What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Who's better, Manning or Brady (post cheating spree)? (1 Viewer)

Who's the better quarterback?

  • Peyton Manning

    Votes: 109 54.5%

  • Tom Brady

    Votes: 91 45.5%
  • Total voters
    200
devouredbychaos said:
The debate was over last season kids. You're delusional if you think Manning is better than Brady.
Click to expand...
This is a common refrain in these discussions but the same logic can be used to argue that Trent Dilfer was a better QB than Dan Marino.

Thankfully QB seems to be the only position where people use that flawed argument. People don't use it to suggest that Brandon Jackson is better than Ladanian Tomlinson or Golden Tate is better than Randy Moss.

 
Chaka said:
Anarchy99 said:
My point was to show that Manning has not been deprived on playing with teams with solid defenses. Has Brady played on teams with more years with decent defenses? Yes. But that doesn't mean Manning has been stuck with terrible defenses many times.

In any event, here are the post-season numbers for NE and IND/DEN defenses (looking only at post-season games):

Brady has played in 31 playoff games and the Patriots have allowed an average of 20.23 ppg in those games.

The offense gave up two points in those games, making the adjusted ppg total allowed by the defense 20.16 ppg.

Manning has played in 26 playoff games and IND/DEN allowed an average of 21.88 ppg in those games.

The offense gave up 32 points in those games, making the adjusted ppg total allowed by the defense 20.65 ppg.

Essentially, the Patriots defense allowed 0.5 points per game less than Manning's defenses have in the post season.
Click to expand...
It may not be your intention but it really comes off as you trying to suggest that Manning and Brady have been playing with equivalent support, particularly from the defense, throughout their careers. By any measure that is just not the case and you can try to break down the data to reinforce that point any number of ways but data can also work the other way (Brady has a top 10 defense 8 out 10 times compared to Manning who has a top 10 defense 4 out of 10 times).

These are ultimately subjective arguments trying to split hairs between two of the greatest of all time. Brady has been incredible as has Manning, my subjective opinion is that Brady would not have accomplished as much had he and Manning switched places and Manning would have done at least as much as Brady. YMMV.
Click to expand...
Again, my point is still that Manning has had opportunities to win more than he has, and people simply falling back on Brady had defenses that were leaps and bounds better doesn't pass the smell test to me.

Looking at the regular season numbers for both QB's team defenses, the Patriots defense allowed an average of 300 points per season. Filtering out the points given up by the offense, the adjusted total is 287 points. The Colts and Broncos averaged 340 points allowed per season. Filtering out the points allowed by the offense, the adjusted total is 325 points per season. That's a difference of a little more than 2.3 ppg. Manning had some poor defenses in the early going. From 2002 on, the scoring difference between Brady's teams and Manning's teams drops by a point per game to 1.3 ppg.

For much of his career, Manning played his home games indoors on turf, with no cold, wind, or snow to deal with. I don't know exactly what the difference in indoor scoring vs. outdoor scoring is, but I would guess it has to be at least 3 points per game. Apply that to the numbers I listed off, and IMO there is not a lot of statistical evidence to show that the Patriots defenses were significantly better overall than Peyton's team's defenses. I posted earlier the difference in the post season was only about a half a point a game on average in favor of the Patriots.

Were the Pats defenses better in several years? Yep. Did they rank higher more years than Manning? Yep. Did the Pats defense come up with big play in big games? Yep. Did Brady have better coaches along the way? Also yep.

But Manning also had the benefit of playing in 3 more seasons compared to Brady. And if NE invested more into their defense most years than the Colts did, Peyton's teams certainly invested more in their skill position players than NE did. Does that cancel out the gains NE had on defense? Who knows.

The whole ranking in the Top 10 in points allowed is also an arbitrary marker. This year, if NE allowed one more score they would not have ranked in the Top 10.

Bottom line, we will never know what would have happened if the two players switched teams. As I have argued for years, football is a team game, and pinning wins and losses on quarterbacks is pretty silly, as there are so many other players on a team. Sure, Brady "lost" two SBs. Yet his team held the lead after 59 minutes in both losses. But some how Brady gets the blame for losing those games when his defense gave up scores in the final minute.

So yes, Brady had more opportunities to win than Peyton has over the years, but I don't think the ledger is as lob-sided as some people make it out to be. And for the record, I have been in the camp that Manning was the better QB but that Brady has a better resume when it comes to winning titles (which is a team thing, not an individual thing).

 
FreeBaGeL said:
Well yeah, Denver is where they are right now because of the defense. But this just shows you how important a great defense is, especially in evaluating how "clutch" a quarterback is. Peyton is a shell of his former self, a 1:2 TD:INT ratio, barely a top 25 QB in the league right now (if that). Yet, he's in the Super Bowl, something he could rarely accomplish when playing as an unstoppable force at QB, but alongside weak defenses.

Imagine if he had played with really good defenses as much as Brady or especially Roethlisberger, instead of twice in his entire career. How "clutch" or how much of a "winner" would he be if 17 points in the playoffs meant a win instead of a 17-34 loss.

17 points would get Peyton a win in only 27% of his playoff games, compared to 57% for Brady. Flip those defenses around and their playoff records are probably flipped around too.
Click to expand...
Your numbers are off -

Peyton's played in 26 playoff games and 6 where 17 pts would have gotten him the win - 23%

Brady's played in 31 playoff games and 9 where 17 pts would have gotten him the win - 29%

 
It is still Brady and this is taking nothing away from Manning, just looking at who is the better quarterback.

Manning has always had very good to great receiver, Manning has always had his offense catered to him, and he has put up video game like numbers his entire career with them.

Brady has had some great receivers as well, but he has also had some very lean years at receiver. Brady has also put up video game like numbers, but he has adapted with the changes of his personnel and different style offenses without missing a beat.

Just going off my memory too, Brady has put his team in a position more to win in the playoffs then Manning has. Even in the losses Brady put his team up in the super bowls they lost and then the Pats lost the lead at the end, Manning through a pick 6 before he could he tie the game up in his super bowl. Brady's was competitive against the Seahawks and gave them a chance to get lucky and steal the game at the end, Manning was completely over matched against basically the same team and they were never in the game.

 
FreeBaGeL said:
Pats have held opposing offenses to 17 points or less in 12 playoff games for Brady.

Colts/Broncos have held opposing offenses to 17 points or less in 6 playoff games for Manning.

With their QB ratings being nearly identical in the playoffs (and Peyton's actually much better in the last ~decade), this is the one statistic that really stands out in differentiating their playoff performances, other than wins which of course can be largely attributed to this stat.

Note that 17 is not arbitrary, but is a number I chose some years back when comparing QBs as a cutoff where most competent QBs have a similar .900-.950 winning pct. If a defense holds a team to 17 points or less, you can expect an at least average QB to win about 9 out of 10 times. That means that those 6 extra games where Brady got to play against an offense scoring 17 points or less basically account for 5 or 6 free wins.

For both QBs, the majority of those under 17 games came in their Super Bowl runs (64% of Brady's in his 4 Super Bowl seasons, 50% of Manning's in his 1 Super Bowl season). Having double the number of those games has a major impact on the perception of each's performance in the playoffs. Of course, Peyton's miserable performances in his first 3 playoff appearances also set him down a path whereby people's perceptions were not going to be changed easily. And those first few season is a big difference between the two, as they have been almost identical in the playoffs for the last 10 years or so, but merely above average playoff performance for a decade when people had already decided you were "clutch" does not breed the same response as merely above average playoff performance for a decade when people had already decided you were a "choker".
Click to expand...
Again the numbers are off (at least for Manning). Manning has played in 10 games where the defense has held the opponents to 17 or fewer points.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BradTo00/gamelog/post/

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannPe00/gamelog/post/

Manning is 9-1 when the defense holds opponents to 17 or fewer points and Brady is 11-1 under those circumstances. Manning is 4-12 in games where the defense allows more than 17 points while Brady is 11-8 in games where his defense allows at least 17 points. Manning is 2-5 when the defense gives up 27 or more points while Brady is 4-5.

 
msudaisy26 said:
It is still Brady and this is taking nothing away from Manning, just looking at who is the better quarterback.

Manning has always had very good to great receiver, Manning has always had his offense catered to him, and he has put up video game like numbers his entire career with them.

Brady has had some great receivers as well, but he has also had some very lean years at receiver. Brady has also put up video game like numbers, but he has adapted with the changes of his personnel and different style offenses without missing a beat.

Just going off my memory too, Brady has put his team in a position more to win in the playoffs then Manning has. Even in the losses Brady put his team up in the super bowls they lost and then the Pats lost the lead at the end, Manning through a pick 6 before he could he tie the game up in his super bowl. Brady's was competitive against the Seahawks and gave them a chance to get lucky and steal the game at the end, Manning was completely over matched against basically the same team and they were never in the game.
Click to expand...
The center hiked the ball over his head on the first offensive play from scrimmage. That doesn't mean Peyton was overmatched.

If your takeaway from the Den / Sea SB was that Peyton looked overmatched, and not that the rest of the Broncos' offence crapped the bed, then you and I must've been watching different games.

And why is it Peyton's fault that he has consistently made his pass-catchers great? Would he be a better QB if he didn't throw for as many yards and TDs? Of all the points in the debate of who is better between the two, this point has always been the dumbest, imo.

 
msudaisy26 said:
It is still Brady and this is taking nothing away from Manning, just looking at who is the better quarterback.

Manning has always had very good to great receiver, Manning has always had his offense catered to him, and he has put up video game like numbers his entire career with them.

Brady has had some great receivers as well, but he has also had some very lean years at receiver. Brady has also put up video game like numbers, but he has adapted with the changes of his personnel and different style offenses without missing a beat.

Just going off my memory too, Brady has put his team in a position more to win in the playoffs then Manning has. Even in the losses Brady put his team up in the super bowls they lost and then the Pats lost the lead at the end, Manning through a pick 6 before he could he tie the game up in his super bowl. Brady's was competitive against the Seahawks and gave them a chance to get lucky and steal the game at the end, Manning was completely over matched against basically the same team and they were never in the game.
Click to expand...
Historically Brady has always had the better defense, except this year. Well what do you know...... :)

 
Brady chokes under pressure

It’s hardly a secret that pressure is Brady’s Kryptonite — the league’s been trying to re-create the Giants’ Super Bowl XLII game plan for years. But while every quarterback sees a dramatic decline in performance with onrushing defenders in his face, Brady is especially susceptible to their deleterious effects. Since 2009, the average QB sees a 61-point dip in Total Quarterback Rating when pressured, compared with unpressured plays. Brady’s QBR, however, dropped 75 points over that span while under pressure — the third-biggest drop-off of any qualified QB, trailing only Philip Rivers and Drew Brees.

Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yabahos said:
FreeBaGeL said:
Pats have held opposing offenses to 17 points or less in 12 playoff games for Brady.

Colts/Broncos have held opposing offenses to 17 points or less in 6 playoff games for Manning.

With their QB ratings being nearly identical in the playoffs (and Peyton's actually much better in the last ~decade), this is the one statistic that really stands out in differentiating their playoff performances, other than wins which of course can be largely attributed to this stat.

Note that 17 is not arbitrary, but is a number I chose some years back when comparing QBs as a cutoff where most competent QBs have a similar .900-.950 winning pct. If a defense holds a team to 17 points or less, you can expect an at least average QB to win about 9 out of 10 times. That means that those 6 extra games where Brady got to play against an offense scoring 17 points or less basically account for 5 or 6 free wins.

For both QBs, the majority of those under 17 games came in their Super Bowl runs (64% of Brady's in his 4 Super Bowl seasons, 50% of Manning's in his 1 Super Bowl season). Having double the number of those games has a major impact on the perception of each's performance in the playoffs. Of course, Peyton's miserable performances in his first 3 playoff appearances also set him down a path whereby people's perceptions were not going to be changed easily. And those first few season is a big difference between the two, as they have been almost identical in the playoffs for the last 10 years or so, but merely above average playoff performance for a decade when people had already decided you were "clutch" does not breed the same response as merely above average playoff performance for a decade when people had already decided you were a "choker".
Click to expand...
Again the numbers are off (at least for Manning). Manning has played in 10 games where the defense has held the opponents to 17 or fewer points.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BradTo00/gamelog/post/

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannPe00/gamelog/post/

Manning is 9-1 when the defense holds opponents to 17 or fewer points and Brady is 11-1 under those circumstances. Manning is 4-12 in games where the defense allows more than 17 points while Brady is 11-8 in games where his defense allows at least 17 points. Manning is 2-5 when the defense gives up 27 or more points while Brady is 4-5.
Click to expand...
So Brady stills wins 53% of playoff games when he ####s the bed compared to Manning who has a 25% chance. But people want to argue that Brady is clutch and Manning is a choker.

Brady gets bailed out when he plays poorly.

Manning is solely responsible for getting his teams to where they are and has no room for error.

I think it's clear who is better.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
┻┳|

┳┻|

┻┳|

┳┻|

┻┳|

┳┻|

┻┳|

┳┻|

┻┳|

┳┻|

┻┳|

┳┻|

┻┳|

┳┻|

┻┳|

┳┻|

┻┳|

┳┻|

┻┳| •.•) Aaron Rodgers is better than both of them

┳┻|⊂ﾉ

┻┳|

 
If it was who is better, regular season I would say Manning but I voted Brady who has been such a great post season QB.

 
Their passer ratings are nearly identical in both postseason and regular season over their careers. Manning was a bit more accurate in completion % and had a higher n/ypa but threw more picks since he threw down the field more often than Brady. It all depends on whether or not you want your "best ever" QB to take more risks.

This is a Bird vs. Magic argument. I still think that Brady did more with less in terms of offensive weapons over the course of his career but I'm a biased Pats fan so YMMV.

They are 1a and 1b IMO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
┻┳|

┳┻|

┻┳|

┳┻|

┻┳|

┳┻|

┻┳|

┳┻|

┻┳|

┳┻|

┻┳|

┳┻|

┻┳|

┳┻|

┻┳|

┳┻|

┻┳|

┳┻|

┻┳| •.•) Aaron Rodgers is better than both of them

┳┻|⊂ﾉ

┻┳|
Click to expand...
All things equal, I would want Aaron Rodgers in his prime over both Brady and Manning in their primes. No doubt about that.

 
Jrodicus said:
msudaisy26 said:
It is still Brady and this is taking nothing away from Manning, just looking at who is the better quarterback.

Manning has always had very good to great receiver, Manning has always had his offense catered to him, and he has put up video game like numbers his entire career with them.

Brady has had some great receivers as well, but he has also had some very lean years at receiver. Brady has also put up video game like numbers, but he has adapted with the changes of his personnel and different style offenses without missing a beat.

Just going off my memory too, Brady has put his team in a position more to win in the playoffs then Manning has. Even in the losses Brady put his team up in the super bowls they lost and then the Pats lost the lead at the end, Manning through a pick 6 before he could he tie the game up in his super bowl. Brady's was competitive against the Seahawks and gave them a chance to get lucky and steal the game at the end, Manning was completely over matched against basically the same team and they were never in the game.
Click to expand...
The center hiked the ball over his head on the first offensive play from scrimmage. That doesn't mean Peyton was overmatched.

If your takeaway from the Den / Sea SB was that Peyton looked overmatched, and not that the rest of the Broncos' offence crapped the bed, then you and I must've been watching different games.

And why is it Peyton's fault that he has consistently made his pass-catchers great? Would he be a better QB if he didn't throw for as many yards and TDs? Of all the points in the debate of who is better between the two, this point has always been the dumbest, imo.
Click to expand...
One safety didn't end that super bowl, that entire record setting offense, including and especially Manning looked over matched.

I disagree that he made his pass catchers great, he made them better. Reggie Wayne was still good after Manning left, Eric Decker is still good after he left Peyton, Garcon was still good, Harrison was on his way up when Manning arrived, D. Thomas was looking really good with Tebow and then Manning arrived. You want to say he made Stokely or Collie or Julius Thomas, I will disagree and say he was good enough to find those guys when they were open, but teams worrying about Wayne, Harrison, Clark, James, D. Thomas, Decker is what helped get those guys open.

We have never seen what Manning could do without elite options at the skill positions, and we never will. We have only seen Manning run one type of offense ever. I am not even going to discredit him in a new offense this year, because father time has robbed Peyton of what he was and he was hurt most of the year. We have seen Brady without elite skill guys and still put up numbers, we have see Brady change offenses and put up elite numbers. So for me it is easily Brady, they are both all time greats, but give me the guy that has done it more times, done it with more changes around him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SacramentoBob said:
yabahos said:
FreeBaGeL said:
Pats have held opposing offenses to 17 points or less in 12 playoff games for Brady.

Colts/Broncos have held opposing offenses to 17 points or less in 6 playoff games for Manning.

With their QB ratings being nearly identical in the playoffs (and Peyton's actually much better in the last ~decade), this is the one statistic that really stands out in differentiating their playoff performances, other than wins which of course can be largely attributed to this stat.

Note that 17 is not arbitrary, but is a number I chose some years back when comparing QBs as a cutoff where most competent QBs have a similar .900-.950 winning pct. If a defense holds a team to 17 points or less, you can expect an at least average QB to win about 9 out of 10 times. That means that those 6 extra games where Brady got to play against an offense scoring 17 points or less basically account for 5 or 6 free wins.

For both QBs, the majority of those under 17 games came in their Super Bowl runs (64% of Brady's in his 4 Super Bowl seasons, 50% of Manning's in his 1 Super Bowl season). Having double the number of those games has a major impact on the perception of each's performance in the playoffs. Of course, Peyton's miserable performances in his first 3 playoff appearances also set him down a path whereby people's perceptions were not going to be changed easily. And those first few season is a big difference between the two, as they have been almost identical in the playoffs for the last 10 years or so, but merely above average playoff performance for a decade when people had already decided you were "clutch" does not breed the same response as merely above average playoff performance for a decade when people had already decided you were a "choker".
Click to expand...
Again the numbers are off (at least for Manning). Manning has played in 10 games where the defense has held the opponents to 17 or fewer points.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BradTo00/gamelog/post/

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannPe00/gamelog/post/

Manning is 9-1 when the defense holds opponents to 17 or fewer points and Brady is 11-1 under those circumstances. Manning is 4-12 in games where the defense allows more than 17 points while Brady is 11-8 in games where his defense allows at least 17 points. Manning is 2-5 when the defense gives up 27 or more points while Brady is 4-5.
Click to expand...
So Brady stills wins 53% of playoff games when he ####s the bed compared to Manning who has a 25% chance. But people want to argue that Brady is clutch and Manning is a choker.

Brady gets bailed out when he plays poorly.

Manning is solely responsible for getting his teams to where they are and has no room for error.

I think it's clear who is better.
Click to expand...
The numbers in question deal with the Patriots defense and Indy/Denver defense. I'm not following how you are coming up with your numbers of 53% for Brady or 25% Manning. The 4-12 and the 11-8 records are inclusive of the records for greater than 27 points. Just to be a little clearer.

When their defenses hold opponents to 17 or less points both QBs are great 9-1 for Manning and 11-1 for Brady.

When their defenses play okay (18 to 26 points) Manning is 2-7 and Brady is 7-3.

When the defense plays poorly (27+) Manning is 2-5 and Brady is 4-5.

In the okay defense range (18 to 26 points) - Manning has put up 17 or fewer points 6 times and only managed to put up more than 20 points once in those nine games. Brady has put up 17 or fewer points twice and put up more than 23 points 7 times. Brady seems to be getting the team over the hump to win the game where Manning seems to be falling short. I would expect that the better the QBs the more likely the team is to win these type of games.

In the poor defense range (27+ points allow) - Brady had better numbers as well.

You can also look at from an offensive prospective as well. These are the percent of games scoring more than X points.

Points Brady Manning

Scored more than 3 100% 92%

Scored more than 7 100% 92%

Scored more than 10 100% 88%

Scored more than 14 87% 81%

Scored more than 17 74% 58%

Scored more than 21 58% 46%

Scored more than 24 42% 31%

Scored more than 28 32% 27%

Scored more than 31 29% 19%

Scored more than 40 16% 8%

Scored more than 50 0% 0%

So for example Manning scores more than 17 points (18+) 58% of the time versus 74% for Brady. Now granted these numbers do not back out special teams/defensive scores so they need to be taken with a grain of salt.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
:yawn:

The argument for Brady relates to rings. They're awesome no denying it, the problem for me lies with the notion that having coaching continuity for 16 years means...well apparently in the eyes of Brady people it means nothing.

I think Brady is all world. One of the best ever, without question (frankly I always wonder why people include guys like Bradshaw in this conversation, IMO he is the prime example of why you cannot judge a QB by Super Bowl rings). Regardless of circumstance Brady is one of the top QBs of all time and I have no problem acknowledging that. But when I ask myself to consider the question of how Brady would have performed if he had had Manning's team and coaching behind him for his entire career (Mora, Dungy, Caldwell, Fox, Kubiak) would he have done better or worse than Manning? Honestly I can't favor Brady in that situation. However when I wonder how Manning would have performed with Belichick as his exclusive HC for 16 seasons I really think he would have won at least as many Super Bowls as as Brady. To me the interesting question is how many other QBs would have performed at that level had they had the benefit of Brady's career continuity.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Switch coaches/GMs and I don't think there would be any debate it would be Manning. As a matter of fact, if you switched just the cities all of Boston would be in here claiming how stupid everyone is for voting Brady.

 
JohnnyU said:
Warhogs said:
If it was who is better, regular season I would say Manning but I voted Brady who has been such a great post season QB.
Click to expand...
Great defenses and great kickers will do that to you.
Click to expand...
That's a great point. The defenses Brady has faced in his great post season career make his accomplishments that much more impressive, as opposed to Pedton making a career out of padding his stats vs regular season cream puffs.
 
Chaka said:
:yawn:

The argument for Brady relates to rings. They're awesome no denying it, the problem for me lies with the notion that having coaching continuity for 16 years means...well apparently in the eyes of Brady people it means nothing.

I think Brady is all world. One of the best ever, without question (frankly I always wonder why people include guys like Bradshaw in this conversation, IMO he is the prime example of why you cannot judge a QB by Super Bowl rings). Regardless of circumstance Brady is one of the top QBs of all time and I have no problem acknowledging that. But when I ask myself to consider the question of how Brady would have performed if he had had Manning's team and coaching behind him for his entire career (Mora, Dungy, Caldwell, Fox, Kubiak) would he have done better or worse than Manning? Honestly I can't favor Brady in that situation. However when I wonder how Manning would have performed with Belichick as his exclusive HC for 16 seasons I really think he would have won at least as many Super Bowls as as Brady. To me the interesting question is how many other QBs would have performed at that level had they had the benefit of Brady's career continuity.
Click to expand...
You and no one else have anyway of knowing how it would have worked, maybe Peyton and would have meshed well with Belichick and they would have won 10 rings. Maybe Peyton would have struggled the 1st time Bill brought in a new OC and Bill would have thought I am cashing out while I still can and traded Peyton for bunch of draft picks like he has done with so many other players. Maybe Brady would have adapted to the Colts and told the front office to get some more help on defense and won more rings than Peyton with the Colts.

I highly doubt he would have bombed in Indy because he has shown what he can do with a ton of offense weapons and a bad defense. The question is what would Peyton look like with the offensive scheme changing around him all the time and we will never know.

 
msudaisy26 said:
Chaka said:
:yawn:

The argument for Brady relates to rings. They're awesome no denying it, the problem for me lies with the notion that having coaching continuity for 16 years means...well apparently in the eyes of Brady people it means nothing.

I think Brady is all world. One of the best ever, without question (frankly I always wonder why people include guys like Bradshaw in this conversation, IMO he is the prime example of why you cannot judge a QB by Super Bowl rings). Regardless of circumstance Brady is one of the top QBs of all time and I have no problem acknowledging that. But when I ask myself to consider the question of how Brady would have performed if he had had Manning's team and coaching behind him for his entire career (Mora, Dungy, Caldwell, Fox, Kubiak) would he have done better or worse than Manning? Honestly I can't favor Brady in that situation. However when I wonder how Manning would have performed with Belichick as his exclusive HC for 16 seasons I really think he would have won at least as many Super Bowls as as Brady. To me the interesting question is how many other QBs would have performed at that level had they had the benefit of Brady's career continuity.
Click to expand...
You and no one else have anyway of knowing how it would have worked, maybe Peyton and would have meshed well with Belichick and they would have won 10 rings. Maybe Peyton would have struggled the 1st time Bill brought in a new OC and Bill would have thought I am cashing out while I still can and traded Peyton for bunch of draft picks like he has done with so many other players. Maybe Brady would have adapted to the Colts and told the front office to get some more help on defense and won more rings than Peyton with the Colts.

I highly doubt he would have bombed in Indy because he has shown what he can do with a ton of offense weapons and a bad defense. The question is what would Peyton look like with the offensive scheme changing around him all the time and we will never know.
Click to expand...
How many all-time greats has BB traded in their prime for picks?

 
Andrew74 said:
msudaisy26 said:
Chaka said:
:yawn:

The argument for Brady relates to rings. They're awesome no denying it, the problem for me lies with the notion that having coaching continuity for 16 years means...well apparently in the eyes of Brady people it means nothing.

I think Brady is all world. One of the best ever, without question (frankly I always wonder why people include guys like Bradshaw in this conversation, IMO he is the prime example of why you cannot judge a QB by Super Bowl rings). Regardless of circumstance Brady is one of the top QBs of all time and I have no problem acknowledging that. But when I ask myself to consider the question of how Brady would have performed if he had had Manning's team and coaching behind him for his entire career (Mora, Dungy, Caldwell, Fox, Kubiak) would he have done better or worse than Manning? Honestly I can't favor Brady in that situation. However when I wonder how Manning would have performed with Belichick as his exclusive HC for 16 seasons I really think he would have won at least as many Super Bowls as as Brady. To me the interesting question is how many other QBs would have performed at that level had they had the benefit of Brady's career continuity.
Click to expand...
You and no one else have anyway of knowing how it would have worked, maybe Peyton and would have meshed well with Belichick and they would have won 10 rings. Maybe Peyton would have struggled the 1st time Bill brought in a new OC and Bill would have thought I am cashing out while I still can and traded Peyton for bunch of draft picks like he has done with so many other players. Maybe Brady would have adapted to the Colts and told the front office to get some more help on defense and won more rings than Peyton with the Colts.

I highly doubt he would have bombed in Indy because he has shown what he can do with a ton of offense weapons and a bad defense. The question is what would Peyton look like with the offensive scheme changing around him all the time and we will never know.
Click to expand...
How many all-time greats has BB traded in their prime for picks?
Click to expand...
Not exactly what I meant, but he has traded several very good players like Seymour, Vrabel and others for picks at the 1st sign of slowing down or because of a contract.Maybe the reason Brady didn't get traded was because he could adapt, we will never know if Peyton could.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
msudaisy26 said:
Chaka said:
:yawn:

The argument for Brady relates to rings. They're awesome no denying it, the problem for me lies with the notion that having coaching continuity for 16 years means...well apparently in the eyes of Brady people it means nothing.

I think Brady is all world. One of the best ever, without question (frankly I always wonder why people include guys like Bradshaw in this conversation, IMO he is the prime example of why you cannot judge a QB by Super Bowl rings). Regardless of circumstance Brady is one of the top QBs of all time and I have no problem acknowledging that. But when I ask myself to consider the question of how Brady would have performed if he had had Manning's team and coaching behind him for his entire career (Mora, Dungy, Caldwell, Fox, Kubiak) would he have done better or worse than Manning? Honestly I can't favor Brady in that situation. However when I wonder how Manning would have performed with Belichick as his exclusive HC for 16 seasons I really think he would have won at least as many Super Bowls as as Brady. To me the interesting question is how many other QBs would have performed at that level had they had the benefit of Brady's career continuity.
Click to expand...
You and no one else have anyway of knowing how it would have worked, maybe Peyton and would have meshed well with Belichick and they would have won 10 rings. Maybe Peyton would have struggled the 1st time Bill brought in a new OC and Bill would have thought I am cashing out while I still can and traded Peyton for bunch of draft picks like he has done with so many other players. Maybe Brady would have adapted to the Colts and told the front office to get some more help on defense and won more rings than Peyton with the Colts.

I highly doubt he would have bombed in Indy because he has shown what he can do with a ton of offense weapons and a bad defense. The question is what would Peyton look like with the offensive scheme changing around him all the time and we will never know.
Click to expand...
Maybe. This whole thread is subjective analysis and speculation.

I speculate that what you said is far more unlikely than what I said (and I never said I thought Brady would have bombed in Indy).

 
Chaka said:
msudaisy26 said:
Chaka said:
:yawn:

The argument for Brady relates to rings. They're awesome no denying it, the problem for me lies with the notion that having coaching continuity for 16 years means...well apparently in the eyes of Brady people it means nothing.

I think Brady is all world. One of the best ever, without question (frankly I always wonder why people include guys like Bradshaw in this conversation, IMO he is the prime example of why you cannot judge a QB by Super Bowl rings). Regardless of circumstance Brady is one of the top QBs of all time and I have no problem acknowledging that. But when I ask myself to consider the question of how Brady would have performed if he had had Manning's team and coaching behind him for his entire career (Mora, Dungy, Caldwell, Fox, Kubiak) would he have done better or worse than Manning? Honestly I can't favor Brady in that situation. However when I wonder how Manning would have performed with Belichick as his exclusive HC for 16 seasons I really think he would have won at least as many Super Bowls as as Brady. To me the interesting question is how many other QBs would have performed at that level had they had the benefit of Brady's career continuity.
Click to expand...
You and no one else have anyway of knowing how it would have worked, maybe Peyton and would have meshed well with Belichick and they would have won 10 rings. Maybe Peyton would have struggled the 1st time Bill brought in a new OC and Bill would have thought I am cashing out while I still can and traded Peyton for bunch of draft picks like he has done with so many other players. Maybe Brady would have adapted to the Colts and told the front office to get some more help on defense and won more rings than Peyton with the Colts.

I highly doubt he would have bombed in Indy because he has shown what he can do with a ton of offense weapons and a bad defense. The question is what would Peyton look like with the offensive scheme changing around him all the time and we will never know.
Click to expand...
Maybe. This whole thread is subjective analysis and speculation.

I speculate that what you said is far more unlikely than what I said (and I never said I thought Brady would have bombed in Indy).
Click to expand...
I didn't say you did, I was stating I doubt he would because he has performed in a similar situation with New England.

 
Peyton has taken 2 different teams and 4 different coaches to the super bowl. Based on that's it's obvious that he would've bombed in New England and been traded for picks in his prime.

 
msudaisy26 said:
Jrodicus said:
msudaisy26 said:
It is still Brady and this is taking nothing away from Manning, just looking at who is the better quarterback.

Manning has always had very good to great receiver, Manning has always had his offense catered to him, and he has put up video game like numbers his entire career with them.

Brady has had some great receivers as well, but he has also had some very lean years at receiver. Brady has also put up video game like numbers, but he has adapted with the changes of his personnel and different style offenses without missing a beat.

Just going off my memory too, Brady has put his team in a position more to win in the playoffs then Manning has. Even in the losses Brady put his team up in the super bowls they lost and then the Pats lost the lead at the end, Manning through a pick 6 before he could he tie the game up in his super bowl. Brady's was competitive against the Seahawks and gave them a chance to get lucky and steal the game at the end, Manning was completely over matched against basically the same team and they were never in the game.
Click to expand...
The center hiked the ball over his head on the first offensive play from scrimmage. That doesn't mean Peyton was overmatched.

If your takeaway from the Den / Sea SB was that Peyton looked overmatched, and not that the rest of the Broncos' offence crapped the bed, then you and I must've been watching different games.

And why is it Peyton's fault that he has consistently made his pass-catchers great? Would he be a better QB if he didn't throw for as many yards and TDs? Of all the points in the debate of who is better between the two, this point has always been the dumbest, imo.
Click to expand...
One safety didn't end that super bowl, that entire record setting offense, including and especially Manning looked over matched.

I disagree that he made his pass catchers great, he made them better. Reggie Wayne was still good after Manning left, Eric Decker is still good after he left Peyton, Garcon was still good, Harrison was on his way up when Manning arrived, D. Thomas was looking really good with Tebow and then Manning arrived. You want to say he made Stokely or Collie or Julius Thomas, I will disagree and say he was good enough to find those guys when they were open, but teams worrying about Wayne, Harrison, Clark, James, D. Thomas, Decker is what helped get those guys open.

We have never seen what Manning could do without elite options at the skill positions, and we never will. We have only seen Manning run one type of offense ever. I am not even going to discredit him in a new offense this year, because father time has robbed Peyton of what he was and he was hurt most of the year. We have seen Brady without elite skill guys and still put up numbers, we have see Brady change offenses and put up elite numbers. So for me it is easily Brady, they are both all time greats, but give me the guy that has done it more times, done it with more changes around him.
Click to expand...
What seasons are you referrng to for Brady putting up elite numbers without elite skill guys? Welker, Edelman, Gronk, Moss...which seasons without one of them was he putting up "elite" numbers?

Wayne put up good numbers with the highest rated QB prospect in 30 years. Garcon and Decker have had good seasons and bad seasons without Peyton. Neither are considered "elite" skill guys.

Remind me again, how "elite" was Emmanuel Sanders in Pittsburg?

 
How many playoff one and dones has Manning had despite elite weapons and putting up video game numbers in the regular season?

Sorry. Manning has pooped his pants in crucial moments too many times.

It's not even close.

 
How many times has Brady's defense and special teams bailed him out in the playoffs, and in the regular season?

Sorry. Brady has pooped his pants and been bailed out by his teammates too many times.

It's not even close.

 
Jrodicus said:
SacramentoBob said:
Peyton has taken 2 different teams and 4 different coaches to the super bowl. Based on that's it's obvious that he would've bombed in New England and been traded for picks in his prime.
Click to expand...
Peyton Manning - the Wilt Chamberlin of the NFL
Click to expand...
Great analogy.

Wilt is the best center that ever played, but he is not universally recognized as such because of the Celtics all-star squads and Wilt's poor supporting casts.

 
spider321 said:
How many times has Brady's defense and special teams bailed him out in the playoffs, and in the regular season?

Sorry. Brady has pooped his pants and been bailed out by his teammates too many times.

It's not even close.
Click to expand...
Lol.

You're delusional.

This thread will be deleted after Manning once against poops his pants against Carolina. It will be hard to watch.

 
kyoun1e said:
spider321 said:
How many times has Brady's defense and special teams bailed him out in the playoffs, and in the regular season?

Sorry. Brady has pooped his pants and been bailed out by his teammates too many times.

It's not even close.
Click to expand...
Lol.

You're delusional.

This thread will be deleted after Manning once against poops his pants against Carolina. It will be hard to watch.
Click to expand...
Carolina is the superior team, so yes, he probably will appear to have "pooped his pants".

...kind of like Brady did last week.

Makes all the difference when Peyton has the horses on defense, huh?

 
spider321 said:
kyoun1e said:
spider321 said:
How many times has Brady's defense and special teams bailed him out in the playoffs, and in the regular season?

Sorry. Brady has pooped his pants and been bailed out by his teammates too many times.

It's not even close.
Click to expand...
Lol.

You're delusional.

This thread will be deleted after Manning once against poops his pants against Carolina. It will be hard to watch.
Click to expand...
Carolina is the superior team, so yes, he probably will appear to have "pooped his pants".

...kind of like Brady did last week.

Makes all the difference when Peyton has the horses on defense, huh?
Click to expand...
I'm actually rooting for Manning on his supposed last stand, but I fear he suffers the same fate is in the Denver/Seattle super bowl. And if that's the case, the narrative will not be kind. We'll see.

Brady did poop his pants. Denver D obviously had much to do with this (along with an offensive line in shambles). That said, he was off. Even when the rush wasn't there, passes were low and off target.

I have seen this Tom Brady very infrequently throughout his career.

I have seen the poop his pants Manning many many times (even dating back to his TN days).

 
You did not perceive that Brady as often because his D and special teams rescued him many times.

Manning rarely had that luxury.

...but perception is raality, I guess.

 
Brady pooped 8 times in 12 playoff trips over 16 seasons.

Manning pooped 10 times in 11 playoff trips over 13 seasons in Indianapolis.

Manning pooped 3 times in 3 playoff trips over 3 seasons in Denver.

Manning is on the toilet right now but his poop status will not be determined until a week from Sunday.

 
spider321 said:
You did not perceive that Brady as often because his D and special teams rescued him many times.

Manning rarely had that luxury.

...but perception is raality, I guess.
Click to expand...
Nah.

For example, I'll give you NE having a great D the year they beat the greatest show on turf, but that D didn't drive the ball down the field with little time and no timeouts (and Madden yelling you have to take a knee). Brady did.

Numerous similar examples in the biggest games, regardless of D.

The evidence is overwhelming.

This isn't really a debate.

 
Chaka said:
Brady pooped 8 times in 12 playoff trips over 16 seasons.

Manning pooped 10 times in 11 playoff trips over 13 seasons in Indianapolis.

Manning pooped 3 times in 3 playoff trips over 3 seasons in Denver.

Manning is on the toilet right now but his poop status will not be determined until a week from Sunday.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see your eight and the definition of poop.

 
kyoun1e said:
This isn't really a debate.
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree.

The Pats have always fared pretty well without Brady. They even made Matt Cassel look like a Pro Bowler.

Colts without Peyton? First pick in the draft.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
spider321 said:
Oh, I agree.

The Pats have always fared pretty well without Brady. They even made Matt Cassel look like a Pro Bowler.

Colts without Peyton? First pick in the draft.
Click to expand...
This argument has always been dumb.

First of all, the Colts tanked - went from 10-6 with Peyton, then attempted to win one of sixteen games accidentally picking up another along the way, then went 11-5 with Luck his rookie season.

Second Matt Cassel came in to the best offense ever and still missed the playoffs.

 
Run It Up said:
spider321 said:
Oh, I agree.

The Pats have always fared pretty well without Brady. They even made Matt Cassel look like a Pro Bowler.

Colts without Peyton? First pick in the draft.
Click to expand...
This argument has always been dumb.First of all, the Colts tanked - went from 10-6 with Peyton, then attempted to win one of sixteen games accidentally picking up another along the way, then went 11-5 with Luck his rookie season.

Second Matt Cassel came in to the best offense ever and still missed the playoffs.
Click to expand...
You conveniently left out the fact that Cassel, who had not started a football game since high school, went 11-4 as the starter for the Pats that year.Great coach + great D + great special teams = "Clutch" QB

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Run It Up said:
spider321 said:
Oh, I agree.

The Pats have always fared pretty well without Brady. They even made Matt Cassel look like a Pro Bowler.

Colts without Peyton? First pick in the draft.
Click to expand...
This argument has always been dumb.First of all, the Colts tanked - went from 10-6 with Peyton, then attempted to win one of sixteen games accidentally picking up another along the way, then went 11-5 with Luck his rookie season.

Second Matt Cassel came in to the best offense ever and still missed the playoffs.
Click to expand...
They basically turned over the entire team Luck's rookie year. I think Wayne was the only starting skill player still on the roster. If you are suggesting that Luck took the same team Peyton had to a better record, you are either being disingenuous or ignorant.

 
spider321 said:
Run It Up said:
spider321 said:
Oh, I agree.

The Pats have always fared pretty well without Brady. They even made Matt Cassel look like a Pro Bowler.

Colts without Peyton? First pick in the draft.
Click to expand...
This argument has always been dumb.First of all, the Colts tanked - went from 10-6 with Peyton, then attempted to win one of sixteen games accidentally picking up another along the way, then went 11-5 with Luck his rookie season.

Second Matt Cassel came in to the best offense ever and still missed the playoffs.
Click to expand...
You conveniently left out the fact that Cassel, who had not started a football game since high school, went 11-4 as the starter for the Pats that year.Great coach + great D + great special teams = "Clutch" QB
Click to expand...
Dude, use your own eyes.

Look at all the stats you want it doesn't matter.

You've seen Brady cool as a cucumber lead his team to super bowl victories one after another. Hell, even in the NYG losses Brady put his team ahead both times only to see THE DEFENSE LOSE THE GAME.

So much for your defense theory.

Meanwhile, if it were not for the pathetic performance of Rex Grossman Manning may not even have one ring.

Manning is in the discussion for the best regular season QB of all time.

9 one and dones in the playoffs? After putting up video game stats in the regular season for the most part?

Nope.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ministry of Pain
Coaching Carousel '24 or The next batch of folks that will be walked out the door in 2-3 years
Replies
26
Views
662
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly
Scoresman
Will last year's historically low drop in scoring continue into 2023?
Replies
22
Views
1K
Scoresman
Scoresman
Ministry of Pain
Did anyone in Redraft pair Justin Fields with Anthony Richardson? What are your current options as you move forward?
Replies
10
Views
670
tickle
tickle

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top