2013 MoFo Fantasy Football - The Regular Season

Tools    





Let the night air cool you off
Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark would disagree.
Demaryius Thomas, Eric Decker, Wes Welker, and Julius Thomas would say too bad. Hell, Demaryius Thomas is probably the most physically gifted receiver Peyton has ever had, and he helped make Tim Tebow look like a decent QB against Pittsburgh. Julius Thomas is the most athletic TE Peyton has ever had. Dallas Clark was just a Peyton Manning creation.



Turns out McFadden did not have a 110 point game in him. 1-2, not a good way to start my Mofo fantasy career.
__________________
Letterboxd



Someday we will be saying Manning made his receiving corps what they were. He can make any pro look like a superstar. He puts them in the right situations constantly. The best I have watched and that includes a whole lot of Montana.



Keep on Rockin in the Free World
Someday we will be saying Manning made his receiving corps what they were. He can make any pro look like a superstar. He puts them in the right situations constantly. The best I have watched and that includes a whole lot of Montana.
weird then that he has just one ring, and that was vs a Rex Grossman led Bears squad.

Peyton can carry Montanas water bucket though.
__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.



Let the night air cool you off
Really hate the Super Bowl rings equal how good a QB is argument. Peyton has NEVER had a defense as good as the 80s 49ers. Or a running game as good as the 80s 49ers.



Let the night air cool you off
That argument totally disqualifies guys that played before 1966

It also leads to us overrating good quarterbacks on great teams. Bart Starr and Terry Bradshaw come to mind.



Keep on Rockin in the Free World
Really hate the Super Bowl rings equal how good a QB is argument. Peyton has NEVER had a defense as good as the 80s 49ers. Or a running game as good as the 80s 49ers.
boo hoo

The Broncos D last season was on Par with Any D Brady has been gifted with, and i cant remember the Starting RB's when they won their Superbowls.

Also, u have no problem with Peyton padding stats vs super weak opps in the AFC west. pick your poison.

When San Fran was dominant with Montana, the NFC East was bar none the toughest division in football.

Peyton has had a heckuva career but GOAT he most certainly is not.



Keep on Rockin in the Free World
That argument totally disqualifies guys that played before 1966

It also leads to us overrating good quarterbacks on great teams. Bart Starr and Terry Bradshaw come to mind.

I never said superbowl rings EQUAL great Quarterbacks. obviously Trent Dilfer isnt a better QB than Dan Fouts.

However, it has to be a mitigating factor in determining Greatest of All Time. You can hate it, even by a billion, but nevertheless it cant be ignored either.



Let the night air cool you off
I don't think "best" means "greatest." But if we are talking about greatness then Montana > Peyton. If we are talking about how well they play, Peyton is the best.


And the bit about the defense last year for the Broncos...maybe so, but they screwed Peyton in the game against the Ravens. Champ Bailey kept getting toasted in that game. Then John Fox decides not to go for the win in regulation. They lose in overtime because of it. Ravens go on to win the Super Bowl, and people will cite the Peyton interception as the cause of loss. Which is only part of the story.



Well, the only reason it can't be ignored is because a lot of people won't ignore it. But there's nothing logically compelling us to ascribe it special significance.

The boundaries of seasons and the playoff structure are largely arbitrary and aren't even designed to reveal the best teams, let alone the best players on those teams. They're designed, like all playoffs, to create as much drama as possible without feeling like a total crapshoot.

As for the Denver D last season: yeah, it was great during the regular season. But this is supposed to be about Peyton's playoff performance, isn't it? And in the game where they were eliminated the Denver offense put up 35 points, while the defense gave up 38, including a huge blown coverage late in the game. That ain't on Peytie. He did his job, and then some.

EDIT: ah, yeah, he said it first.



Let the night air cool you off
Here are some stats for comparison. I included 49ers Super Bowl winning seasons with Joe Montana and Peyton's Super Bowl year and the Broncos last year.

1981: 2nd best scoring defense allowing only 15.6 points a game and 5th in the league with 48 takeaways, admittedly they have a poor starting running back in Ricky Patton

1984: Best scoring defense allowing only 14.2 points a game and 10th in the league with 38 takeaways. Running backs: Wendell Tyler and Roger Craig combine for 2,816 yards from scrimmage and 19 touchdowns (1,911 yards and 14 touchdowns of the rushing variety)

1988: 8th best scoring defense allowing 18.4 points per game and 7th in the league with 38 takeaways. Running back Roger Craig had 1,502 yards rushing to go with 9 rushing touchdowns. He also had 534 receiving yards. Fullback Tom Rathman added 427 yards on the ground as well.

1989: 3rd best scoring defense allowing just 15.8 points per game and 11th in the league with 37 takeaways. Roger Craig finished with over 1,000 yards again.

2006 Colts: 23rd best scoring defense allowing 22.5 points per game and 21st in the league with 26 takeaways. Joseph Addai finished a solid season off with over 1,000 yards rushing.

2012 Broncos: 4th best scoring defense allowing 18.1 points per game and 16th in the league with 24 takeaways. Running back Willis McGahee had 731 rushing yards. Knowshon Moreno had 525 rushing yards, but averaged less than 4 yards per carry.



I'm not sure it's helpful to distinguish between best and greatest without defining what you're supposed to be measuring. The question is best or greatest at what? If the answer is "winning Championships," then it's just a math problem. But once you acknowledge that it's more complicated than that, it becomes about measuring performance. I find most people try to split this difference by mostly measuring performance but giving extra weight to Championships, which doesn't make a ton of sense to me, because it simultaneously acknowledges the difference between the two and then tries to mash them together anyway. But then, I'm not the kind of person who believes there's some kind of hidden Clutch Gene that manifests itself in certain situations, either, so I don't ascribe metaphysical significance to a performance's timing.

Anyway, I think Peyton Manning plays quarterback better than any human being ever has.

And I think he might also be the most significant QB, in that he's largely responsible for the idea that the best QBs will inevitably be those who double as quasi-offensive coordinators. Erasing the distinction between player and playcaller at the position is one of the most important developments in the history of the position, and possibly in the history of the game.



I agree Joe Montana's the greatest QB ever in the NFL, and Peyton's the best ever. Like Arnold Palmer to Tiger Woods, or Randy Couture to Anderson Silva. In a vacuum, Peyton has all Montana had and then some. Peyton also is getting it done with his second team like Montana did with Chiefs. The memories, heroics, and incredible poise will always make Joe the greatest.

Rings arent a factor at all. It's like saying Eli's a better QB than Peyton or Peyton couldnt even hold Terry Bradshaws jock. I think Bradshaw himself would laugh at that one. Speaking of unworthy jock holders, former Buccaneer Trent Dilfer was the cruelest twist of all our departing QB's when he got his ring. Truly he was riding the coat tails. If zombies were real, then the Ravens could have made a zombie their QB in 2001 and still won the super bowl.

Ahem! A super bowl can be won with a glaring hole in a huge position. QB, WR, RB, Offensive Linemen, or just overall crap defenses. Rings really are an indicator for the teams historic worth, and not any one player.



Let the night air cool you off
As far as "clutch gene" goes, that's obviously not a real thing. However, I would say some people handle pressure better than others. I think that is also obvious. Neither one of those things apply to either of the QBs being compared here either though, as both guys seem to possess the mythological clutch gene. Or they both just handle pressure well.



The funny thing is, this is another issue on which I have a vested interest in arguing the other way: Terry Bradshaw was a good QB, but his rings make him seem like a great one. Roethlisberger is a great QB, but his rings make him seem like an even better one than he is. But in both cases they had some good supporting casts and played well at the right time.



Keep on Rockin in the Free World
And I think he might also be the most significant QB, in that he's largely responsible for the idea that the best QBs will inevitably be those who double as quasi-offensive coordinators. Erasing the distinction between player and playcaller at the position is one of the most important developments in the history of the position, and possibly in the history of the game.
The CFL has been doing that for 30 years. Always takes the NFL a bit to catch up.



As far as "clutch gene" goes, that's obviously not a real thing. However, I would say some people handle pressure better than others. I think that is also obvious. Neither one of those things apply to either of the QBs being compared here either though, as both guys seem to possess the mythological clutch gene. Or they both just handle pressure well.
Yeah, I think the argument about pressure isn't that some people don't respond badly to it (they clearly do), but that anyone like that is going to be weeded out wayyyyy before they ever get to the NFL. If someone cracks under pressure, why did they excel in all their big High School games? Why did they have a career day when the scout showed up one week? Why did they play so well in college? All those things were, at the time, the biggest events of their lives.

The entire sport is constructed around narratives. Sometimes people just have a bad game, or even five or six. That might not be as interesting as constructing an elaborate psychological profile of some stranger, but it's a much simpler explanation.

The crazy thing is that every time some "choker" who everyone said couldn't win the big game finally does it, everybody just forgets they said it and goes on to hurling the accusation at someone else. There's never any period where they step back, realize they were wrong all along, and conclude that the entire idea is probably nonsense.



Let the night air cool you off
Bart Starr: Good, solid quarterback that took care of the football for the most part. Playing for a fantastic coach. Handing it off to two hall of famers, with an offensive line comprised of multiple hall of famers (Forest Gregg for sure, can't remember for sure on others.) And a very tough defense. Gets overrated.



Keep on Rockin in the Free World
I don't think "best" means "greatest." But if we are talking about greatness then Montana > Peyton. If we are talking about how well they play, Peyton is the best.
What separates the best from the greatest in your view?