Brady vs. Manning (2 Viewers)

[twitch]

By the way, for those backing Brady in this comparison, how can you justify the lack of awards and honors relative to Manning? Is that solely because of his previously poor WRs? Or were the voters wrong or biased?

what do you want from the guy? His award arent over the top, but its not like there arent any. 2-time Superbowl MVP4-time Pro Bowler (voted, think he only attended 3)AP All Pro in '05SI Sportsmen of the Year in '05SI NFL Player of the Year in '05Thats about it for the major ones. pales in comparison to Manning. He's led the league in passing yds and passing TDs in seperate years each on a single occasion. And we all know awards are more often generated by #s more than anything. For 3 straight years, the league's MVP set a significant NFL record. Manning in '04 with his 49TDs. Alexander in '05 with his 28TDs. And LT2 in '06 with his 31TDs. You cant argue against any of those guys as MVP those years. And Brady really didnt have the #s in '03 when NE won its 2nd Superbowl. So his MVP time just hasnt yet come. I dont think there's been any bias nor do I think the voters have been wrong. It'll probably happen this year. But I dont think he really cares about awards anyway. And if he doesnt, Im not gonna sweat it either. Most of Brady's greatest achievments are records not awards. Two such that Im sure he's the most proud of are the record for consecutive wins @ 21, and 10 straight playoff wins. He has the best winning percentage in the SB era of any QB with atleast 40 starts at 87 - 26. He shares the NFL record for throwing a TD to TWELVE different players in '05. Brady completed over 70 percent of his passes in four straight games in '01, his 1st year as a starter by the way. 4 other guys had done it: Montana ,Aikman , Steve Young and Sammy Baugh. thats a good one. Brady also completed the first 162 passes of his career without an interception. It was the longest streak to start a career in NFL history. oh, and he's 7-0 all-time in OT games. That's kindof the meat and potatoes of what Brady's been all about. I know not a ton of 'awards', but he's kindof been getting the job done.

 

[timschochet]

This has been an excellent debate with great comments from both sides. One observation: it does seem like the majority of Brady defenders tend to be New England homers, while those for Manning are coming from all over. If this is true and if it is representative, that means that the general public generally believes that Manning is better, while those from Boston believe that Brady is better. Of course, this has nothing to do with actual facts, it's just perception. But if it is true, it bears a striking similarity to the great QB debate of 10-15 years ago, when most people around the country thought that Montana was the best, but fans from Denver were convinced that Elway was even better.

 

[Ghost Rider]

This has been an excellent debate with great comments from both sides. One observation: it does seem like the majority of Brady defenders tend to be New England homers, while those for Manning are coming from all over. If this is true and if it is representative, that means that the general public generally believes that Manning is better, while those from Boston believe that Brady is better. Of course, this has nothing to do with actual facts, it's just perception. But if it is true, it bears a striking similarity to the great QB debate of 10-15 years ago, when most people around the country thought that Montana was the best, but fans from Denver were convinced that Elway was even better.

-I live in St. Louis-I am a Broncos homer-I dislike the Patriots more than any other team, except for the Chiefs, the Raiders, and maybe the CowboysAnd I think that Tom Brady is the better QB.

 

[Hellfire Snail]

I'm from Michigan, so I've always had a fondness for Brady and thought he would do well if given the chance in the NFL, but it's not why I think Brady is better than Manning. I think how a QB performs under pressure when the stakes are high determines the "better" quarterback...everything else aside. Brady excels in pressurized situations. Manning, for the most part, does not. I admit Manning is very talented, but I don't see what he does, or achieves, that sets him above Brady. The way the Colts play is to let Manning run the offense, and for the most part, outscore who they're playing, and he piles up numbers with his highly skilled weapons. The way the Pats have played (up until now) is to manage games carefully, control the ball and strike when the oppurtunity presents itself.

Team philosphies should not gauge who is better, IMO. Performance when everything on the line is the truer gauge of who is "better", because the goal of football is to win, not accumulate stats over the regular season. Manning's game (in the second half) against the Pats last year was good, but it doesn't erase his previous performances and suddenly propel his post-season performance-level to Brady's.

 

[bostonfred]

The only way that he is likely to fall short in comparison to any other QB is in terms of Super Bowl wins.

This is the other problem I have with this debate. We can discuss Manning's shortcomings without using the word "Superbowl". We can discuss Brady's successes without using the word "Superbowl". But people on the Manning side of the debate inevitably talk about how it's just the ho hum Superbowls that Brady won, and that's not a big deal, and by the way Manning has one now, too. The argument against Manning has been miscast as "he can't win the big one" or "he hasn't won a Superbowl" by Manning supporters, but that wasn't the argument I was making at the time, and it isn't the argument I'm making now. The thing that takes the shine off of Manning's apple is that he has been individually responsible for huge mistakes in his team's losses in the playoffs, and that even in his playoff wins, he had to get bailed out by his defense. Yes, he had awesome games in Denver and KC in the playoffs. But other than that, his performances have been bad, and some of them really, really bad. Not the team's performance. His performance. People talk about Favre the gunslinger and complain that he threw all those interceptions, especially in the playoffs. And it's true - he had 6 picks in a game against the Rams, where he had to play bombs away football to keep up with the greatest show on turf, and four more against Minny in 2004. Those two performances were really bad, and the 6 INT game was arguably worse than anything Manning did. But Favre threw 5 TDs against one INT in his Superbowl run, and 5 TDs against 3 INTs the following year, each in three games. Manning threw 3 TDs against 7 INTs in four games the year he finally won his. He had a 4 INT playoff game, was held to 3 points in 2004 when he set the TD record, got shut out against the Jets, lost the Steelers game three different ways. Manning has been held without a TD in the playoffs three times. Favre and Brady have only done that once. Manning supporters will claim that a playoff game is just another game, against a good opponent, and that he was just unlucky to have that bad a performance that often. But if we're talking about greatness, that's a poor excuse. Manning has done great things, but he's a flawed quarterback. Maybe he overcomes those flaws over the years, but the team accomplishment of winning a Superbowl doesn't excuse his individual failures in the past or his poor individual performances in multiple playoff games. And while Manning might be a general, he's not a leader. Turning the tables back around on you, though, the only thing missing on Brady's resume is the statistical accomplishments. He's done everything a quarterback is asked to do, but he doesn't have the gaudy, record setting numbers. And we're watching that knock dissolve this year as he finally has good receivers to work with, and is putting up numbers on pace to beat Manning's best statistical year. If that happens - and we're obviously a long way away - then I don't see how there's even a debate anymore. Brady has always been capable of putting up huge numbers, he just hasn't had the opportunitiy to do so. Brady has always been capable of winning, he has had the opportunitiy to do so, and he has done it. Manning has always been capable of putting up huge numbers, he has had the opportunity to do so, and he has done it. Manning has always been capable of winning, but when given the opportunity time and time again, he has individually failed. I'm happy for him that he finally won one last year, I was rooting for him in the Superbowl, and I think he has improved over the years, but that doesn't change the fact that the first half of his resume is littered with his own personal failures.

Good post. I agree with a lot of what you say. Nevertheless, if Brady had not won three Super Bowls, he would not currently be expected to make the HOF, much less to be ultimately considered one of the few best QBs of all time. Manning is a lock for the HOF and is in that conversation. Maybe your view is that is because the rest of the masses of NFL fans, HOF voters, etc. just don't look deeply enough into their respective situations. Maybe there is something to that, but it doesn't change the situation.Do you really think anyone besides Patriots fans would think of Brady as one of the best QBs of all time had he not won 3 Super Bowls? Or even if he had won only one?

He's got the best career winning percentage for a quarterback with 40 or more starts all timeHe's led a top 10 offense every year he has played but oneHe did this despite the fact that his best receiver was Troy Brown and his leading running backs have included Kevin Faulk and Antowain Smith. He has led the league in passing yardage He has led the league in passing TDsBrady led his team on a 21 game winning streak. During this stretch, he threw for 4953 yards, 34 TDs and just 10 INTs desspite playing against playoff defenses, playing outdoors, in the cold, and in the Superbowl. In his first year with top quality receiving talent, he is on pace to break Manning's best season. Over the course of his career, he's:7-0 in overtime26-5 in games decided by less than a TDled 24 game winning drives in the fourth quarter or overtime (including six in the postseason, three of which were in Superbowls) He holds the NFL record for most receivers with a TD, after throwing TD passes to 12 different receivers in 2005. He's got the third longest consecutive games streak among QBs (after Favre and Manning)Did he win some playoff games? Sure. I suppose you could look at his 10-0 record to start his career, or 12-2 record overall, and say that that's pretty impressive. Did he win a few Superbowls? Of course. But the rest of his resume is pretty impressive, too. Obviously the Superbowls help, and obviously they're a big reason that he's a lock for the hall of fame right now. But when you look at how well he's carried that offense with minimal offensive talent around him, and how well he's done with good offensive talent, it's incredible in its own right. The Superbowls and the playoff wins and all of that stuff is a result of what he's done for this team, not just a result of what the team's done with him at the helm. People who want to write it off as "if the Patriots' decimated secondary didn't hold Carolina to 29 points, we wouldn't be talking about him right now" are ignoring the fact that he led the team to 32 points with nothing but Antowain Smith, Kevin Faulk, Troy Brown, rookie Daniel Graham, and second year players Deion Branch and David Givens on offense around him against the Panthers defense.

 

[omally]

Manning

 

[omally]

Obviously the Superbowls help, and obviously they're a big reason that he's a lock for the hall of fame right now. But when you look at how well he's carried that offense with minimal offensive talent around him, and how well he's done with good offensive talent, it's incredible in its own right. The Superbowls and the playoff wins and all of that stuff is a result of what he's done for this team, not just a result of what the team's done with him at the helm. People who want to write it off as "if the Patriots' decimated secondary didn't hold Carolina to 29 points, we wouldn't be talking about him right now" are ignoring the fact that he led the team to 32 points with nothing but Antowain Smith, Kevin Faulk, Troy Brown, rookie Daniel Graham, and second year players Deion Branch and David Givens on offense around him against the Panthers defense.

Brady probably knew the other teams defensive playcalling. *

 

[kingmalaki]

The only way that he is likely to fall short in comparison to any other QB is in terms of Super Bowl wins.

This is the other problem I have with this debate. We can discuss Manning's shortcomings without using the word "Superbowl". We can discuss Brady's successes without using the word "Superbowl". But people on the Manning side of the debate inevitably talk about how it's just the ho hum Superbowls that Brady won, and that's not a big deal, and by the way Manning has one now, too. The argument against Manning has been miscast as "he can't win the big one" or "he hasn't won a Superbowl" by Manning supporters, but that wasn't the argument I was making at the time, and it isn't the argument I'm making now. The thing that takes the shine off of Manning's apple is that he has been individually responsible for huge mistakes in his team's losses in the playoffs, and that even in his playoff wins, he had to get bailed out by his defense. Yes, he had awesome games in Denver and KC in the playoffs. But other than that, his performances have been bad, and some of them really, really bad. Not the team's performance. His performance.

People talk about Favre the gunslinger and complain that he threw all those interceptions, especially in the playoffs. And it's true - he had 6 picks in a game against the Rams, where he had to play bombs away football to keep up with the greatest show on turf, and four more against Minny in 2004. Those two performances were really bad, and the 6 INT game was arguably worse than anything Manning did. But Favre threw 5 TDs against one INT in his Superbowl run, and 5 TDs against 3 INTs the following year, each in three games. Manning threw 3 TDs against 7 INTs in four games the year he finally won his. He had a 4 INT playoff game, was held to 3 points in 2004 when he set the TD record, got shut out against the Jets, lost the Steelers game three different ways. Manning has been held without a TD in the playoffs three times. Favre and Brady have only done that once.

Manning supporters will claim that a playoff game is just another game, against a good opponent, and that he was just unlucky to have that bad a performance that often. But if we're talking about greatness, that's a poor excuse. Manning has done great things, but he's a flawed quarterback. Maybe he overcomes those flaws over the years, but the team accomplishment of winning a Superbowl doesn't excuse his individual failures in the past or his poor individual performances in multiple playoff games. And while Manning might be a general, he's not a leader.

Turning the tables back around on you, though, the only thing missing on Brady's resume is the statistical accomplishments. He's done everything a quarterback is asked to do, but he doesn't have the gaudy, record setting numbers. And we're watching that knock dissolve this year as he finally has good receivers to work with, and is putting up numbers on pace to beat Manning's best statistical year. If that happens - and we're obviously a long way away - then I don't see how there's even a debate anymore.

Brady has always been capable of putting up huge numbers, he just hasn't had the opportunitiy to do so. Brady has always been capable of winning, he has had the opportunitiy to do so, and he has done it. Manning has always been capable of putting up huge numbers, he has had the opportunity to do so, and he has done it. Manning has always been capable of winning, but when given the opportunity time and time again, he has individually failed. I'm happy for him that he finally won one last year, I was rooting for him in the Superbowl, and I think he has improved over the years, but that doesn't change the fact that the first half of his resume is littered with his own personal failures.

Good post. I agree with a lot of what you say. Nevertheless, if Brady had not won three Super Bowls, he would not currently be expected to make the HOF, much less to be ultimately considered one of the few best QBs of all time. Manning is a lock for the HOF and is in that conversation. Maybe your view is that is because the rest of the masses of NFL fans, HOF voters, etc. just don't look deeply enough into their respective situations. Maybe there is something to that, but it doesn't change the situation.

Do you really think anyone besides Patriots fans would think of Brady as one of the best QBs of all time had he not won 3 Super Bowls? Or even if he had won only one?

It's not just the fact that he won 3 Superbowls for me. I don't think Bradshaw or Aikman are in the best QB convo. It's the manner in which they were won. Brady is clutch. In those playoff games (where it matters most) he has stepped up numerous times and made few mistakes. Manning on the other hand is different. I believe a player can be great, or one of the best ever, and just not handle pressure well and be a choker in general. That's Manning IMO..similar to Karl Malone and possibly A-Rod. Great players...but with the game on the line I'm picking someone else that has shown that "it" factor to step it up when it matters most. Winning football is a team sport and Brady has usually been on the best team, but Manning's teams have not sucked. Look at those playoff numbers and in most cases Manning played like garbage. Even in the SB run he didn't play "great". A QB can't win a title on his own but he sure can blow his teams chances to win (Rex Grossman anyone). Again, it's the same argument I hear about Karla Malone. He made the Finals twice and had a team with enough talent to win. In both Finals when he brought his game the Jazz usually won...the losses were when he played sub-par. If you are discussing the best of the best then how can you place so little emphasis on the ability to play your best in the biggest moments?

 

[PsychoMan]

BF, I get your point and I agree that Brady is an incredible QB. I'd take him over anyone in the league ... except Manning. Every point you make below sounds great for the New England Patriots TEAM. But you can't possibly attribute all of that stuff to Brady in defense that he's better than Manning.

He's got the best career winning percentage for a quarterback with 40 or more starts all time (I would argue he played for the best TEAM during that span)

He's led a top 10 offense every year he has played but one

He did this despite the fact that his best receiver was Troy Brown and his leading running backs have included Kevin Faulk and Antowain Smith. (a top 10 offense all but one of his seasons hardly makes him great, but considering he hasn't had a ton of talent at the skill positions (not as bad as you make it out to be though), it is a plus for him)

He has led the league in passing yardage (A lot of QBs have done this that people would not consider better than Manning, and Manning has done this more than Brady)

He has led the league in passing TDs (see above)

Brady led his team on a 21 game winning streak. During this stretch, he threw for 4953 yards, 34 TDs and just 10 INTs desspite playing against playoff defenses, playing outdoors, in the cold, and in the Superbowl. (a QB alone cannot bring his team to a 21 game winning streak. this is an incredible team accomplishment and to say Brady deserves most of the credit is absurd)

In his first year with top quality receiving talent, he is on pace to break Manning's best season. (I would say that Brady's current TEAM is far more talented than any of Manning's previous teams, and he is "on pace" after 5 games ... it's a long season)

Over the course of his career, he's:

7-0 in overtime (his TEAM is 7-0 in overtime ... remember that this means HIS DEFENSE NEVER GAVE UP AN OVERTIME SCORE IN ANY OF THESE GAMES!)

26-5 in games decided by less than a TD (this has at least as much to do with coaching, defense and the rest of the TEAM as it does Brady)

led 24 game winning drives in the fourth quarter or overtime (including six in the postseason, three of which were in Superbowls) (outstanding accomplishment ... although it's important to know that his defense made the stops in each of these wins before and after his game winning drive. he also was accompanied by who is likely the best clutch kicker of all time)

He holds the NFL record for most receivers with a TD, after throwing TD passes to 12 different receivers in 2005. (Do you think Manning could not do this if they rotated different receivers in the mix?)

He's got the third longest consecutive games streak among QBs (after Favre and Manning)

Did he win some playoff games? Sure. I suppose you could look at his 10-0 record to start his career, or 12-2 record overall, and say that that's pretty impressive. Did he win a few Superbowls? Of course. But the rest of his resume is pretty impressive, too.

Obviously the Superbowls help, and obviously they're a big reason that he's a lock for the hall of fame right now. But when you look at how well he's carried that offense with minimal offensive talent around him, and how well he's done with good offensive talent, it's incredible in its own right. The Superbowls and the playoff wins and all of that stuff is a result of what he's done for this team, not just a result of what the team's done with him at the helm. People who want to write it off as "if the Patriots' decimated secondary didn't hold Carolina to 29 points, we wouldn't be talking about him right now" are ignoring the fact that he led the team to 32 points with nothing but Antowain Smith, Kevin Faulk, Troy Brown, rookie Daniel Graham, and second year players Deion Branch and David Givens on offense around him against the Panthers defense.

I just think the New England Patriots have been by far the best run organization over the last several years, and have had better coaching & more talent than Manning's teams. I think a lot of the stuff you mention above should be attributed to the team just as much or more than Brady.

 

[switz]

So - to use a 5 game stretch is disingenuous at best. Deliberately misleading at worst.

No, disingenuous is saying that Stallworth is as good as Wayne.Delilberately misleading is saying that Kelley Washington is as good as Wayne.

And I stand by my opinion that Wayne is a product of Manning. Put Washington or Stallworth on the Colts as rookies, and give them time to develop with Manning and Harrison, they would be just as good.

 

[bostonfred]

BF, I get your point and I agree that Brady is an incredible QB. I'd take him over anyone in the league ... except Manning. Every point you make below sounds great for the New England Patriots TEAM. But you can't possibly attribute all of that stuff to Brady in defense that he's better than Manning.

I just think the New England Patriots have been by far the best run organization over the last several years, and have had better coaching & more talent than Manning's teams. I think a lot of the stuff you mention above should be attributed to the team just as much or more than Brady.

OK, to put this on a level playing field, give me a list of things that Manning has done, that don't involve members of his team. For example, let's not count passes where another player on the team caught the ball. The Colts' organization has done some pretty incredible things in the draft, too, you know. Here's a list of their first round picks since 1996:

Marvin Harrison (who had 137 catches for 1700 yards and 14 TDs in his first two seasons)

Tarik Glenn

Peyton Manning

Edgerrin James

(Rob Morris)

Reggie Wayne

(Dwight Freeney)

Dallas Clark

(Marlin Jackson)

Joseph Addai

Anthony Gonzalez

8 of theirs last 11 first round picks have been on offense, and all but one of them is still on the roster. Not one of them has been a bust. So if you're going to say that Brady doesn't deserve as much credit for winning because his team was so good, why does Manning deserve all the credit for his passing numbers when the offensive talent around him was so good?

 

[Ghost Rider]

gferrell20, you made some excellent counterpoints, but this one is incorrect:

Brady led 24 game winning drives in the fourth quarter or overtime (including six in the postseason, three of which were in Superbowls) (outstanding accomplishment ... although it's important to know that his defense made the stops in each of these wins before and after his game winning drive. he also was accompanied by who is likely the best clutch kicker of all time)

The defense did not make stops in NE's first two SB wins that preceded Brady's game-winning drives. On the contrary, in both, the defense had given up a game-tying touchdown drive (Richy Proehl catching the tying TDs in both), and Brady then led the team down the field for the win right after that. And there were no stop by the defenses after these drives, either, since both FGs came at the buzzer.

 

[PsychoMan]

So - to use a 5 game stretch is disingenuous at best. Deliberately misleading at worst.

No, disingenuous is saying that Stallworth is as good as Wayne.Delilberately misleading is saying that Kelley Washington is as good as Wayne.

And I stand by my opinion that Wayne is a product of Manning. Put Washington or Stallworth on the Colts as rookies, and give them time to develop with Manning and Harrison, they would be just as good.

I've always thought Marvin had some special talent, and Wayne is a good receiver, but not special ... I agree his success is more due to Manning

 

[PsychoMan]

gferrell20, you made some excellent counterpoints, but this one is incorrect:

Brady led 24 game winning drives in the fourth quarter or overtime (including six in the postseason, three of which were in Superbowls) (outstanding accomplishment ... although it's important to know that his defense made the stops in each of these wins before and after his game winning drive. he also was accompanied by who is likely the best clutch kicker of all time)

The defense did not make stops in NE's first two SB wins that preceded Brady's game-winning drives. On the contrary, in both, the defense had given up a game-tying touchdown drive (Richy Proehl catching the tying TDs in both), and Brady then led the team down the field for the win right after that. And there were no stop by the defenses after these drives, either, since both FGs came at the buzzer.

Yeah, I figured in general, a game winning drive also means your defense makes a game winning stop, but may not be always the case ...

 

[shakeybarn]

These "coke vs pepsi" threads are tiresome, and really don't offer value. Yes, I know I don't have to read it... which I didn't check the posts in the thread...

I'm sure both are owned in 100.00000000% of fantasy leagues. I'm guessing only .00000000000001% of teams have both of them, and need to make a decision on which one to keep/trade.

the Brode Croyle vs Cleo Lemon thread (http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=351971) at least offers value (a la QB needs).

Ok, done. Feel free to berate and lambast me now ;-)

 

[kingmalaki]

BF, I get your point and I agree that Brady is an incredible QB. I'd take him over anyone in the league ... except Manning. Every point you make below sounds great for the New England Patriots TEAM. But you can't possibly attribute all of that stuff to Brady in defense that he's better than Manning.

He's got the best career winning percentage for a quarterback with 40 or more starts all time (I would argue he played for the best TEAM during that span)

He's led a top 10 offense every year he has played but one

He did this despite the fact that his best receiver was Troy Brown and his leading running backs have included Kevin Faulk and Antowain Smith. (a top 10 offense all but one of his seasons hardly makes him great, but considering he hasn't had a ton of talent at the skill positions (not as bad as you make it out to be though), it is a plus for him)

He has led the league in passing yardage (A lot of QBs have done this that people would not consider better than Manning, and Manning has done this more than Brady)

He has led the league in passing TDs (see above)

Brady led his team on a 21 game winning streak. During this stretch, he threw for 4953 yards, 34 TDs and just 10 INTs desspite playing against playoff defenses, playing outdoors, in the cold, and in the Superbowl. (a QB alone cannot bring his team to a 21 game winning streak. this is an incredible team accomplishment and to say Brady deserves most of the credit is absurd)

In his first year with top quality receiving talent, he is on pace to break Manning's best season. (I would say that Brady's current TEAM is far more talented than any of Manning's previous teams, and he is "on pace" after 5 games ... it's a long season)

Over the course of his career, he's:

7-0 in overtime (his TEAM is 7-0 in overtime ... remember that this means HIS DEFENSE NEVER GAVE UP AN OVERTIME SCORE IN ANY OF THESE GAMES!)

26-5 in games decided by less than a TD (this has at least as much to do with coaching, defense and the rest of the TEAM as it does Brady)

led 24 game winning drives in the fourth quarter or overtime (including six in the postseason, three of which were in Superbowls) (outstanding accomplishment ... although it's important to know that his defense made the stops in each of these wins before and after his game winning drive. he also was accompanied by who is likely the best clutch kicker of all time)

He holds the NFL record for most receivers with a TD, after throwing TD passes to 12 different receivers in 2005. (Do you think Manning could not do this if they rotated different receivers in the mix?)

He's got the third longest consecutive games streak among QBs (after Favre and Manning)

Did he win some playoff games? Sure. I suppose you could look at his 10-0 record to start his career, or 12-2 record overall, and say that that's pretty impressive. Did he win a few Superbowls? Of course. But the rest of his resume is pretty impressive, too.

Obviously the Superbowls help, and obviously they're a big reason that he's a lock for the hall of fame right now. But when you look at how well he's carried that offense with minimal offensive talent around him, and how well he's done with good offensive talent, it's incredible in its own right. The Superbowls and the playoff wins and all of that stuff is a result of what he's done for this team, not just a result of what the team's done with him at the helm. People who want to write it off as "if the Patriots' decimated secondary didn't hold Carolina to 29 points, we wouldn't be talking about him right now" are ignoring the fact that he led the team to 32 points with nothing but Antowain Smith, Kevin Faulk, Troy Brown, rookie Daniel Graham, and second year players Deion Branch and David Givens on offense around him against the Panthers defense.

I just think the New England Patriots have been by far the best run organization over the last several years, and have had better coaching & more talent than Manning's teams. I think a lot of the stuff you mention above should be attributed to the team just as much or more than Brady.

What do those team aspects have to do with Manning making critical errors in big games that Brady doesn't make (at least not as many)? Is it the team throwing those picks, or Peyton? I don’t see anyone addressing Fred's main point, which is to look at Peyton's poor INDIVIDUAL playoff performances. There is a difference between your team losing with you playing solid, and your team losing with you playing like garbage. And if you want to bring the team into this discussion, then how does it not favor Manning, since he is the one that just won a SB when he played subpar (ta least compared to his regular season performance) for the majority of the playoff run? How does bringing the team into it not favor Manning, when all of his numbers/awards have something to do with the offensive talent that he has been surrounded with? I can't think of too many other QB's with all those offensive weapons..especially not for such a long time, with few changes.

Edit: I think Manning is the better QB, until the pressure really starts to mount. Since everything else is so close, I would prefer Brady. He isn't that far behind Manning in the other aspects, and he is better under pressure. I want the QB who will not fold....

 

[kingmalaki]

In 13 postseason games Manning has 18 tds and 15 picks (almost a 1-1 ratio), with 12 of those td's coming in 3 blowout wins (well, one 38-31 shootout with KC). This is a significant dropoff from his regular season numbers of 285 tds and 141 picks (2-1 ratio).

Every other QB gets the blame when they toss picks, but not Peyton? That is a huge dropoff in production. Shouldn't the best of the best rise to the occassion, or does that not matter anymore? I'm not saying you have to win, but is it now excusable to go from great to so-so when the games matter the most? Do the Colts win more if he doesn't turn into Captain Giveaway in the playoffs?

 

[Tau837]

By the way, for those backing Brady in this comparison, how can you justify the lack of awards and honors relative to Manning? Is that solely because of his previously poor WRs? Or were the voters wrong or biased?

what do you want from the guy? His award arent over the top, but its not like there arent any. 2-time Superbowl MVP

4-time Pro Bowler (voted, think he only attended 3)

AP All Pro in '05

SI Sportsmen of the Year in '05

SI NFL Player of the Year in '05

Thats about it for the major ones. pales in comparison to Manning. He's led the league in passing yds and passing TDs in seperate years each on a single occasion. And we all know awards are more often generated by #s more than anything. For 3 straight years, the league's MVP set a significant NFL record. Manning in '04 with his 49TDs. Alexander in '05 with his 28TDs. And LT2 in '06 with his 31TDs. You cant argue against any of those guys as MVP those years. And Brady really didnt have the #s in '03 when NE won its 2nd Superbowl. So his MVP time just hasnt yet come. I dont think there's been any bias nor do I think the voters have been wrong. It'll probably happen this year. But I dont think he really cares about awards anyway. And if he doesnt, Im not gonna sweat it either. Most of Brady's greatest achievments are records not awards. Two such that Im sure he's the most proud of are the record for consecutive wins @ 21, and 10 straight playoff wins. He has the best winning percentage in the SB era of any QB with atleast 40 starts at 87 - 26. He shares the NFL record for throwing a TD to TWELVE different players in '05. Brady completed over 70 percent of his passes in four straight games in '01, his 1st year as a starter by the way. 4 other guys had done it: Montana ,Aikman , Steve Young and Sammy Baugh. thats a good one. Brady also completed the first 162 passes of his career without an interception. It was the longest streak to start a career in NFL history. oh, and he's 7-0 all-time in OT games. That's kindof the meat and potatoes of what Brady's been all about.

I know not a ton of 'awards', but he's kindof been getting the job done.

Isn't the bolded part kind of the point of this thread? That is, aren't we debating Manning vs. Brady here? If so, then I'm not sure how you can justify backing Brady in this comparison based on your own statement.

 

[switz]

In 13 postseason games Manning has 18 tds and 15 picks (almost a 1-1 ratio), with 12 of those td's coming in 3 blowout wins (well, one 38-31 shootout with KC). This is a significant dropoff from his regular season numbers of 285 tds and 141 picks (2-1 ratio). Every other QB gets the blame when they toss picks, but not Peyton? That is a huge dropoff in production. Shouldn't the best of the best rise to the occassion, or does that not matter anymore? I'm not saying you have to win, but is it now excusable to go from great to so-so when the games matter the most? Do the Colts win more if he doesn't turn into Captain Giveaway in the playoffs?

Hmmm....Brady'01 3 games, 97 passes, 1 TD, 1 INT, 5 sacks'03 3 games, 75 passes, 5 TD, 2 INT, 0 sacks'04 3 games, 81 passes, 5 TD, 0 INT, 7 sacks'05 2 games, 63 passes, 4 TD, 2 INT, 4 sacks'06 3 games 119 passes, 5 TD, 4 INT, 4 sacksaverages 31 passes per game, 1 TD per 22 passes, 1 INT per 48 passes, 1 sacked every 22 passesManning'99 1 game, 42 passes, 0 TD, 0 INT, 0 sacks'00 1 game, 32 passes, 1TD, 0 INT, 0 sacks'02 1 games, 31 passes, 0 TD, 2 INT, 1 sack'03 3 games, 103 passes, 9 TD, 4 INT, 5 sack'04 2 games, 75 passes, 4 TD, 2 INT, 2 sacks'05 1 game, 38 passes, 1 TD, 0 INT, 5 sacks'06 4 games, 153 passes, 3 TD, 7 INT, 6 sacksaverages 36 passes per game, 1 TD per 26 passes, 1 INT per 32 passes, 1 sacked every 25 passesFirst you would expect since the Colts rely on Manning to pass more than the Pats rely on Brady to pass that Manning would throw more INTS. Interestingly though, prior to '06 playoffs, Manning had a 15TD/6INT rating and Brady had a 15TD/5INT rating... hardly a difference. This past season Manning was awful in the playoffs, but they finally had a team, and won the SB. Yet it was in the previous years that Manning "couldn't win the big one" even though his TD/INT was the same as Brady's. Funny how that works.So last year is the anomaly and Peyton's not as INT-happy as we're all led to believe in the playoffs.The hard thing with this argument, is that their offensive schemes are so different. Brady's team is rather conservative, so he's not going to be put in a position to throw picks. Manning's team take a lot of risks, and simply throws more.So trying to use stats like this to prove one is better than the other is rather misleading, because the stats are out of context.But I digress, as I said earlier, we are just lucky to see two great QBs playing. I'm rather tired of people trying to prove one is better than the other. Sure we all have an opinion on it, but we're not really going to change anyone else's mind.

 

[twitch]

By the way, for those backing Brady in this comparison, how can you justify the lack of awards and honors relative to Manning? Is that solely because of his previously poor WRs? Or were the voters wrong or biased?

what do you want from the guy? His award arent over the top, but its not like there arent any. 2-time Superbowl MVP

4-time Pro Bowler (voted, think he only attended 3)

AP All Pro in '05

SI Sportsmen of the Year in '05

SI NFL Player of the Year in '05

Thats about it for the major ones. pales in comparison to Manning. He's led the league in passing yds and passing TDs in seperate years each on a single occasion. And we all know awards are more often generated by #s more than anything. For 3 straight years, the league's MVP set a significant NFL record. Manning in '04 with his 49TDs. Alexander in '05 with his 28TDs. And LT2 in '06 with his 31TDs. You cant argue against any of those guys as MVP those years. And Brady really didnt have the #s in '03 when NE won its 2nd Superbowl. So his MVP time just hasnt yet come. I dont think there's been any bias nor do I think the voters have been wrong. It'll probably happen this year. But I dont think he really cares about awards anyway. And if he doesnt, Im not gonna sweat it either. Most of Brady's greatest achievments are records not awards. Two such that Im sure he's the most proud of are the record for consecutive wins @ 21, and 10 straight playoff wins. He has the best winning percentage in the SB era of any QB with atleast 40 starts at 87 - 26. He shares the NFL record for throwing a TD to TWELVE different players in '05. Brady completed over 70 percent of his passes in four straight games in '01, his 1st year as a starter by the way. 4 other guys had done it: Montana ,Aikman , Steve Young and Sammy Baugh. thats a good one. Brady also completed the first 162 passes of his career without an interception. It was the longest streak to start a career in NFL history. oh, and he's 7-0 all-time in OT games. That's kindof the meat and potatoes of what Brady's been all about.

I know not a ton of 'awards', but he's kindof been getting the job done.

Isn't the bolded part kind of the point of this thread? That is, aren't we debating Manning vs. Brady here? If so, then I'm not sure how you can justify backing Brady in this comparison based on your own statement.

here. let me help you follow the important , newly bolded information that clearly your too unsure of yourself to understand.

 

[Tau837]

By the way, for those backing Brady in this comparison, how can you justify the lack of awards and honors relative to Manning? Is that solely because of his previously poor WRs? Or were the voters wrong or biased?

what do you want from the guy? His award arent over the top, but its not like there arent any. 2-time Superbowl MVP

4-time Pro Bowler (voted, think he only attended 3)

AP All Pro in '05

SI Sportsmen of the Year in '05

SI NFL Player of the Year in '05

Thats about it for the major ones. pales in comparison to Manning. He's led the league in passing yds and passing TDs in seperate years each on a single occasion. And we all know awards are more often generated by #s more than anything. For 3 straight years, the league's MVP set a significant NFL record. Manning in '04 with his 49TDs. Alexander in '05 with his 28TDs. And LT2 in '06 with his 31TDs. You cant argue against any of those guys as MVP those years. And Brady really didnt have the #s in '03 when NE won its 2nd Superbowl. So his MVP time just hasnt yet come. I dont think there's been any bias nor do I think the voters have been wrong. It'll probably happen this year. But I dont think he really cares about awards anyway. And if he doesnt, Im not gonna sweat it either. Most of Brady's greatest achievments are records not awards. Two such that Im sure he's the most proud of are the record for consecutive wins @ 21, and 10 straight playoff wins. He has the best winning percentage in the SB era of any QB with atleast 40 starts at 87 - 26. He shares the NFL record for throwing a TD to TWELVE different players in '05. Brady completed over 70 percent of his passes in four straight games in '01, his 1st year as a starter by the way. 4 other guys had done it: Montana ,Aikman , Steve Young and Sammy Baugh. thats a good one. Brady also completed the first 162 passes of his career without an interception. It was the longest streak to start a career in NFL history. oh, and he's 7-0 all-time in OT games. That's kindof the meat and potatoes of what Brady's been all about.

I know not a ton of 'awards', but he's kindof been getting the job done.

Isn't the bolded part kind of the point of this thread? That is, aren't we debating Manning vs. Brady here? If so, then I'm not sure how you can justify backing Brady in this comparison based on your own statement.

here. let me help you follow the important , newly bolded information that clearly your too unsure of yourself to understand.

Right, so Manning has more honors that honor his individual performance as a QB, like All Pro selections and MVPs. You counter that by citing something that is just as reflective of how great Brady's teams have been as how good Brady himself has been. Brilliant. We're discussing which of them is the better QB, not which of them has played for the better teams.

 

[timschochet]

Here's an interesting way to look at it: if you were a GM starting a new team from scratch, and you could start with any player currently in the NFL, who would you choose?

I'm guessing most GMs would say Manning. Does anyone disagree?

 

[bostonfred]

Right, so Manning has more honors that honor his individual performance as a QB, like All Pro selections and MVPs. You counter that by citing something that is just as reflective of how great Brady's teams have been as how good Brady himself has been. Brilliant. We're discussing which of them is the better QB, not which of them has played for the better teams.

Why did the Colts score 0 points against the Jets? Or three against the Patriots? Or pass for four interceptions against the Patriots? Or throw a game ending intereception to Troy Polamalu? Or take two sacks in a drive to kill another comeback attempt? Or opt to throw a deep pass into the end zone instead of getting them into game tying field goal range? Or throw three interceptions in the Chiefs game? Or throw two interceptions the following game? Those aren't team accomplishments. Those are individual accomplishments. And why do you call Manning's Pro Bowls individual accomplishments? If it's so easy to be a good receiver on the Colts, why couldn't they find someone opposite Harrison for so many years? Harrison is certain to go to the hall of fame. The running back who caught a quarter of his passes for a quarter of his yards his rookie year was Marshall Faulk, another hall of famer. He was replaced by Edgerrin James, who will likely go to the hall, too. Wayne, Glenn and Saturday all have multiple pro bowls. If Manning's statistics are such an individual accomplishment, why is it that McNabb's season with Owens was so far and away better than any other season he had? Why is Brady off to the best start of his career by far? Why is the unheralded Tony Romo drawing comparisons to Brett Favre? It's simple, passing yards and touchdowns are often as much a team accomplishment as wins.

 

[timschochet]

Right, so Manning has more honors that honor his individual performance as a QB, like All Pro selections and MVPs. You counter that by citing something that is just as reflective of how great Brady's teams have been as how good Brady himself has been. Brilliant. We're discussing which of them is the better QB, not which of them has played for the better teams.

Why did the Colts score 0 points against the Jets? Or three against the Patriots? Or pass for four interceptions against the Patriots? Or throw a game ending intereception to Troy Polamalu? Or take two sacks in a drive to kill another comeback attempt? Or opt to throw a deep pass into the end zone instead of getting them into game tying field goal range? Or throw three interceptions in the Chiefs game? Or throw two interceptions the following game? Those aren't team accomplishments. Those are individual accomplishments. And why do you call Manning's Pro Bowls individual accomplishments? If it's so easy to be a good receiver on the Colts, why couldn't they find someone opposite Harrison for so many years? Harrison is certain to go to the hall of fame. The running back who caught a quarter of his passes for a quarter of his yards his rookie year was Marshall Faulk, another hall of famer. He was replaced by Edgerrin James, who will likely go to the hall, too. Wayne, Glenn and Saturday all have multiple pro bowls. If Manning's statistics are such an individual accomplishment, why is it that McNabb's season with Owens was so far and away better than any other season he had? Why is Brady off to the best start of his career by far? Why is the unheralded Tony Romo drawing comparisons to Brett Favre? It's simple, passing yards and touchdowns are often as much a team accomplishment as wins.

sorry, but this argument fails to explain the accomplishments of Dan Marino and John Elway, to name a few. What great teammates did they have in their prime?

 

[cantrell]

Here's an interesting way to look at it: if you were a GM starting a new team from scratch, and you could start with any player currently in the NFL, who would you choose?I'm guessing most GMs would say Manning. Does anyone disagree?

I would take Manning everytime. He makes playing QB look so easy and effortless. Brady is great too, but I love watching Manning a whole lot more.

 

[bostonfred]

Right, so Manning has more honors that honor his individual performance as a QB, like All Pro selections and MVPs. You counter that by citing something that is just as reflective of how great Brady's teams have been as how good Brady himself has been. Brilliant. We're discussing which of them is the better QB, not which of them has played for the better teams.

Why did the Colts score 0 points against the Jets? Or three against the Patriots? Or pass for four interceptions against the Patriots? Or throw a game ending intereception to Troy Polamalu? Or take two sacks in a drive to kill another comeback attempt? Or opt to throw a deep pass into the end zone instead of getting them into game tying field goal range? Or throw three interceptions in the Chiefs game? Or throw two interceptions the following game? Those aren't team accomplishments. Those are individual accomplishments. And why do you call Manning's Pro Bowls individual accomplishments? If it's so easy to be a good receiver on the Colts, why couldn't they find someone opposite Harrison for so many years? Harrison is certain to go to the hall of fame. The running back who caught a quarter of his passes for a quarter of his yards his rookie year was Marshall Faulk, another hall of famer. He was replaced by Edgerrin James, who will likely go to the hall, too. Wayne, Glenn and Saturday all have multiple pro bowls. If Manning's statistics are such an individual accomplishment, why is it that McNabb's season with Owens was so far and away better than any other season he had? Why is Brady off to the best start of his career by far? Why is the unheralded Tony Romo drawing comparisons to Brett Favre? It's simple, passing yards and touchdowns are often as much a team accomplishment as wins.

sorry, but this argument fails to explain the accomplishments of Dan Marino and John Elway, to name a few. What great teammates did they have in their prime?

You've just given an excellent argument for why Marino and Elway should be ranked ahead of Manning. What does that have to do with Brady vs. Manning, though?

 

[twitch]

By the way, for those backing Brady in this comparison, how can you justify the lack of awards and honors relative to Manning? Is that solely because of his previously poor WRs? Or were the voters wrong or biased?

what do you want from the guy? His award arent over the top, but its not like there arent any. 2-time Superbowl MVP

4-time Pro Bowler (voted, think he only attended 3)

AP All Pro in '05

SI Sportsmen of the Year in '05

SI NFL Player of the Year in '05

Thats about it for the major ones. pales in comparison to Manning. He's led the league in passing yds and passing TDs in seperate years each on a single occasion. And we all know awards are more often generated by #s more than anything. For 3 straight years, the league's MVP set a significant NFL record. Manning in '04 with his 49TDs. Alexander in '05 with his 28TDs. And LT2 in '06 with his 31TDs. You cant argue against any of those guys as MVP those years. And Brady really didnt have the #s in '03 when NE won its 2nd Superbowl. So his MVP time just hasnt yet come. I dont think there's been any bias nor do I think the voters have been wrong. It'll probably happen this year. But I dont think he really cares about awards anyway. And if he doesnt, Im not gonna sweat it either. Most of Brady's greatest achievments are records not awards. Two such that Im sure he's the most proud of are the record for consecutive wins @ 21, and 10 straight playoff wins. He has the best winning percentage in the SB era of any QB with atleast 40 starts at 87 - 26. He shares the NFL record for throwing a TD to TWELVE different players in '05. Brady completed over 70 percent of his passes in four straight games in '01, his 1st year as a starter by the way. 4 other guys had done it: Montana ,Aikman , Steve Young and Sammy Baugh. thats a good one. Brady also completed the first 162 passes of his career without an interception. It was the longest streak to start a career in NFL history. oh, and he's 7-0 all-time in OT games. That's kindof the meat and potatoes of what Brady's been all about.

I know not a ton of 'awards', but he's kindof been getting the job done.

Isn't the bolded part kind of the point of this thread? That is, aren't we debating Manning vs. Brady here? If so, then I'm not sure how you can justify backing Brady in this comparison based on your own statement.

here. let me help you follow the important , newly bolded information that clearly your too unsure of yourself to understand.

Right, so Manning has more honors that honor his individual performance as a QB, like All Pro selections and MVPs. You counter that by citing something that is just as reflective of how great Brady's teams have been as how good Brady himself has been. Brilliant. We're discussing which of them is the better QB, not which of them has played for the better teams.

this is pretty hopeless. I dont have any real interest in trying to persuade you. And WINS, not awards, are the measure of any great athlete, and any great athlete will tell you that. but TWENTY-ONE straight wins is a little different than some writers awards. I dont care how good the team was. Thats, again, TWENTY-ONE straight games of not choking or looking like a deer in headlights. TEN straight playoff wins under enormously pressurized circumstances. if you dont get that, if you think some shiny little plaque hanging on a wall given out by Peter King, Mike Lupica and Tony Kornheiser means more than REAL hardware, then bud, I just cant help you. Im done here.

 

[Tau837]

Right, so Manning has more honors that honor his individual performance as a QB, like All Pro selections and MVPs. You counter that by citing something that is just as reflective of how great Brady's teams have been as how good Brady himself has been. Brilliant. We're discussing which of them is the better QB, not which of them has played for the better teams.

Why did the Colts score 0 points against the Jets? Or three against the Patriots? Or pass for four interceptions against the Patriots? Or throw a game ending intereception to Troy Polamalu? Or take two sacks in a drive to kill another comeback attempt? Or opt to throw a deep pass into the end zone instead of getting them into game tying field goal range? Or throw three interceptions in the Chiefs game? Or throw two interceptions the following game? Those aren't team accomplishments. Those are individual accomplishments. And why do you call Manning's Pro Bowls individual accomplishments? If it's so easy to be a good receiver on the Colts, why couldn't they find someone opposite Harrison for so many years? Harrison is certain to go to the hall of fame. The running back who caught a quarter of his passes for a quarter of his yards his rookie year was Marshall Faulk, another hall of famer. He was replaced by Edgerrin James, who will likely go to the hall, too. Wayne, Glenn and Saturday all have multiple pro bowls. If Manning's statistics are such an individual accomplishment, why is it that McNabb's season with Owens was so far and away better than any other season he had? Why is Brady off to the best start of his career by far? Why is the unheralded Tony Romo drawing comparisons to Brett Favre? It's simple, passing yards and touchdowns are often as much a team accomplishment as wins.

You are 100% correct that Manning has had a number of postseason games in which he didn't play well. That is the one and only area in which Brady has clearly outperformed Manning, and it is clearly quite important. Back to my earlier point that no one would even put Brady in this conversation if not for his three Super Bowls, which obviously required the rest of his postseason performances to achieve. Given that I conceded that before, and further given that you dismissed the Super Bowls before, I'm not sure why you continue to rehash the same essential point.Manning has been the most valuable player in the NFL twice, Brady none. I believe Manning has been chosen All Pro several times, Brady once, though I don't have the data handy, so I'm not 100% sure of that; regardless, it is a large gap between them. Why is that? IMO it is because Manning has been more valuable to the Colts, just as is implied by tne nature of the MVP award... The Colts have been more dependent on Manning for the success they have achieved than the Pats have on Brady. That doesn't mean Brady isn't a great QB... hence his inclusion in this debate. But the Colts have required more from Manning to succeed. You can simply look at the numbers to see that. Brady has been able to help his team win without having to carry them very often.And that brings us full circle to Manning's postseason numbers. One consequence of having to carry the team is an increased risk of performing poorly, by throwing untimely incompletions or interceptions, and, with the offense on your shoulders, thus being perceived as costing your team the game.I fully expect Manning to improve his career postseason numbers before he retires. And I fully expect him to be more valuable to his team, more critical to its success, than Brady. Unless the Pats suddenly purge a lot of great defensive players or BB leaves for some reason. Consequently, I suspect Manning will continue to be honored with awards more often than Brady. And I also expect him to win at least one more Super Bowl.Obviously, Brady has a great chance to win another Super Bowl, maybe even more than one... if he does, that will further elevate him in this comparison and in the overall ranking of all time great QBs. But, of course, that brings us back to the Super Bowl point...By the way, I didn't bring up Pro Bowls, I mentioned All Pro selections, which I believe are more meaningful. And, as I posted earlier, Wayne has 1 Pro Bowl selection, 2006, not multiple selections. Your point that Manning played with better offensive teammates is valid, and you don't need to exaggerate it by misstating the facts, just as I told twitch earlier.Of course, it is clear that Brady has played with better defensive teammates and a better head coach. IMO, the difference between Belichick and Mora/Dungy is bigger than the difference in the number of Pro Bowl selections surrounding Manning and Brady.I'm sure you won't agree with any of this, so I'll just nip this now by agreeing to disagree.

 

[Tau837]

By the way, for those backing Brady in this comparison, how can you justify the lack of awards and honors relative to Manning? Is that solely because of his previously poor WRs? Or were the voters wrong or biased?

what do you want from the guy? His award arent over the top, but its not like there arent any. 2-time Superbowl MVP

4-time Pro Bowler (voted, think he only attended 3)

AP All Pro in '05

SI Sportsmen of the Year in '05

SI NFL Player of the Year in '05

Thats about it for the major ones. pales in comparison to Manning. He's led the league in passing yds and passing TDs in seperate years each on a single occasion. And we all know awards are more often generated by #s more than anything. For 3 straight years, the league's MVP set a significant NFL record. Manning in '04 with his 49TDs. Alexander in '05 with his 28TDs. And LT2 in '06 with his 31TDs. You cant argue against any of those guys as MVP those years. And Brady really didnt have the #s in '03 when NE won its 2nd Superbowl. So his MVP time just hasnt yet come. I dont think there's been any bias nor do I think the voters have been wrong. It'll probably happen this year. But I dont think he really cares about awards anyway. And if he doesnt, Im not gonna sweat it either. Most of Brady's greatest achievments are records not awards. Two such that Im sure he's the most proud of are the record for consecutive wins @ 21, and 10 straight playoff wins. He has the best winning percentage in the SB era of any QB with atleast 40 starts at 87 - 26. He shares the NFL record for throwing a TD to TWELVE different players in '05. Brady completed over 70 percent of his passes in four straight games in '01, his 1st year as a starter by the way. 4 other guys had done it: Montana ,Aikman , Steve Young and Sammy Baugh. thats a good one. Brady also completed the first 162 passes of his career without an interception. It was the longest streak to start a career in NFL history. oh, and he's 7-0 all-time in OT games. That's kindof the meat and potatoes of what Brady's been all about.

I know not a ton of 'awards', but he's kindof been getting the job done.

Isn't the bolded part kind of the point of this thread? That is, aren't we debating Manning vs. Brady here? If so, then I'm not sure how you can justify backing Brady in this comparison based on your own statement.

here. let me help you follow the important , newly bolded information that clearly your too unsure of yourself to understand.

Right, so Manning has more honors that honor his individual performance as a QB, like All Pro selections and MVPs. You counter that by citing something that is just as reflective of how great Brady's teams have been as how good Brady himself has been. Brilliant. We're discussing which of them is the better QB, not which of them has played for the better teams.

this is pretty hopeless. I dont have any real interest in trying to persuade you. And WINS, not awards, are the measure of any great athlete, and any great athlete will tell you that. but TWENTY-ONE straight wins is a little different than some writers awards. I dont care how good the team was. Thats, again, TWENTY-ONE straight games of not choking or looking like a deer in headlights. TEN straight playoff wins under enormously pressurized circumstances. if you dont get that, if you think some shiny little plaque hanging on a wall given out by Peter King, Mike Lupica and Tony Kornheiser means more than REAL hardware, then bud, I just cant help you. Im done here.

Of course you don't. That would undermine your point. I don't think the awards mean more than the Super Bowl trophies. But the trophies are won by teams, the awards are awarded to individuals. Sorry if you can't grasp the difference.I think Brady is an outstanding QB. I happen to think Manning is better. You don't. I get it.

 

[twitch]

By the way, for those backing Brady in this comparison, how can you justify the lack of awards and honors relative to Manning? Is that solely because of his previously poor WRs? Or were the voters wrong or biased?

what do you want from the guy? His award arent over the top, but its not like there arent any. 2-time Superbowl MVP

4-time Pro Bowler (voted, think he only attended 3)

AP All Pro in '05

SI Sportsmen of the Year in '05

SI NFL Player of the Year in '05

Thats about it for the major ones. pales in comparison to Manning. He's led the league in passing yds and passing TDs in seperate years each on a single occasion. And we all know awards are more often generated by #s more than anything. For 3 straight years, the league's MVP set a significant NFL record. Manning in '04 with his 49TDs. Alexander in '05 with his 28TDs. And LT2 in '06 with his 31TDs. You cant argue against any of those guys as MVP those years. And Brady really didnt have the #s in '03 when NE won its 2nd Superbowl. So his MVP time just hasnt yet come. I dont think there's been any bias nor do I think the voters have been wrong. It'll probably happen this year. But I dont think he really cares about awards anyway. And if he doesnt, Im not gonna sweat it either. Most of Brady's greatest achievments are records not awards. Two such that Im sure he's the most proud of are the record for consecutive wins @ 21, and 10 straight playoff wins. He has the best winning percentage in the SB era of any QB with atleast 40 starts at 87 - 26. He shares the NFL record for throwing a TD to TWELVE different players in '05. Brady completed over 70 percent of his passes in four straight games in '01, his 1st year as a starter by the way. 4 other guys had done it: Montana ,Aikman , Steve Young and Sammy Baugh. thats a good one. Brady also completed the first 162 passes of his career without an interception. It was the longest streak to start a career in NFL history. oh, and he's 7-0 all-time in OT games. That's kindof the meat and potatoes of what Brady's been all about.

I know not a ton of 'awards', but he's kindof been getting the job done.

Isn't the bolded part kind of the point of this thread? That is, aren't we debating Manning vs. Brady here? If so, then I'm not sure how you can justify backing Brady in this comparison based on your own statement.

here. let me help you follow the important , newly bolded information that clearly your too unsure of yourself to understand.

Right, so Manning has more honors that honor his individual performance as a QB, like All Pro selections and MVPs. You counter that by citing something that is just as reflective of how great Brady's teams have been as how good Brady himself has been. Brilliant. We're discussing which of them is the better QB, not which of them has played for the better teams.

this is pretty hopeless. I dont have any real interest in trying to persuade you. And WINS, not awards, are the measure of any great athlete, and any great athlete will tell you that. but TWENTY-ONE straight wins is a little different than some writers awards. I dont care how good the team was. Thats, again, TWENTY-ONE straight games of not choking or looking like a deer in headlights. TEN straight playoff wins under enormously pressurized circumstances. if you dont get that, if you think some shiny little plaque hanging on a wall given out by Peter King, Mike Lupica and Tony Kornheiser means more than REAL hardware, then bud, I just cant help you. Im done here.

Of course you don't. That would undermine your point. I don't think the awards mean more than the Super Bowl trophies. But the trophies are won by teams, the awards are awarded to individuals. Sorry if you can't grasp the difference.I think Brady is an outstanding QB. I happen to think Manning is better. You don't. I get it.

for someone who's mantra is apparently just WIN baby, I would expect you'd get it. But assuming youre a Raiders fan, what I get is that youve probably hated Brady for a good 6 years now. and frankly, I dont blame you.

 

[timschochet]

As regards Brady never having won the MVP trophy, I'd have to say that the season so far is representative of what it will become, he'll win it this year. He's got my vote, anyhow.

 

[Tau837]

By the way, for those backing Brady in this comparison, how can you justify the lack of awards and honors relative to Manning? Is that solely because of his previously poor WRs? Or were the voters wrong or biased?

what do you want from the guy? His award arent over the top, but its not like there arent any. 2-time Superbowl MVP

4-time Pro Bowler (voted, think he only attended 3)

AP All Pro in '05

SI Sportsmen of the Year in '05

SI NFL Player of the Year in '05

Thats about it for the major ones. pales in comparison to Manning. He's led the league in passing yds and passing TDs in seperate years each on a single occasion. And we all know awards are more often generated by #s more than anything. For 3 straight years, the league's MVP set a significant NFL record. Manning in '04 with his 49TDs. Alexander in '05 with his 28TDs. And LT2 in '06 with his 31TDs. You cant argue against any of those guys as MVP those years. And Brady really didnt have the #s in '03 when NE won its 2nd Superbowl. So his MVP time just hasnt yet come. I dont think there's been any bias nor do I think the voters have been wrong. It'll probably happen this year. But I dont think he really cares about awards anyway. And if he doesnt, Im not gonna sweat it either. Most of Brady's greatest achievments are records not awards. Two such that Im sure he's the most proud of are the record for consecutive wins @ 21, and 10 straight playoff wins. He has the best winning percentage in the SB era of any QB with atleast 40 starts at 87 - 26. He shares the NFL record for throwing a TD to TWELVE different players in '05. Brady completed over 70 percent of his passes in four straight games in '01, his 1st year as a starter by the way. 4 other guys had done it: Montana ,Aikman , Steve Young and Sammy Baugh. thats a good one. Brady also completed the first 162 passes of his career without an interception. It was the longest streak to start a career in NFL history. oh, and he's 7-0 all-time in OT games. That's kindof the meat and potatoes of what Brady's been all about.

I know not a ton of 'awards', but he's kindof been getting the job done.

Isn't the bolded part kind of the point of this thread? That is, aren't we debating Manning vs. Brady here? If so, then I'm not sure how you can justify backing Brady in this comparison based on your own statement.

here. let me help you follow the important , newly bolded information that clearly your too unsure of yourself to understand.

Right, so Manning has more honors that honor his individual performance as a QB, like All Pro selections and MVPs. You counter that by citing something that is just as reflective of how great Brady's teams have been as how good Brady himself has been. Brilliant. We're discussing which of them is the better QB, not which of them has played for the better teams.

this is pretty hopeless. I dont have any real interest in trying to persuade you. And WINS, not awards, are the measure of any great athlete, and any great athlete will tell you that. but TWENTY-ONE straight wins is a little different than some writers awards. I dont care how good the team was. Thats, again, TWENTY-ONE straight games of not choking or looking like a deer in headlights. TEN straight playoff wins under enormously pressurized circumstances. if you dont get that, if you think some shiny little plaque hanging on a wall given out by Peter King, Mike Lupica and Tony Kornheiser means more than REAL hardware, then bud, I just cant help you. Im done here.

Of course you don't. That would undermine your point. I don't think the awards mean more than the Super Bowl trophies. But the trophies are won by teams, the awards are awarded to individuals. Sorry if you can't grasp the difference.I think Brady is an outstanding QB. I happen to think Manning is better. You don't. I get it.

for someone who's mantra is apparently just WIN baby, I would expect you'd get it. But assuming youre a Raiders fan, what I get is that youve probably hated Brady for a good 6 years now. and frankly, I dont blame you.

I'm not a Raiders fan, I'm a Chargers fan. My favorite QB is Rivers. I figured most around here knew that.And I don't hate Brady. Did you not read above where I said he is an outstanding QB? IMO, it is not about Brady not being great, it is about Manning being greater.

I do get the point about winning. I'm not here arguing that the Colts team of this decade has been a better team than the Patriots team. Those trophies and the general postseason success for the Pats proves that just fine. That is where the winning fits. But that is a different conversation, one that we're not having.

I also have posted previously in this thread that I think Montana is the best ever. So, yes, I get the winning. I just don't think Brady has built a resume that enables the postseason success to put him over the top and above Manning as of now.

I thought you were done here...?

 

[bostonfred]

The Colts have been more dependent on Manning for the success they have achieved than the Pats have on Brady. That doesn't mean Brady isn't a great QB... hence his inclusion in this debate. But the Colts have required more from Manning to succeed. You can simply look at the numbers to see that. Brady has been able to help his team win without having to carry them very often.

This is the biggest fundamental disagreement we have. Brady has carried the Patriots offense almost singlehandedly. Manning has had multiple pro bowlers and first rounders at every skill position and two more on the offensive line. Put any decent quarterback on the Colts, and they'll put up big numbers. I'm not saying they'll do what Manning has done, but they'll put up big numbers nonetheless. Put an average QB where Brady is, and there is simply no way they win those Superbowls. I don't understand how you could possibly argue otherwise.

 

[Tau837]

As regards Brady never having won the MVP trophy, I'd have to say that the season so far is representative of what it will become, he'll win it this year. He's got my vote, anyhow.

We'll see. I think if he does that will certainly help him in this comparison.

 

[Phlash]

Brady may not deserved it in '05, but to the Patriots team he WAS the most valuable player relatively speaking. Gawd... his offensive help that year was for a lack of a better term SUBPAR.

 

[Tau837]

The Colts have been more dependent on Manning for the success they have achieved than the Pats have on Brady. That doesn't mean Brady isn't a great QB... hence his inclusion in this debate. But the Colts have required more from Manning to succeed. You can simply look at the numbers to see that. Brady has been able to help his team win without having to carry them very often.

This is the biggest fundamental disagreement we have. Brady has carried the Patriots offense almost singlehandedly. Manning has had multiple pro bowlers and first rounders at every skill position and two more on the offensive line. Put any decent quarterback on the Colts, and they'll put up big numbers. I'm not saying they'll do what Manning has done, but they'll put up big numbers nonetheless. Put an average QB where Brady is, and there is simply no way they win those Superbowls. I don't understand how you could possibly argue otherwise.

The fundamental disagreement we have is this. Brady may have been required to carry the Pats offense, but the Pats offense was not required to carry the team. Manning has been required to carry the Colts offense, which in turn has been required to carry the team for the majority of his career. Thus, the burden placed on Brady has been less than the burden placed on Manning.And, as I said before, I put as much value on the delta between Belichick and Mora/Dungy as I do on the delta between Manning's and Brady's offensive teammates. I notice you chose not to comment on that before.As for the "if you put any QB on the Colts" or similar arguments, it is nothing but speculation, so it doesn't prove helpful in these debates. My personal opinion is that if Manning were on the Pats instead of Brady, the Pats passing offense would have performed better, because Weis et al would have opened it up more. And, yes, I think Manning would have been just fine with Troy Brown and the other castoffs on the Pats offense; I think he would have had more statistical success. Sure, it would have been less than he has had with Harrison, et al, but it would have been more than Brady has had IMO. And I do think they would have won multiple Super Bowls. After all, he would have had Belichick, the Pats defense, Vinatieri, etc., just as Brady did... add a better passing offense to that and it doesn't make for a worse team.See, the speculation works both ways and proves nothing.And, yes, I know you don't understand. Your judgment on this subject is impaired by being a Pats homer. I, on the other hand, am neither a Colts fan, nor a Pats "hater". You may disagree with my opinion, but at least it is objective.

 

[bostonfred]

You are 100% correct that Manning has had a number of postseason games in which he didn't play well. That is the one and only area in which Brady has clearly outperformed Manning, and it is clearly quite important. Back to my earlier point that no one would even put Brady in this conversation if not for his three Super Bowls, which obviously required the rest of his postseason performances to achieve. Given that I conceded that before, and further given that you dismissed the Super Bowls before, I'm not sure why you continue to rehash the same essential point.

No, these are two completely different points. One point is that Brady has done some very good things in the playoffs. Another point is that Manning has done some very bad things in the playoffs. Those aren't the same essential point. Saying they are makes it seem like you're sweeping them under the carpet.

Manning has been the most valuable player in the NFL twice, Brady none. I believe Manning has been chosen All Pro several times, Brady once, though I don't have the data handy, so I'm not 100% sure of that; regardless, it is a large gap between them. Why is that? IMO it is because Manning has been more valuable to the Colts, just as is implied by tne nature of the MVP award...

OK, if you're going to count Manning's MVP awards and say that those are individual accomplishments, then how can you say that Brady wasn't the most valuable player in those Superbowls? Certainly your "implied by the nature of the MVP award" argument doesn't only work for Manning's MVPs, does it?

And that brings us full circle to Manning's postseason numbers. One consequence of having to carry the team is an increased risk of performing poorly, by throwing untimely incompletions or interceptions, and, with the offense on your shoulders, thus being perceived as costing your team the game.

Four interceptions in a do or die game is not a perception, it's a fact. Getting shut out in the playoffs is not a perception, it's a fact. Leading the highest scoring team in the NFL to just three points in the playoffs is not a perception, it's a fact. Failing to lead the team to a touchdown in multiple playoff games in different years is not a perception, it's a fact.

I fully expect Manning to improve his career postseason numbers before he retires. And I fully expect him to be more valuable to his team, more critical to its success, than Brady. Unless the Pats suddenly purge a lot of great defensive players or BB leaves for some reason. Consequently, I suspect Manning will continue to be honored with awards more often than Brady. And I also expect him to win at least one more Super Bowl.

I fully expect Brady to improve his career regular season numbers before he retires. And Brady, who was just named player of the month, seems to have been more valuable to his team this month. Consequently, it seems like you're cherry picking things that make Manning look good, and ignoring ones that make Brady look good.

Obviously, Brady has a great chance to win another Super Bowl, maybe even more than one... if he does, that will further elevate him in this comparison and in the overall ranking of all time great QBs. But, of course, that brings us back to the Super Bowl point...

Would another Superbowl change your mind as much as if he puts up better numbers than Manning, or wins a regular season MVP, or sets the TD record? Is there anything Brady could do to make you change your mind?

 

[twitch]

By the way, for those backing Brady in this comparison, how can you justify the lack of awards and honors relative to Manning? Is that solely because of his previously poor WRs? Or were the voters wrong or biased?

what do you want from the guy? His award arent over the top, but its not like there arent any. 2-time Superbowl MVP

4-time Pro Bowler (voted, think he only attended 3)

AP All Pro in '05

SI Sportsmen of the Year in '05

SI NFL Player of the Year in '05

Thats about it for the major ones. pales in comparison to Manning. He's led the league in passing yds and passing TDs in seperate years each on a single occasion. And we all know awards are more often generated by #s more than anything. For 3 straight years, the league's MVP set a significant NFL record. Manning in '04 with his 49TDs. Alexander in '05 with his 28TDs. And LT2 in '06 with his 31TDs. You cant argue against any of those guys as MVP those years. And Brady really didnt have the #s in '03 when NE won its 2nd Superbowl. So his MVP time just hasnt yet come. I dont think there's been any bias nor do I think the voters have been wrong. It'll probably happen this year. But I dont think he really cares about awards anyway. And if he doesnt, Im not gonna sweat it either. Most of Brady's greatest achievments are records not awards. Two such that Im sure he's the most proud of are the record for consecutive wins @ 21, and 10 straight playoff wins. He has the best winning percentage in the SB era of any QB with atleast 40 starts at 87 - 26. He shares the NFL record for throwing a TD to TWELVE different players in '05. Brady completed over 70 percent of his passes in four straight games in '01, his 1st year as a starter by the way. 4 other guys had done it: Montana ,Aikman , Steve Young and Sammy Baugh. thats a good one. Brady also completed the first 162 passes of his career without an interception. It was the longest streak to start a career in NFL history. oh, and he's 7-0 all-time in OT games. That's kindof the meat and potatoes of what Brady's been all about.

I know not a ton of 'awards', but he's kindof been getting the job done.

Isn't the bolded part kind of the point of this thread? That is, aren't we debating Manning vs. Brady here? If so, then I'm not sure how you can justify backing Brady in this comparison based on your own statement.

here. let me help you follow the important , newly bolded information that clearly your too unsure of yourself to understand.

Right, so Manning has more honors that honor his individual performance as a QB, like All Pro selections and MVPs. You counter that by citing something that is just as reflective of how great Brady's teams have been as how good Brady himself has been. Brilliant. We're discussing which of them is the better QB, not which of them has played for the better teams.

this is pretty hopeless. I dont have any real interest in trying to persuade you. And WINS, not awards, are the measure of any great athlete, and any great athlete will tell you that. but TWENTY-ONE straight wins is a little different than some writers awards. I dont care how good the team was. Thats, again, TWENTY-ONE straight games of not choking or looking like a deer in headlights. TEN straight playoff wins under enormously pressurized circumstances. if you dont get that, if you think some shiny little plaque hanging on a wall given out by Peter King, Mike Lupica and Tony Kornheiser means more than REAL hardware, then bud, I just cant help you. Im done here.

Of course you don't. That would undermine your point. I don't think the awards mean more than the Super Bowl trophies. But the trophies are won by teams, the awards are awarded to individuals. Sorry if you can't grasp the difference.I think Brady is an outstanding QB. I happen to think Manning is better. You don't. I get it.

for someone who's mantra is apparently just WIN baby, I would expect you'd get it. But assuming youre a Raiders fan, what I get is that youve probably hated Brady for a good 6 years now. and frankly, I dont blame you.

I'm not a Raiders fan, I'm a Chargers fan. My favorite QB is Rivers. I figured most around here knew that.And I don't hate Brady. Did you not read above where I said he is an outstanding QB? IMO, it is not about Brady not being great, it is about Manning being greater.

I do get the point about winning. I'm not here arguing that the Colts team of this decade has been a better team than the Patriots team. Those trophies and the general postseason success for the Pats proves that just fine. That is where the winning fits. But that is a different conversation, one that we're not having.

I also have posted previously in this thread that I think Montana is the best ever. So, yes, I get the winning. I just don't think Brady has built a resume that enables the postseason success to put him over the top and above Manning as of now.

I thought you were done here...?

My bad. Didnt mean to insult you with Raider tag. And its been an intersting discussion. But all this time, Ive been debating with a CHARGERS fan who rolls with the name, "Just Win Baby"?? too, too funny. and yes. I am done here.

 

[bostonfred]

The Colts have been more dependent on Manning for the success they have achieved than the Pats have on Brady. That doesn't mean Brady isn't a great QB... hence his inclusion in this debate. But the Colts have required more from Manning to succeed. You can simply look at the numbers to see that. Brady has been able to help his team win without having to carry them very often.

This is the biggest fundamental disagreement we have. Brady has carried the Patriots offense almost singlehandedly. Manning has had multiple pro bowlers and first rounders at every skill position and two more on the offensive line. Put any decent quarterback on the Colts, and they'll put up big numbers. I'm not saying they'll do what Manning has done, but they'll put up big numbers nonetheless. Put an average QB where Brady is, and there is simply no way they win those Superbowls. I don't understand how you could possibly argue otherwise.

The fundamental disagreement we have is this. Brady may have been required to carry the Pats offense, but the Pats offense was not required to carry the team. Manning has been required to carry the Colts offense, which in turn has been required to carry the team for the majority of his career. Thus, the burden placed on Brady has been less than the burden placed on Manning.

If the offense wasn't required to carry his team, explain 2003. Explain how a team that was 7th in the league on defense made the playoffs with such a dearth of offensive talent. Explain how he outscored both of the co-MVPs in the playoffs, while leading the team to an average of 24 points per game? Explain how he led the team to a 32-29 shootout victory over a team that had given up an average of 12 points per playoff game heading into the game? And explain why he was named the most valuable player for that Superbowl? I mean besides that, Brady didn't do a thing. They didn't even need a quarterback.

 

[Tau837]

You are 100% correct that Manning has had a number of postseason games in which he didn't play well. That is the one and only area in which Brady has clearly outperformed Manning, and it is clearly quite important. Back to my earlier point that no one would even put Brady in this conversation if not for his three Super Bowls, which obviously required the rest of his postseason performances to achieve. Given that I conceded that before, and further given that you dismissed the Super Bowls before, I'm not sure why you continue to rehash the same essential point.

No, these are two completely different points. One point is that Brady has done some very good things in the playoffs. Another point is that Manning has done some very bad things in the playoffs. Those aren't the same essential point. Saying they are makes it seem like you're sweeping them under the carpet.

I'm not sweeping it under the carpet, I'm conceding that point. Brady has played well in the playoffs and Manning hasn't. Fine, it's two points. Whatever. I conceded these things from the start.

Manning has been the most valuable player in the NFL twice, Brady none. I believe Manning has been chosen All Pro several times, Brady once, though I don't have the data handy, so I'm not 100% sure of that; regardless, it is a large gap between them. Why is that? IMO it is because Manning has been more valuable to the Colts, just as is implied by tne nature of the MVP award...

OK, if you're going to count Manning's MVP awards and say that those are individual accomplishments, then how can you say that Brady wasn't the most valuable player in those Superbowls? Certainly your "implied by the nature of the MVP award" argument doesn't only work for Manning's MVPs, does it?

Not at all. I didn't say Brady wasn't the MVP in those Super Bowls. In fact, I didn't comment on them, nor did I even mention Manning's Super Bowl MVP last year. Since you brought it up, however, I will say that I don't think Brady's first one was particularly impressive. In fact, I think their first Super Bowl epitomized the whole team concept of the Pats. There was no true standout, so Brady won it by default IMO. I mean, Brady was only responsible for one TD and the offense only scored 13 points. Brady definitely deserved the second one.I think that being the most valuable player for an entire season is different than for a single game. IMO it is easier to do it for one game than for 16 games. On the other hand, in this case, the one game is the biggest stage, which offsets that a bit.

And that brings us full circle to Manning's postseason numbers. One consequence of having to carry the team is an increased risk of performing poorly, by throwing untimely incompletions or interceptions, and, with the offense on your shoulders, thus being perceived as costing your team the game.

Four interceptions in a do or die game is not a perception, it's a fact. Getting shut out in the playoffs is not a perception, it's a fact. Leading the highest scoring team in the NFL to just three points in the playoffs is not a perception, it's a fact. Failing to lead the team to a touchdown in multiple playoff games in different years is not a perception, it's a fact.

Maybe you should refer again to the bolded statements of mine at the top of this post.

I fully expect Manning to improve his career postseason numbers before he retires. And I fully expect him to be more valuable to his team, more critical to its success, than Brady. Unless the Pats suddenly purge a lot of great defensive players or BB leaves for some reason. Consequently, I suspect Manning will continue to be honored with awards more often than Brady. And I also expect him to win at least one more Super Bowl.

I fully expect Brady to improve his career regular season numbers before he retires. And Brady, who was just named player of the month, seems to have been more valuable to his team this month. Consequently, it seems like you're cherry picking things that make Manning look good, and ignoring ones that make Brady look good.

I agree Brady will likely improve his numbers before he retires. He has a long time to go to measure up to the modern-era QBs in that regard, so it's hard to say definitively that he'll get there, but he certainly has a chance.You're being ridiculous on the offensive player of the month thing and saying I'm cherry picking. Are you serious? Should we count up how many times each of them has been offensive player of the week next? I'm not cherry picking at all. There is no comparison between MVP of the league for an entire season and offensive player of the month. If Brady continues his outstanding start and wins MVP, then you'll have something worth bringing up in the context of my comments.

Obviously, Brady has a great chance to win another Super Bowl, maybe even more than one... if he does, that will further elevate him in this comparison and in the overall ranking of all time great QBs. But, of course, that brings us back to the Super Bowl point...

Would another Superbowl change your mind as much as if he puts up better numbers than Manning, or wins a regular season MVP, or sets the TD record? Is there anything Brady could do to make you change your mind?

All of those accomplishments would help Brady's case a lot. Another Super Bowl would inevitably lead to Montana comparisons, which IMO is probably the best praise there is in this type of discussion. An MVP would counter a lot of what I have been arguing about the team concept, Belichick, etc.I'm not sure what you mean about better numbers than Manning - if you mean better than Manning's 2004 season, then, yes, of course that would be extremely impressive. I assume you don't mean better career numbers, since that seems unlikely. If you just mean better numbers one year, but not necessarily record breaking numbers, then I'm not sure how much weight that would carry. I do think the candidates for best modern era QB, like Elway, Favre, and Marino, typically have big numbers, so he needs to play a lot longer and/or improve his pace to really impress on the numbers front. Even Montana, who is known more for winning than numbers, is top 9 in passing yards and TDs, attempts, and completions, and his postseason numbers are simply amazing.

 

[Tau837]

The Colts have been more dependent on Manning for the success they have achieved than the Pats have on Brady. That doesn't mean Brady isn't a great QB... hence his inclusion in this debate. But the Colts have required more from Manning to succeed. You can simply look at the numbers to see that. Brady has been able to help his team win without having to carry them very often.

This is the biggest fundamental disagreement we have. Brady has carried the Patriots offense almost singlehandedly. Manning has had multiple pro bowlers and first rounders at every skill position and two more on the offensive line. Put any decent quarterback on the Colts, and they'll put up big numbers. I'm not saying they'll do what Manning has done, but they'll put up big numbers nonetheless. Put an average QB where Brady is, and there is simply no way they win those Superbowls. I don't understand how you could possibly argue otherwise.

The fundamental disagreement we have is this. Brady may have been required to carry the Pats offense, but the Pats offense was not required to carry the team. Manning has been required to carry the Colts offense, which in turn has been required to carry the team for the majority of his career. Thus, the burden placed on Brady has been less than the burden placed on Manning.

If the offense wasn't required to carry his team, explain 2003. Explain how a team that was 7th in the league on defense made the playoffs with such a dearth of offensive talent. Explain how he outscored both of the co-MVPs in the playoffs, while leading the team to an average of 24 points per game? Explain how he led the team to a 32-29 shootout victory over a team that had given up an average of 12 points per playoff game heading into the game? And explain why he was named the most valuable player for that Superbowl? I mean besides that, Brady didn't do a thing. They didn't even need a quarterback.

You mean they were 7th in the league on defense... out of 32? Is that supposed to indicate they weren't good? LOFL. Oh yeah, and they also allowed the fewest points in the NFL that season. Are you really telling me the offense carried that team?Yes, Brady had an outstanding Super Bowl. No one could argue that. In the other two games, he basically played the game manager QB role... he was responsible for 2 TDs and led the offense to 39 total points. Oh, and how did "he" outscore the co-MVPs in the playoffs? Well, he didn't, his team did. That had more to do with his team's #1 scoring defense and #7 yardage defense which you had the audacity to suggest was not the unit that carried the team. And Vinatieri and Antowain Smith played nice roles in those games as well. Brady did not carry the Pats in those two games.

 

[bostonfred]

I do think the candidates for best modern era QB, like Elway, Favre, and Marino, typically have big numbers, so he needs to play a lot longer and/or improve his pace to really impress on the numbers front. Even Montana, who is known more for winning than numbers, is top 9 in passing yards and TDs, attempts, and completions, and his postseason numbers are simply amazing.

In 2001, Brady got his first full time job. In 1980, Montana got his. Both were 24. Here are how their numbers stack up through the same point in their careers:Brady: 22947 yards, 163 TDs, 80 INTs, three Superbowl ringsMontana: 21402 yards, 140 TDs, 73 INTs, two Superbowl ringsIn 1985, Montana's sixth year as a starter, the team picked up a receiver named Jerry Rice. In 2007, Brady's seventh year as a starter, his team picked up a receiver named Randy Moss. Through 1986, Montana had played in ten playoff games, throwing for 2562 yards, 17 TDs, and 14 INTs.Brady's first ten games in the playoffs, which happened earlier, 2378 yards, 15 TDs, and 5 INTs. This actually includes 2 extra INTs, since I cut out the playoff game in 2001 where he didn't survive the first half. Brady's numbers are no less impressive than Montana's, and arguably more impressive through the same stage in their careers.

 

[icehouse]

The fundamental disagreement we have is this. Brady may have been required to carry the Pats offense, but the Pats offense was not required to carry the team. Manning has been required to carry the Colts offense, which in turn has been required to carry the team for the majority of his career. Thus, the burden placed on Brady has been less than the burden placed on Manning.

How has Manning been required to carry the Colts offense when he has clearly had more help on that side of the ball than Brady? And even if one does agree that Manning was required to carry the offense, how does that explain the huge discrepancy between his regular season and postseason play? In the regular season he DOMINATES and puts up earth shattering numbers. In the postseason his play turns to garbage, with critical mistakes being made in lots of games.You may give credit to the Pats team for winning and that is fine, But admit that when the pressure rises, you don't see Brady doing stuff like this:

Why did the Colts score 0 points against the Jets? Or three against the Patriots? Or pass for four interceptions against the Patriots? Or throw a game ending intereception to Troy Polamalu? Or take two sacks in a drive to kill another comeback attempt? Or opt to throw a deep pass into the end zone instead of getting them into game tying field goal range? Or throw three interceptions in the Chiefs game? Or throw two interceptions the following game? Those aren't team accomplishments. Those are individual accomplishments.

That poor play has more to do with Manning making poor decisions than his "team". You want to say he is carrying the offense...fine...hasn't he been doing the same thing that he did that entire regular season, when he played like Superman? He has shown more of a history to fold when the heat rises, via his individual efforts. Just to make sure I understand right, you would rather have the player who gets worse during the big games?

 

[bostonfred]

The Colts have been more dependent on Manning for the success they have achieved than the Pats have on Brady. That doesn't mean Brady isn't a great QB... hence his inclusion in this debate. But the Colts have required more from Manning to succeed. You can simply look at the numbers to see that. Brady has been able to help his team win without having to carry them very often.

This is the biggest fundamental disagreement we have. Brady has carried the Patriots offense almost singlehandedly. Manning has had multiple pro bowlers and first rounders at every skill position and two more on the offensive line. Put any decent quarterback on the Colts, and they'll put up big numbers. I'm not saying they'll do what Manning has done, but they'll put up big numbers nonetheless. Put an average QB where Brady is, and there is simply no way they win those Superbowls. I don't understand how you could possibly argue otherwise.

The fundamental disagreement we have is this. Brady may have been required to carry the Pats offense, but the Pats offense was not required to carry the team. Manning has been required to carry the Colts offense, which in turn has been required to carry the team for the majority of his career. Thus, the burden placed on Brady has been less than the burden placed on Manning.

If the offense wasn't required to carry his team, explain 2003. Explain how a team that was 7th in the league on defense made the playoffs with such a dearth of offensive talent. Explain how he outscored both of the co-MVPs in the playoffs, while leading the team to an average of 24 points per game? Explain how he led the team to a 32-29 shootout victory over a team that had given up an average of 12 points per playoff game heading into the game? And explain why he was named the most valuable player for that Superbowl? I mean besides that, Brady didn't do a thing. They didn't even need a quarterback.

You mean they were 7th in the league on defense... out of 32? Is that supposed to indicate they weren't good? LOFL. Oh yeah, and they also allowed the fewest points in the NFL that season. Are you really telling me the offense carried that team?Yes, Brady had an outstanding Super Bowl. No one could argue that. In the other two games, he basically played the game manager QB role... he was responsible for 2 TDs and led the offense to 39 total points. Oh, and how did "he" outscore the co-MVPs in the playoffs? Well, he didn't, his team did. That had more to do with his team's #1 scoring defense and #7 yardage defense which you had the audacity to suggest was not the unit that carried the team. And Vinatieri and Antowain Smith played nice roles in those games as well. Brady did not carry the Pats in those two games.

No, I'm not telling you that the offense carried the team. I'm telling you that Tom Brady carried the offense. It's not that hard. The defense was not good enough in and of itself to win the Superbowl. If the #7 yardage defense is good enough to carry the team, why didn't the teams with #1 through #6 win the Superbowl? If the #1 scoring defense is good enough to carry the team to the Superbowl, why doesn't that team win every year? The offense, which was only ranked twelfth in the league in 2003 (the one year under Brady it hasn't been top ten) had NOBODY ELSE BESIDES BRADY. That's the point. Neither Kevin Faulk nor Antowain Smith got 700 yards rushing, and they combined for just 3 total TDs. The leading receiver was a second year Deion Branch who had just 57 catches for 803 yards and 3 TDs. The second leading receiver on the team was the running back. And before you claim it was Vinatieri, he was only 25 of 34 on field goals in 2003. Brady was the difference between "a good defensive team" and "the two time Superbowl champion" all season long, and he capped it off by unquestionably carrying the team to the Superbowl victory.

 

[Tau837]

I do think the candidates for best modern era QB, like Elway, Favre, and Marino, typically have big numbers, so he needs to play a lot longer and/or improve his pace to really impress on the numbers front. Even Montana, who is known more for winning than numbers, is top 9 in passing yards and TDs, attempts, and completions, and his postseason numbers are simply amazing.

In 2001, Brady got his first full time job. In 1980, Montana got his. Both were 24. Here are how their numbers stack up through the same point in their careers:Brady: 22947 yards, 163 TDs, 80 INTs, three Superbowl ringsMontana: 21402 yards, 140 TDs, 73 INTs, two Superbowl ringsIn 1985, Montana's sixth year as a starter, the team picked up a receiver named Jerry Rice. In 2007, Brady's seventh year as a starter, his team picked up a receiver named Randy Moss. Through 1986, Montana had played in ten playoff games, throwing for 2562 yards, 17 TDs, and 14 INTs.Brady's first ten games in the playoffs, which happened earlier, 2378 yards, 15 TDs, and 5 INTs. This actually includes 2 extra INTs, since I cut out the playoff game in 2001 where he didn't survive the first half. Brady's numbers are no less impressive than Montana's, and arguably more impressive through the same stage in their careers.

Understood. So he's a bit more than halfway there, numbers-wise.

 

[Tau837]

If the offense wasn't required to carry his team, explain 2003.

No, I'm not telling you that the offense carried the team.

Which is it?

 

[bostonfred]

I do think the candidates for best modern era QB, like Elway, Favre, and Marino, typically have big numbers, so he needs to play a lot longer and/or improve his pace to really impress on the numbers front. Even Montana, who is known more for winning than numbers, is top 9 in passing yards and TDs, attempts, and completions, and his postseason numbers are simply amazing.

In 2001, Brady got his first full time job. In 1980, Montana got his. Both were 24. Here are how their numbers stack up through the same point in their careers:Brady: 22947 yards, 163 TDs, 80 INTs, three Superbowl ringsMontana: 21402 yards, 140 TDs, 73 INTs, two Superbowl ringsIn 1985, Montana's sixth year as a starter, the team picked up a receiver named Jerry Rice. In 2007, Brady's seventh year as a starter, his team picked up a receiver named Randy Moss. Through 1986, Montana had played in ten playoff games, throwing for 2562 yards, 17 TDs, and 14 INTs.Brady's first ten games in the playoffs, which happened earlier, 2378 yards, 15 TDs, and 5 INTs. This actually includes 2 extra INTs, since I cut out the playoff game in 2001 where he didn't survive the first half. Brady's numbers are no less impressive than Montana's, and arguably more impressive through the same stage in their careers.

Understood. So he's a bit more than halfway there, numbers-wise.

Yes, in much the same way that Manning's a little under 60% of the way to Favre/Marino numbers.

 

[bostonfred]

If the offense wasn't required to carry his team, explain 2003.

No, I'm not telling you that the offense carried the team.

Which is it?

The latter. I think it was clear I was talking about Brady, since I said "his team", not "the team", in the first quote.

 

[Tau837]

If the offense wasn't required to carry his team, explain 2003.

No, I'm not telling you that the offense carried the team.

Which is it?

The latter. I think it was clear I was talking about Brady, since I said "his team", not "the team", in the first quote.

Well, obviously it wasn't clear. And if that is what you meant, then I'm not sure what the point was. Go back and reread my post that you responded to. I said that Brady may have carried the offense but the offense did not have to carry the team, whereas Manning carried the offense, which carried his team, and thus had a bigger burden. If you were just repeating what you said earlier, and agreeing with my comment, then what was the point of your response?

 

[bostonfred]

If the offense wasn't required to carry his team, explain 2003.

No, I'm not telling you that the offense carried the team.

Which is it?

The latter. I think it was clear I was talking about Brady, since I said "his team", not "the team", in the first quote.

Well, obviously it wasn't clear. And if that is what you meant, then I'm not sure what the point was. Go back and reread my post that you responded to. I said that Brady may have carried the offense but the offense did not have to carry the team, whereas Manning carried the offense, which carried his team, and thus had a bigger burden. If you were just repeating what you said earlier, and agreeing with my comment, then what was the point of your response?

That the team wasn't going anywhere without Brady? That Brady DID lead the team to a Superbowl win when the defense wasn't able to? That while the 2003 Patriots were a defensive team, Brady almost singlehandedly provided all of the offense for it? As opposed to Manning, who absolutely did not carry the offense singlehandedly? That while Brady bore the entire burden of the offense, Manning only bore part of it?