KnowItAll wrote:
yeah, I just think he has sucked that last half dozen games so maybe he just in a slump
as for manning Montana comparison
Montana 1.89 tds for every int
manning 2.24 tds for every int
Montana 14 seasons - 40,551 yds
manning 14 seasons - 64,964 yds (not including this last yr)
Montana passer rating - 92.3
manning passer rating - 97.2 (second only to Rickey Ray 98.0 in combining both leagues.)
montana completion pct - 63.2
manning completion pct - 65.5
With this last yr included, mannings stats will even be better.
If manning plays healthy 3 more yrs worth, he will pass AC for first in overall passing with less yrs played than the 4 guys ahead of him now.
Yeah, you're certainly right about Wilson having looked less effective in the last few games, but he was actually much better than it seemed in yesterday's title game, putting up a 104.6 quarterback rating (vs. Kaepernick's 56.4, but that, of course, overlooks CK's rushing yards).
But to get to the Montana vs. Manning comparison, I think people give JM the edge because of his better performance in the post-season, a time when PM has been less effective. Manning has a
post-season passer rating of 88.6 (right up to and including yesterday's game), whereas JM had a 95.6, and, of course, JM has the four Super Bowl rings to PM's one (although that could increase). Just out of interest, Russell Wilson's post-season rating (over 4 games) is 94.5.
Just one other point: Manning (at 97.2) can't be second to only Ricky Ray (combining both leagues) in passer rating, with Aaron Rodgers (my pick for best NFL quarterback currently playing) having a 104.6 QB rating over 9 seasons in Green Bay, not to mention Drew Brees with his 100.5 over 13 seasons in San Diego and New Orleans.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to diminish Manning's accomplishments. He is a
great quarterback. The question of who is the best quarterback
all-time can't, I think, ever be definitively established, because of playing conditions, rule changes, supporting cast (quality of O-line and receivers), etc., that differ from one quarterback playing at a certain time with a certain team and another playing, perhaps, at a different time with a very different team. The quarterback rating, while useful, falls short of telling the whole story about a QB's effectiveness. I think yesterday's Seahawks-49ers game illustrates this. Was Wilson really the more effective QB? Hard to claim that when Kaepernick run all over the 'Hawks for 130 yards. On the other hand, if we consider the passing game alone, Wilson was probably even more effective than Kaepernick than a comparison of the QB ratings alone would suggest. Wilson was playing behind a much weaker O-line (being constantly chased out of the pocket) and had less talented receivers to throw to, and yet managed to complete 64% of his passes and put up a QB rating of 104.6, compared with Kaepernick's 56.4, while playing behind a solid O-line, not much pressure, and great receivers in Crabtree, Boldin, and Davis. (Although, perhaps I've been selling Baldwin, Tate, and Miller a little short.)