One sane man and two lunatics
 

The two guys arguing with Stephen A. in this clip have obviously been snorting some ajax or something.

Re: One sane man and two lunatics
 

It's a sad day when Stephen A. Smith is the voice of reason..

Re: One sane man and two lunatics
 

Agree. The other two are idiots. FYI, Payton Manning may have 2 rings, but he only won 1. The Denver D won the other because he sucked in that game. The only reason Denver got a ring was because Cam choked.

13 of 23 for 104 yards passing and 3.7 yards per pass. Sad show for someone who is better than Brees.

Face to face, when it mattered most, Brees beat Manning. Nuf said.

Oh yea. Manning played most of his home games indoors. I guess that is only an issue when your looking at Brees' numbers.

Re: One sane man and two lunatics
 

Yeah, it is kind of funny how they forgot Peyton played indoors at Indy.

Also, he wasn't very good in the playoffs in his first super bowl run (though better than the second one), as I remember. And we know how "well" he played in most of his other playoff appearances. Not to mention, of all of the QB's being mentioned in this silly "greatest of all time" discussion people keep having, I would say Peyton and Montana had by far the most legit talent. Brees has had some stars along the way, and sometimes gets too much credit from some Saints fans, in my opinion, as if they believe he's had nothing but recycled garbage to play with. But he also hasn't exactly been loaded with what people would call "thoroughbreds", either.

Peyton had Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark and Edgerrin James, among others, for a long time in Indy. Then he had that loaded stable of receivers in Denver for a couple of years, before some of them, as well as himself, began to fall apart physically, and his defense had to carry the team.

Putting Brett Favre ahead of ANY of the main guys in this discussion is a joke, to me. Obviously he had a very good career, but he has a lot of strikes against him when it comes to comparing him to other greats. He and Brees both were/have been known to turn it over too much over the course of their careers, but Brees is far more accurate, otherwise, and has been more consistent. Favre really limped through his last five years or so, with the exception of that '09 season in Minnesota. He was more of a compiler than any of these guys.

Re: One sane man and two lunatics
 

Montana, of course, had Jerry Rice, John Taylor, Roger Craig, and a dominant defense. It's like people forget Joe Montana had a great defense.

I am so tired of listening to talking heads pretend that there is some invisible, magical aura that somehow separates some guys from others, because... Well, because they say so.

No, I'll tell you what it is. These guys spend their entire careers covering the big markets, or the more established sports franchises, and thus they are incapable of comprehending that these legendary figures, whom they have elevated to a near god-like status, could possibly be unseated from their angelic perch on the imaginary mountain of "greatness" that they have invented in their minds.

Re: One sane man and two lunatics
 

Opinions are like a$$holes: Everybody's got one.

Re: One sane man and two lunatics
 

....and most of them stink....

Re: One sane man and two lunatics
 

Don't you find it odd that all of these self-anointed great minds rarely if ever mention Bradshaw. Last I looked, he has four rings. Yes, he had a great D, and running backs, and receivers. Most of the other "greats" did as well. The only "Great" QB who won in spite of the D was Brees. Imaging his numbers if the D could have actually stopped people and put the ball back in Brees' hands another 2 or 3 times a game. The exceptions were 2010 and 2017, and in those years the Saints were none too shabby.

What separates Bradshaw from most of the others, and I quote Terry himself is "I called my own plays". For a country bumpkin who was initially ridiculed by all the big city sports media, he did pretty well for himself. Sure beat "America's Team" at every opportunity and put a few bucks in my pocket on bets with my Texas bosses.

Seems that these sports media minds may have an anti-LA bias, and I'm not talking Los Angeles.

Re: One sane man and two lunatics
 

The numbers would probably be less stellar because he wouldn't have to throw it coming from behind all the time or to score more than 30 to win every game.

Ole' Teddy sure deserves a little more respect.

Re: One sane man and two lunatics
 

Well, clearly he didn't have the "wow factor", either. He didn't make enough noise, or speak eloquently enough, or have good enough looks, I suppose.

Yeah, I don't think he was as talented as most of the guys in this conversation, but if we are going to use super bowl wins in equal value for everyone, then Bradshaw should absolutely be high up on the list.

But, again, he played in a small market, and it wasn't an established winning franchise, until he helped make it that way. Notice all the love Ben Roethlisberger gets in comparison. He's had a very up and down career, but he plays for the NOW famous Steelers, and he's won a couple of super bowls, so people think he's great.