Brady, P.Manning or Roethlisberger?

[snepp]

Re: Brady, P.Manning or Roethlisberger?

You're the one that started it, couldn't back any of it up with any kind of reasonable rationale, and now you're telling everyone else to stop?

[lonewolf371]

Re: Brady, P.Manning or Roethlisberger?

again all valid points however i disagree.

but i will agree AR is a beast, and it was fun watching his great QB play in the playoffs this year.

i hate pundit logic of a great playoff year makes you one of greatest/best/HOF

forget top 5 how even be compared to a guy like brees at this point of his young career

I'm guilty of this to some extent. I think it's made a lot of other QBs top QBs, like maybe you start considering Eli as a top ten after he wins, and maybe Roethlisberger is a top 5 after he wins two. But those guys never provided regular season performance to make any of that definitive.

The difference with Rodgers is that his stats have been on the same level as Manning and Brees the last few years. He hasn't been on the same level as Brady in stats if you count Brady's last three healthy seasons, but he has the championship that Brady doesn't. So, if your stats are elite for a lengthy time period and you just won the Super Bowl, really it's pretty ignorant to say a guy isn't even in consideration for being top QB in the league. Earlier I just said that Rodgers should be in the thread title. I'm not going to necessarily proclaim him #1, but he should be in the discussion. If we're talking careers, he obviously loses.

Also, while it's crazy to proclaim some of these guys too early, it's also a little crazy to put guys that have had past success on some sort of pedestal such that they can't be surpassed by a younger generation of players with similar levels of performance.

[jeremym480]

Re: Brady, P.Manning or Roethlisberger?

I'm guilty of this to some extent. I think it's made a lot of other QBs top QBs, like maybe you start considering Eli as a top ten after he wins, and maybe Roethlisberger is a top 5 after he wins two. But those guys never provided regular season performance to make any of that definitive.

The difference with Rodgers is that his stats have been on the same level as Manning and Brees the last few years. He hasn't been on the same level as Brady in stats if you count Brady's last three healthy seasons, but he has the championship that Brady doesn't. So, if your stats are elite for a lengthy time period and you just won the Super Bowl, really it's pretty ignorant to say a guy isn't even in consideration for being top QB in the league. Earlier I just said that Rodgers should be in the thread title. I'm not going to necessarily proclaim him #1, but he should be in the discussion. If we're talking careers, he obviously loses.

Also, while it's crazy to proclaim some of these guys too early, it's also a little crazy to put guys that have had past success on some sort of pedestal such that they can't be surpassed by a younger generation of players with similar levels of performance.

Well said. I'm not saying the Rodgers is better than Manning, Brady, Big, Ben, Brees, etc. but, IMO he's definitely up there wit those guys. Like I said a few weeks ago, there isn't a single QB in the league that I would trade for him. Especially, when you consider his age, mobility and his ability to take care of the football. The sky is the limit with this guy.

[z Revis]

Re: Brady, P.Manning or Roethlisberger?

Also, while it's crazy to proclaim some of these guys too early, it's also a little crazy to put guys that have had past success on some sort of pedestal such that they can't be surpassed by a younger generation of players with similar levels of performance.

I have no problem with it. Manning and Brady have earned that pedestal and are still playing at a high level. We're talking about two HOF's. Two guys who are arguably both top 5 QB's of all time. And both of them are still playing at a high level. The last 4 MVP's have been awarded to them and each have played in a Super Bowl in that span. I'm not putting a player who has played 3 seasons above them(granted, an amazing 3 seasons, but it's not like it's out of this world better than what Manning & Brady have done).

[bill2451]

Re: Brady, P.Manning or Roethlisberger?

I still dont get why Ben is even in the discussion. Yes, I admit he is capable of coming up with big plays at times and can get creative out there to keep a play alive. HOWEVER, that does not change the fact that his game is severely lacking when compared to truly elite QB's.

Championships does not a QB make. If you put Manning or Brady, or Brees, etc on the Steelers, they are going to be a dirty dirty disgustingly good team. I would love to see what Manning could do on a real team, just once. But he has never had players around him that were remotely close to as good as the Steelers or Pats teams put around Ben and Brady.

The only reason Ben is even in the discussion for some people is because of this magical "clutch" ability he has. But even if we pretend that clutch does exist, even that can be very misleading and is the result of other players on the team 99% of the time. Let's not forget Manning lead the Colts on the game winning drive against the Jets in the playoffs, only to have his special teams/defense completely fall apart in the final 45 seconds. A QB can only do so much, and if the rest of your team is completely inept, you could be the greatest player in the world and your team will still struggle.

[lonewolf371]

Re: Brady, P.Manning or Roethlisberger?

I have no problem with it. Manning and Brady have earned that pedestal and are still playing at a high level. We're talking about two HOF's. Two guys who are arguably both top 5 QB's of all time. And both of them are still playing at a high level. The last 4 MVP's have been awarded to them and each have played in a Super Bowl in that span. I'm not putting a player who has played 3 seasons above them(granted, an amazing 3 seasons, but it's not like it's out of this world better than what Manning & Brady have done).

What are we arguing about? If we're arguing about careers, I agree with you. If we're arguing about present playing ability, you don't make any sense at all. Brett Favre won a Super Bowl and has 2 MVPs, does that mean that Brady and Manning can't be compared to than Favre right now because neither one has proved they can play for more than 12 seasons? Does that mean we weren't allowed to compare Manning to Favre in 2003-2004 because he hadn't played long enough or hadn't won two MVPs of his own, yet? If that sounds ridiculous to you, that's what your point about Rodgers sounds like to me. 3 seasons is enough.

I still dont get why Ben is even in the discussion. Yes, I admit he is capable of coming up with big plays at times and can get creative out there to keep a play alive. HOWEVER, that does not change the fact that his game is severely lacking when compared to truly elite QB's.

Championships does not a QB make. If you put Manning or Brady, or Brees, etc on the Steelers, they are going to be a dirty dirty disgustingly good team. I would love to see what Manning could do on a real team, just once. But he has never had players around him that were remotely close to as good as the Steelers or Pats teams put around Ben and Brady.

The only reason Ben is even in the discussion for some people is because of this magical "clutch" ability he has. But even if we pretend that clutch does exist, even that can be very misleading and is the result of other players on the team 99% of the time. Let's not forget Manning lead the Colts on the game winning drive against the Jets in the playoffs, only to have his special teams/defense completely fall apart in the final 45 seconds. A QB can only do so much, and if the rest of your team is completely inept, you could be the greatest player in the world and your team will still struggle.

The Steelers have already won two Super Bowls and played in three since Ben's been there. That's quite a bit of success, are you saying that Ben has held the Steelers back? Should they have won six championships?

[z Revis]

Re: Brady, P.Manning or Roethlisberger?

What are we arguing about? If we're arguing about careers, I agree with you. If we're arguing about present playing ability, you don't make any sense at all. Brett Favre won a Super Bowl and has 2 MVPs, does that mean that Brady and Manning aren't better than Favre right now because neither one has proved they can play for more than 12 seasons? Does that mean we weren't allowed to say Manning was better than Favre in 2003-2004 because he hadn't played long enough or hadn't won two MVPs of his own, yet? If that sounds ridiculous to you, that's what your point about Rodgers sounds like to me. 3 seasons is enough.

It goes hand in hand for me. Their careers and their play at this current time. Manning and Brady have cemented themselves at 1 and 2 or 1a 1b until I see decline in their play. If one of them comes back next year and has an average season and starts showing clear signs of age/declination in play, I'd have no problem with putting Rodgers, or whoever, above them. But as of now, they're two HOF's who are still playing playing at an elite level.

[tripwire]

Re: Brady, P.Manning or Roethlisberger?

That great D that Ben plays behind argument is a tad overblown. That's the same D that gave up a 20-7 lead against Arizona in the SB 2 years ago, with Ben and Holmes having to bail them out on a last minute drive. It's also the same D that got bent over last night when the game was well within reach. We Steeler fans have witnessed time and time again the team relying on a Ben-lead last minute drive to win it when the D couldn't hold a lead. Their secondary is a farce without pressure on the QB, and have been exposed by Brady countless times, Rogers twice, and Brees.

The D and Ben go hand-in-hand. One doesn't succeed without the other, but it just so happens that Ben seems to be the one relied upon to pull a game out in the last minute more often that not, as was the case yet again last night. That fact cannot be denied.

[z Revis]

Re: Brady, P.Manning or Roethlisberger?

Actually the defense did their part to save the game in the end, holding GB to 3. Big Ben didn't come through though. Turnovers were also a part which gave GB some good field position. Plus the pick 6, so really they only gave up 24 points.

I agree with you though. Without pressure, that secondary gets exposed, particularly against teams that spread it out which is why I thought the NE comparison was a good one(both GB and NE play similar styles of offense which always seem to give the Steelers fits).

Still one of the best defenses in the league and has been for awhile. I'd take it over the Colts pathetic defense everyday of the week.

[CW McGraw]

Re: Brady, P.Manning or Roethlisberger?

That great D that Ben plays behind argument is a tad overblown. That's the same D that gave up a 20-7 lead against Arizona in the SB 2 years ago, with Ben and Holmes having to bail them out on a last minute drive. It's also the same D that got bent over last night when the game was well within reach. We Steeler fans have witnessed time and time again the team relying on a Ben-lead last minute drive to win it when the D couldn't hold a lead. Their secondary is a farce without pressure on the QB, and have been exposed by Brady countless times, Rogers twice, and Brees.

The D and Ben go hand-in-hand. One doesn't succeed without the other, but it just so happens that Ben seems to be the one relied upon to pull a game out in the last minute more often that not, as was the case yet again last night. That fact cannot be denied.

The Steelers defense only gave up 24 points, most of those coming off of turnovers from the offense. The Steelers didn't play their traditionally dominant brand of defense, but you can't really fault the defense for allowing as many points as they did considering how sloppy the offense played. Even against the better defenses in the league, Aaron Rodgers isn't the sort of guy who will throw many interceptions, so you're probably not gonna create turnovers against the Packers. Winning the turnover battle tends to win you the game, so the Steelers had to play a mistake free game on offense. This game definitely falls more on the shoulders of the Steelers offense than on their defense. You can't turn the ball over three times and expect to win.

[tripwire]

Re: Brady, P.Manning or Roethlisberger?

You win and lose as a team most of the times, and last night was no exception. Coaches, Ben, Mendy, Special Teams, and the Defense all played their part in the loss.

None of them are excuses, because at the end of the day, GB were better and far more deserving. You fail to mention the drops by Jones, Nelson and company, because that game would have been much uglier for the Steeler D. That Jones drop was an easy 6.

That D fails miserably when it faces those passers i listed. Always have, and always will until either LeBeau adjusts or they draft blanket corners, or both.

[bill2451]

Re: Brady, P.Manning or Roethlisberger?

You win and lose as a team most of the times

and therein lies the point the "anti ben" posters are making... Just because he has 2 rings, does not make him superior to QB's with less rings. You say it yourself, you win and lose as a team. And the fact of the matter is, Ben has been blessed to be on some damn fine teams (and far superior to any teams someone like Manning has ever been on)

[z Revis]

Re: Brady, P.Manning or Roethlisberger?

(and far superior to any teams someone like Manning has ever been on)

I wouldn't go that far.

[wwharton]

Re: Brady, P.Manning or Roethlisberger?

What up Wharton, great points. I would add that you don't have to guestimate it, you base it on frequency and or circumstance. When the moment is presented to any given player to decide a contest what have they done? Brady is known for 3 SB wins by taking his team down the final drive for SB game winning fg's, clutch. Vinitiari is known for making 3 SB game winning fg's, plus one in driving snow, clutch. Ben is known for driving his team down for the last drive of the game making great escape after great escape to win a SB, clutch. Ben has also made throws on what 3 and 19 to seal victories in the playoffs to close games out. Peyton, miraculous comeback in the playoffs against the Pats, clutch, many last minute drives in the regular season.

Part of any clutch discussions is the ability or fortune of the player to be placed in the situation, Jordan is known for being clutch because when placed in game winning situations he hit the shot enough to warrant the recognition. Are we then to question what Drexler might have done if placed in the same situation? no. All that is required is that the person discussed was placed in the situation/moment and performed.

Clutch is like obscenity, you can't define it but you know it when you see it.

In these type of arguments you CAN'T guestimate OR go based only on performance unless you can cancel out certain variables which is impossible. If a player is given more opportunities then we have more to base our opinion on. Evaluating Ben BY HIMSELF, he's got enough to say he's clutch. Comparing him or anyone to others just isn't that easy. As I mentioned before, it's not fair to say Manning isn't clutch without considering missed fgs of drives he put them in range, or defenses giving up scores in a timeframe that most other defenses would be able to maintain a lead. In the same sense we can't decide that players that have never been in the situation are any less clutch just bc their team hasn't been good enough to give the same number of opportunities.

When comparing players we have to look at the entire body of work, INCLUDING what they did with opportunities to prove they were clutch... and the only real way of looking at those cases is to look at what the rest of the team did also. There are people calling for Flacco's head after the last Ravens/Steelers game. Is it bc of the INT he threw in the 3rd qtr (could be an example of folding under pressure)? No, it's more people ignoring the TD drop by Boldin and 1st down drop by Housh late in the "clutch" portion of the game. Another example is yesterday's game. Ben had a chance to add to his "clutch" resume, but only bc the Steelers D hung tough after being down 21-3 due more bc of turnovers than their bad play. If they were an average D, after 3 turnovers (one returned for a TD) the game probably would've been a blow out bc the passing game wasn't doing much until later in the game and they wouldn't have been able to stick to the run as much.

There's so much that needs to be considered. Clutch DEFINITELY exists, and I'd have to question whether anyone has played organized sports who doesn't understand the feeling that challenges your "clutch-ness". It just can't really be used to compare players unless we're talking extremes (and the guys we're talking about here are all on the higher end).

Yeah, he was a bad player, or not as good as other pro wr's (don't want to ever call a guy a bad player). Good or bad, we can agree that he made a clutch play, the point is if he continously made plays like that even when his statline is bad, he would be known as a clutch player, for example. If he were to have played in 3 playoff games and in those games had 1 catch per game but each one of those catches came in the 4th qtr, was for 30yrds on 3rd or 4th down, within the final two minutes that help decide the game, you would say "that guy is clutch!"

What Ben does is equavilent to that. He might not have the best stats from game to game, qtr to qtr, but when the game is on the line he has done the incredible, consistently.

"In the moment" is the only thing that matters if it contributes to winning the game. If I throw 4 int's in the first half, and 2 in the 3rd qtr, yet I throw to td's on 4th down in the final 3min of the game, and my team wins, which matters more? My overall game play, or the plays I made when the moment/pressure, presented itself?

Based on my previous reply, I just wanted to add that when making predictions we'd have to also assume that Ben will be in a clutch situation to compare him to the likes of Brady and Manning imo. If the question is which would you pick in a tight game late in the 4th qtr then I think he belongs in the conversation. Going into a brand new game, based on his consistency across all 4 qtrs and not knowing how effective the D will be, I have to go with the players that put up more consistent stats throughout the game AND have proven clutch when the time comes. I think there's a large gap between Ben and Brady/Manning in these situations.

But again, I don't know why that makes people so defensive. Brady/Manning may go down as 1a and 1b in HISTORY. Ben still has a chance to prove he belongs in that type of Elite group but it's not really a knock to say I don't think Ben deserves to be mentioned with the best QBs in NFL history. He deserves credit for all the things he HAS done, but we have to consider all the variables if we're going to compare him to others on that level.

[biglen]

Re: Brady, P.Manning or Roethlisberger?

I don't know about everyone else but, I've never considered Eli a top 5 QB. He's never had a season where he's hasn't thrown double-digit interceptions (well except his rookie year). Also, in his best year his stats are still worse than Rodgers in his worst year. The two aren't even in the same conversation as far as I'm considered.

As far as, no one expecting this... Even the majority of OS had GB winning the Super Bowl this year:
http://www.operationsports.com/forum...ght=super+bowl

Eli Manning is neck and neck with Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer as the worst QB to ever win a SB.