Why Warner is a better QB than P. Manning

[Bill Swerski]

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?

 

You (and others here) seem to be missing the point. I highly doubt that Warner thinks that God is a Cardinals fan. It's more likely that he praises God for helping him be the best that he can be.

[WaterMan]

I watched Warner beat the Titans last night in a Super Bowl recap. What an arm he's got.

[Squeegiebo]

You (and others here) seem to be missing the point. I highly doubt that Warner thinks that God is a Cardinals fan. It's more likely that he praises God for helping him be the best that he can be.

 

Did he also think that he did something to make God angry when he was riding pine?

[Bill Swerski]

Did he also think that he did something to make God angry when he was riding pine?

 

I'm sorry that you have such contempt for people who believe in a higher power.

[WaterMan]

I'm sorry that you have such contempt for people who believe in a higher power.

 

The Spaghetti Monster's Christmas is tasty.

[tonorator]

Did he also think that he did something to make God angry when he was riding pine?

 

no. god was with him. he was right where he needed to be.

[MTSuper7]

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.

 

Consider this a to the Philadelphia Eagles, I guess...

[Bill Swerski]

Consider this a to the Philadelphia Eagles, I guess...

 

I wasn't speaking of them specifically, but their defense didn't exactly show up in that last game.

[WaterMan]

I wasn't speaking of them specifically, but their defense didn't exactly show up in that last game.

 

ie: Warner lit them up and McNabb threw bounce passes.

[TheShiznit]

I wasn't speaking of them specifically, but their defense didn't exactly show up in that last game.

 

Couldn't it have been that the Cardinals where just much better and that is the case rather than the Eagles sucked. I mean really....when a team gets beat...doesn't always mean they sucked...they could have just been beat by a superior game plan....because I saw 11 men on the field for the eagles...and they blitzed a lot....Arizona just played BETTER...NO?

[Squeegiebo]

I'm sorry that you have such contempt for people who believe in a higher power.

 

I don't want to hear what football players think about religion any more than I want to hear what actors have to say about politics or what you think of me and the rest of us "nonbelievers."

[Bill Swerski]

Couldn't it have been that the Cardinals where just much better and that is the case rather than the Eagles sucked. I mean really....when a team gets beat...doesn't always mean they sucked...they could have just been beat by a superior game plan....because I saw 11 men on the field for the eagles...and they blitzed a lot....Arizona just played BETTER...NO?

 

I never used the word "sucked," so I'm not sure where that straw man is coming from.

 

Yeah, it's possible that the Cardinals offense simply out-played them. But the #3 ranked defense giving up 32 points to the #32 ranked rushing offense (and giving up a late 4th quarter TD with the game on the line) sounds a lot more like a massive choke job. It's not like Jim Johnson is known for getting out-coached on a regular basis.

 

I don't want to hear what football players think about religion any more than I want to hear what actors have to say about politics or what you think of me and the rest of us "nonbelievers."

 

Then perhaps you need to stop whining and hit the mute button when Warner is interviewed after a game.

[Squeegiebo]

Then perhaps you need to stop whining and hit the mute button when Warner is interviewed after a game.

 

As I've never heard him get all religious after a loss, I don't suspect it will be necessary.

[CaptainHook]

while Warner statistically had a very good game, his two turnovers proved quite costly . . .

Edited February 2, 2009 by CaptainHook

[Randall]

while Warner statistically had a very good game, his two turnovers proved quite costly . . .

 

 

The play calling was suspect too. It's hard to compare these 2 QB's. Both are among the best in this era. If I could chose I'd pick Peyton, but Warner, Brees and Brady aren't far behind.

 

Of those only 1 was a 1st round pick.

[Bill Swerski]

while Warner statistically had a very good game, his two turnovers proved quite costly . . .

 

Three turnovers: two fumbles and that pick-six. And that's two pick-sixes in his last two Super Bowls... and both were the difference in the final score. He played well overall and deserves a ton of credit for taking a flawed Cardinals team this far (and enshrinement in Canton, IMO), but let's not pretend that he's some sort of Playoff QB Jesus.

 

I remember the East Coast media ripping Peyton last year for throwing two picks in Indy's playoff loss to SD... despite going 33/48 and throwing for 402 yds and 3 TDs... and engineering the go-ahead TD late in the 4th quarter.

[TheShiznit]

Three turnovers: two fumbles and that pick-six. And that's two pick-sixes in his last two Super Bowls... and both were the difference in the final score. He played well overall and deserves a ton of credit for taking a flawed Cardinals team this far (and enshrinement in Canton, IMO), but let's not pretend that he's some sort of Playoff QB Jesus.

 

I remember the East Coast media ripping Peyton last year for throwing two picks in Indy's playoff loss to SD... despite going 33/48 and throwing for 402 yds and 3 TDs... and engineering the go-ahead TD late in the 4th quarter.

 

I only saw the pick six and the fumble/should have been reviewed forward pass. I can't remember the other fumble you speak of. The only play that was remotely terrible was the pick six...the one at the end of the game...if it was a fumble...was just a good play by the D.

 

Safe to say he passed your test on taking it too the Steelers? Without the pick six, Arizona dominates Pitt....and that stout D.

[Deathpig]

I only saw the pick six and the fumble/should have been reviewed forward pass. I can't remember the other fumble you speak of. The only play that was remotely terrible was the pick six...the one at the end of the game...if it was a fumble...was just a good play by the D.

 

Safe to say he passed your test on taking it too the Steelers? Without the pick six, Arizona dominates Pitt....and that stout D.

 

And to be fair, throwing a duck of an out route while being hammered by a defender that gets picked off and returned is one thing (his pick six against the Patriots--a classic bonehead play)... throwing an interception to the middle of the field that is returned 100 yards by a linebacker is a little different. His teammates had ample opportunity to knock Harrison out of bounds and for some reason decided not to (either giving up on the play or trying to tackle instead).

 

The game-ending fumble should have been booth reviewed, the arm was going forward, and that's Cards ball at the 30 (with the penalty) with the best jump-ball receiver in the league. I'd have rathered the game ended with an incomplete Hail Mary, than on a play that shouldn't have been ruled a fumble in the first place and didn't get reviewed.

 

Even with the interception, his line is 31/43 for 377 yards, 3TD/1INT (72% completion percentage, 112.3 QB Rating) against the best pass defense in the league. That's the second highest yards passing in a Super Bowl ever (he already owns first and third place on that list). That game *raised* his playoff passing yards per game almost 7 yards (it's at roughly 306 yds/game in the playoffs now) and it *raised* his playoff QB Rating to 98.9 (the second highest playoff QB rating in NFL history, behind only Bart Starr).

 

Even though his team lost the game, Warner *again* led his team back in the second half, and took the lead on the Steelers. Six of his eleven playoff games have had his team on the losing end at half time, and three of those times he's pulled out a win. To compare, Manning has gone into halftime losing a playoff game six times as well-- 5 of those games ended in losses, the one win was the dagger against the Patriots in '06.

 

Warner is one of the best playoff QBs in history. I know that sounds incredible because of all the injuries and everything, but it's true. He's a much better QB than people give him credit for in general, and he's absolutely murderous in the playoffs. The average over 11 playoff games is 306 yards, 2.3 TD/1.1 INT. He's got a 64.8% completion percentage, 8.4 YPA, and a 98.9 QB Rating in the playoffs. He's won 8 out of 11 playoff games, and in four trips to the postseason been to the Super Bowl 3 times. His teams have never been blown out in a playoff game, his three losses were by 3, 3, and 4 points.

 

In the playoffs, looking only at playoff performances, he is better than a very large number of people in NFL history, among them Peyton Manning. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to come to grips with.

[Bill Swerski]

I only saw the pick six and the fumble/should have been reviewed forward pass. I can't remember the other fumble you speak of. The only play that was remotely terrible was the pick six...the one at the end of the game...if it was a fumble...was just a good play by the D.

 

The official box score shows two fumbles.

 

Safe to say he passed your test on taking it too the Steelers? Without the pick six, Arizona dominates Pitt....and that stout D.

 

He definitely did take it to the Steelers D. I thought for sure that they'd hold Arizona to two TDs. Hats off to him for that.

 

The game-ending fumble should have been booth reviewed, the arm was going forward

 

The replay seemed to indicate that he didn't have control of the ball as his arm was beginning to go forward. And even an incomplete pass wouldn't have likely changed the outcome. But I completely agree that the refs should've reviewed it. They absolutely botched that one, if only from a P.R. standpoint.

 

In the playoffs, looking only at playoff performances, he is better than a very large number of people in NFL history, among them Peyton Manning. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to come to grips with.

 

That probably has to do with the fact that (1) Peyton Manning has a long and storied history of taking good-but-not-great teams to the playoffs and (2) Warner's pick-sixes in his last two Super Bowls have literally cost his respective teams the game. In SB 36, NE's anemic offense could only muster one touchdown, but Kurt gave another 7 points away to Ty Law. They would've been up 17-10 late in the 4th, forcing Brady to get the ball into the endzone for the tie, rather than allowing Vinatieri to hit a FG to win it. Last night, he threw into coverage while down by three points late in the first half inside PIT's 10. Not a smart move. That was, at minimum, a 10-point swing (and possibly a 14-point swing), which was the difference in the game. I like Warner and all and think that he's a HOFer, but the fanboy act is just silly.

Edited February 2, 2009 by Bill Swerski

[Squeegiebo]

I am a big enough person to admit when I am wrong.

 

As I've never heard him get all religious after a loss, I don't suspect it will be necessary.

 

I did have to listen to Warner speak of how God put him in the NFL for a reason.

[wiegie]

I am a big enough person to admit when I am wrong.

 

I did have to listen to Warner speak of how God put him in the NFL for a reason.

My guess is that God's reason was to annoy you.

[TheShiznit]

The official box score shows two fumbles.

 

 

 

He definitely did take it to the Steelers D. I thought for sure that they'd hold Arizona to two TDs. Hats off to him for that.

 

 

 

The replay seemed to indicate that he didn't have control of the ball as his arm was beginning to go forward. And even an incomplete pass wouldn't have likely changed the outcome. But I completely agree that the refs should've reviewed it. They absolutely botched that one, if only from a P.R. standpoint.

 

 

 

That probably has to do with the fact that (1) Peyton Manning has a long and storied history of taking good-but-not-great teams to the playoffs and (2) Warner's pick-sixes in his last two Super Bowls have literally cost his respective teams the game. In SB 36, NE's anemic offense could only muster one touchdown, but Kurt gave another 7 points away to Ty Law. They would've been up 17-10 late in the 4th, forcing Brady to get the ball into the endzone for the tie, rather than allowing Vinatieri to hit a FG to win it. Last night, he threw into coverage while down by three points late in the first half inside PIT's 10. Not a smart move. That was, at minimum, a 10-point swing (and possibly a 14-point swing), which was the difference in the game. I like Warner and all and think that he's a HOFer, but the fanboy act is just silly.

 

Bill, I don't want to harp here...but just saying it doesn't make it so....how on earth could you come close to choking out that Manning has a long history of taking good but not so great teams to the playoffs. Deathpig illustrated quite convincingly that he has had numerous chances with great defenses....and numerous chances with average defenses....while all the time having one of the leagues best offenses year in and year out. How does this translate into a history of taking only good teams to the playoffs?

[Bill Swerski]

Bill, I don't want to harp here...but just saying it doesn't make it so....how on earth could you come close to choking out that Manning has a long history of taking good but not so great teams to the playoffs. Deathpig illustrated quite convincingly that he has had numerous chances with great defenses....and numerous chances with average defenses....while all the time having one of the leagues best offenses year in and year out. How does this translate into a history of taking only good teams to the playoffs?

 

People who actually follow the Colts know that their teams have struggled on numerous levels and that the "one of the best offenses year in and year out" line really only translates to their passing game (which ultimately sets up their running game). CLEARLY, the Colts did not have a good running game (or O-line, in general) this year and I think that it would be a real stretch to call their offense anything near "great" or even "good" (my quotes). Statistically, the Colts defenses look great some years, yet fall apart as the season goes on (2007, 2002). Sometimes, they're awful for much of the season, and play much better in the playoffs (2004 and 2006). While it's clear that the Colts had crap defenses from '99-'01 and the 2003 and 2004 regular seasons, their level of play in the post-season is more complicated than that. It's not as simple as looking at numbers on pro-football-reference.com. What's even more overlooked has been their inability to run the ball in the playoffs, which killed them this year, the year before, and in 2004 (at Foxboro).

 

And I think that we can go even further than that and say that the Dungy-era Colts overwhelmingly had one fundamental flaw: they were usually soft up front. Winning playoff games with under-sized DTs and LBs and a revolving door of patchwork guards on offense is tough to do in the playoffs because you lose the battle up front. While putting the clamps on the big play downfield at the expense of giving up the run and trying to use a speed running game via the stretch play may work well against lesser teams in the regular season, it just doesn't translate well in January. Not surprisingly, when the Colts actually DID play well up front (January and February of 2007), they won it all. Unfortunately, the Dungy-era Colts weren't built to play like this over the long run... and their playoff record reflects that.

 

I'll break it down year by year...

 

1999 - Struggled to run the ball against the Titans and Peyton didn't do much through the air. Peyton deserves some blame here, despite it being his first playoff game.

2000 - Hard-fought game against the Dolphins, who eventually over-powered the Colts D-line. Team loss.

2001 - Crappy defense and in-fighting with Mora = no playoffs

2002 - A great example of a statistically-good defense that didn't show up in the playoffs. Also horrible performances by the special teams and offense, culminating in an embarrassing 41-0 loss. Team loss.

2003 - Perfect QB rating against DEN and near-perfect QB rating in a shootout against the Chiefs. Peyton panicked in the conference championship game (4 picks) and I put this loss on him (despite the special teams gaffes). They ran the ball effectively and were probably competent enough on defense to win it.

2004 - Another near-perfect game against an overrated Broncos offense, but the lack of a running game and the weather doomed them in Foxboro the following week. Peyton played conservatively, throwing only one pick in garbage time. You can't beat a very good defense in freezing temps if you can't run the ball. Too bad, because the defense (and Matt Light's offsides penalty inside the 5) kept them in the game for the first half.

2005 - The 13-0 Colts were surprisingly stout on defense for most of the season, but the cracks were beginning to show in December. The offense was out of synch for most of the first half of the Steelers game (and you can put much of that on Peyton). The defense gives up 14 points in the first quarter, and then clamps down and gives them a chance to win at the end (Bettis fumble)... and then Vandershank blows it. Team loss with Peyton shouldering a significant amount of the blame.

2006 - Peyton sucks in the KC game, plays much better than the stats show in the BAL game, puts up a second half for the ages in the NE game, and plays dink-and-dunk for most of the SB while the O-line dominates and the Bears shoot themselves in the foot. Great team wins, with Peyton's play ranging dramatically.

2007 - Another statistically-good-looking defense that crapped its pants in the post-season. Losing Freeney killed their pass rush and Bill f'n Volek runs over their defense after Peyton engineers the go-ahead drive late in the 4th. Despite Peyton's 400+ yds and 3 TDs, the lack of a running game (and Tarik Glenn) kills them.

2008 - They shouldn't have even been there. The resurgent defense (especially the pass rush) holds SD in check, but a banged-up Addai, banged up Tony Ugoh, the loss of Jake Scott, and the revolving door of crap at guard kills their ability to run the ball and finish drives. They lose in OT.

 

In addition, I think that the '99 and '01 Rams were better than any of Peyton's Colts teams. Both were better combinations of SUSTAINED offensive explosiveness and tough defense. On the other hand, I think that the '08 Cardinals were much like the '06 Colts - both were flawed teams that got hot at the right time. Warner played better statistically in the playoffs than Manning did in '06 (albeit against different teams), but also threw a pick-six on the goal line that ultimately cost his team a championship. Draw whatever conclusions you want from that.

Edited February 3, 2009 by Bill Swerski

[TheShiznit]

People who actually follow the Colts know that their teams have struggled on numerous levels and that the "one of the best offenses year in and year out" line really only translates to their passing game (which ultimately sets up their running game). CLEARLY, the Colts did not have a good running game (or O-line, in general) this year and I think that it would be a real stretch to call their offense anything near "great" or even "good" (my quotes). Statistically, the Colts defenses look great some years, yet fall apart as the season goes on (2007, 2002). Sometimes, they're awful for much of the season, and play much better in the playoffs (2004 and 2006). While it's clear that the Colts had crap defenses from '99-'01 and the 2003 and 2004 regular seasons, their level of play in the post-season is more complicated than that. It's not as simple as looking at numbers on pro-football-reference.com. What's even more overlooked has been their inability to run the ball in the playoffs, which killed them this year, the year before, and in 2004 (at Foxboro).

 

And I think that we can go even further than that and say that the Dungy-era Colts overwhelmingly had one fundamental flaw: they were usually soft up front. Winning playoff games with under-sized DTs and LBs and a revolving door of patchwork guards on offense is tough to do in the playoffs because you lose the battle up front. While putting the clamps on the big play downfield at the expense of giving up the run and trying to use a speed running game via the stretch play may work well against lesser teams in the regular season, it just doesn't translate well in January. Not surprisingly, when the Colts actually DID play well up front (January and February of 2007), they won it all. Unfortunately, the Dungy-era Colts weren't built to play like this over the long run... and their playoff record reflects that.

 

I'll break it down year by year...

 

1999 - Struggled to run the ball against the Titans and Peyton didn't do much through the air. Peyton deserves some blame here, despite it being his first playoff game.

2000 - Hard-fought game against the Dolphins, who eventually over-powered the Colts D-line. Team loss.

2001 - Crappy defense and in-fighting with Mora = no playoffs

2002 - A great example of a statistically-good defense that didn't show up in the playoffs. Also horrible performances by the special teams and offense, culminating in an embarrassing 41-0 loss. Team loss.

2003 - Perfect QB rating against DEN and near-perfect QB rating in a shootout against the Chiefs. Peyton panicked in the conference championship game (4 picks) and I put this loss on him (despite the special teams gaffes). They ran the ball effectively and were probably competent enough on defense to win it.

2004 - Another near-perfect game against an overrated Broncos offense, but the lack of a running game and the weather doomed them in Foxboro the following week. Peyton played conservatively, throwing only one pick in garbage time. You can't beat a very good defense in freezing temps if you can't run the ball. Too bad, because the defense (and Matt Light's offsides penalty inside the 5) kept them in the game for the first half.

2005 - The 13-0 Colts were surprisingly stout on defense for most of the season, but the cracks were beginning to show in December. The offense was out of synch for most of the first half of the Steelers game (and you can put much of that on Peyton). The defense gives up 14 points in the first quarter, and then clamps down and gives them a chance to win at the end (Bettis fumble)... and then Vandershank blows it. Team loss with Peyton shouldering a significant amount of the blame.

2006 - Peyton sucks in the KC game, plays much better than the stats show in the BAL game, puts up a second half for the ages in the NE game, and plays dink-and-dunk for most of the SB while the O-line dominates and the Bears shoot themselves in the foot. Great team wins, with Peyton's play ranging dramatically.

2007 - Another statistically-good-looking defense that crapped its pants in the post-season. Losing Freeney killed their pass rush and Bill f'n Volek runs over their defense after Peyton engineers the go-ahead drive late in the 4th. Despite Peyton's 400+ yds and 3 TDs, the lack of a running game (and Tarik Glenn) kills them.

2008 - They shouldn't have even been there. The resurgent defense (especially the pass rush) holds SD in check, but a banged-up Addai, banged up Tony Ugoh, the loss of Jake Scott, and the revolving door of crap at guard kills their ability to run the ball and finish drives. They lose in OT.

 

In addition, I think that the '99 and '01 Rams were better than any of Peyton's Colts teams. Both were better combinations of SUSTAINED offensive explosiveness and tough defense. On the other hand, I think that the '08 Cardinals were much like the '06 Colts - both were flawed teams that got hot at the right time. Warner played better statistically in the playoffs than Manning did in '06 (albeit against different teams), but also threw a pick-six on the goal line that ultimately cost his team a championship. Draw whatever conclusions you want from that.

 

Here is my conclusion....and it is simple. If you want a QB that can work well with average talent as well as great talent....you go with Manning....he is a better QB in that regard. However, if you have great offensive talent....WR....decent O-Line.....and you want to win in the playoffs.....you go with Warner. I think Peyton is a better overall QB when you take a totality of their work.....but seriously....to argue that Warner is not a better playoff QB is ignoring the statline...which is how someone gets into the HOF....statline. So I humbly agree to disagree and I think Warner is a better QB come playoff time than Manning. However, Manning is the better overall QB.

[Bill Swerski]

.but seriously....to argue that Warner is not a better playoff QB is ignoring the statline

 

Again, you're comparing QBs on completely different teams, who play in difference conferences and have had to play differing levels of talent in the playoffs. Judging the two by simply looking at the box scores is an overly-simplistic analysis.

 

I agree that Warner is an outstanding QB who has statistically played well in the playoffs. But here's another "stat" for you: he's thrown two pick-sixes in his last two Super Bowls that have cost his team a championship in each case. Be careful of what you wish for.