Don't get me wrong. Roethlisberger is an excellent QB; maybe a Hall of Famer. But the comparisons I've heard this week about him to Brady or him to Manning are misplaced.
Manning and Brady are pretty much a toss up. I'd give the slight edge to Manning because he's had more great years with less to work with as an over-all team. But if you want to argue Brady is better, you can make a pretty good case for that also.
But I don't think Roethlisberger, even if he wins another SB, is in that class. He's on that next level with Rivers and Brees.
If there's one QB who seems poised to enter the Manning/Brady discussion one of these years, it's Aaron Rodgers.
Originally posted by sh76 The answer is a big, emphatic "NO."
Don't get me wrong. Roethlisberger is an excellent QB; maybe a Hall of Famer. But the comparisons I've heard this week about him to Brady or him to Manning are misplaced.
Manning and Brady are pretty much a toss up. I'd give the slight edge to Manning because he's had more great years with less to work with as an over- s poised to enter the Manning/Brady discussion one of these years, it's Aaron Rodgers.
If Big Ben captures his 3rd SB title in 8 years, I have to say "Yes". From wiki:
Roethlisberger has been one of the most efficient passers in NFL history. He currently ranks 8th all-time in NFL passer rating (92.5), 5th in yards per attempt (8.04), and 12th in completion percentage (63.07😵 among quarterbacks with a minimum of 1500 career attempts. He has the 4th highest career winning percentage (.704) as a starter in the regular season among quarterbacks with a minimum of 90 starts.
And all that with those lousy WRs Pittsburgh has!
EDIT: He's also 9-2 as a starting QB in the playoffs.
Originally posted by no1marauder If Big Ben captures his 3rd SB title in 8 years, I have to say "Yes". From wiki:
Roethlisberger has been one of the most efficient passers in NFL history. He currently ranks 8th all-time in NFL passer rating (92.5), 5th in yards per attempt (8.04), and 12th in completion percentage (63.07😵 among quarterbacks with a minimum of 1500 care ...[text shortened]... with those lousy WRs Pittsburgh has!
EDIT: He's also 9-2 as a starting QB in the playoffs.
Ditto that! Big Ben is as good as they come. Also, he's a proven big game performer. For a last minute drive I'd pick him over Brady and Manning.
Originally posted by scacchipazzo Ditto that! Big Ben is as good as they come. Also, he's a proven big game performer. For a last minute drive I'd pick him over Brady and Manning.
No, I'd rather have Brady on a last minute drive with that laser like accuracy plus he's also proved his self more than competent on a couple SB occasions.
Originally posted by sh76 The answer is a big, emphatic "NO."
Don't get me wrong. Roethlisberger is an excellent QB; maybe a Hall of Famer. But the comparisons I've heard this week about him to Brady or him to Manning are misplaced.
Manning and Brady are pretty much a toss up. I'd give the slight edge to Manning because he's had more great years with less to work with as an over- s poised to enter the Manning/Brady discussion one of these years, it's Aaron Rodgers.
It's the age old question, does a team make a player great or is it all earned?
Really you are judging his success soley on the success of the team. It reminds me of Dan Marino of Miami. He was arguably one of the best of all times, but without a running game he could not win the big one.
Originally posted by whodey It's the age old question, does a team make a player great or is it all earned?
Really you are judging his success soley on the success of the team. It reminds me of Dan Marino of Miami. He was arguably one of the best of all times, but without a running game he could not win the big one.
Not only do I think Manning is better than Brady and both are FAR better than Roethlisberger, I grew up watching the great QBs of the '80s and I've always thought Marino was better than Montana. Marino had winning seasons every year with no running game and very little defense. The parallels between him and Manning are great. Winning a SB is a vastly overrated stat in judging a QB. There are 22 starters in a football game, and that doesn't include special teams. Yes, the QB means more than any one of them, but he does not mean more than the sum total of the rest of them.
"Our idea of a balanced offense is the long pass and the short pass."
Originally posted by sh76 Not only do I think Manning is better than Brady and both are FAR better than Roethlisberger, I grew up watching the great QBs of the '80s and I've always thought Marino was better than Montana. Marino had winning seasons every year with no running game and very little defense. The parallels between him and Manning are great. Winning a SB is a vastly overrated ...[text shortened]... a of a balanced offense is the long pass and the short pass."
- Joe Roby, Dolphins owner
Except that when a QB plays poorly it seems to always trickle down to the rest of the team. Hence Sunday's debacle in Foxboro. Look at how Aaron Rodgers' play elevated his entire team in the Saturday night game. Look at what a Jay Cutler on fire did for the Bears. Flip side is Sanchez did not screw it up for the Jets!
Originally posted by scacchipazzo Except that when a QB plays poorly it seems to always trickle down to the rest of the team. Hence Sunday's debacle in Foxboro. Look at how Aaron Rodgers' play elevated his entire team in the Saturday night game. Look at what a Jay Cutler on fire did for the Bears. Flip side is Sanchez did not screw it up for the Jets!
Either that or when a team plays badly the media blames it on the QB and when the team plays well, the media gives the QB the credit.
Brady was fine on Sunday (it's not his fault that his receivers had trouble getting open and he spent much of the day on his wallet), as was Manning last week. Sanchez was good on Sunday, but was awful against the Colts. People look to the result and then decide whether the QB played well. If the Jets don't get the winning FG against Indy, Manning would have been considered to have played well.
Aaron Rodgers played great; but he had the help of stout second half defense and big pick-6 before halftime. Did Rodgers cause Matty Ice to throw the big pick-6?
Of course the QB is important, but not as important as the rest of the team.
Originally posted by sh76 Either that or when a team plays badly the media blames it on the QB and when the team plays well, the media gives the QB the credit.
Brady was fine on Sunday (it's not his fault that his receivers had trouble getting open and he spent much of the day on his wallet), as was Manning last week. Sanchez was good on Sunday, but was awful against the Colts. Peopl ...[text shortened]... he big pick-6?
Of course the QB is important, but not as important as the rest of the team.
Sanchez was the exception during Colt's game. That game was lost on a Caldwell time out, needlessly called and allowing the Jets more time to drive for their own field goal.
Of course it's a game of 22. Rarely do teams advance with poor QB play regardless of how well the other 21 play, however. Nothing is more devastating to a team than a pick six. Next worst is a pick in the RZ like Brady's. Had Pats scored complexion of the game changes entirely. Also, Brady's reaction on the bench was a sorry display of defeatism. I truly believe that rubbed off on rest of the team.There would have not been a silly fake punt. Once up 14-3 you can call a totally different game. Jets dared Pats to run, exposed a thin O-line and exposed the poor running game. AT times Jets had 7-8 DB's. Not all sacks were coverage sacks, but Brady does not throw well off a scramble and indeed he spent plenty of time on his hiney. Jets defense was called masterfully by a really good head coach.
In the Colt's game in spite of poor play you never saw Sanchez hanging his head. He looked like he wanted the ball to keep attemtping to right the ship!
Originally posted by Eladar Judging quarterbacks based on how many games his team wins is simply wrong.
There are 11 people on offense. There are 11 people on defense.
Give me the Colts minus Manning and a high school QB and I'll kill that high school team with Manning as its quarterback.
Ah, but insert an nfl team instead. Take Colts with high school qb and have the Steelers D on the other side. What do you think might happen? Even a senior qb will not be used to the reads, speed on d and other intangibles. Have you seen Colts with Sorgi or whatever his name is? How about the Eagles with Kolb against the Cowboys? Even though Cowboys played their third string qb the lesser qb on other side made the difference. No way Cowboys beat Eagles with Vick in!
Roethlisberger (who is very good) was absolutely awful in his first Superbowl win. His team won inspite of him.
He simply is not Peyton Manning who has 4 MVPs or Tom Brady who has two Super Bowl MVPs, will win his 2nd MVP. FUrthermore, Brady/ Manning are far more important to their team's success that Roethlisberger (his team did quite well this year when he was suspended).
Originally posted by scacchipazzo Except that when a QB plays poorly it seems to always trickle down to the rest of the team. Hence Sunday's debacle in Foxboro. Look at how Aaron Rodgers' play elevated his entire team in the Saturday night game. Look at what a Jay Cutler on fire did for the Bears. Flip side is Sanchez did not screw it up for the Jets!
Jay Cutler was not on fire the Hawks defense was just all wet. They dropped two pics that went right in to their hands.
Originally posted by tomtom232 Jay Cutler was not on fire the Hawks defense was just all wet. They dropped two pics that went right in to their hands.
They dropped the pics because the ball was thrown like a rocket. Every DB drops pics. If they had good hands they'd be wideouts instead. Do you recall Deion Sanders playing wideout? He dropped as many as he did pics! Cutler's accuracy on that first TD was awesome indeed. Cutler also made his usual bad decisions and got away with at least two pics. That's where the weeather probably played a role.
Is Big Ben now at the Brady/Manning level?
19 Jan '11 01:18
Back to Top