How much damage has Peyton Manning done to his status as one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time?
jameschirico: The first quarter saw the Saints rush 3 in the dime zone package inviting slaughter by a pinpoint passing Manning given time. The Colt defen...
Correction: Tom Brady is 3 and 1 in the 2000s.
John Elway was 5-1 in championship games, which are typically more competiti...
edwcorey: It wasn't Manning who muffed the onside kick or who dropped a sure huge gainer in the 2nd (?) quarter, or who hit the N.O. receiver out of b...
Make a Comment | All Comments (23)
February 8, 2010 10:45 AM | Report Offensive Comments
He still has 1 more superbowl than Marino, he has as many as Brett. He had the record for TDs in a season at one point. I think his legacy is in good shape.
February 8, 2010 10:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Has it damaged his legacy? I dunno. Ask Archie Manning. In fact ask Archie Manning about his conflicted view of the Saints' win and son's loss while you're at it.
February 8, 2010 11:26 AM | Report Offensive Comments
The notion that a QB is the sole reason a team wins or loses a super bowl is simplistic -- appealing to those whose brains are too small to comprehend the notion of team. Some of the best quarterbacks who ever donned cleats won no super bowls -- Fouts, Marino and Jurgenson come readily to mind. That they won no super bowls had NOTHING AT ALL to do with their lack of ability or guts or brains; it was all about playing on teams that just lacked talent, especially on defense. The Skins won three super bowls with QBs who were (charitably) slightly-above-average NFL QBs. Had Joe Theismann played for the 49ers, padding his stats without having to throw the ball deep, he would be getting the accolades that Montana gets from the Super-bowl-wins-are-all-that-matters simpletons. All that Prissy Little West Coast Offense required was a smart QB who could throw short passes accurately. Joe fit that description perfectly. When Montana was hurt one year, Pat Hayden (a smart, weak-armed, accurate QB) filled in and you never even noticed Joe was gone if you checked the fantasy league stats of the SF QB.
Manning is a great quarterback and there is nothing at all he can't do that a QB should be able to do. He's right up there with Fouts, Marino and Jurgenson -- only he has played on teams good enough to let him go 1-1 in the super bowl. He's deservedly hall of fame bound regardless if he never again even reaches the super bowl.
February 8, 2010 11:27 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Wait a second...I am confused.
Is it the Indianapolis Braves or the Atlanta Colts?
February 8, 2010 12:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
People who have watched this season and the past several seasons for the Colts with Manning as the QB know that this one game does not erase the value he has to that team or his greatness in the history of NFL quarterbacks. I am not even really a Colt fan or a Manning fan,but, he is a standup guy, with few excuses, who brought a fairly good team close to greatness. This game and one bad play does not change that.
February 8, 2010 1:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
It's only football. . .who cares?
February 8, 2010 1:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
TERRY BRADSHAW was 4 and 0 in the SBowl in the 70's
JOE MONTANA was 4 and 0 (mostly) in the 80's
TROY AIKMAN was 3 and 0 in the 90's
TOM BRADY is 3 and 0 in the 00's
This doesn't make Manning less of a quarterback. He's obviously one of the best. It just sets the standard regardless of whether you like the afore mentioned qbacks or not. Personally I like Brett Farve' because he has more personality but the other guys WON THE FUCKING GAME... duh.
February 8, 2010 1:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Without Manning, but with a good QB (Romo?) the Colts might be a respectable team. Might.
February 8, 2010 1:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Who cares. The biggest difference is between zero rings and one ring. Just ask Dan Marino.
February 8, 2010 2:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
I thought Manning played very well in this game. The Colts were hurt badly by the onside kick and by the missed, long field goal attempt. They were also hurt by the interception, but an interception has to be expected from the number of pass attempts he made.
I've been a Redskin fan for more than 45 years. Sonny Jurgenson is still the best I've seen. I don't remeber him ever winning a championship. He made the Redskins exciting in seasons when they won only half of their games, or fewer. A quarterback needs support. Not sure that Manning got that yesterday.
February 8, 2010 2:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Manning has always been a good regular season quarterback, beating teams he is supposed to be able to beat, but when the pressure is on in the post season he always chokes. The Colts are a team that is designed to play with a lead. Frustrate him and he will fall apart. The great quarterbacks win games in the clutch, Manning loses them.
He got lucky with his win over the Bears. A group of retarded handicapped monkeys could have beat that team, no offense to the monkeys.
February 8, 2010 3:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
I think Peyton Manning is probably already, in terms of pure quarterbacking skills, the best who ever played. But your team's record and superbowl wins are part of the bigger picture 'legacy'.
February 8, 2010 4:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Suggesting that 'multiple' Super Bowl titles make a quarterback great is like suggesting that Pete Sampras wasn't great because he failed to win a French Open.
How many particular victories are enough, and who makes that judgment?
Jondercik is incorrect about Manning 'choking'. One of Manning's strengths is that under pressure, he steps up to orchestrate what happens on the field. With a completely healthy Freeney, who knows how much better the Colts could have contained the Saints.
February 8, 2010 4:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Do football players have legacies? I doubt it. The doctors who gave up a couple of months of rich practice to go to Haiti--those people have a legacy. All football players have is entertainment value for which some of them, at least, are very well paid.
February 8, 2010 7:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
It doesn't damage his legacy, it just means he didn't build it up any more. He's still a QB with great regular seasons and 1 SB title.
Did Brady's legacy take a hit because of the loss to the Giants? I don't think so. But it would have been even larger had he won that game and the Pats finished 19-0.
February 8, 2010 8:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
This is really, as most of the comments suggest, a scoreboard issue, and, as such, a reasonably cut-and-dried issue. Manning, like John Elway, will end up in the hall of fame, unlike many of the other one-ring quarterbacks. The only reason we're discussing this is that a significant number of sportswriters with nothing to write about during the two weeks between the divisional finals and the Superbowl did some wishful thinking. It reminds me of 1984, when we had two weeks of Marino-Marino-Marino before the 49ers whomped the Dolphins.
February 8, 2010 9:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Legacy?? Manning is an above average QB. And even though he does not show it outwardly, I think his ego is huge. Too big for his own good, but who would ever question the squeaky-clean Manning? Watching him audible out of every 2nd play must get a little tiresome for his offensive coaches. They call certain plays because they see things that will work. Yes they might miss a thing or two, but not to the extent that every other play call is changed by Manning. His legacy is safe though. Great statistical QB. I would take Brady (4 Bowls, 3 wins) over Manning any day.
February 8, 2010 10:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Manning will be regarded as one of the best ever - hell, he already has a Super Bowl.
Not shaking hands with the Saints will do more to harm his legacy than losing this game.
February 8, 2010 10:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Who gives a s__t??????? He is an employee in a high-priced entertainment business. WaPo, you got any important questions to ask us??? TFL, Ken
February 8, 2010 11:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
The first quarter saw the Saints rush 3 in the dime zone package inviting slaughter by a pinpoint passing Manning given time. The Colt defense rushed 5-6 all game stopping the run, with a deep nickel package preventing throwing deep, attempted by Brees in the first quarter. The Saints adjusted the defense blitzing often, putting pressure on Manning like the Jets in the first half before 2 cornerbacks went down ending their blitz. Brees from the second quarter on, threw underneath, taking what the Colts were allowing. That king of ball control denied touches for Manning, whom played a decent game until the late interception going for the tying touchdown. Not shaking hands was in very poor taste, as I remember many Stanley Cup handshakes between black eyed fighters.
February 8, 2010 11:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Correction: Tom Brady is 3 and 1 in the 2000s.
John Elway was 5-1 in championship games, which are typically more competitive than Super Bowls. The one he lost (10-7) saw him severely injured in the 1st quarter.
If you listen only to the media, over the last 15 years, the best quarterback ever to play the game has come along seven times:
Of all the multi SB winners, Bradshaw and Montana have the most, and they were the least physically talented.
Of course Peyton belongs in the Hall of Fame, but after seeing them announce this years class, how significant is that really? No Sharpe, No Romanowski, no Tim Brown...
February 10, 2010 5:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
It wasn't Manning who muffed the onside kick or who dropped a sure huge gainer in the 2nd (?) quarter, or who hit the N.O. receiver out of bounds. When elite teams play, the team making fewer mistakes usually prevails.
February 16, 2010 3:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments