Is Peyton Manning the Worst Big Game Quarterback in NFL History?
Posted by
Kevin
Peyton Manning is supposed to be the greatest quarterback in the NFL. He throws the ball with zip and accuracy and he calls his own plays at the line of scrimmage. He has the NFL single season record for touchdown passes and if he plays long enough he is close to certain to own the career record. But I cannot remember a big game he has ever won. He never beat Florida when he was in college. His college team won the national championship the year after he left, and, if memory serves, that team was essentially the same as it was the year before — except for the quarterback. He took years to win a playoff game, and still has never appeared in a Super Bowl. He has beaten the Patriots only one time. He played a poor game against the Seahawks this year when the Colts were only three games from the first 16-0 regular season in And now he played an awful game at home that he was supposed to win and win going away. In fact, Manning has always looked bad in big games. He can never seem to make the right call while under pressure and his accuracy deserts him.
So I ask you: is there a quarterback in NFL history who has been lauded more for doing less?
That’s a great question, but I think it’ll be a few more years yet before we can tell. I would still maybe say that Dan Marino might be the worst Big Game QB. He never won anything either. But Peyton still has a way to go.
btw, I think you mean the Chargers game that he played awfully against. That was their first loss of the season.
Comment 1/17/2006
Did Manning play in the Chargers game? I don’t remember.
Comment 1/17/2006
Yep, Manning played the Chargers game, was pressured all game long, and looked terrible.
As for Marino, I think Manning is worse, because Marino at least made a Super Bowl (even if he lost it), and he never really had the benefit of a running game or a defense (or, for that matter, decent receivers — the receivers who looked great on Marino’s teams who went elsewhere and were completely pedestrian; think Mark Clayton).
Comment 1/17/2006
Dan Marino, Peyton Manning will become the next Dan Marino. Peyton will break ALL the records but he will NEVER win any Super Bowls. hehehe Peyton will break Marino’s records and still not win naything, so to answer your question, yes, Dan Marino is the “OTHER” Quarterback with so much promise with nothing coming from it.
Comment 1/17/2006
I still don’t buy the Marino argument. It’s been a long time, but how many times did the Dolphins lose a big game because Marino played poorly? I put Marino in the same category as Elway, except that Elway got lucky and had a team around him late in his career. John Elway lost a lot of big games early in his career, for the same reasons Marino did.
Comment 1/17/2006
Dog: Dan Marino is the “OTHER” Quarterback with so much promise with nothing coming from it.
Fred: There is more to success than winning the Super Bowl. I would say that Dan Marino and many other players who have never won the Super Bowl were successes.
Comment 1/17/2006
I don’t put it at the feet of the quarterback as an individual. Time and time again, the team with the high-flying offense loses at the end of the season to the team with a great defense and a solid running game.
Almost by definition, a QB with gaudy numbers will not be playing on a team with a great defense and a solid running game (the reasons for this are pretty familiar to any student of the game). So, every year when the playoffs roll around, the high flyers fall by the wayside.
If Peyton played in NE, he would have three rings and reduced career stats.
Comment 1/17/2006
The Colts did not lose because of Manning. Sure, he had some inconsistent plays, but he also had some very efficient plays.
Were the three-time-losers, the Bills, foiled because of Jim Kelley, or were there more players responsible for making mistakes that accumulated to losing?
Comment 1/18/2006
I don’t mean to imply that Peyton lost the games himself (and yeah, i did mena the Chargers game) only that manning has never, to my knoweldge, raised his game in a big game. Just the opposite seems to happen all the time — he plays worse than he does in other games.
Comment 1/18/2006
I am reminded of Dan Fouts and Air Coryell. The Chargers teams of that era could score 40 points a game like eating candy. The defense was so inconsistent, they could just as easily allow 50 points. I think Fouts was a great QB, but it also shows that you need not only a good team, but consistent play on a regular basis (see NE Pats).
Comment 1/18/2006
Ted:
What about the Green Bay Packers who won Super Bowl XXXI? True, they had a solid defense, but their running game was quite ordinary. Even in the Super Bowl, they averaged a scant 3.2 yards per rush, fewer than the Patriots’ 3.3 average (the Packers had a lot more total yards, but I think this was a result of them playing most of the game ultra-conservative with a lead, in that frustrating Holmgren fashion). Their longest run from scrimmage in that game was a less-than-stellar 12 yards. Meanwhile, they had touchdown passes of 81 and 54 yards, the former a Super Bowl record at the time. I’d say that’s “flashy.”
An even better example was the Rams’ win over the Titans. The Rams rushed for only 29 yards (2.2 per carry) while allowing 159 rushing yards (4.4 per carry), passed for 407 yards, and won. I can’t think of a flashier team with a more ordinary defense and running game (they had probably the best back in the league at the time, but didn’t bother to use him…)
Comment 1/19/2006
tgirsch,
In XXXI, Favre was 14 for 27. That is not exactly a pass-oriented offense. The fact that receivers got behind the defenders twice and went for long touchdowns does not signify a high-flying offense to me.
As for the Rams, I figured someone would call me with that game. For me it is the quintessential example of a vertical pass attack dominating the league. It is noteworthy that this same team failed to win the Super Bowl twice (although they did win the NFC 2 out of 3).
To offset the Rams, I would offer up the 1985 Bears and the 2000 Ravens. I’m not sure either of those teams even had QBs.. In 85, the Bears won the coin toss, and elected to kick. You gotta love that.
Comment 1/19/2006
Ted:
Favre threw for 3,899 yards and 39 TDs (against just 13 INTs) that year. That’s pretty high-flying, even if his numbers in the Super Bowl were average. Meanwhile, the team’s leading rusher that season had a mere 899 yards; although the top two did combine for a healthy 1,465 that year, no one had a run longer than 24 yards all year. I did, however, misremember how good their defense was — it was the #1 defense in the league that year, and they also had the #1 offense.
The 1985 Bears are remembered for their defense, but they scored 456 points that year — the same as the 1996 Packers — and had the best running game in the NFL (to my mind, a big part of why that defense was so good — in addition to being talented, they were well-rested).
As to the 2000 Ravens, that was a down year for the NFL anyway. And if Al Del Greco could make a stinking field goal, the 2000 Ravens would have been an afterthought, not even winning their division much less the Super Bowl.
Disparage them all you want, but Bears QB Jim McMahon and Ravens QB Trent Dilfer were both Pro Bowlers in their careers. True, they were your typical “caretaker quarterback” but they weren’t Anthony Wright, either.
All that said, it would be interesting to see the offensive and defensive rankings of the eventual Super Bowl champions to try and quantify which is more important. My gut instinct is that a great defense helps trememndously, but sooner or later you have to score some points.
Comment 1/19/2006
TG,
Please recall my initial assertion was defense AND a solid running game wins. I didn’t imply you don’t need offense.
There’s plenty of logic to back this up. A running game is less prone to turnovers than a passing game. A running game keeps the opponent’s defense on the field, getting tired, and it keeps their offense on the bench. A solid defense tends to win the field position battle, and also tends to generate turnovers. A passing attack tends to be more adversely impacted by bad weather, which the traditional powerhouses frequently experience on their home fields in December and January. And finally, if your team is built around one guy, and that guy gets sick, injured, or has a bad day, it’s curtains.
This isn’t a guarantee of course, and occasionally the team that relys on putting up big numbers to win will go all the way. But it is the exception, not the rule.
Given the Pack had the best defense the year they won, I think we have to toss them out - they support my argument as much as they counter it.
So we are back to the Rams. Who, by the way, did not have a stud QB during their glory years. KW had two excellent years and one decent partial year (I think he only has 2 years that he played 16 games). But he benefited from a great offensive line, fantastic wideouts, and Marshall Faulk running the ball (and a dome and turf at home). In short, a very well-balanced offense that could score in numerous ways, especially on the deep ball. Of cousre if Kevin Dyson gets one more yard on the final play of the game, the Rams might not even have won their one and only Super Bowl!
BTW, I’m a huge fan of caretaker QBs. I live outside of Baltimore, so I was very tuned in to the Ravens in 2000. Plus I’ve followed the Redskins winning three super bowls in a decade with three different QBs - none being great passers.
Sooo, looping back to the very beginning, I think a team like the Colts (which first and foremost is set up around the QB and his passing skills) is at a disadvantage in the playoffs against a team with a great defense and a solid running game. To the extent the Colts improved their defense, they improved their chances of winning it all.
Next we could debate the pros and cons of a scrambling QB vs a pocket guy (is there a reason Vick has come up short so often?) or maybe the advantages/disadvantages of a cutback runner vs a downhill guy - in other words, was Barry Sanders over-rated in terms of helping his team win? (yes he was)
Comment 1/19/2006
Manning is a great cerebral quarterback but the way the Patriots always beat him was to use that against him. The classic example was the game in Indy a few years ago when Manning managed first and goal at the end of the game. He got four plays and totally mismanaged the situation, failing to call time out on the first two - both runs at Ted Washington that were stuffed. A timeout finally followed. Problem was there wasn’t much time left at that point. If the Colts passed they could get two plays, if they ran and failed the game was over. Pats knew it and had the coverage. On fourth down, the Colts ran and McGinest made the hit in the backfield. The Colts should either have passed the first couple downs or used the timeout after the first run. Manning sometimes thinks too much.
Comment 9/2/2006
All ya’ll g’s r wrong wit yo souls (scratch dat, yo have no souls.) Yo g’s want attention but agression is obssesion and obbsesion is napolean dynamite-ish. All you guys evedentially strut yo stuff but without enough PITY to fill the whole solar system. (just enough for the earth and the asteriod calld pluto.)
I’m Mr.T and I PITY DA FOO!
Comment 10/18/2006
I dont think Manning will get a superbowl ring He has a bad case of Marino syndrome he will have all these great accolades and records but in the end run he WONT win a superbowl every year i hear the same hype Manning is great hes so smart he knows the game. But when clutch time comes he always chokes even last year with my Patriots out of the playoffs Manning still managed to blow it. No matter how good he is he is always gonna blow it in the big game every one says he is better than Brady but that late 6th round pick has 3 superbowl rings and the best post season record in the league… Oh did i mention he is 3 years younger then manning…
Comment 11/12/2006
Great comments but Peyton wins Super Bowl and you guys look dumb
Comment 2/13/2007
YOU LOOK PRETTY FOOLIS NOW DONT YOU GEEK BOY
Comment 2/23/2007
[…] Yeah, we were wrong. We’re still getting comments about it. What of it? […]
Pingback 2/23/2007
No, Pyton Manning is not the worst big game Quarterback. You are an incompitenet moron if you think so. He didnt win his games not because he wasnt good enough, he lost them because his offence and defences were very poor. And so you cannot state he is the worst, because if an offence doesnt play the game well how can you expect any Quarterback to win. So you should actually look over a game tape and study it to see whos faut it was Peyton or the Offencive and Defencive players. COMMON SENSE!
Comment 12/17/2007
I thought you guys knew something about football. Superbowl championships do not paint the entire picture of a quarterback. Doug Williams, Mark Rypen, Phil Simms, Jeff Hostetler, Brad Johnson, Jim McMahon, and Kurt Warner all won Super Bowls. Would you take any one of them over Manning? No. You would take their teams over Manning’s. Idiots. I dare someone to reply with something better. And in Marino’s defense, in 1991 he led his team on a comeback drive in the first round of the playoffs versus the Chiefs. Then he put up 35 points in a snowy second round game in Buffalo. The problem was that his defense gave up 40 plus. There are plenty of instances like that for Marino. How much football do you really know Kevin, Morgan Foster, and any other idiot out there?
Comment 12/30/2007