WHO IS THE GREATEST QB OF ALL TIME?

[M Dogg™]

Arguments of greatest of his era, nah. Now greatest of all time, he wasn't in my top 5 yet, so for me the Super Bowl was a mute point. As I've said, I had to judge a book before I reach the end. And both Brady and Manning's careers I think will go down as great, but neither will be the GOAT. Brady was the closest if he could have completed that undefeated season, and Manning would be over Brady had he won those two Super Bowls and got 3 rings. Instead, Brady has to deal with the fact his teams haven't won since Spygate and Manning seems to never be able to finish the deal. Without putting them in my final rating, I have...

1. Joe Montana
2. Otto Graham
3. Johnny Unitas
4. John Elway (That pains me)
5. Bart Starr

It's hard to compare eras. But I took leadership into consideration and Graham, Unitas and Starr just won and they had really good stats. To me, it'd been very hard to Manning or Brady to crack that top 5.

My issue is still with Montana. Yes he played well in all 4 SBs, but his team never played below him, and he never played above his team. Peyton in all his bluder last night still played slightly better than the rest of his offense and special teams, but I think slightly below his defense. The same can be said for the 09 year.

I simply can't imagine Peyton or Marino losing 3 of the 4 Montana SBs or even coming close. The 2nd one against the Bengals was a coin flip, even for Joe. He threw a horrible pass in the end zone to the Cinci defense late in the game while trailing and the DB dropped it. With Manning and Marino's luck that ball by them would have been intercepted.

And I can't see Joe taking any of Dan's Dolphins teams to the Superbowl. Jow would have won wit hthe 06 Colts, but not 09, and no way does Joe win last night's game. No pocket passer could have beaten the Seahawks last night.

It might be because I LOVED watching Montana play, but I just put Montana there. He changed the position. Before him, the league was run first. After him, the league became a passing league. The rest of those guys were gunslingers in a running era. But Montana was a thrower in a running era, but during his time offenses started to copy his offense. In the late 70's when Montana was drafted, you could win without a passing QB, see the Steelers. After Montana in the early 90's, you need a true QB to win. Or a historically great defense. But the winning QB is way more than likely to be a franchise QB. Montana started that. That's why I put him #1. It's hard to compare eras as I said. But it's not hard to see Montana, Walsh and the Niners changed the game.

[Shallow]

Arguments of greatest of his era, nah. Now greatest of all time, he wasn't in my top 5 yet, so for me the Super Bowl was a mute point. As I've said, I had to judge a book before I reach the end. And both Brady and Manning's careers I think will go down as great, but neither will be the GOAT. Brady was the closest if he could have completed that undefeated season, and Manning would be over Brady had he won those two Super Bowls and got 3 rings. Instead, Brady has to deal with the fact his teams haven't won since Spygate and Manning seems to never be able to finish the deal. Without putting them in my final rating, I have...

1. Joe Montana
2. Otto Graham
3. Johnny Unitas
4. John Elway (That pains me)
5. Bart Starr

It's hard to compare eras. But I took leadership into consideration and Graham, Unitas and Starr just won and they had really good stats. To me, it'd been very hard to Manning or Brady to crack that top 5.

My issue is still with Montana. Yes he played well in all 4 SBs, but his team never played below him, and he never played above his team. Peyton in all his bluder last night still played slightly better than the rest of his offense and special teams, but I think slightly below his defense. The same can be said for the 09 year.

I simply can't imagine Peyton or Marino losing 3 of the 4 Montana SBs or even coming close. The 2nd one against the Bengals was a coin flip, even for Joe. He threw a horrible pass in the end zone to the Cinci defense late in the game while trailing and the DB dropped it. With Manning and Marino's luck that ball by them would have been intercepted.

And I can't see Joe taking any of Dan's Dolphins teams to the Superbowl. Jow would have won wit hthe 06 Colts, but not 09, and no way does Joe win last night's game. No pocket passer could have beaten the Seahawks last night.

It might be because I LOVED watching Montana play, but I just put Montana there. He changed the position. Before him, the league was run first. After him, the league became a passing league. The rest of those guys were gunslingers in a running era. But Montana was a thrower in a running era, but during his time offenses started to copy his offense. In the late 70's when Montana was drafted, you could win without a passing QB, see the Steelers. After Montana in the early 90's, you need a true QB to win. Or a historically great defense. But the winning QB is way more than likely to be a franchise QB. Montana started that. That's why I put him #1. It's hard to compare eras as I said. But it's not hard to see Montana, Walsh and the Niners changed the game.

I think you are giving Joe way too much credit for that offense. Walsh invented it and ran it well in Cinci. Ken Anderson ran it fantastically in Cinci to huge success, numbers and MVP. He lost to Walsh and Montana in the SB but I can't imagine Cinci losing that game if Walsh was given the Cinci job, and I also can't imagine Joe being in that game at all. Montana probably gets drafted by Cinci and doesn't become a starter until 85 or 86. Then he probably wins two rings, maybe a third if he stays healthy. But around that same time Erhart-Perkins was coming out, and Coryell.

The real reason isn't genius innovations, but rather rulre changes, and in my opinion this all stemmd from the racist NFL's desire to promote the white athlete. In the old days of football the running back was the star and most of the running backs were white. And the rules were set up where DBs could get away with anything. By the time the 70s hit almost every great RB playing was black and the NFL changed it so the pass game could be opened up. They started to limit what DBs could do to WRs and you saw instantly what it did to QB numbers. Once the new rules were established OCs started to develop new ways of creating pass routes. Timing routes were useless in the 50s because you could jam up a WR during the whore play, anywhere in the field, but once the 5 yard rule came in everything changed.

[Chamillitary Click]

I don't think I've ever seen an argument come from him that didn't involve completely changing history. By people changing teams and teammates and the opponents abilities and switching coaches.

You like create an alternate universe, play the games out in your mind and then formulate an opinion lol.

[M Dogg™]

Arguments of greatest of his era, nah. Now greatest of all time, he wasn't in my top 5 yet, so for me the Super Bowl was a mute point. As I've said, I had to judge a book before I reach the end. And both Brady and Manning's careers I think will go down as great, but neither will be the GOAT. Brady was the closest if he could have completed that undefeated season, and Manning would be over Brady had he won those two Super Bowls and got 3 rings. Instead, Brady has to deal with the fact his teams haven't won since Spygate and Manning seems to never be able to finish the deal. Without putting them in my final rating, I have...

1. Joe Montana
2. Otto Graham
3. Johnny Unitas
4. John Elway (That pains me)
5. Bart Starr

It's hard to compare eras. But I took leadership into consideration and Graham, Unitas and Starr just won and they had really good stats. To me, it'd been very hard to Manning or Brady to crack that top 5.

My issue is still with Montana. Yes he played well in all 4 SBs, but his team never played below him, and he never played above his team. Peyton in all his bluder last night still played slightly better than the rest of his offense and special teams, but I think slightly below his defense. The same can be said for the 09 year.

I simply can't imagine Peyton or Marino losing 3 of the 4 Montana SBs or even coming close. The 2nd one against the Bengals was a coin flip, even for Joe. He threw a horrible pass in the end zone to the Cinci defense late in the game while trailing and the DB dropped it. With Manning and Marino's luck that ball by them would have been intercepted.

And I can't see Joe taking any of Dan's Dolphins teams to the Superbowl. Jow would have won wit hthe 06 Colts, but not 09, and no way does Joe win last night's game. No pocket passer could have beaten the Seahawks last night.

It might be because I LOVED watching Montana play, but I just put Montana there. He changed the position. Before him, the league was run first. After him, the league became a passing league. The rest of those guys were gunslingers in a running era. But Montana was a thrower in a running era, but during his time offenses started to copy his offense. In the late 70's when Montana was drafted, you could win without a passing QB, see the Steelers. After Montana in the early 90's, you need a true QB to win. Or a historically great defense. But the winning QB is way more than likely to be a franchise QB. Montana started that. That's why I put him #1. It's hard to compare eras as I said. But it's not hard to see Montana, Walsh and the Niners changed the game.

I think you are giving Joe way too much credit for that offense. Walsh invented it and ran it well in Cinci. Ken Anderson ran it fantastically in Cinci to huge success, numbers and MVP. He lost to Walsh and Montana in the SB but I can't imagine Cinci losing that game if Walsh was given the Cinci job, and I also can't imagine Joe being in that game at all. Montana probably gets drafted by Cinci and doesn't become a starter until 85 or 86. Then he probably wins two rings, maybe a third if he stays healthy. But around that same time Erhart-Perkins was coming out, and Coryell.

The real reason isn't genius innovations, but rather rulre changes, and in my opinion this all stemmd from the racist NFL's desire to promote the white athlete. In the old days of football the running back was the star and most of the running backs were white. And the rules were set up where DBs could get away with anything. By the time the 70s hit almost every great RB playing was black and the NFL changed it so the pass game could be opened up. They started to limit what DBs could do to WRs and you saw instantly what it did to QB numbers. Once the new rules were established OCs started to develop new ways of creating pass routes. Timing routes were useless in the 50s because you could jam up a WR during the whore play, anywhere in the field, but once the 5 yard rule came in everything changed.

I don't think I've ever seen an argument come from him that didn't involve completely changing history. By people changing teams and teammates and the opponents abilities and switching coaches.

You like create an alternate universe, play the games out in your mind and then formulate an opinion lol.

I agree with Cham. In fact, before I read your response I was about to say, the bottom line is Montana was the QB in that offense and won 4 Super Bowls and it was his face that changed the game. Also, the rule changes happened later in his career. But what's the difference of rule changes in eras when it the game changes more rapidly than any other game in professional sports. If Brady played in the 60's, he'd be the GOAT, if Graham played today, he'd be Matt McGloin. You can't change history and say, if this guy was here, then he'd win... blah, blah, blah. If Joe Louis fought Wladimir Klitschko, he'd get KILLED. All this fantasy shit is bullshit. Greatest means, was this person great, in his time did this person stand to the best competition of his time and win. Otto Graham won, Johnny Unitas won, Joe Montana won, John Elway became the greatest scrambling QB, and Bart Starr won. When it comes to greatness, can you win? So after that, did you change the game? When you enter the game, did it change because you were there. And that's Joe Montana. You can argue Bill Walsh all you want, but Walsh NEVER won outside of San Francisco. He never lead an offense to the Super Bowl as an OC, or a college team to the National title, or an undefeated season. Walsh only won with Joe Montana. It was a great offense, but it took the right QB at the right place to win, and Montana was that QB.

[Shallow]

I agree with Cham. In fact, before I read your response I was about to say, the bottom line is Montana was the QB in that offense and won 4 Super Bowls and it was his face that changed the game. Also, the rule changes happened later in his career. But what's the difference of rule changes in eras when it the game changes more rapidly than any other game in professional sports. If Brady played in the 60's, he'd be the GOAT, if Graham played today, he'd be Matt McGloin. You can't change history and say, if this guy was here, then he'd win... blah, blah, blah. If Joe Louis fought Wladimir Klitschko, he'd get KILLED. All this fantasy shit is bullshit. Greatest means, was this person great, in his time did this person stand to the best competition of his time and win. Otto Graham won, Johnny Unitas won, Joe Montana won, John Elway became the greatest scrambling QB, and Bart Starr won. When it comes to greatness, can you win? So after that, did you change the game? When you enter the game, did it change because you were there. And that's Joe Montana. You can argue Bill Walsh all you want, but Walsh NEVER won outside of San Francisco. He never lead an offense to the Super Bowl as an OC, or a college team to the National title, or an undefeated season. Walsh only won with Joe Montana. It was a great offense, but it took the right QB at the right place to win, and Montana was that QB.

You're ignoring key facts and lumping them in with my theories of what ifs. Ken Anderson learned the system before Montana and won and MVP with it. The first set of rule changes were in the late 70s. You can look at Terry Bradshaw's Superbowl numbers from the first two and compare them to the second two to see how they improved QBs. All this was before Montana ever won a ring.

Walsh took Stanford to two Bowl games and won both, and you're fucking retarded if you think Stanford could ever be in the running for a National Title game. And he only ever coached in the NFL with Joe Montana. It's not like he has a track record of losing in the NFL without Joe.

[M Dogg™]

I agree with Cham. In fact, before I read your response I was about to say, the bottom line is Montana was the QB in that offense and won 4 Super Bowls and it was his face that changed the game. Also, the rule changes happened later in his career. But what's the difference of rule changes in eras when it the game changes more rapidly than any other game in professional sports. If Brady played in the 60's, he'd be the GOAT, if Graham played today, he'd be Matt McGloin. You can't change history and say, if this guy was here, then he'd win... blah, blah, blah. If Joe Louis fought Wladimir Klitschko, he'd get KILLED. All this fantasy shit is bullshit. Greatest means, was this person great, in his time did this person stand to the best competition of his time and win. Otto Graham won, Johnny Unitas won, Joe Montana won, John Elway became the greatest scrambling QB, and Bart Starr won. When it comes to greatness, can you win? So after that, did you change the game? When you enter the game, did it change because you were there. And that's Joe Montana. You can argue Bill Walsh all you want, but Walsh NEVER won outside of San Francisco. He never lead an offense to the Super Bowl as an OC, or a college team to the National title, or an undefeated season. Walsh only won with Joe Montana. It was a great offense, but it took the right QB at the right place to win, and Montana was that QB.

You're ignoring key facts and lumping them in with my theories of what ifs. Ken Anderson learned the system before Montana and won and MVP with it. The first set of rule changes were in the late 70s. You can look at Terry Bradshaw's Superbowl numbers from the first two and compare them to the second two to see how they improved QBs. All this was before Montana ever won a ring.

Walsh took Stanford to two Bowl games and won both, and you're fucking retarded if you think Stanford could ever be in the running for a National Title game. And he only ever coached in the NFL with Joe Montana. It's not like he has a track record of losing in the NFL without Joe.

You are ignoring some key facts. Ken Anderson never won a Super Bowl in that system. Bradshaw was a product of the Steel Curtain and he's number are laughable compare to Joe Montana.

And Stanford was 9-3 and 8-4. In college football, Walsh looked good in the Pac-8, but he was not ready to coach against the bigger coaches nationally. If Walsh's system was so great, he's teams go 12-0 and we are looking at Stanford in the top 10 in the polls. Now, did Joe Montana help Notre Dame win a National Title? The defense rest!

[Shallow]

I agree with Cham. In fact, before I read your response I was about to say, the bottom line is Montana was the QB in that offense and won 4 Super Bowls and it was his face that changed the game. Also, the rule changes happened later in his career. But what's the difference of rule changes in eras when it the game changes more rapidly than any other game in professional sports. If Brady played in the 60's, he'd be the GOAT, if Graham played today, he'd be Matt McGloin. You can't change history and say, if this guy was here, then he'd win... blah, blah, blah. If Joe Louis fought Wladimir Klitschko, he'd get KILLED. All this fantasy shit is bullshit. Greatest means, was this person great, in his time did this person stand to the best competition of his time and win. Otto Graham won, Johnny Unitas won, Joe Montana won, John Elway became the greatest scrambling QB, and Bart Starr won. When it comes to greatness, can you win? So after that, did you change the game? When you enter the game, did it change because you were there. And that's Joe Montana. You can argue Bill Walsh all you want, but Walsh NEVER won outside of San Francisco. He never lead an offense to the Super Bowl as an OC, or a college team to the National title, or an undefeated season. Walsh only won with Joe Montana. It was a great offense, but it took the right QB at the right place to win, and Montana was that QB.

You're ignoring key facts and lumping them in with my theories of what ifs. Ken Anderson learned the system before Montana and won and MVP with it. The first set of rule changes were in the late 70s. You can look at Terry Bradshaw's Superbowl numbers from the first two and compare them to the second two to see how they improved QBs. All this was before Montana ever won a ring.

Walsh took Stanford to two Bowl games and won both, and you're fucking retarded if you think Stanford could ever be in the running for a National Title game. And he only ever coached in the NFL with Joe Montana. It's not like he has a track record of losing in the NFL without Joe.

You are ignoring some key facts. Ken Anderson never won a Super Bowl in that system. Bradshaw was a product of the Steel Curtain and he's number are laughable compare to Joe Montana.

And Stanford was 9-3 and 8-4. In college football, Walsh looked good in the Pac-8, but he was not ready to coach against the bigger coaches nationally. If Walsh's system was so great, he's teams go 12-0 and we are looking at Stanford in the top 10 in the polls. Now, did Joe Montana help Notre Dame win a National Title? The defense rest!

Part of me wants to this this be because I think you're just trolling me and I don't think you're as fucking retarded as Cham.

All I said was that Ken Anderson didn't do nothing; big numbers with West Coast, and MVP and a Superbowl appearance in the same year, but in truth to think the the big game QB didn't exist until Montana is just outright false. Johnny Unitas in the late 50s was a pass first offense and a two minute drill that won the championship in OT.

And if you understand why a team like Stanford never stood a chance against the major teams in college, especially in the 70s then you simply have no grasp of what college ball. But I'll explain it to you. In the NFL the same set of the very elite compete for jobs on the same 24 to 32 teams. In college the best high school kids in the country go to the major schools first and then trickle down to the secondary sports schools. It's ridiculous to think a team like Stanford even today can compete against Alabama. It's a different calibre of players across the board.

And as for who has laughable numbers compared to who. I'll simply post the stats of both Montana's first Superbowl and Bradshaw's first Superbowl after the rule changes. I'll let you do the laughing, and you can tell me whose numbers were what by looking at the stats;

One guy was 17 for 30 for 318 yards 4 TDS and a 119.2 passer rating. The other guy was 14 for 22 for 157 yards, 1 TD, and a 100 passer rating. I'm not sure where the laughing starts but feel free.

[M Dogg™]

First off, I said first big time franchise QB, not big game QB. But Montana was no stiff in the big games either. Let's just compare somethings between Montana and Elway, since everyone has Elway on their list and he actually played next to Joe Montana. It's a more far comparison.

If you take these players and make their careers even, since Elway did play longer than Montana. Montana did start his career in the rougher years of the NFL, and suffered a few injuries that cut his career short. Elway has more career years and more career TD's than Montana. BUT, if you take their stats and divide by the seasons they played and get a 16 game average stat, here is what you get.

Montana: 501 attempts, 317 completions, 63% completion, 3,772 yards, 25 touchdowns, 13 interceptions, a 92.3 quarterback rating and 11.4 wins.
Elway: 502 attempts, 286 completions, 57% completion, 3,565 yards, 21 touchdowns, 16 interceptions, a 79.9 quarterback rating and 10.3 wins.

Now lets do playoffs.

Montana: 23 games, 734 attempts, 460 completions, 62.7% completion, 5,772 yards, 45 touchdowns, 21 interceptions, a 95.6 quarterback rating and a 16-7 record.
Elway: 22 games, 651 attempts, 355 completions, 54.5% completion, 4,964 yards, 27 touchdowns, 21 interceptions, a 79.7 quarterback rating and a 14-8 record.

So in his own era, Montana was not only better than the next closest person, he was head and shoulders better.

Bottomline, Montana led the first ever pass first offense, Montana had the best stats of his generation not named Dan Marino, but Marino is not in the conversation because he could never lead his teams to win the Super Bowl. Montana led 31 4th quarter comebacks, for the highest average per season. Montana had a season in which he completed 70% of his passes! Before Montana in 1978, you won by running the ball and defense. After Montana in the late-80's, you had to get a QB who can throw, make decisions and build around them. He changed the game. That's why I put him #1.

[Chamillitary Click]

Lol @ being retarded because I base my opinions off fact and what takes place in real life and don't say "Wow, you're right...if Brady played the Super Bowl on Mars vs. the Space Jam Martians he wouldn't have ever won because the lack of oxygen would prevent him from breathing."

[Shallow]

First off, I said first big time franchise QB, not big game QB. But Montana was no stiff in the big games either. Let's just compare somethings between Montana and Elway, since everyone has Elway on their list and he actually played next to Joe Montana. It's a more far comparison.

If you take these players and make their careers even, since Elway did play longer than Montana. Montana did start his career in the rougher years of the NFL, and suffered a few injuries that cut his career short. Elway has more career years and more career TD's than Montana. BUT, if you take their stats and divide by the seasons they played and get a 16 game average stat, here is what you get.

Montana: 501 attempts, 317 completions, 63% completion, 3,772 yards, 25 touchdowns, 13 interceptions, a 92.3 quarterback rating and 11.4 wins.
Elway: 502 attempts, 286 completions, 57% completion, 3,565 yards, 21 touchdowns, 16 interceptions, a 79.9 quarterback rating and 10.3 wins.

Now lets do playoffs.

Montana: 23 games, 734 attempts, 460 completions, 62.7% completion, 5,772 yards, 45 touchdowns, 21 interceptions, a 95.6 quarterback rating and a 16-7 record.
Elway: 22 games, 651 attempts, 355 completions, 54.5% completion, 4,964 yards, 27 touchdowns, 21 interceptions, a 79.7 quarterback rating and a 14-8 record.

So in his own era, Montana was not only better than the next closest person, he was head and shoulders better.

Bottomline, Montana led the first ever pass first offense, Montana had the best stats of his generation not named Dan Marino, but Marino is not in the conversation because he could never lead his teams to win the Super Bowl. Montana led 31 4th quarter comebacks, for the highest average per season. Montana had a season in which he completed 70% of his passes! Before Montana in 1978, you won by running the ball and defense. After Montana in the late-80's, you had to get a QB who can throw, make decisions and build around them. He changed the game. That's why I put him #1.

You completely ignored my stats about Bradshaw. And glossed them over. If you look at Bradshaw after the rule changes you see huge jumps in his numbers and they are right neck adn neck with Montana's in the years they played at the same time. And if you see Fouts's numbers they blow Montana's out of the water. And who brought up Elway and why are you comparing him all of a sudden. Teams spent #1 draft picks on QBs looking for big time passers  way before Montana. That first year Montana won a ring, Dan Fouts had 1400 more yards and 14 more TDs than Montana. The pass first offense goes back many years my friend. The start of the AFL in particular was what made the big time passing QB a famous entity. Joe Namath was a mega star when drafted, and he put of 4000 yards in 14 games in the 60s.

You're plain and simple dead wrong on this. I mean Roger Staubach was a gunslinging superman. They called him Captain America for crying out loud. The 8 years before Montana was on the Niners there were 3 QBs selected #1 in the draft. The 8 years during Montana in SF there were 3 QBs selected #1 and the 8 years after Montana left SF there were 3 QBs selected #1.

But feel free to ignore the plain and simple truth and skew whatever you want however you want.

I'll leave us with a quote by Bill Walsh:

“Joe Montana was a product of the system.  Dan Marino was a system.”


But hey, and I'm sure Cham agrees, current NFL players and Skip Bayless no more about QBs than Bill Walsh does.

[Chamillitary Click]

I'll leave us with a quote by Bill Walsh:

“Joe Montana was a product of the system.  Dan Marino was a system.”

That's a cute quote...but I'll take the rings, the achievements, the leadership & the success.

Hence Montana > Marino.

Brady > Manning.

[Shallow]

I'll leave us with a quote by Bill Walsh:

“Joe Montana was a product of the system.  Dan Marino was a system.”

That's a cute quote...but I'll take the rings, the achievements, the leadership & the success.

Hence Montana > Marino.

Brady > Manning.

The rings, the achievements, the leadership & the success? Bill Walsh has all those things too, and his opinion is the same as mine. Go figure. Don't you wonder why the guys own coach says that Marino was better? Is it something personal, or does he really think it, and if he does, doesn't it say something about how important the QB is to the team compared to how important the team is to the QB.

My opinion's been the same for years. A great team can win a ring with out a great QB. A great QB cannot win a a ring with out a great team. Many think its the great QB that makes the team great. I seem to think that more often than not it's the great team that makes the QB great. And I've seen too many "great" QBs look horrible on bad teams and incredible on great teams to ever change my mind.

[Chamillitary Click]

He didn't say Marino was better in that quote. He said Marino was "Peyton Manning" & Montana was "Tom Brady".

& Brady is better than Peyton...so my opinion (and everyone else's) remains the same.

[Shallow]

He didn't say Marino was better in that quote. He said Marino was "Peyton Manning" & Montana was "Tom Brady".

& Brady is better than Peyton...so my opinion (and everyone else's) remains the same.

You really need to go back to high school, and like, graduate. I mean you have no concept of the english language. Which isn't a shocker, because you have no concept of Football either. You called the 07 Pats D terrible and now you think that quote means anything other than Marino was better. The product of a system implies he wouldn't be great without it. Juxtaposing that by calling the other player a system all to himself implies no matter where he played or with what team he would still be great. He's saying Joe could never have done these things without me (me as in him Bill Walsh), and Dan could have been great anywhere.

And even before seeing this quote I used to say if Montana was on the Bucs he'd look worse than Steve Young looked on the Bucs.

[Chamillitary Click]

But he played great in the system...and actually won. Like more than anyone else. That actually happened. Those events actually took place in the world we...or at least I...live in. He was more productive in the system than Marino was trying to put the team on his back...more successful....BETTER. What in God's green Earth don't you understand about that?

AND DONT YOU DARE RESPOND WITH IMAGINARY, FANTASY ROSTERS THAT DIDNT EXIST IN THIS SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM.

I do find it funny that you get way more personal than you used too. Manning finally having everything you've cried for years he lacked and STILL get his ass annihilated in the biggest game of his career has destroyed your equilibrium in life.