Why Warner is a better QB than P. Manning

[Brentastic]

Wow. What a change in TheHuddle membership about Warner. When I suggested months ago that Warner deserves to be in the HOF, the backlash was unbelievable. Now everybody is comparing him to P.Manning (who everybody and there grandma considers a first ballot HOF'er).

 

You guys crack me up sometimes. God I love this place.

If the same people scorned you previously are now backing Warner, I'd say you have a point. But my thinking is that those that lashed out previosly aren't saying anything in this thread. Therefore, different people and your point is muto.

[Deathpig]

As far as the playoffs are concerned, and as you would expect, the defenses faced are typically much better.

 

In Warner's 10 playoff games, going in chronological order, the opposition defenses were ranked (in scoring): 18, 3, 15, 10, 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 4.

 

In Manning's 15 playoff games, going in chronological order, the opposition defenses were ranked (in scoring): 15, 3, 14, 9, 19, 1, 9, 2, 3, 11, 1, 2, 3, 5, 15.

 

(bold= win)

 

 

For Warner, six of his ten games were against top 10 defenses, and four of his ten games were against top 5 defenses. He went 4-2 against top 10, and 4-0 against top 5 defenses. The remaining four games were against defenses outside the top 10, and Warner went 4-0 in those games.

 

For Manning, ten of his fifteen games were against top 10 defenses, and eight of his fifteen games were against top 5 defenses. He went 5-5 against top 10, and 3-5 against top 5 defenses. The remaining five games were against defenses outside the top 10, and Manning went 2-3 in those games.

 

Admittedly, this sample size is ridiculously small, but Warner clearly owned the best defenses he faced (4-0 vs. the top 5). Manning didn't do horrible against top 5 defenses (3-5, against that level of competition, isn't bad), but the 2-3 vs. 'bad' defenses is sketchier to me. More impressive is the '06 run where he beat the 1, 2, and 3 defenses in order to win the title.

 

Manning's certainly faced a higher number of good defenses in the playoffs but that owes to him having more playoff games. The percentages are roughly the same. Warner's opponents in the playoffs have, on the majority, had very good defenses-- it's not like he was playing against horrible teams. Amusingly, the second worst defense Warner faced was the AFC representative in the Super Bowl, and all of his top 5 defenses faced were in the NFC. The AFC may be better overall, but it's not like the NFC is completely devoid of good teams.

 

I rate the 'Manning struggled in the playoffs more because he played in the AFC/played against good defenses' myth... BUSTED.

[tazinib1]

If the same people scorned you previously are now backing Warner, I'd say you have a point. But my thinking is that those that lashed out previosly aren't saying anything in this thread. Therefore, different people and your point is muto.

 

As in Henry Muto?

[Menudo]

Kurt Warner is a hell of a QB.

 

Peyton Manning is THE best QB playing in the league. He will go down as one of if not THE greatest QB's of all-time.

 

Of course, this is just my opinion.

[Bill Swerski]

I rate the 'Manning struggled in the playoffs more because he played in the AFC/played against good defenses' myth... BUSTED.

 

 

MANY factors are at play. This season's Chargers team wasn't very good defensively. But the Colts' inability to run the ball (31st in the league) meant that they couldn't take advantage of it. And that has nothing to do with Manning. You're also quoting overall defensive rankings that cover the regular season. Defensive play in January and February often differs from this significantly.

 

As was stated earlier in this thread, it's really difficult to argue the path to the SB through the NFC has been similarly difficult in the AFC. The AFC has simply had a greater number of SB-caliber teams over the past 7-8 years (the NFC was particularly weak from '03-'06). I'm really interested to see how Warner does against a very tough Steelers defense next Sunday. That will settle much of this debate.

[Azazello1313]

look. kurt warner is playing great right now. he had a helluva season, of course throwing to 2 of the 5 most talented wideouts in the NFL doesn't hurt. they all played like ass late in the season, but they pulled it together and won 3 big games when it counted. kudos to them.

 

warner's also had a very interesting career -- from nobody, to stud, to journeyman, to the super bowl. great story. maybe even a HOF story.

 

but can we please not say he's better than arguably the best QB to ever play the game? this is a guy who was benched for marc bulger, eli manning, matt leinart and, yes, josh mccown.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

look. kurt warner is playing great right now. he had a helluva season, of course throwing to 2 of the 5 most talented wideouts in the NFL doesn't hurt.

and Manning's been throwing to Wayne and an in his prime Harrison forever. Not saying Warner's better than Manning, just sayin'..

[Deathpig]

Oh, I never considered Warner better than Manning in the grand context of 'best QBs of all time'.

 

I was arguing the much more narrow position of 'Warner is better than Manning in the playoffs'. Taking absolutely no regular season games into account, and only looking at postseason games. This type of analysis will always be a bit skewed because of the sample sizes... it's like trying to argue that Chris Chandler is better than Manning because he was a better player in Sunday morning road games in October at north-south facing stadiums with open roofs playing against teams that carried two place kickers on their roster for those games (no, I can't back that up, it's a ridiculous example). Still, with 10 and 15 games to look at, you start to get a bit of a picture. As far as offensive talent I think both guys are equivalent (Holt/Bruce/Faulk/Boldin/Fitz vs. Harrison/Edge/Clark/Wayne/Stokely, both had decent to good offensive lines), and they both played against pretty good defenses in the playoffs.

 

I don't consider postseason success a defensible position for overall greatness, mostly because I honestly consider playoff performance to be a crapshoot... especially in a single elimination playoff system. You can't say Randy Moss or Dan Marino sucks because they didn't win a Super Bowl, for example. At the end of the day, it's a team game... but QB play, more than any other single position/role, has a pretty significant influence on the outcome.

 

Even with that, there is basically no margin for error (just look at the ratio of team success vs. interceptions thrown), and an inch or two can make all the difference in the world. As an example, I recall the Colts almost beat the Titans in '99, but Manning *just* missed an open Harrison on a deep pass that would have given them the lead. At the same time, if Proehl doesn't come down with the touchdown pass in '99 against the Bucs, Warner goes home and we aren't even discussing this. Two very close plays that could have gone either way-- these are normalized out over 16 consecutive regular season games but become of extreme importance when it's 'loser goes home'.

 

And yes, I'm quoting regular season stats. That's all we really have to go on to get a feel for the teams. These don't count injuries to personnel ('06 Colts in particular were a different beast with Sanders back), suspensions (Giants this year were very different with no Plaxico), and whatnot (Eugene Robison). Things obviously change in the playoffs, but I think we can make a case that highly rated regular season teams in categories like scoring and scoring defense should have some small amount of relevance in the playoffs. You end up a top 5 team in those categories for a reason, and that reason isn't because you suck.

 

I find this debate interesting because of all the weird peripheral stuff that gets dragged into it. The general perception of Warner, and the handful of injury-ridden years he had between playoff visits, seems to muddy peoples' appreciation of exactly how good he is once in the playoffs. And similarly, the general perception of Manning, who is probably (I'd haven't researched this extensively) the greatest regular season quarterback to ever play, seems to bias the opinion the other way as it relates to playoff performance.

 

Manning has had a longer, more durable, and more productive career and has gotten his team TO the playoffs with freakish regularity. This is something obvious and completely without ambiguity.

 

However, once the playoffs actually start, and given 1) similar offensive talent, 2) similarly rated defenses to play against, and 3) similar 'up and down' teams to play on (good to horrible defenses/special teams), Warner has done more IN the playoffs. This too is something obvious and completely without ambiguity.

[MTSuper7]

 

MANY factors are at play. This season's Chargers team wasn't very good defensively. But the Colts' inability to run the ball (31st in the league) meant that they couldn't take advantage of it. And that has nothing to do with Manning. You're also quoting overall defensive rankings that cover the regular season. Defensive play in January and February often differs from this significantly.

 

As was stated earlier in this thread, it's really difficult to argue the path to the SB through the NFC has been similarly difficult in the AFC. The AFC has simply had a greater number of SB-caliber teams over the past 7-8 years (the NFC was particularly weak from '03-'06). I'm really interested to see how Warner does against a very tough Steelers defense next Sunday. That will settle much of this debate.

 

I couldn't agree more. New England and Pittsburgh alone have been outstanding defensive teams with good offenses over the last 8+ years (and between them they've won the AFC Championship how many times since the Ravens' SB win?). I look at the NFC, and I just don't see an equivalent. And I don't give a crap what statistical ranking either of those teams' defenses was for the regular season. We're talking about elite teams here. The Eagles are the closest I can think of in the NFC in terms of consistently making NFC Championship games. I don't think we can confuse the Eagles for the Patriots or Steelers in terms of their collective accomplishments over the last 8-9 years.

[Azazello1313]

and Manning's been throwing to Wayne and an in his prime Harrison forever. Not saying Warner's better than Manning, just sayin'..

 

IMO wayne and harrison are very good receivers who I feel have put up some elite numbers because of who their QB is. fitz and boldin (particularly fitz) would still be badass with someone like kyle orton throwing them the ball.

[McBoog]

Warner has shouldered a team that really should not be in the playoffs, no less the SB and is taking them to the show. The fact that he has done this with two teams and being tossed around like a cast-off for years is amazing. Kurt has been the Rodney Dangerfield of NFL QBs. But, he has fprced respect through unbelievable adversity. It is hard to not like the guy!

 

I don't think Manning would have taken the Cardinals to the playoffs. Gut feel (and I have plenty of gut )

 

Both are awesome QBs, both are first ballot. Choose who you want, you can't go wrong with either. I agree with earlier posts that these type of comparisons are mostly pointless.

[LooGie]

I wanna just chime in. I spend alot of time reading the website that originally wrote this article. You really have to know their style to understand the article. As sucky as that is to say, because you should just be able to read an article and "get it", but the author of this article...is just a little off the wall.

 

I'd also like to say that I'm a HUGE fan of both players. Almost equally. I think I'd root for Manning over Warner, but I love Cinderella stories and underdogs, so it could go either way.

 

Having said that, the article (all of their articles) is based on their perception of the stats. They sort of confuse the reader because they put all their eggs in the "playoff basket" and base the greatness of both players on their play off careers, yet dont consider taking your team to the play offs 90% of the time to be very important. I tend to agree with them, and here's why.

 

QB is the most important position on the field, w/o a doubt. However you need many other things to make it to the playoffs consistently. A great coaching staff comes to mind, as well as a running game, and of course a defense that doesn't break. The authors only compare apples to apples, and you can't compare the Indianapolis colts to the Cardinals. You can compare them to Warner's Rams, but if you're a Colts fan, you probably dont want to do that. You certainly can't compare Dungy to other coaches, as he's truly a special dude.

 

So instead the authors compare only those times they did make it, and how the players performed. Warner has better stats in fewer games, and Warner also has that intangible thing in the big spot....you know what I mean. Something special. Manning has a tendency to...leave his intangible thing at the house in those spots. Or maybe it's a Dungy thing. No way of knowing. Maybe we'll find out next season.

 

I believe Peyton is going down as the greatest QB that has ever played the game, and will stay that way for years and years and years to come. However unlike the authors, I'm willing to look at things other than stats. Peyton is an OC in pads on the field. Peyton is a field commander and tough as nails. However you can't just take into account his starting record. You have to consider his tendency to get rattled when there's "protection problems" and Warner's ability to get up play after play of being knocked down. Warner is worth his weight in gold when there's "protection problems"

[Clubfoothead]

I think they are both exceptional. I think Manning is better.

[Roy]

Personnally, I like Warner and his story better ,,,

[Squeegiebo]

Kurt has been the Rodney Dangerfield of NFL QBs. But, he has fprced respect through unbelievable adversity. It is hard to not like the guy!

 

I find it pretty easy to dislike him.

[Robash]

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

 

dude Peytons an a-hole, nuff said

 

proof

[Seahawks21]

I don't think anybody in their right mind could argue the body of work of Peyton Manning. Take the stats out for a second, and just watch the games. I just watched the snow game (03?) again the other day. Peyton simply played that whole game without any confidence. He was just very uncomfortale and awkward from the first snap on. The guy flat out wilted under pressure, and it isn't one of the first times, and it has happened since. Warner doesn't seem to be capable of being short on confidence. Even when he struggled, you knew he thought he would win. I don't get that feeling from Peyton all the time. That is his one and only drawback, and I think it is a major one. The best players make their best plays in the biggest of times. Using that philosophy, it is actually kind of easy to make an argument for Warner in this debate. It isn't as crazy as it sounds. I personally think that Peyton will ultimately defeat these demons and make a few more Super Bowl runs, but if he doesn't, I think Warner goes down as a more clutch quarterback, and would be the guy you would be more likely to win a championship with.

[McBoog]

I find it pretty easy to dislike him.

 

Interesting. Why? Is it the Christian thingy?

[Squeegiebo]

Interesting. Why? Is it the Christian thingy?

 

I wouldn't term it "the Christian thingy," as his (or anyone else's) being a Christian does not in and of itself have any positive or negative impact on my opinion. But his "God-talking" is a factor in the dislike. As it is with Ben, whom I also dislike.

[tonorator]

I wouldn't term it "the Christian thingy," as his (or anyone else's) being a Christian does not in and of itself have any positive or negative impact on my opinion. But his "God-talking" is a factor in the dislike. As it is with Ben, whom I also dislike.

 

 

so you don't have any problem with someone being a christian, it's just the actual expression of their belief that bothers you ...

 

[kingfish247]

What do you mean "so?" Are you saying that a team's defense doesn't affect how its QB plays? Or their chances of winning a playoff game?

So? So, what you're trying to say is that Warner benefited a great deal from a good defense. This goes without saying. For any QB. Ok. So, sandwiched in between those 99 and 01 Rams defenses is a very poor defense. That very poor defense didn't effect Warner's stats much at all. He still went 8-3, he still completed almost 68% of his passes, and he still averaged 311 yards per game. You stated that it is was a "luxury" for Warner not to be playing down by 14 pts. Fair enough. Aside from '99 and '01, where exactly are all these great defenses that Warner has had the "luxury" of playing with?

 

An above-average defense in just 36% of one's time in the NFL doesn't exactly sound like an asset to me.

I'd say that absolutely is an asset. For a QB as great as Manning, does he really even need an above average D anyway? It would help but for an offense like Indy's, you can have a great season and win a Super Bowl with an average D (see e.g. 2006). It would be interesting to look at HOF QBs and the frequency of 'above average' defenses during their careers. My original point as it relates to Warner and Manning is that Manning has had the benefit of more and better defenses AND MORE OVERALL BETTER TEAMS than Warner. Better OLs, better coaches, better management, better defenses, better players, all with more frequency. How is any part of that statement in dispute?

 

The Colts D gave up 41 points to the Jets in the 2002 playoffs. Does that sound like a good defense to you? How about the 2005 squad that gave up a quick 14 points to the Steelers in the first quarter? Or how about the 2007 squad that couldn't pass-rush after Freeney broke his ankle and let Billy f'n Volek march 70 yards downfield in the 4th quarter, right after Peyton put them ahead?

These are isolated examples of better teams beating the Colts. All those defenses were good defenses. Not great defenses but good enough to be better than two thirds of the other defenses in the league those years. You don't finish in the upper third in defense 4 times in 7 years in the NFL on accident.

 

And their defenses have still been overwhelmingly below-average because Polian has historically spent the vast majority of their cap money of offensive talent. You need TALENT in addition to coaching. Not even Belichick could get a good defensive performance out of a crapfest like the Lions defense.

This is not new information. So you need TALENT and coaching? Ohhhhh. This only makes another one of my points... that Dungy is a great coach and has done an outstanding job squeezing every bit of production out of what he had. He's done so well, with apparently no talent (although that is very debatable), that 4 out of his 7 years in Indy his defenses have been ranked 11 or better in yds AND pts. Again, that isn't just dumb luck.

 

The Rams were also one-and-done in the playoffs that year. They got beat by the Saints. The f'n SAINTS!

Yeah, the f'n Saints? And? They were a playoff team in 2000. Top third in the league in defense and offense. The Rams, with their next to last scoring defense in the NFL, were down 31-7 in the 4th quarter. Warner proceeded to score 21 unanswered points (2 pass TDs and a rush TD) to make the game 31-28. The Rams were also the inferior Wild Card on the road versus a division champ. In 2002, the Jets won their division at 9-7. But the Jets were the inferior team. Indy was better that season in yds and pts on defense and yds on offense.

 

Anyway, this is laughable coming from a Colts fan. Aside from 2006, the Colts needed to play Denver and/or Kansas City to avoid their numerous Manning era one-and-dones.

[Bill Swerski]

My original point as it relates to Warner and Manning is that Manning has had the benefit of more and better defenses AND MORE OVERALL BETTER TEAMS than Warner. Better OLs, better coaches, better management, better defenses, better players, all with more frequency. How is any part of that statement in dispute?

 

Your "more overall better teams" statement lets Warner off the hook when he fails to carry a mediocre team on his back into the playoffs. When Peyton does this, he's penalized for "choking" when his team loses to a superior one. But Warner gets off the hook because his team is on the golf course in January. Give me a f'n break.

 

We'll see how Kurt does against a "real" defense on Sunday.

[Azazello1313]

I wouldn't term it "the Christian thingy," as his (or anyone else's) being a Christian does not in and of itself have any positive or negative impact on my opinion. But his "God-talking" is a factor in the dislike. As it is with Ben, whom I also dislike.

 

so you, a woman, don't like christians speaking out in public. I guess that's cool, 'cause it cuts both ways...

 

1 timothy 2:9-15:

women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, 10but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. 11Let a woman* learn in silence with full submission. 12I permit no woman* to teach or to have authority over a man;* she is to keep silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

[Squeegiebo]

Look, if Jesus cares who wins or loses NFL games, do you think the Patriots would have gone undefeated in 2007, or would have one a single game in the last decade?

[Big John]

Look, if Jesus cares who wins or loses NFL games, do you think the Patriots would have gone undefeated in 2007, or would have one a single game in the last decade?

won?