Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bostonfred

Who's better, Manning or Brady?

Who's the better quarterback?  

520 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I disagree. His throw to Sanders for a td (50 yards) was perfect.

I think what little problems he has are pressure related, he plays terribly under pressure, behind and even more so in big games. Not saying Brady doesn't, but I think it's much less so.

That's exactly the throw I'm talking about. He put everything he had into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure its been said here but thread is long -- and then they'll be arguments the weather has to be New England "wicked" cold to count, but didn't Manning win his SB in the rain?

Being rainy in Miami in February is a hell of a lot different than playing in the cold and snow in New England over the winter. No one ever said he can't win in the rain either, it's the cold that he can't get it done in.

yeah --I guess Denver never gets cold

Why does everyone assume Denver is really cold? It's not. Other places in Colorado yeah, but Denver is actually pretty mild compared to New England.

Stuff like citing one rainy game in Miami leaves me shaking my head... But I don't remember too many bad weather games for Peyton, but let's pretend he played his whole career in Denver rather than a dome - and playing the fair weather Jaguars, Titans and Texans (another dome team).

I don't hold that against him. You play where you play. Although I do give Brady some extra credit.

For the record, I don't see the need to rank them - it is just an academic debate. When its said and done - and if Manning finishes with a single SB, I think Peyton will be remembered as struggling in the biggest games. Again, with all the pedigree and gaudy stats, one SB will feel like he underachieved.

I'm not saying it's fair but it will be there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just like to say that it has been a pleasure. Watching Manning grimace during the game Sunday reminded me of an aging Marino. It is a reminder of the inevitable. Manning will be done soon and Brady won't be far behind.

I'm glad this thread got bumped. What a tribute. The Shark Pool has been debating their respective greatness for a decade. This thread projects the collective respect we have for these two guys, as well as reflects the mutual respect they have for each other.

It is a privilege to get to watch the career of an all-time-great athlete, let alone two. They've had long careers. There are so many things that have happened during that time. Perspective has been lost and gained and lost again. I hope they make it to the AFC Championship Game. I will be rooting for both of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just like to say that it has been a pleasure. Watching Manning grimace during the game Sunday reminded me of an aging Marino. It is a reminder of the inevitable. Manning will be done soon and Brady won't be far behind.

I'm glad this thread got bumped. What a tribute. The Shark Pool has been debating their respective greatness for a decade. This thread projects the collective respect we have for these two guys, as well as reflects the mutual respect they have for each other.

It is a privilege to get to watch the career of an all-time-great athlete, let alone two. They've had long careers. There are so many things that have happened during that time. Perspective has been lost and gained and lost again. I hope they make it to the AFC Championship Game. I will be rooting for both of them.

I don't think you know how this works. You have to pick one and hate the other. It's the only way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just like to say that it has been a pleasure. Watching Manning grimace during the game Sunday reminded me of an aging Marino. It is a reminder of the inevitable. Manning will be done soon and Brady won't be far behind.

I'm glad this thread got bumped. What a tribute. The Shark Pool has been debating their respective greatness for a decade. This thread projects the collective respect we have for these two guys, as well as reflects the mutual respect they have for each other.

It is a privilege to get to watch the career of an all-time-great athlete, let alone two. They've had long careers. There are so many things that have happened during that time. Perspective has been lost and gained and lost again. I hope they make it to the AFC Championship Game. I will be rooting for both of them.

I don't think you know how this works. You have to pick one and hate the other. It's the only way.

Thats silly, outside of them playing each other I like both of them, I respect the hell out of Manning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just like to say that it has been a pleasure. Watching Manning grimace during the game Sunday reminded me of an aging Marino. It is a reminder of the inevitable. Manning will be done soon and Brady won't be far behind.

I'm glad this thread got bumped. What a tribute. The Shark Pool has been debating their respective greatness for a decade. This thread projects the collective respect we have for these two guys, as well as reflects the mutual respect they have for each other.

It is a privilege to get to watch the career of an all-time-great athlete, let alone two. They've had long careers. There are so many things that have happened during that time. Perspective has been lost and gained and lost again. I hope they make it to the AFC Championship Game. I will be rooting for both of them.

I don't think you know how this works. You have to pick one and hate the other. It's the only way.

What did you think I meant when I said "mutual respect"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm totally curious to see how Manning performs this year in the postseason, since it's probably the first year since there were dinosaurs that he entered the postseason without anybody expecting all that much from him.

Maybe he steps up in the playoffs with the spotlight pointed elsewhere for a change. Would be a fun little coda to a career that's gotten him labeled something of a regular season warrior.

I find myself rooting for him, even though I usually don't...but I really don't expect that much from him, either. :oldunsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony is that some of the Peyton's best games ever have been in the playoffs - torching the Broncos number 4 ranked D following the '03 and '04 seasons, torching the Jets number 1 ranked defense in the '09 AFCCG, lat year's gem in the AFCCG, etc. - but all some want to remember are the losses. It's just the way some are wired to think, I suppose. I think what hurts the perception of him the most is that he hasn't played all-time great in any of the Super Bowls he has been in. Even though he was the MVP of the win over the Bears, his stats weren't gaudy, in large part because that game was played in a rainstorm. Last year hurt the perception, but history is already showing that that Seattle D is one of the best ever, and Joe Montana on his best day would have struggled with the way that defense was playing that day. But all seem see is, "Peyton lost," and resort to the silly "Peyton is a choker" narrative. Yay for the internet and brain dead opinions though.

Bottom line for me: both Brady and Peyton are in the top tier of all-time great quarterbacks. Who is better? A very strong case can be made for either. I think most objective people would agree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony is that some of the Peyton's best games ever have been in the playoffs - torching the Broncos number 4 ranked D following the '03 and '04 seasons, torching the Jets number 1 ranked defense in the '09 AFCCG, lat year's gem in the AFCCG, etc. - but all some want to remember are the losses. It's just the way some are wired to think, I suppose. I think what hurts the perception of him the most is that he hasn't played all-time great in any of the Super Bowls he has been in. Even though he was the MVP of the win over the Bears, his stats weren't gaudy, in large part because that game was played in a rainstorm. Last year hurt the perception, but history is already showing that that Seattle D is one of the best ever, and Joe Montana on his best day would have struggled with the way that defense was playing that day. But all seem see is, "Peyton lost," and resort to the silly "Peyton is a choker" narrative. Yay for the internet and brain dead opinions though.

Bottom line for me: both Brady and Peyton are in the top tier of all-time great quarterbacks. Who is better? A very strong case can be made for either. I think most objective people would agree with that.

The other interesting thing is that, for the last decade, Brady has basically been everything that people bashed Peyton for, but they refuse to criticize him for the same.

Gaudy regular season stats, duds in big playoff games and at the ends of games. He took a 17-0 team with the best offense in history and put up 14 points in the Super Bowl. Late interceptions in big games, including one of the Super Bowl losses. A QB rating under 50 in the 4th quarter of AFCG/Super Bowls. And the last few years, among the league's worst in percentage of game winning/tying drives converted.

Yet, like you mentioned above, all bad things swept aside because of a few games he played really well in TEN YEARS ago.

Once people have made up their minds, anything that doesn't jive with it is ignored for all eternity. Tony Romo can throw for 400 yards and 3 touchdowns this week but anything less than a Super Bowl MVP means he's a choker. Meanwhile guys like Brady and Roethlisberger can go one and done as many years in a row as they want and no one will ever think any less of them. Minds are already made up.

I think most would agree that Tom Brady of the last 10 years is a much better QB than the game manager Tom Brady that won 3 Super Bowls with good defenses early in his career. But Tom Brady of the last 10 years IS Peyton Manning, with one less Super Bowl and slightly worse playoff stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peyton had the literal best offense ever and crumpled in the superbowl. To draw comparisons with rest of the arguments, Peyton had a better statistical season then the '07 Brady, had a better team then the '07 Pats, and did less in the regular season and was hilariously awful in the superbowl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peyton had the literal best offense ever and crumpled in the superbowl.

Right, which he was aptly criticized for. Hence my point that Brady of the last 10 years is essentially everything that people criticize Manning for, just without the same criticism ever being directed at him.

"Choker!" was all we heard after last year's Super Bowl. When Brady did the exact same thing, with the literal best offense ever at the time (and not against one of the best defenses of all-time, mind you) no one said a word.

Just as no one said a word when Peyton played lights out against Brady in the AFCG last year. But if it were reversed, we would have heard nothing but an endless array of "clutch" and "choker" about the two. Even more comically, we heard those words thrown around when Brady beat Peyton in the regular season, but not the reverse when Peyton beat Brady in the playoffs the year before.

Again, because of stuff that happened more than 10 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony is that some of the Peyton's best games ever have been in the playoffs - torching the Broncos number 4 ranked D following the '03 and '04 seasons, torching the Jets number 1 ranked defense in the '09 AFCCG, lat year's gem in the AFCCG, etc. - but all some want to remember are the losses. It's just the way some are wired to think, I suppose. I think what hurts the perception of him the most is that he hasn't played all-time great in any of the Super Bowls he has been in. Even though he was the MVP of the win over the Bears, his stats weren't gaudy, in large part because that game was played in a rainstorm. Last year hurt the perception, but history is already showing that that Seattle D is one of the best ever, and Joe Montana on his best day would have struggled with the way that defense was playing that day. But all seem see is, "Peyton lost," and resort to the silly "Peyton is a choker" narrative. Yay for the internet and brain dead opinions though.

Bottom line for me: both Brady and Peyton are in the top tier of all-time great quarterbacks. Who is better? A very strong case can be made for either. I think most objective people would agree with that.

The other interesting thing is that, for the last decade, Brady has basically been everything that people bashed Peyton for, but they refuse to criticize him for the same.

Gaudy regular season stats, duds in big playoff games and at the ends of games. He took a 17-0 team with the best offense in history and put up 14 points in the Super Bowl. Late interceptions in big games, including one of the Super Bowl losses. A QB rating under 50 in the 4th quarter of AFCG/Super Bowls. And the last few years, among the league's worst in percentage of game winning/tying drives converted.

Yet, like you mentioned above, all bad things swept aside because of a few games he played really well in TEN YEARS ago.

Once people have made up their minds, anything that doesn't jive with it is ignored for all eternity. Tony Romo can throw for 400 yards and 3 touchdowns this week but anything less than a Super Bowl MVP means he's a choker. Meanwhile guys like Brady and Roethlisberger can go one and done as many years in a row as they want and no one will ever think any less of them. Minds are already made up.

I think most would agree that Tom Brady of the last 10 years is a much better QB than the game manager Tom Brady that won 3 Super Bowls with good defenses early in his career. But Tom Brady of the last 10 years IS Peyton Manning, with one less Super Bowl and slightly worse playoff stats.

A for effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah currently Brady is better but if we are talking all time, it's very close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we know which one of them hit the wall first, anyway.

Okay, but Manning started playing in the NFL three years before Brady did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we know which one of them hit the wall first, anyway.

Okay, but Manning started playing in the NFL three years before Brady did.

Clock it - in three years when Brady has six more rings and is the god king emperor of the seen and unseen we can compare careers.

500 Gronk TDs later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah currently Brady is better but if we are talking all time, it's very close.

This.

However, if Brady wins the title this year, not sure too many people will argue Peyton was better then Brady when they're both retired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah currently Brady is better but if we are talking all time, it's very close.

This.

However, if Brady wins the title this year, not sure too many people will argue Peyton was better then Brady when they're both retired.

Yup I think it will be a lot harder to make a case for Manning if Brady wins another SuperBowl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given how much people attach team success directly to quarterbacks, I suspect that would be the case, but while Brady has been pretty great since early in his career, it wasn't very often where you'd say he was one of the two or three absolute best quarterbacks in the league. Hell, he has only been All-Pro three times, 1st team twice and 2nd team once. Meanwhile, Peyton has been 1st All-Pro seven times, which means he was considered THE best QB in the league SEVEN times to only Brady's TWO. Granted, All-Pro doesn't mean everything, but it's a good measuring stick. I don't think people consider Troy Aikman better than Steve Young even though Aikman won three rings to Young's once during their respective primes. Now, of course, Brady is far better than Aikman was, so it's not an exact comparison, but you get the idea. Rings matter, but they aren't everything. Brady and Peyton are both still in my all-time top 6 quarterbacks (along with Unitas, Young, Montana and Elway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given how much people attach team success directly to quarterbacks, I suspect that would be the case, but while Brady has been pretty great since early in his career, it wasn't very often where you'd say he was one of the two or three absolute best quarterbacks in the league. Hell, he has only been All-Pro three times, 1st team twice and 2nd team once. Meanwhile, Peyton has been 1st All-Pro seven times, which means he was considered THE best QB in the league SEVEN times to only Brady's TWO. Granted, All-Pro doesn't mean everything, but it's a good measuring stick. I don't think people consider Troy Aikman better than Steve Young even though Aikman won three rings to Young's once during their respective primes. Now, of course, Brady is far better than Aikman was, so it's not an exact comparison, but you get the idea. Rings matter, but they aren't everything. Brady and Peyton are both still in my all-time top 6 quarterbacks (along with Unitas, Young, Montana and Elway).

Did you know Elway never had a 1st team All-Pro? Funny right? I didn't know until I looked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony is that some of the Peyton's best games ever have been in the playoffs - torching the Broncos number 4 ranked D following the '03 and '04 seasons, torching the Jets number 1 ranked defense in the '09 AFCCG, lat year's gem in the AFCCG, etc. - but all some want to remember are the losses. It's just the way some are wired to think, I suppose. I think what hurts the perception of him the most is that he hasn't played all-time great in any of the Super Bowls he has been in. Even though he was the MVP of the win over the Bears, his stats weren't gaudy, in large part because that game was played in a rainstorm. Last year hurt the perception, but history is already showing that that Seattle D is one of the best ever, and Joe Montana on his best day would have struggled with the way that defense was playing that day. But all seem see is, "Peyton lost," and resort to the silly "Peyton is a choker" narrative. Yay for the internet and brain dead opinions though.

Bottom line for me: both Brady and Peyton are in the top tier of all-time great quarterbacks. Who is better? A very strong case can be made for either. I think most objective people would agree with that.

The other interesting thing is that, for the last decade, Brady has basically been everything that people bashed Peyton for, but they refuse to criticize him for the same.

Gaudy regular season stats, duds in big playoff games and at the ends of games. He took a 17-0 team with the best offense in history and put up 14 points in the Super Bowl. Late interceptions in big games, including one of the Super Bowl losses. A QB rating under 50 in the 4th quarter of AFCG/Super Bowls. And the last few years, among the league's worst in percentage of game winning/tying drives converted.

Yet, like you mentioned above, all bad things swept aside because of a few games he played really well in TEN YEARS ago.

Once people have made up their minds, anything that doesn't jive with it is ignored for all eternity. Tony Romo can throw for 400 yards and 3 touchdowns this week but anything less than a Super Bowl MVP means he's a choker. Meanwhile guys like Brady and Roethlisberger can go one and done as many years in a row as they want and no one will ever think any less of them. Minds are already made up.

I think most would agree that Tom Brady of the last 10 years is a much better QB than the game manager Tom Brady that won 3 Super Bowls with good defenses early in his career. But Tom Brady of the last 10 years IS Peyton Manning, with one less Super Bowl and slightly worse playoff stats.

There are grains of truth in what you are saying, I agree that Brady in the last 10 years has been more like Manning. Still, Brady managed to get his team to the AFCC 6 out of those 10 years while Manning managed it only half as many (3) times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given how much people attach team success directly to quarterbacks, I suspect that would be the case, but while Brady has been pretty great since early in his career, it wasn't very often where you'd say he was one of the two or three absolute best quarterbacks in the league. Hell, he has only been All-Pro three times, 1st team twice and 2nd team once. Meanwhile, Peyton has been 1st All-Pro seven times, which means he was considered THE best QB in the league SEVEN times to only Brady's TWO. Granted, All-Pro doesn't mean everything, but it's a good measuring stick. I don't think people consider Troy Aikman better than Steve Young even though Aikman won three rings to Young's once during their respective primes. Now, of course, Brady is far better than Aikman was, so it's not an exact comparison, but you get the idea. Rings matter, but they aren't everything. Brady and Peyton are both still in my all-time top 6 quarterbacks (along with Unitas, Young, Montana and Elway).

Did you know Elway never had a 1st team All-Pro? Funny right? I didn't know until I looked.

I know. That definitely hurts him in the discussion when comparing him to others. He was 2nd team three times (I think), which is still pretty darn good (and finished behind Montana, Young and Favre those years, all of whom are top 10 all-time), but his lack of All-Pros does not help his cause, especially when guys like Manning, Unitas, Young and Montana have a very high number of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I like Brady better is that he has historically been saddled with pretty bad receiving options. Heck, this year he is making Julian Edelman, Brandon Lafell and Danny Amendola look good.

Aside from the Moss/Welker years and the brief point where he had Welker/Hernandez/Gronk, Brady has had poor weapons.

Manning has always had great talent around him on offense.

To me, I've always thought they would finish their careers in a similar way, and both be thought of as 2 of the top 5 QB's. But Brady seems to be much younger and also seems to have found a second wind. You really could see him playing successfully another 3-4 years. If he grabs another championship, you can put this thread to bed.

Brady will never end the debate until he gets that "2nd half of his career" championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given how much people attach team success directly to quarterbacks, I suspect that would be the case, but while Brady has been pretty great since early in his career, it wasn't very often where you'd say he was one of the two or three absolute best quarterbacks in the league. Hell, he has only been All-Pro three times, 1st team twice and 2nd team once. Meanwhile, Peyton has been 1st All-Pro seven times, which means he was considered THE best QB in the league SEVEN times to only Brady's TWO. Granted, All-Pro doesn't mean everything, but it's a good measuring stick. I don't think people consider Troy Aikman better than Steve Young even though Aikman won three rings to Young's once during their respective primes. Now, of course, Brady is far better than Aikman was, so it's not an exact comparison, but you get the idea. Rings matter, but they aren't everything. Brady and Peyton are both still in my all-time top 6 quarterbacks (along with Unitas, Young, Montana and Elway).

That's all true, rings aren't everything, but they matter. P Manning is probably indisputably the best regular season qb of all time. However, should Brady win another SB there will imho be a strong argument that Brady was\is better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Brady seems to be much younger and also seems to have found a second wind. You really could see him playing successfully another 3-4 years.

Funny how you could have said the opposite 3 months ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just the rings or the playoff wins - although it's lazy to say that brady only won games and titles because he had a better defense, when manning was surrounded by better weapons. They both had good players around them, and manning's stats are a direct result of his better receivers. Manning worked with several hall of famers for extended periods of time, and it got him the stats-based mvp awards that his fans hang their hats on. You can't then cry poor when his defense isn't elite - especially when the Colts d dragged him to his only title while he had eight turnovers and 3 touchdowns.

It isn't just what brady did with poor receivers - although leading the league in touchdowns when troy brown is your top receiver and he's surrounded by more smurfs should be impressive. Leading the pats to an afc championship game with Reche Caldwell is impressive. Leading the Patriots to another AFCCG with a historically bad pass defense is impressive.

It's the diversity of situations we've seen brady succeed in. Can Brady succeed with bad receivers? Sure. Can he run a tight end based offense? Bomb away to moss and set nfl records? Dink and dunk his way to elite numbers with Welker? Manage games to a title but make huge clutch drives - and go toe to toe in a superbowl fourth quarter shootout? Run the hurry up or run the ball out? Sneak for a first down automatically on 4th and 1? He's done so many different things incredibly well.

It's also what he does when he has good receivers. In his one season with high end targets - and moss wasn't even considered high end anymore when he got there - he showed that he was not only capable of the kind of regular season dominance that manning has shown, but he set multiple nfl records for most prolific offense, touchdowns passing, and touchdowns receiving for moss. He also set the interception record in 2010, and passed Marino's long standing yardage record (albeit the same season brees did it). And his receivers have multiple nfl records from playing with him. Moss has the all time touchdown record. Welker has more consecutive games with 100 receptions than anyone in nfl history. Gronk set the touchdown record for rookie tight ends and then the overall touchdown record for tight ends. When Brady had had targets, he has used them every bit as well as manning - it just hasn't been a main focus of his teams to get him studs to throw to the way it has for manning.

And it's also the sustained success. Nine afc championship games in 13 seasons, with five wins and three superbowls so far. A 160-47 regular season record (manning's is 179-77). A 19-8 postseason record (manning's is 11-12). Has led his team to a winning record every season he's started (manning has seasons with 3 and 6 wins). Stats are nice but the goal is to win games. I'm sure most colts fans would trade manning's 6 tds against the Lions on thanksgiving for a couple against the patriots in the playoffs. I'm sure most Denver fans would trade his week 17 touchdowns in a meaningless game last year for a couple against Seattle. As a pats fan, I'd gladly trade a couple of bradys nfl record setting 50 touchdowns in 2007 for one more in the superbowl that year.

The only real argument for manning is his regular season stats. Ive seen people mention mvp awards and all pro teams, but those awards are just recognition of his stats. I've seen people complain that he didn't win because he had good receivers but bad defenses, but that's how you get great stats. Manning had a perfect set up throughout his career to put up gaudy numbers - plus having Jacksonville, Tennessee and Houston in his division, playing in a dome, staying with the same offensive coordinator his whole career then bringing that offense with him to Denver. He's had plenty of talent around him, but he hasn't been as successful at the real objective, winning.

And yes, I know, it's his defense. But he had so many advantages on offense to overcome that. And ironically, it was his defense that dragged him to his only title while he put up multi turnover games. The defense could't overcome him putting up a zero against the jets, or throwing four picks against the pats, or leading the Colts to three points the following year, or repeatedly throwing the game away against Pittsburgh, or throwing a game losing pick six in the superbowl, and so on. Manning has set regular season nfl touchdown records twice. In those postseasons, he lost games by scoring 3 and 8 points. How is that even possible? And his cumulative numbers paint a rosier picture than the truth - he had 12 touchdowns and just one pick while steam rolling Kansas city and Denver in the games in 2003-4, but during those two seasons his 13 td to 6 int don't tell the story of a guy who threw for picks in one game and led his team to three points in the other.

Brady has never lead his team to fewer than 13 points in the playoffs. Manning has been shut out. Brady has had bad playoff games, but he's competed to the end in almost all of them and turned some of them around. Manning has several memorable games where he just lost heart and let his team get blown out 41-0, 43-8, 20-3, and this last game where people are calling for him to retire.

Manning is unquestionably one of the best quarterbacks ever to play the game, but I can't imagine believing that he's THE best. Brady may well be the best to ever play the game when all is said and done. Manning... had the best numbers. It's not the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this debate always boils down to one difference:

brady supporters give more credit for team achievements

manning supporters give more credit for individual achievements

for instance, brady wins a ring at the beginning of the belichick dynasty when the patriots D scores more points than the greatest show on turf does by midway into the 4th quarter of the super bowl. great organizations with great coaching make for great teams giving a QB more chances for playoff wins and rings.

one player cannot carry a football team through a stretch of 3-4 nfl playoff games in the winter after a long season on his own even if they have a few play makers. this is the ultimate team sport.

if you put manning on the patriots and brady on the colts, how many rings would each of them have?

i don't think we'll ever know the answer to the question of who is better, but i think if the players switch teams, you'd see a much more even record in playoffs & super bowl wins and i would still expect manning to win out for individual achievements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this debate always boils down to one difference:

brady supporters give more credit for team achievements

manning supporters give more credit for individual achievements.

that's really not true. Brady has great individual achievements, too. If you can even call passing stats "individual achievements". It's no coincidence that bradys best season was with moss, for example. But it turns out we've seen what brady could do with elite receivers. He's gotten mvp awards when he's had moss and Welker, or Gronk and hernandez. He's led totally different styles of offense with good receivers and bad and always been successful. It's silly to act like that's not an individual accomplishment. Just like it's silly to act as though stats are an accomplishment in and of themselves. To quote Herm Edwards, "you play to win the game". The stats just tell the story of how you got there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both great QBs, but Manning had more than twice as many good/great seasons as Brady did.

Really? By what standard? If we hadn't seen brady have "good/great seasons" when he had quality targets, that would be one thing. But saying brady had a bad season when he was throwing to Reche Caldwell and still went to the AFCCG just tells me your definition of good/great is pretty... subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this debate has been put to rest. Manning is first on the next tier below Brady. Brady is floating around with Montana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brady + Belichick > Manning + mediocre coach

I'm not ready to say Brady > Manning

Never forget that when Brady went down, the Patriots led by Matt Cassel won 11 games. They barely missed a beat.

When Manning went down, the Colts were historically bad, leading to them having the #1 overall pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brady + Belichick > Manning + mediocre coach

I'm not ready to say Brady > Manning

Never forget that when Brady went down, the Patriots led by Matt Cassel won 11 games. They barely missed a beat.

When Manning went down, the Colts were historically bad, leading to them having the #1 overall pick.

It's almost like they tried to get the #1 overall pick in the year with the highest rated QB coming out of college was available. But that would be cynical. I'm sure Curtis Painter was the best available QB for the Colts that year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this still a thread?

Brady is going to be playing in his sixth Super Bowl this year, despite rarely having top talent surrounding him. The one year he had superstar skill players? He throws for the most TDs in NFL history (Moss).

Crazy that >50% of people would take Manning over Brady.

That defensive argument is a joke - DEN was 4th in defensive DVOA this year.... Pats were 11th. Denver was better last year as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this still a thread?

Brady is going to be playing in his sixth Super Bowl this year, despite rarely having top talent surrounding him. The one year he had superstar skill players? He throws for the most TDs in NFL history (Moss).

Crazy that >50% of people would take Manning over Brady.

That defensive argument is a joke - DEN was 4th in defensive DVOA this year.... Pats were 11th. Denver was better last year as well.

First, :rolleyes: at 6th SB

Brady + Belichick > Manning + mediocre coach

I'm not ready to say Brady > Manning

I also believe that Brady's offense is better suited to the postseason than Manning's. Brady's short passing game is very difficult to defend even by great defenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both great QBs, but Manning had more than twice as many good/great seasons as Brady did.

guess that depends on what you call a good/great season.......

how's this one shaping up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tier 1 - Montana, Unitas

Tier 2 - Brady

Tier 3 - Manning and others

I pretty much agree with this. The thing that sways me to Brady, other than being a Patriot fan, is the fact Brady has been successful doing it every way a quarterback can. Dink and dunk down the field, vertical passing game, game manger etc. I really can't think of another quarterback that has adapted his game to fit the personnel of team more and did it on the fly with very few problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brady + Belichick > Manning + mediocre coach

I'm not ready to say Brady > Manning

Never forget that when Brady went down, the Patriots led by Matt Cassel won 11 games. They barely missed a beat.

When Manning went down, the Colts were historically bad, leading to them having the #1 overall pick.

They missed quite a bit. They played one of the easiest schedules in the league that year and scored 180 points less. That was with a QB (Cassel) that would make a pro-bowl as a starting QB on another team. The Colts scored about 190 points less when they went from Manning to Curtis Painter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the most interesting stats about Brady/Manning at least to me.

Brady's teams have scored more points per game than Manning's teams. Not significantly more I think it's less than 2. But considering Manning has probably had better RBs than Brady it lets me ignore some of the differences in stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tier 1 - Montana, Unitas

Tier 2 - Brady

Tier 3 - Manning and others

only argument for montana and unitas is that they happened to be born earlier and did their damage in ye olden times.

playing on network tv next week makes you a really good player --- playing on nfl films next week makes you a legend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tier 1 - Montana, Unitas

Tier 2 - Brady

Tier 3 - Manning and others

I am not looking to stir up a hornet's nest on this, but I am curious what criteria went into this. (Regular season stats, SB wins, awards, etc.) If winning is the biggest components of QB evaluation . . .

People like to point out that Montana went 4-0 and played great in the SB. That really is not debatable. However, an argument could be made that Montana DID NOT WIN 9 SBs in 13 years as a starter (not counting his 79, 91, or 92 seasons).

The game is way different now (salary cap and free agency), but Montana played in 7 conference finals and went 4-3 (obviously winning the 4 rings).

Brady will be playing in his 9th conference final in 13 seasons as a starter and is favored to go to his 6th SB. He will either be 6-3 or 5-4 in conference finals (and potentially 4-2 or 3-3 in SBs). Say what you want about the AFC East or "cheating," but that is crazy.

Again, not sure what you based your rankings on and would be interested in a breakdown . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never forget that when Brady went down, the Patriots led by Matt Cassel won 11 games. They barely missed a beat.

Losing five more games,

putting up 179 fewer points,

700 total fewer total yards,

1200 fewer passing yards,

29 fewer TD passes,

=barely missing a beat.

Also, in regards to schedule;

2007 under Brady; Patriots were 6-0 against eventual playoff teams, including road wins at 5-0 Dallas, and 7-0 Indy.

2008 under Cassel; Patriots were 2-5 against eventual playoff teams. One of the wins was against Miami, who were only a playoff team by default. The other was against the Cardinals, who, despite playing in the Superbowl, finished the regular season at 9-7. They beat the Dolphins handily, but also had a 38-13 loss against them, whereas the 2007 team beat them twice, each time by more than 20 points. Cassel lost to the Chargers 30-10. Brady beat the Chargers 38-14. Cassel lost to the Steelers 33-10. Brady beat the Steelers 34-13.

The idea that the 2008 Patriots performed anything at all like the 2007 Patriots is a complete fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never forget that when Brady went down, the Patriots led by Matt Cassel won 11 games. They barely missed a beat.

Losing five more games,
putting up 179 fewer points,
700 total fewer total yards,
1200 fewer passing yards,
29 fewer TD passes,
=barely missing a beat.
Also, in regards to schedule;
2007 under Brady, Patriots were 6-0 against eventual playoff teams, including road wins at 5-0 Dallas, and 7-0 Indy.
2008 under Cassel, Patriots were 2-5 against eventual playoff teams. One of the wins was against Miami, who were only a playoff team by default. The other was against the Cardinals, who, despite playing in the Superbowl, finished the regular season at 9-7. They beat the Dolphins handily, but also had a 38-13 loss against them, whereas the 2007 team beat them twice, each time by more than 20 points. Cassel lost to the Chargers 30-10. Brady beat the Chargers 38-14. Cassel lost to the Steelers 33-10. Brady beat the Steelers 34-13.
The idea that the 2008 Patriots performed anything at all like the 2007 Patriots is a complete fallacy.

:thanks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tier 1 - Montana, Unitas

Tier 2 - Brady

Tier 3 - Manning and others

only argument for montana and unitas is that they happened to be born earlier and did their damage in ye olden times.

I don't necessarily agree that Montana and Unitas alone comprise a top tier of QB greatness. But if that's the only argument you can see for why someone would think that, you don't have any business holding opinions about any football related subject.

The championships, playoff excellence in terms of both individual stats and winning %'s, MVP's, dominance relative to their peers in a variety of statistical realms, and ways that each guy helped usher in entirely new paradigms for playing the position all make them very good candidates for that imaginary award.

There are couter-arguments to every argument. But if you can't even see the arguments, that's tragic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tier 1 - Montana, Unitas

Tier 2 - Brady

Tier 3 - Manning and others

I am not looking to stir up a hornet's nest on this, but I am curious what criteria went into this. (Regular season stats, SB wins, awards, etc.) If winning is the biggest components of QB evaluation . . .

People like to point out that Montana went 4-0 and played great in the SB. That really is not debatable. However, an argument could be made that Montana DID NOT WIN 9 SBs in 13 years as a starter (not counting his 79, 91, or 92 seasons).

The game is way different now (salary cap and free agency), but Montana played in 7 conference finals and went 4-3 (obviously winning the 4 rings).

Brady will be playing in his 9th conference final in 13 seasons as a starter and is favored to go to his 6th SB. He will either be 6-3 or 5-4 in conference finals (and potentially 4-2 or 3-3 in SBs). Say what you want about the AFC East or "cheating," but that is crazy.

Again, not sure what you based your rankings on and would be interested in a breakdown . . .

:goodposting:

...and an infinitely more nuanced and intelligent way of approaching a disagreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.