Warner > P. Manning?

[King of Town]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/01/21/chff/1.html?eref=T1

There is no kind of rationalization that would make me pick kurt warner over peyton for a game. Manning had the bad luck to play against the patriots every year. The rams had no such road block. Thats almost like saying Phil Simms is better, or Mark Rypien.

 

[Azale]

SI is becoming more of a joke every year

Manning has had about 8 seasons the rough equivalent of Warner's.

 

[Darkness]

Warner is definately not a better QB than Manning in the regular season, but SI does have a point about Warner being better in the postseason.

Warner in the postseason (10 games):
230 of 360 (63.9 percent), 2,991 yards, 8.31 YPA, 299 yards per game, 23 TD, 12 INT, 97.3 passer rating.

Manning in the postseason (15 games):
348 of 565 (61.6 percent), 4,207 yards, 7.4 YPA, 280 yards per game, 22 TD, 17 INT, 84.9 passer rating.

Which clearly shows that Warner is statistically better.


Also interesting

You'll also notice Warner's postseason passer rating (97.3) is higher than his regular-season passer rating (93.8), while Manning's postseason passer rating (84.9) is significantly lower than his regular-season passer rating (94.7).

So Warner plays better in the playoffs than in the regular season, while Manning is exactly the opposite.

And Warner wins more in the playoffs...

Warner's teams are 8-2 in postseason play. Manning's Colts are 7-8 in postseason play.

Level of competition/opposition must off course be taken into account (but it's not like Warner only beat bad teams in the playoffs)...

Perhaps SI should have said: "Warner is a better Postseason QB than Manning."

Which, IMHO, is true.

 

[Azale]

Well, Manning has played more games in the postseason because he has been all around better quarterback It's not like Manning is horrible in the post season.

Warner is better than almost everyone in the post season, I don't see why Manning should be singled out. A better comparison would be Warner and Brady.

 

[mrt144]

Level of competition/opposition must off course be taken into account (but it's not like Warner only beat bad teams in the playoffs)...

Perhaps SI should have said: "Warner is a better Postseason QB than Manning."

Which, IMHO, is true.

In regards to this though, of the times Manning lost in the playoffs how often did the team that beat him fair after beating the Colts?

1998 - Indy does not make playoffs
1999 - Tennessee beats Indy, Loses to St. Louis (Played in Superbowl)
2000 - Miami beats Indy, Baltimore beats Miami
2001 - Indy does not make playoffs
2002 - Jets destory Indy, Oakland beats Jets
2003 - NE beats Indy, Wins Superbowl
2004 - NE beats Indy, Wins Superbowl
2005 - Pit beats Indy, Wins Superbowl
2006 - Indy Wins Superbowl
2007 - San Diego beats Indy, Loses to New England (Played in Superbowl)
2008 - San Diego beats Indy, Loses to Pittsburgh (Playing in Superbowl)

So only twice in the playoffs did the team that beat the Colts not then play in the Superbowl. I think this is worth discussing in regards of whether it is Peyton's fault for losing or not winning when the teams that beat him could arguably just have been better overall teams.

 

[Azale]

Well, no one gives Romo a break for losing last year even though the Giants won the Superbowl.

Also, many did not consider the Jets, NE (first time), Pittsburgh, San Diego, Miami, or Tennessee to be the better team when they beat Indy.

 

[mrt144]

Well, no one gives Romo a break for losing last year even though the Giants won the Superbowl.

Also, many did not consider the Jets, NE (first time), Pittsburgh, San Diego, Miami, or Tennessee to be the better team when they beat Indy.

No one gives Romo a break? I didn't know anyone out of Dallas that gave him a hard time.

 

[Azale]

No one gives Romo a break? I didn't know anyone out of Dallas that gave him a hard time.

Romo is widely known as a choker in the playoffs, and people give him a hard time for everything, from throwing a hail mary INT at the end of the game to going to Cancun.

The Giants winning the Superbowl did nothing to lessen this, in my estimation. Just as Manning didn't lose the choker label even when New England went all the way twice.

 

[mrt144]

Azale, did you watch the Seahawks game where he did, in fact, choke?

 

[Azale]

Azale, did you watch the Seahawks game where he did, in fact, choke?

The ball was slick, he fumbled it after he led the team on a long drive in the rain in Seattle to tie the game.

He definitely choked with the rest of the team at the end of this season, but he didn't choke the two years prior.

This isn't a Romo thread though

 

[jeps]

Better playoff QB rating ≠ Better QB

 

[Kraznaya]

Warner definitely > Eli though

 

[holy king]

Warner definitely > Eli though

a lot of contemporary quarterbacks are better than eli, what's the point?

 

[jeps]

Which of Warner or Peyton do you think deserves to make the HoF?

Personally, I feel that Peyton is a lock, Warner depends on the class, but he is qualified (and should he win the MVP of THIS superbowl, as champion, it'd almost definitely be a lock)

 

[emzie]

I'd rather have Peyton Manning as my QB than Warner.

 

[King of Town]

Which of Warner or Peyton do you think deserves to make the HoF?

Personally, I feel that Peyton is a lock, Warner depends on the class, but he is qualified (and should he win the MVP of THIS superbowl, as champion, it'd almost definitely be a lock)

Wasn't Warner a backup for 2 or 3 years in the middle/late end of his career? Doesn't it seem odd that you can make a case for a player that didn't start for several years because he wasn't the best qb on the team?

 

[Masquerouge]

You'll also notice Warner's postseason passer rating (97.3) is higher than his regular-season passer rating (93.8), while Manning's postseason passer rating (84.9) is significantly lower than his regular-season passer rating (94.7).

So what's the concrete difference between a QB with a rating of 93.8 and another one with a rating of 94.7?

AND

if ratings were everything, would you rather pick a QB with a rating of 93.8, and a postseason rating of 97.3, or a QB with a rating of 94.7, and a postseason rating of 84.9?

Purely based on these stats, I would pick the first one (Warner). He's 99% as good as Manning in the regular season, but 15% better than Manning in postseason.

 

[Azale]

So what's the concrete difference between a QB with a rating of 93.8 and another one with a rating of 94.7?

AND

if ratings were everything, would you rather pick a QB with a rating of 93.8, and a postseason rating of 97.3, or a QB with a rating of 94.7, and a postseason rating of 84.9?

Purely based on these stats, I would pick the first one (Warner). He's 99% as good as Manning in the regular season, but 15% better than Manning in postseason.

While QB rating is a good indication of how a QB is playing, there are things it does not take into account. Romo (sorry for mentioning him again) and other QB's who had lots of turnovers also had astronomical QB ratings. Once you start comparing 4 and 5 percentage points, it means virtually nothing.

I do agree with your general conclusion though, I would take Warner in the postseason

Wasn't Warner a backup for 2 or 3 years in the middle/late end of his career? Doesn't it seem odd that you can make a case for a player that didn't start for several years because he wasn't the best qb on the team?

Warner WAS the best QB on the team. In St. Louis, he was injured and Bulger wasn't. In New York, they had the $50 million dollar Manning boy waiting for Warner's team (not really Warner himself) to falter. In Arizona, the Whiz was smart enough to realize that Warner was leagues ahead of Leinart even though he was the franchise quarterback.

 

[Chieftess]

Better playoff QB rating ≠ Better QB

And that's why they call it a team.

Reminds me of the Ryan/Flacco comparision throughout the season. I liked watching those two rookies, and some could say that Ryan was easily the better quarterback because of his stats. But, Ryan also played teams with a worse record this season (Detroit, St. Louis, Kansas City, Oakland - both beat a top ranked team in their league atleast once -- Panthers and Titans). The Ravens played the top 5 defenses, ran the ball 66% of the time, and didn't even have Flacco groomed as their starter (would've done much better against the Bengals and Browns, even though they did win, had the receivers actually caught some of those passes). And yet, Flacco won one more game than Ryan. (Could've marched the ball up the field if it weren't for that last interception in the playoffs).