None of this demonstrates “head and shoulders” above. At best, they’re equal. In 4 of Big Ben’s first 6 years, his QB rating was higher than Brady’s best QB rating of his first 6. Even now, their ratings are about even. And that’s with Brady’s inflated numbers since getting Moss and Welker, with a makeshift running game. But my beef isn’t with Brady anyway. Fine, he’s so far had a better career, even if it has mainly been to him having played a bit more.
And Brady and Manning have both had consistently better pass-protecting O-lines than Ben. Neither would have been able to take Pittsburgh to that 6th Super Bowl. Roethlisberger has the correct blend of toughness, escapability, arm strength and precision. Neither Brady or Manning would have even been able to survive that season. The sacks that Ben takes are the result of a bad pass-protecting line and good decision-making. The fact is, the Steelers build O-lines to facilitate their running game, not protect the QB. Manning and Brady are protected like the pope.
But to include Peyton in this conversation is absurd. Take your overpaid media hog who loves to take credit for his team’s regular-season success (mostly by being in one of the weakest divisions in the NFL), and then blames his teammates after consistently choking away the important games. I guess its better to be over-rated than under-paid!
I don’t understand how anyone could watch the Steelers play this year and think Big Ben is the main reason for their success. I’ll acknowledge separating out individual player success in football is difficult, but giving up and saying team success equals individual player success is lazy and unfairly punishes guys who aren’t blessed with all-pro teammates.
The Steelers o-line has been perfectly fine at pass blocking. Ben gets sacked so much because he keeps the ball forever. That is on him.
The regular season success has been mostly by being a great team as they have beaten all comers. I also can’t recall Manning ever blaming his teammates for anything. You might be confusing fans of him with the man himself.
He complained after a playoff loss (AFC Championship game against the Steelers, maybe?) that the team did a bad job in pass protection, which people interpreted as him bitching about his offensive line.
However, he’s the one that calls the protections, and he was actually criticizing himself.
Peyton demands control of everything around him, which is probably irritating, but the one thing you can’t say is that he doesn’t take responsibility when things go wrong.
As far as Manning is concerned, if a wideout drops a pass, it’s because Peyton didn’t spend enough time with him in practice. If they can’t score in the red zone, it’s because he isn’t making his reads quickly enough. If he gets sacked, it’s because he called the wrong blocking scheme.
Weakest divisions in the NFL? Seriously? Since realignment, the AFC South claimed at least one of the AFC wild card berths every year but '04, '06 and '09… and in '09, every team in the division was .500 or better, except the Jaguars, who were 7-9.
This sort of lazy argument always drives me up a wall. It’s convenient to defined “important games” however you want, and then accuse a given player of choking away the important games - you’ve managed to cheerfully dismiss all of the objectively important games the player managed to win as not among the “important games,” so hey, of course you’re left with a guy who can’t win the important ones - to you, the only important ones are the ones he lost!
Let’s actually look at the facts.
What’s the important games? Well, clearly, the Super Bowl. In the decade, there are only two quarterbacks with more wins in that particular big game: Roethlisberger and Brady. OK, fine. I’ll accept that. But let’s look closer. Did he “choke away” the game last year against the Saints? I think that’s an arguable point. His performance (31-45 for 333 yards, 1 TD and 1 INT) is better than a lot of Super Bowl winning quarterbacks have managed in the last decade, but let’s let that pass. The INT was big, the team scored only 17 points. OK. Let’s keep going.
Manning’s made it to two Super Bowls, which means he has won two conference championships. Were those “important” games? In the first, the Colts played the New England Patriots. Manning threw for 349 yards on 27-47 passing, bringing his team back from a 21-6 halftime deficit against a team that had finished 12-4. Was that a choke? How about his second conference championship win - scoring 30 points on 26-39, 377, 3 TD - against the best defense in the league. Choke or not a choke?
Overall playoffs (Super Bowls and conference championships included): 9-9 (very strictly speaking, one of those losses came prior to the decade in question). So by what definition has Peyton Manning “consistently choked away the important games?”
Now, Roethlisberger has an incredibly impressive playoff record: 8-2. But he’s also missed the playoffs twice as a starter. That counts, too! Manning has more playoff losses than Roethlisberger at least in part because he has put his team in the playoffs far more often that Roethlisberger; the Colts haven’t missed the playoffs under Manning in eight years.
And all of this is considering wins with no context at all. Take a look at some of those Manning playoff losses: 2007 to the Chargers (400+ yards, 3 TD, 2 INT); 2008 to the Chargers again (300+ yards, 1 TD, 0 INT); 2005 to the Steelers (22-38, 290, 1 TD, 0 INT, outplaying Roethlisberger [14-24, 197, 2/1]). These are not the performances of a QB choking away big games; they’re performances of a great QB on a team that was, as a whole, not quite better than its opponent that day).
There were three huge stinkers: 2002 vs. the Jets and 2003 and 2004 both against the Patriots.
Roethlisberger?
Well, not counting the two seasons when he couldn’t even win enough games to make the playoffs (last season was clearly not his doing; the first time, though, in 2006, he was very bad), he’s lost twice in the postseason. In 2004, he was quite bad against the Patriots (14-24, 226, 2 TD, 3 INT, with that last TD coming in obvious garbage time). In 2007 he played… reasonably well, actually, in losing to the Jaguars (but he threw three picks, one returned for a TD). Were either of those performances “choking away” an important game?
As far as I can see, there is no way to argue for Roethlisberger’s superiority on the basis of this information. Manning has won plenty of important games - the ones in the regular season count, you know, especially when you don’t win enough to make the playoffs at all - and the difference between the two of them in rings comes down to a game where Roethlisberger played horribly and was carried to victory by a good defense (and, let’s face it, the referees). Manning’s regular season performances eclipse Ben’s by miles and miles and miles. When you make the playoffs every damn year, you’re going to have some stinkers mixed in.
Conclusion:
Ben is, to this point, a solid-to-above-average quarterback. There are a dozen quarterbacks active right now who would have won as much - or more - in the same situation in Pittsburgh. There aren’t ten quarterbacks ever who could sustain the sort of excellence Manning has in Indianapolis, over more than a decade and including nine playoff wins and two Super Bowl appearances.
Manning’s my choice here. Followed by Brady. Followed by Kurt Warner, frankly. Roethlisberger gets lumped in with Eli, McNabb, and Favre in the next tier.
He kind of sucked in the middle of the decade, and his crowning achievement was before the decade started, so that makes it easier to dismiss him in a decade conversation. But yeah, he was pretty good.
Ugh. Ben does not belong in the Brady vs Manning conversation at all. Playoff wins matter but so do stats and games won/lost during the regular season. Manning has absurdly good stats. Unreal stats. How many TD’s did he throw in 2004? 48 or so? That’s ridiculous.
Manning has never thrown less than 26 TD’s in any season! Unreal! Shit, he’s already got 9 TD passes in 3 games so far this season versus ZERO interceptions.
Ben has thrown 26 TD’s once. And topped 30 TD’s once (last season). And only topped 4,000 yards in a season ONCE.
These stats matter along with playoff wins and Super Bowls. Manning is clearly, CLEARLY a better QB than Ben. And so was Dan Marino, so there!
I’m not really a football person, but I remember that Super Bowl. I decided to buy a whole salmon from Seattle due to the “quirky” refereeing in that game.
So, on wide receivers. I’m kind of bored at work, and putting off doing an analysis in Mafia because it’s making my brain hurt, so I just ran some numbers. Here is an average season for five different wide receivers in the decade (including only those years in which the player actually played, but making no allowance for injury or decline):
Player A - 87 rec, 1160 yds, 13.4 ypc, 11 TD Player B - 78 rec, 1164 yds, 14.9 ypc, 11 TD Player C - 78 rec, 1174 yds, 15.1 ypc, 12 TD Player D - 87 rec, 1259 yds, 14.5 ypc, 7 TD Player E - 76 rec, 1106 yds, 14.5 ypc, 7 TD
Player A is an eight-time Pro-Bowler who led the league in receptions twice, in yards receiving once, and in TDs twice. He has a Super Bowl ring and played his entire career with a Hall of Fame quarterback.
Player B is a six-time Pro-Bowler who has never led the league in receptions or yards, but has done so three times in receiving touchdowns. He’s never won a Super Bowl (but appeared in one), and has played with quarterbacks ranging from excellent to abysmal.
Player C is a seven-time Pro-Bowler who has never led the league in receptions or yards, but has done so five times in TDs. He’s never won a Super Bowl (but appeared in one), and has played with one Pro-Bowl caliber quarterback, a few nonentities, and a Hall of Fame quarterback.
Player D is a seven-time Pro-Bowler who led the league in receptions once and in receiving yards twice (and once in yards per catch). He has a Super Bowl ring, though not from this decade, and appeared in a second Super Bowl. His quarterback was a Hall of Famer for his first few years; that QB was succeeded by a guy who was regularly injured but usually quite good when healthy.
Player E is a six-time Pro Bowler who led the league in receiving yards once. He has never played in a Super Bowl. His quarterbacks have generally ranged from average to well below.
Player A is Reggie Wayne. Player B is Terrell Owens. Player C is Randy Moss. Player D is Torry Holt. Player E is… Steve Smith 1.0? Either him or Chad Johnson.
ETA: A might be Harrison, now that I think about it.
I had all the same first guesses (Wayne, not Harrison) as RNATB, except I had no guess for E.
Steve Smith appeared in a Superbowl, so he can’t be E. Chad Johnson hasn’t had a “range” of quarterbacks, and Carson Palmer has been above average multiple years anyway so it can’t be Chad.
Forgot about the Panthers SB appearance. He said “generally ranged”. I’d put Kitna in the “below average” category, and Palmer’s above average years are looking a long way away.
A is Harrison
B is Owens
C is Moss
D is Holt
E is OchoJohnson
Johnson’s had a range of quarterbacks: Ryan Fitzpatrick was his QB for the majority of 2008, and Jon Kitna was his QB from 2001-2003. Palmer has three years of above average production in there, but that’s why I weaseled out with “generally ranged.”
My conclusion from the exercise: Torry Holt was really good, maybe better than he gets credit for being. I think I’d pick Moss and Holt as my Team of the Decade guys, with Harrison in the slot. TO misses the cut, and OchoJohnson is a distant fifth.
I watch them closely. The really aren’t good at pass protection at all. You will see many cases where the Steeler QB has lots of time to throw. Look closer at those replays and you will see that the other team is only rushing three or four on those plays. Happens all the time, especially when a guy like Dixon, who can be baited into a bad read, is in there. That doesn’t excuse Ben from all the sacks but he’s only one factor of many. The Steelers have a run-blocking type line in a pass first offense. Frankly, I don’t think the two starting guards, Essex and Kemoeatu would be starters on many other NFL teams. They can both look fantastic on one play (usually a run) and then completely utterly lost on the next.
Isaac Bruce was still arguably “the guy” in 2000 (though their numbers were similar), but Holt outproduced Bruce in 2001 and 2002. Bruce was an afterthought for Holt’s awesome 2003. Holt outproduced Bruce again in 2004. In 2005 the number two guy was Kevin Curtis (Bruce missed a bunch of games). In 2006 and 2007, Holt again, and by now Bruce was not close. In 2008, Holt was “the guy,” though his numbers were bad. Finally, in 2009, he bottomed out in Jacksonville.
So Holt was the number one guy on his own team for all but two years (2000 and 2009) in the decade; for five of those, it wasn’t even close.
Well, if Bruce is drawing more coverage, because he is considered the number one threat, Holt may be able to put up better numbers than him despite being an inferior receiver. I don’t know that it is true in this case, but raw stat totals certainly can be deceiving.
