part—the big change between then-and-now—is not only were SBs widely (if wrongly) the final arbiter of greatness by SB XXV, but as SB L nears it's to the point ONE isn't enough anymore, because of guys like Dilfer and Williams; now would-be GoATs need MULTIPLE wins, and ideally a pretty good SB win PERCENTAGE. That's what's really screwing Manning; call it "SB win inflation," or "winflation." No one doubts Unitas was one of the best ever, but in half a century it could be, "Sure, lots of guys went to 5 SBs, but Elway only won TWO of his."

[Joel]

Baseless is a Cowboy fan, if that helps.
So? Staubach was the best of his era; the only Tarkenton MIGHT challenge that, in part because of his records. He might not have set records had Staubach not spent the first 4 years of his career in the Navy and retired after winning another passing title in one of his best seasons, yet Staubach STILL took Dallas to 4 SBs; the Ice Bowl might be different without the Navy.

Ah, but he only won 2, thanks to the Steel Curtain (though one was VERY close and ranked among the best ever,) so his greatness has a little tarnish, even if he was the first QB to start 4 SBs (and was on the bench behind Morton in a 5th; he won the starting job and the SB the next year.) Same problem Tarkenton has worse.

[MOtorboat]

That's a nice idea, Jaded; admirably objective principle. Yet the sad truth is, just about everyone who's not a fan of one of their teams ranks Montana, Elway and Marino in that order for a reason. Fran Tarkenton retired with pretty much every passing record in existence, and each held till Marino systematically broke it; most folks who watched them still agree Staubach's better, and some would even argue Griese or even Bradshaw were.

They'll say Bart Starr was better than Don Meredith for the same reason: Meredith threw a pick in the end zone when his team needed a TD to reach SB I; Starrs QB sneak got HIS team to SB II.

And...the point of the article/thread...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCy8MpT45gk

G T F O

[Simple Jaded]

So? Staubach was the best of his era; the only Tarkenton MIGHT challenge that, in part because of his records. He might not have set records had Staubach not spent the first 4 years of his career in the Navy and retired after winning another passing title in one of his best seasons, yet Staubach STILL took Dallas to 4 SBs; the Ice Bowl might be different without the Navy.

Ah, but he only won 2, thanks to the Steel Curtain (though one was VERY close and ranked among the best ever,) so his greatness has a little tarnish, even if he was the first QB to start 4 SBs (and was on the bench behind Morton in a 5th; he won the starting job and the SB the next year.) Same problem Tarkenton has worse.

So that explains why Baseless is an idiot in this particular instance.

[Joel]

And...the point of the article/thread...

G T F O
I got the point, but it's a hard sell with the vast majority of people. I'm glad the articles author can see past it, but most casual observers don't, and haven't since the merger. Probably before as well, except then it was NFL Championships. Why are the Packers one of the most venerated NFL teams? Thirteen reasons (though I can't recall if that was the tally before or after their last SB win,) including the only two threepeats in NFL history.

I "get" it though; sorry, we can't all be classy enough to go around telling people how stupid they are and to "****."

[MOtorboat]

I got the point, but it's a hard sell with the vast majority of people. I'm glad the articles author can see past it, but most casual observers don't, and haven't since the merger. Probably before as well, except then it was NFL Championships. Why are the Packers one of the most venerated NFL teams? Thirteen reasons (though I can't recall if that was the tally before or after their last SB win,) including the only two threepeats in NFL history.

I "get" it though; sorry, we can't all be classy enough to go around telling people how stupid they are and to ****.

Did you even read the column?

[Joel]

So that explains why Baseless is an idiot in this particular instance.
Not sure he was such an idiot in this particular instance. When it gets to the top 5-10 EVER, we're in pretty rareified territory, where the greatness is very refined and concentrated for everyone. Staubach's up there with the best though; the (other) problem with SPECIFIC ranking is the same as Montanas: How do we separate a first ballot HoFers contributions from those of his many first ballot HoFer teammates? I'll note this though:

Without Joe Cool, SF went to 3 straight NFCCGs, winning the last, and a 5th SB; without Capt. Comeback, Dallas went to 2 straight, losing the last to Montanas '9ers, then went in the toilet.

[Joel]

Did you even read the column?
Yes

[MOtorboat]

Dear Joel...

The column doesn't have anything to do with football you blithering fool.

[Joel]

Dear Joel...

The column doesn't have anything to do with football you blithering fool.
It has to do with Mannings legacy; seemed to be the subject. It defines that legacy in general rather than specifically football terms, which is all fine and dandy. However, when the vast majority of fans talk about Mannings legacy they're not talking about Manning the citizen and role model primarily, nor even secondarily. Maybe they should, but in Shouldland the Broncos don't get pounded 43-8 in front of literally the entire planet; we don't live in Shouldland.

[7DnBrnc53]

Well it was, whether you remember it or not; I do. Even 25 years ago THGoFs chapter on QBs had a whole section on folks overvaluing SB wins (and losses,) including the wonderfully dated line on losers that "the jury is still out on Eason, Elway and Marino" after each reached just one SB and their teams got buried. "Remember," they weren't DEFENDING the logic, but explicitly criticizing it—and noting with some frustration that's just how most people figure the equation. Back then the only post-merger HoFer with NO SB wins was Tarkenton, and he wasn't first ballot either.


You think Staubach should be higher, or Montana lower? Maybe; Montana was surrounded with an awful lot of talent on both sides of the ball, but most people look at that 4-0 SB record, and no further. In another decade or two, after he's hammed it up on another few thousand hours of sports shows, the consensus may declare Bradshaw was elite.

The worst part—the big change between then-and-now—is not only were SBs widely (if wrongly) the final arbiter of greatness by SB XXV, but as SB L nears it's to the point ONE isn't enough anymore, because of guys like Dilfer and Williams; now would-be GoATs need MULTIPLE wins, and ideally a pretty good SB win PERCENTAGE. That's what's really screwing Manning; call it "SB win inflation," or "winflation." No one doubts Unitas was one of the best ever, but in half a century it could be, "Sure, lots of guys went to 5 SBs, but Elway only won TWO of his."

I don't think that Montana was surrounded with a lot of talent, but he was surrounded by other guys who fit Walsh's offense like he did.

For example, nobody wanted Dwight Clark, but Walsh liked him a lot, and he was successful in Walsh's offense.

Another example is Brent Jones. In 1986, the Steelers drafted him in the fifth round. They had no TE's that were that good, and yet they cut him (probably because he couldn't block). However, he fit SF's system.

Also, the only teams that were looking at Rice in Round 1 were the 49ers and Cowboys. If it wasn't for Dallas, I bet that it would have been unnecessary for the Niners to trade up for Jerry.

[EastCoastBronco]

That was a great article and I wholeheartedly agree that Manning is one of the classiest, hardest working, "role model" type guys to ever suit up.
However, I think that if these traits had been the extent of what was on Elway's QB wish list a couple of years ago he would have kept Mr. Tebow and spent his money elsewhere.
As callous as this may sound, Manning wasn't brought here to cement his "legacy" as a "hard working", "speak nice to reporters", "praise your teammates no matter what" guy.
He was brought here to win Super Bowls because it was blatantly obvious we weren't going to do that with Timmy Touchdown.
Elway has stated that himself several times.
We had our "role model for perfect team guy" and we traded him in for a different model that was supposed to win Super Bowls.
He hasn't done that for us...yet.

[artie_dale]

My take on this "Legacy fiasco" is this. I've always thought it was unfair that the QB position is judged by how many Super Bowl wins/rings they have. No other players at any other position get that same scrutiny, and there lies the flaw. When thinking of RB's, WR's and defensive players, every realizes that none of those guys can get their themselves so they back off judging them in that aspect. But, for some reason, everyone thinks that the QB position can do it on their own. Football is the ultimate team sport. Every player at every position has a different job that they have to do well in order to move the ball. Yes, I agree that a great QB can get a team to the playoffs and even the Super Bowl (look at our boy, John Elway), but it is so unfair to think they can win that game on their own. I think coaching has more to do with it than any one player at any one position. And, don't give me this BS that nothing will change because that's what the media says is important. BS. We think it's important because those talking heads think it's important and will continue to think its important as along as they believe we think its important (say that really, really, loud while you sit in your cubicle just for laughs).

I think "Legacy" is more important and complicated than just "how many rings does he have?" But, who am I kidding... the NFL puts a dipshyte like Joe Namath on a pedestal and the viewers (us fans) don't blink an eye.

[BroncoNut]

Isn't it Foxy's responsibility to throw the challenge flag?


wait, nevermind. I read it wrong. I get it now. cool article.

[Buff]

This article belongs on a mommy blog. "It's not about winning and losing but how you play the game."

[Ravage!!!]

I think fans undervalue just taking a team TO the Super Bowl. Sure, its alllll about winning it. But that is the same goal for everyone, all the time. It's not easy to win a Super Bowl, because its not easy to get To the Super Bowl. Taking 2 different teams To the Super Bowl and having how many 10 win seasons should not only be applauded, but should have a stand-up ovation.

People will over value wins because they don't really understand the game, and wins is just the stat column they look at.

[EastCoastBronco]

People will over value wins because they don't really understand the game, and wins is just the stat column they look at.

Run that up the flagpole in Jacksonville and we'll see who salutes...

[Simple Jaded]

That was a great article and I wholeheartedly agree that Manning is one of the classiest, hardest working, "role model" type guys to ever suit up.
However, I think that if these traits had been the extent of what was on Elway's QB wish list a couple of years ago he would have kept Mr. Tebow and spent his money elsewhere.
As callous as this may sound, Manning wasn't brought here to cement his "legacy" as a "hard working", "speak nice to reporters", "praise your teammates no matter what" guy.
He was brought here to win Super Bowls because it was blatantly obvious we weren't going to do that with Timmy Touchdown.
Elway has stated that himself several times.
We had our "role model for perfect team guy" and we traded him in for a different model that was supposed to win Super Bowls.
He hasn't done that for us...yet.
I'm willing to bet that Manning has exceeded Elway's expectations, mostly because he's been better than ever but also because I doubt Elway expected Manning to win SB's on his own.

[Joel]

I think fans undervalue just taking a team TO the Super Bowl. Sure, its alllll about winning it. But that is the same goal for everyone, all the time. It's not easy to win a Super Bowl, because its not easy to get To the Super Bowl. Taking 2 different teams To the Super Bowl and having how many 10 win seasons should not only be applauded, but should have a stand-up ovation.

People will over value wins because they don't really understand the game, and wins is just the stat column they look at.
Also the CCGs, playoffs, winning seasons, scoring, vision, accuracy and range. That's how it is though, and always will be, because the media dictates nothing: The media reflects the majority, because "you'll never go broke appealing to the Lowest Common Denominator." The sad truth is you not only won't go broke doing it, you'll get rich as Croesus. That's why Jerry Springer's not mayor Cincinatti anymore, and why "A Current Affair" convinced people they care what Bill O'Reilly thinks (there, now it's bipartisan. :tongue:)

The latter's gone from tabloid TV to interviewing the leader of the free world during the SB pregame; meanwhile Americas longest running primetime drama (i.e. Masterpiece Theater) must panhandle for a week several times a year even with taxpayer funding. The media didn't decide to rate QBs by SB wins, the public did: The media just periodically reports current standings.

[Joel]

I don't think that Montana was surrounded with a lot of talent, but he was surrounded by other guys who fit Walsh's offense like he did.

For example, nobody wanted Dwight Clark, but Walsh liked him a lot, and he was successful in Walsh's offense.
Just because no one else wanted him doesn't mean he was no good; no one but Dallas wanted Calvin Hill, but after a few seasons the rest of the NFL was kicking itself. All 32 teams passed on Terrell Davis 5 times before we finally got him, and Rod Smith was NEVER drafted—just like Night Train Lane, who still holds the season Int record set as a ROOKIE playing a 12 game season.

Montanas line alone featured Bubba Paris, Fred Quillan, Randy Cross and Keith Farnhorst; it was so good Guy McIntyre and Jesse Sapolu had to wait for Quillan and Cross to RETIRE before they got to earn 7 Pro Bowls between the pair of them. Add Roger Craig, Jerry Rice and Dwight Clark, plus later Brent Jones (as you note below) and John Taylor; that's a star-studded offense.

Even if one argues Montana just made them all those good players look greater than they were (though I think there's a good argument the reverse is true,) he didn't do that with Ronnie Lott, Eric Wright, Charles Haley, Dwight Hicks and Matt Millen. The '80s '9ers were the penultimate pre-cap dynasty for a reason; they and the Cowboys who replaced them are the principal reason the cap EXISTS (mainly because the winner of 3 straight NFCCGs between them won the SB in a route, culminating in the '94 season when they effectively swapped Charles Haley for Ken Norton Jr.)

Montana was NEVER in the situation Elway and Marino were trying to put otherwise mediocre offenses on their backs and singlehandedly carry them to SBs.


Another example is Brent Jones. In 1986, the Steelers drafted him in the fifth round. They had no TE's that were that good, and yet they cut him (probably because he couldn't block). However, he fit SF's system.

Also, the only teams that were looking at Rice in Round 1 were the 49ers and Cowboys. If it wasn't for Dallas, I bet that it would have been unnecessary for the Niners to trade up for Jerry.
If it wasn't for arguably the best team of the '70s, the best team of the '80s wouldn't have displaced them? Maybe, but there's a reason why Dallas beat out all other NFC teams for 5 SB appearances over the previous decade and SF beat out all of them for 4 more over the next decade. When two of the greatest dynasties ever were fighting over the consensus greatest WR ever, he might actually have been that good. There's certainly no question he was critical to Montanas success, however he was valued on draft day; his SB receptions record stood till last week.

So most teams failed to recognize Rice was the best ever; He still was, and that helped Montana a lot; the same applies to a lesser degree with Jones and many others.

[7DnBrnc53]

Just because no one else wanted him doesn't mean he was no good; no one but Dallas wanted Calvin Hill, but after a few seasons the rest of the NFL was kicking itself. All 32 teams passed on Terrell Davis 5 times before we finally got him, and Rod Smith was NEVER drafted—just like Night Train Lane, who still holds the season Int record set as a ROOKIE playing a 12 game season.

Montanas line alone featured Bubba Paris, Fred Quillan, Randy Cross and Keith Farnhorst; it was so good Guy McIntyre and Jesse Sapolu had to wait for Quillan and Cross to RETIRE before they got to earn 7 Pro Bowls between the pair of them. Add Roger Craig, Jerry Rice and Dwight Clark, plus later Brent Jones (as you note below) and John Taylor; that's a star-studded offense.

Even if one argues Montana just made them all those good players look greater than they were (though I think there's a good argument the reverse is true,) he didn't do that with Ronnie Lott, Eric Wright, Charles Haley, Dwight Hicks and Matt Millen. The '80s '9ers were the penultimate pre-cap dynasty for a reason; they and the Cowboys who replaced them are the principal reason the cap EXISTS (mainly because the winner of 3 straight NFCCGs between them won the SB in a route, culminating in the '94 season when they effectively swapped Charles Haley for Ken Norton Jr.)

Montana was NEVER in the situation Elway and Marino were trying to put otherwise mediocre offenses on their backs and singlehandedly carry them to SBs.

Joel, people not wanting Dwight Clark was much worse because there were more rounds in 1979. In 1994 and 95, there were only seven rounds. Rod Smith may have been drafted, but he had a severe knee injury in 1992 after some thug hit him in the knee while he was waiting to return a punt with the ball 10 feet in the air.

It is a miracle that he even played, because he torn his MCL and ACL after that. Before that injury, he was on the NFL's radar.

As for TD, he played under a coach (Ray Goff) at Georgia that really didn't like him, which is why he fell to the sixth round.

As for Montana, I agree that he didn't make his teammates look better than they really were. Walsh and his HC made all of those players look better than they were.

[MNPatsFan]

Peyton's legacy has been set in stone for years. If he had lost his SB vs the Bears and won last week's, there would be zero talk about him never being able to win the big game. But since he won his superbowl years ago, people seem to forget about it and make excuses so as to make that win seem illegitimate. He won a superbowl and he has exhibited the utmost class both on and off the field. It's just laughably dumb for certain talking heads to say that the loss to Seattle takes him out of the conversation between Elway/Montana/Brady/etc. Scrutinizing every single move he's made the past year or so just takes away focus from the privilege of enjoying seeing one of the greatest sportsmen in history play. I guess it's their loss.

1. Elway
2. Montana
3. Peyton

If you need a laugh: Skip Bayless put Roger Staubach #2 behind Montana on his GOAT list.Not sure whether any one has posted this yet or whether people on this forum have seen this so thought I would post it here to obtain your comments and opinions. Bob McGinn, a respected and tenured writer at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, created the below ranking of QBs (he actually ranked top 25):


1. Joe Montana (1979-'94): Magnificent from the pocket. Exceptional on the move. Great passer and a great runner. So poised and so accurate. It was poetry in motion.

2. Johnny Unitas (1956-'73): Helped drag the passing game into the modern era with the help of Raymond Berry. All the successful quarterbacks of that era had to be the toughest player on the field given the savagery inflicted upon them well after the ball was out. The ultimate leader of men.

3. Tom Brady (2000-'13, active): His strength of character has shone through time after time. Perfectionist in every way, shape and form. Never a threat to run but possesses brilliant feel for stepping into available throwing lanes. High overhand delivery and a perfect spiral.

4. Dan Marino (1983-'99): Perhaps the quickest release ever. Pure pocket passer with cannon for an arm. Highly emotional leader. Tremendous in the clutch.

5. Peyton Manning (1998-'13, active): Near the top of most-prepared passers ever. Used his domineering personality to make football a legitimate sport in basketball-mad Indiana. Early master of the no-huddle offense. Prototypical height, extremely limited athlete.

6. Brett Favre (1991-2010): Nobody had more fun playing the game. Not many ever had an arm like his, either. Teammates loved playing with him. Defined the gunslinger quarterback.

7. John Elway (1983-'98): Probably the best pure athlete on this or any list. Arm strength ranked right alongside Favre's. Rare running ability.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/bob-mcginn-ranks-the-top-25-nfl-quarterbacks-he-has-seen-b99195610z1-243155121.html

Although I wouldn't necessarily rank the top 7 this way, I find this list informative and insightful because he has seen a lot more of the big name QBs than I have due to his attending his first professional football game in 1959.