As long as the same people don't handle the CY voting that handled the 2004 American election voting, it goes to Roy.

Why the hell do people use NFL math? If team A beats team B, then team B beats team C it's so quickly assumed by some that team A would beat team C.

If any season has made NFL math look ridiculous it's been this season. Style make and decide games.

I hate the Eagles but they look to be the hardest to stop right now if they stay healthy.

It is a lot of "So and so would have more rings IF." How do we know Peyton would win more SBs if he had a better defense? We don't.

Besides, let's look at some of Manning's playoff loses. In 2008, the defense only gave up 17 before OT to the Chargers.In 2005, they only gave up 21 to Pittsburgh. In 2004, it was only 20 to New England. In 2003, they gave up 24, but Manning had an uninspiring sub 50% completion and four picks, which likely contributed to many of NE's scores.

See the trend?

Now let's look at Brady. His defense gave up 29 to Carolina in the SB and he overcame it. They gave up 27 a year later in the AFC Championship game and overcame it.

So you can go on and on about "If he had a better defense....." But the problem with the argument is, he DID have good defensive performances in big games, and didn't show up. That's why, in my eyes, Brady and Montana will always be better.

monkeytoes61

Although I strongly believe that Peyton would have at least 1 more ring if he had the Steelers defence to create turnovers and even put up points for him, I also cannot argue about Montana/Brady being better than him. They both were. Another name that doesn't get thrown around here enough is Terry Bradshaw, dude was pretty good too.

1. Dan Marino 2. Joe Montana 3. Steve Uoung 4. John Elway 5. Fran Tarkenton I only considered retired players, but Brady would'nt be in my top 5 anyway.TheGrat1

You hold a QB with no rings above every other QB to ever live?

Weird.

[QUOTE="RexHoles"]

He's saying the greatest of the great have multiple rings.

JackBurton

are you saying they do not? you'd honestly take a one-ring guy over Montana, Brady, Elway or any other multiple-title winner in nfl history??

stats mean more to you (or your team) than championships? which world are you living in, fantasy or reality?

I'd take Young, Favre or Manning over Roethlisberger. Seriously how many rings would Peyton have if he had a D like the Steelers?

[QUOTE="RexHoles"]

[QUOTE="JackBurton"]

would you prefer I mentioned him in same sentence as Favre, Theismann and Dawson (like manning, all 1-1 in SBs) OR Warner, Simms and Stabler?

MY POINT is that these are all one-ring guys. I don't give a rat's ass about a QB's phat yardage or td stats, only championships (plural). link

Bobbles

Oh ok so Ben Roethlisberger is a better QB than Steve Young, Dan Marino and Brett Favre were. I get it. No, really, I do.

Mathematically it's a very safe assumption. He's saying the greatest of the great have multiple rings, Ben has 2 and the QBs i mentioned had 1, 1, and 0 respectively. Therefore by his logic, Ben would be a "greater" QB than they were, which I completely disagree with.

[QUOTE="RexHoles"]

Undoubtably the most uneducated, ignorant and ridiculous statement involving any sport...

JackBurton

would you prefer I mentioned him in same sentence as Favre, Theismann and Dawson (like manning, all 1-1 in SBs) OR Warner, Simms and Stabler?

MY POINT is that these are all one-ring guys. I don't give a rat's ass about a QB's phat yardage or td stats, only championships (plural). link

Oh ok so Ben Roethlisberger is a better QB than Steve Young, Dan Marino and Brett Favre were. I get it. No, really, I do.

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"] No idea why Manning is on there? 50,000+ yards, 375+ TDs, 65% comp., 95.5 lifetime QB rating, one of the smartest people to ever play the game, and a superbowl MVP.

Hate all you want, but Manning is a complete and total monster. No other QB really even comes close and hes not even done yet.

JackBurton

That so-called 'complete and total monster' has the same number of rings as Dilfer, Johnson, Rypien, Hostetler, and Eli: 1. And, if Chicago had a half-assed QB instead of Rexy, he may be 0-2. :o But, as you said, he's not done yet - nor is Brady.

One-ring and NO-ring QBs don't belong in this discussion. There's the guys who have multiple titles and then there's everybody else.

and LOL at your history comment.

Undoubtably the most uneducated, ignorant and ridiculous statement involving any sport... that the Gamespot forums have ever seen.

Congrats.

Most accomplished QB - Joe Montana

Best dropback QB - Peyton Manning

Best overall QB - Steve Young.

[QUOTE="RexHoles"]

[QUOTE="Darth_Revan_666"]

What do you even mean by ''more accomplished''??? Irvin broke no records, Largent broke all of them at the time. That should let you know who was the best between these 2 alone.

M_1_A_M_I

How many receivers that played in his general era managed to play 200 games? I'll give him credit for longevity but that's why he held a few records as much as it was his talent. Largent went from 1st in career receptions to currently 20th so can't really argue that too much. Irvin - more skill, super bowls, and made the top 100.

As does your comment.

Care to elaborate or just sprout stupid comments?