Quote:Pirkster, a couple items of note:

 

1. Regarding NFL Networks Top 100:The players do not get a chance to play against every team, every year, and as such, you could have someone from a team that you did not play against cast a vote in your favor or against it, which would lead to a less informed viewpoint. It's a fun show to watch, but it is in no way an accurate representation of a player's actual abilities or rank within the NFL in their particular position. When NFL execs (not players, but people who are paid to evaluate players and lead teams) where asked which player would they choose to lead their franchise, Luck was the top pick with Rogers in second.

 

2. With Peyton, you have the benefit of hindsight (16 years Vs 5 years). My point was that at the same point in their careers, Luck is ahead. It remains to be seen how they compare as their careers progress. Manning was incredible years 6+. It appears that you are comparing Manning in his prime to Luck at the start of his career, which is an intellectually dishonest comparison.

 

3. Luck may not match Manning's heights. That is a clear possibility as Manning is considered one of the best to ever play the game. As a Colt's fan, I have no problem stating that. It does bother me a bit when I see a post that says "Luck was supposed to break all of Manning's records." As I stated, Luck can't possibly do that only having played 5 seasons compared to Manning's 16. I then provided facts that show that Luck is ahead at this stage in their respective careers.

 

You responded with pictures and no substance. Is their any true objection to the points I have brought up?