Why Warner is a better QB than P. Manning

[Furd]

Interesting article

[Caveman_Nick]

I am a "believe what I see" kind of guy.

 

I have seen Manning choke it up pretty hard in the playoffs many times. I have seen him nut up in only one season.

 

But then I have to say that in Regular season play he is easily the best QB I can remember watching in my 23 years of fanhood, and I am a Pats fan.

 

It's an interesting discussion. It's tough to argue against Warner being both great and a bit under rated. Manning has had the weight of that franchise squarely on his shoulders for a long time, though, and he has carried it pretty far many times. I'm inclined to forgive many of the playoff letdowns knowing that he did win a championship.

 

In the end I beleive Manning will go down as top 5 all time. I can;t say that I think the same of Warner.

[WaterMan]

His performance against Philly in the NFC title game was classic big-game Warner, the type we've rarely seen out of Manning in the playoffs.

 

[cdrudge]

Define what being a better QB means and you can have your answer. I don't think the postseason alone should define a person's career, just as only the regular season shouldn't either.

 

First, Manning was anointed for his greatness as early as high school and the reputation followed him to the University of Tennessee and into the pros, while Warner followed an unusual path from small college (Northern Iowa) to second-rate pro leagues before injury handed him a shot in the NFL. Warner simply doesn't carry the same perception in the eyes of the pigskin public, even as the Cold, Hard Football Facts demand that he deserves the same Manning-style exaltation.

So Warner gets a bump up because he's the "underdog" or Manning gets knocked down because he's the "anointed one"? Great starting criteria for what makes one QB better or worse then another.

 

Second, when it comes to all-important postseason play, there is no comparison: Warner is better than Manning any which way you want to slice it or dice it.

 

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.

 

You'll notice Warner is better than Manning in almost every single efficiency stat and has actually thrown more postseason TD passes than Manning (23 to 22) -- despite playing in five fewer games.

You can't really argue with cold, hard statatistics. I think it's notable though that Warner only took his team to the post season 4 years while Manning has gone 9 times. Which makes you better, helping to get your team to the post season but having a statistically poor game, or not even making it to the playoffs?

 

1) Warner is much more likely to play well in the postseason.

2) Warner is far less likely to lay an egg in the postseason.

3) Most importantly, Warner's teams are much more likely to win the playoffs.

Are we evaluating which has done better in the playoffs, or which one is better? I'm confused.

 

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

So Warner has only one more win but hasn't even made to the playoffs to lose 5 additional games?

 

So what we have in Warner is a quarterback who's as good statistically as anyone who's ever played the position. He's also a two-time MVP, a Super Bowl champion and a Super Bowl MVP.

I would argue the "as good statistically as anyone". If we are only talking about QB rating, then maybe. The Manning to Warner comparison, when only looking at the "average" stats such as completition percentage, yards/attempt, and rating they are almost identical for their careers. Yet Warner trails far behind in almost of the hard stat categories of TDs, yards, games started, sacks, fumbles lost, etc. The only hard stat that Warner leads Manning is interceptions in which Warner is about 25% better then Manning.

 

Also, Warner being a two-time MVP, SB MVP, and SB Champ doesn't add much to the debate as Manning is a three-time MVP, SB Champ, and SB MVP.

 

For his part, Manning remains the Picasso of Choke Artists and the master of the one-and-done.

Did WaterMan write this article?

 

Manning is no doubt a first ballot Hall of Famer unless somehow it comes out that he has a harem of drunk underage crack addict prostitutes running a dog fighting ring...then he'd make it in on the second ballot. Kurt Warner, his HOF prospects still possibly seem to be up in the air (Stat of the Week section). Whether you agree with King or not, you at least have to think about his argument. And if you even think about his argument, then that sets him below Manning IMHO.

 

Personally, if I was starting a franchine, I wouldn't even hesitate in my choice. Manning by far has been the better, more reliable, more consistent player through his career. Football is a team sport and you win and lose as a team. Yes Manning doesn't have a great post season record, but his record isn't necessarily a reflection of his sole performance, but what the team does as a whole.

[WaterMan]

Are we evaluating which has done better in the playoffs, or which one is better? I'm confused.

 

I believe the writer is talking about stats the entire article. I know it's confusing for some.

[sunysteelfly76]

While Manning may not perform as well as Warner in the playoffs, he has never lost his job as a starting QB.

[cdrudge]

 

I believe the writer is talking about stats the entire article. I know it's confusing for some.

Ok. Simple then. Manning. He's has equal to far better career stats then Warner in all major categories except interceptions and overall playoff record. Manning's the better player. Period.

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

While Manning may not perform as well as Warner in the playoffs, he has never lost his job as a starting QB.

 

+1 enough said

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

#1 is Moon

#1 to watch is Fran

[Bill Swerski]

This guy must have a Fathead of Tom Brady on his bedroom wall.

 

(1) The '99 and '01 Rams were much better defensively than the vast majority of Manning's Colts teams. In other words, Kurt had the luxury of not throwing into double-coverage with his team down by 14 points in the second quarter. That makes quite a difference.

 

(2) The AFC has been overwhelmingly more competitive than the NFC since 1999. It's easy to win playoff games when your first two match-ups are a rather average Falcons team and a so-so Panthers defense. If the Cardinals were in the AFC, I seriously doubt that they would've gotten past the Titans, Ravens, or Steelers this year. I especially can't fathom them beating the Steelers.

 

(3) Warner looked incredibly average in SB 36 when facing the Patriots defense - the same defense that Manning has faced three times in the post-season (and has actually beaten). Warner was awful against another "real" defense - the '99 Bucs. His one TD and 3 picks against them in the '99 NFC Championship Game don't exactly convice me that he's a better playoff QB than Manning. Nor do beating up on crappy NFC defenses like the Saints, Packers, and Vikings in the playoffs. The Eagles appear to be the only good defensive team that Warner has played well against in the post-season.

 

(4) Warner's one SB ring was won by beating a Titans team whose defense ranked 17th in the league.

 

So, this guy's thesis is basically that Warner is a better playoff QB than Manning because he beat up on inferior NFC teams over the course of his career. Wow, that's some awesome analysis. It's amazing what kind of crap passes for serious journalism these days.

[WaterMan]

It's easy to win playoff games when your first two match-ups are a rather average Falcons team and a so-so Panthers defense.

 

Correct Swerski. Warner only had to beat half the division that was called the best in the NFL this season.

[Bill Swerski]

Correct Swerski. Warner only had to beat half the division that was called the best in the NFL this season.

 

They were certainly not the best division in the NFL in December and January. And I'd argue that the AFC East was better by a large margin.

Edited January 22, 2009 by Bill Swerski

[Seahawks21]

The bottom line is that Manning usually freezes up in the big one, unless he is playing Denver. The classic line with Manning is "when things are going good, Peyton will put up 42 on you, but lets see what happens when he gets punched in the face". New England made him wilt like a flower on a pretty consisent basis there for a while, the snow game in particular. Manning was one of the worst QB's that I have ever seen on that day. He was more inaccurate than McNabb. And it was all just Manning pressing. You could see in his body language. He isn't relaxed in those moments. Matt Hasselbeck is the exact same way. On the other hand, Warner comes across as an absolute cold-blooded assassin in the playoffs. I haven't looked at the numbers, just the way things translate on tv. In the playoffs Warner is typically one cool customer, and for the most part, Manning is not. Does that make him a better quarterback? I suppose it would depend on what scale you are using, but in a word, is Warner a better QB than Manning, no.

[Bill Swerski]

On the other hand, Warner comes across as an absolute cold-blooded assassin in the playoffs. I haven't looked at the numbers, just the way things translate on tv. In the playoffs Warner is typically one cool customer, and for the most part, Manning is not

 

Warner looked like a complete turd in the '99 NFC Championship Game and SB 36. Manning has also looked pretty f'n good at times in the playoffs. You might want to stay away from blanket statements.

[WaterMan]

They were certainly not the best division in the NFL in December and January. And I'd argue that the AFC East was better by a large margin.

 

Maybe if the Pats had Brady, but not this season. They are #2 to the NFC when it comes to wins.

[WaterMan]

Warner looked like a complete turd in the '99 NFC Championship Game and SB 36. Manning has also looked pretty f'n good at times in the playoffs. You might want to stay away from blanket statements.

 

I agree yet again. Beating Rex Grossman in the Super Bowl is pretty impressive.

[Bill Swerski]

I agree yet again. Beating Rex Grossman in the Super Bowl is pretty impressive.

 

Rex Grossman plays defense?

[WaterMan]

Rex Grossman plays defense?

 

He plays it secretly for the Colts by not being able to hit a barn with a beachball.

[peteteacher2001]

Hands down, the Greatest Show on Turf was superior to any of Mannings teams that he has ever been on, Superbowl year included. Mike Martz was the SOLE downfall of Warner and that era of St. Louis football.

 

With that said, Mannings consistancy and pocket savy has him over Warner. The story of Kurt Warner is something made for Hollywood. As much as I DON'T wanna root for the Cardinals organization, I will root for Kurt.

 

Finally, both of these guys exemplify what it is to be a role model and class act. Hats off to both of them.

[Randall]

The bottom line is that Manning usually freezes up in the big one, unless he is playing Denver. The classic line with Manning is "when things are going good, Peyton will put up 42 on you, but lets see what happens when he gets punched in the face". New England made him wilt like a flower on a pretty consisent basis there for a while, the snow game in particular. Manning was one of the worst QB's that I have ever seen on that day. He was more inaccurate than McNabb. And it was all just Manning pressing. You could see in his body language. He isn't relaxed in those moments. Matt Hasselbeck is the exact same way. On the other hand, Warner comes across as an absolute cold-blooded assassin in the playoffs. I haven't looked at the numbers, just the way things translate on tv. In the playoffs Warner is typically one cool customer, and for the most part, Manning is not. Does that make him a better quarterback? I suppose it would depend on what scale you are using, but in a word, is Warner a better QB than Manning, no.

 

 

 

Warner must have 3 super bowl titles by now. After all he is a playoff assassin.

[Seahawks21]

Warner looked like a complete turd in the '99 NFC Championship Game and SB 36. Manning has also looked pretty f'n good at times in the playoffs. You might want to stay away from blanket statements.

I prefaced my statement by basicly saying that it would be a blanket statement. I am just speaking in general terms. In general, Peyton Manning locks up in the the face of playoff adversity. In general, Warner does not. I don't think I'm saying anything eye-opening here. I could be wrong. I can't go game by game or moment by moment, it just seems that from what I remember, Peyton kind of struggled and pressed his way through most post-seasons. I don't remember Warner having the same problems. Thats all I'm saying. I'm the farthest thing from a Peyton basher, but I think it is pretty fair to say that he has struggled in the playoffs. I also think it is fair to include these struggles when considering his body of work. If I were to start a franchise, I would go with Manning in a heartbeat. If I were coaching one very important game and needed a QB, I would take Warner over Manning just as quickly.

[peteteacher2001]

Warner looked like a complete turd in the '99 NFC Championship Game and SB 36. Manning has also looked pretty f'n good at times in the playoffs. You might want to stay away from blanket statements.

 

 

Put Manning against the '99 Bucs D and see how the entire offense goes. In SB 36, the Pats got away with pretty much mugging the Rams receivers and even then, took the game to the wire.

[kingfish247]

(1) The '99 and '01 Rams were much better defensively than the vast majority of Manning's Colts teams. In other words, Kurt had the luxury of not throwing into double-coverage with his team down by 14 points in the second quarter. That makes quite a difference.

...

I'm not going to get into this argument. Don't care either way but this is half true leaning on false...

 

Of course the 99 and 01 Rams were better defensively than the majority of Colts' Ds... so? Say Warner stayed with the Rams... they've fielded some pretty awful Ds ever since.

Manning has had a top 11 or better D in pts AND yds 4 times in 11 years (2008, 2007, 2005, 2002).

He's also had, not only one of the greatest HCs ever, but one of the better defensive minded coaches of this era.

 

The 2000 Rams D (sandwiched between those apparently epically good 99 and 01 Rams Ds) were 31st in pts and 23rd in yards. Warner still went 8-3 as a starter, made a Pro Bowl, had his 2nd most accurate year, and his best season based on yds per game. BTW, his replacement went 2-3.

Edited January 22, 2009 by kingfish247

[kingfish247]

Put Manning against the '99 Bucs D and see how the entire offense goes. In SB 36, the Pats got away with pretty much mugging the Rams receivers and even then, took the game to the wire.

*ahem* Dungy *ahem*

[Jrick35]

who cares who is better, both are having HOF careers and both are a lot of fun to watch. Both have their strengths & weaknesses.

 

Arguing which is better is a fruitless endeavor as arguments of this type always come down to personal opinion.

 

Every player at every position plays under a different set of circumstances than every other player who ever played at their postion so comparing the greatness of one to the other can only be subjective at best. Of course arguing about it is half the fun of being a fan but honestly how can a decision on which was better evertruly be made objectively?