This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Of course the argument isn't that Brady's statistics exceed Manning's. They don't. The argument is that Manning's statistics aren't enough to justify saying that he's better than Brady. And, while the gap narrowed this year, statistics are the only thing Manning has on Brady.
I think they are but you don't. That's cool.
Yes, Elway had an amazing TE, and Brady has two #1 draqft picks, and a very solid #2 draft pick they signed as an FA at TE. Shannon was so good because of the way Elway used him, but who is to say if Brady used Watson or Graham that way, they couldn't repeat Sharpe's success.
I said Walker AND Glenn are the only standouts. They are the only #1 picks on the list, who played in the prime of their careers with those QBs. Yes, Glenn only played briefly with Brady, and I acknowledged that.
Except you are really missing the complete picture aggregating those stats, since in most of his SD games he was injured. However, in the regular season this yeah he had 4 TDs, while playing the whole season. In partial seasons in SD twice he scored 3 TDs, and if you project out full seasons from his SD seasons, he was doing better than he did this season in NE. That's a far more accurate view of his statistics.
Really? KRob was a HUGE disappointment, never beat out DJax as the #1. His time with Hasselbeck certainly doens't have a huge impact on Hass's career.
Yes he really stepped it up in the playoffs. His YPC was far higher with Carr, he just put up better seasons with Carr... or at the very least SIMILAR seasons.
McCardell turned out well because his QBs used him well. He still is only a talented as Caldwell and Gaffney - a TWELFTH ROUND draft pick.
And Brady has had Kevin Faulk out of the backfield, Watson and Graham at TE. McCardell again, has far outproduced his draft position! But if Brady was so good, Gaffney and Caldwell have the talent to be as good as McCardell.
From a drafting perspective, yes.
Of course not, they know the system. But, looking back at the drafts - I can say with 100% certainty, the Chargers would have taken those players ahead of McCardell and Gates.
As I said, I left Brees in NO off the list.
Funny thing is, Rod Smith and Troy Brown are VERY similar players... yet Elway made Smith look so much better than Brady has made Brown look.
I think the Patriots might be winning 5+ straight super bowls if Manning were on that team
9th all time in receptions18th all time in receiving yardsHe won't make it. But his numbers when all is said and done will be really similar to Art Monk's, someone who's generally regarded as a borderline HOF'er who probably won't make it, but could sneak in. And he's played well with Brees, Rivers, Brad Johnson, Mark Brunell, and Vinnie Testaverde.
He played well with Rivers? 36-437-0 in 14 games is playing well? McCardell has never finished in the top 5 in ANY receiving category, and has only finished in the top 10 in receiving yards twice (8th once and 10th once). He also has only managed to score a meager 62 touchdowns in 15 seasons (though he did not play much his first two seasons), he has a pretty weak Y/R average of 12.9, and has only went over the 1,000 yard mark five times. He is the textbook example of a compiler.
McCardell had the 8th most FPs ever by a 35 year old receiver. If he had been born a week earlier, he'd have been 36 in 2005, and would have the 2nd most FPs ever by a 36 year old receiver. He also had the 8th most FPs ever by a 33 year old WR. He wasn't as good as Jimmy Smith, but that's not a crime. He was very good for a lot of years, which not many receivers have been able to do. He's not a HOF WR, but he's about a million times better than Vincent Jackson.
OK. I don't think we disagree on much here, so it's not worth debating. McCardell won't make the hall of fame, but there'll be some talk about it, and how there's a whole generation of receivers right now that have better stats than most of the WRs already in the HOF. He's certainly been better throughout his career than Terry Glenn, who Switz said was an outstanding receiver, and McCardell wasn't. It's not even very close.
IIRC, Glenn was given "good riddance" after numerous problems and issues including . . .- Getting in the dog house with both Bill Parcells and Bill Belichick
Manning's about three years further in his career, actually. Brady should just be coming into his peak years, while Manning's in the middle of them. You're right, Manning outplayed Brady in both games this year. In the past, it was usually the other way around. There are a couple of explanations for this - I think Manning has made some progress as a quarterback, while Brady turned over his entire receiving crew in the offseason and switched out a couple more in-season. I think it's fair to say that Brady, who led the league in passing, played better than Manning in 2005, and that Manning played better than Brady in 2006. 2004 - Manning's record breaking season, but Brady's best season on the best Patriots team of the dynasty - is debatable. 2003 Brady had a good season and a great postseason, including his 354 yard, 3 TD Superbowl. 2002 is when Brady led the league in pass TDs, but Manning was only one behind and led him by 400 pass yards on the season.
Great points and I understand you argument. But by simply watching them play...I personally think "Brady is a very good if not great QB"...and "Manning is one of the best if not the best I have ever seen."Maybe the WR (or whatever) help that perception...but that perception is there for me.
That goes for Quarterbacks as well (STATS are UP), that's why I put Marino on a pedestal (Painfully as a Jets fan) ahead of these guys and only Manning brings the fear in defenses anywhere near like Marino did...The Rules have changed - offenses are more wide open since Dan.
Not sure of average is the correct number to use here. I think as Sabertooth correctly pointed out, QB's play more now because they don't have to take late hits like they used to. So the avg starter might actually put up more numbers even though the totals are not that far off. Also, their individual stats look better because of the benefits the receivers have now. The stats themselves might not show a huge difference, but clearly the value of passing is better because you get many auto 1st downs on illegal chucks and throwing down field gets you pass interference a lot. Therefore, QB's stats (from a QB rating) should look a little better because the downside isn't as bad anymore, yet their stats might be similar in terms of total yards because the penalties "eat up" some of the benefit. Does that make sense?IMO, there's more middle tier production at QB and similar top tier production. In Marino's 17 year career (ignoring the strike season), the average fantasy points scored by the #1 fantasy QB was 372. Over Manning's career, it's been 375. That difference is marginal.That's what I meant before--that there are more decent now that can raise the bar for what the VBD baseline is for any given year. if there were only 10 guys that could get to 250 fantasy points in the 80s but 12 guys that can do it now, the scoring curve may only have changed by 2 or 3 players.And I'm not even sure there's THAT much difference. In 1984, there were 9 QB that scored 250 fantasy points. In 2006 there were also 9 QBs that did it. In 1994 there were 10 QB that had 250 points vs the banner year of 2004 when there were 14.I'd have to go home and look up some numbers on this one to have a clearer picture (I have a spreadsheet that tracks some of this).The evidence is crystal clear that it's easier for QBs to earn FPs now than it was 20 years ago. You don't think that should be recognized when comparing Marino to Manning?
Yes, when comparing to his PRESENT day peers, but we are also comparing to past stars and the rule changes do matter a lot.
Talk about a lack of perspective Even is that this is coming from a guy who was blasting Manning as someone you couldn't compare to the great QB's because he "never won anything" in previous forums.HK = 
Well...no sense discussing anything with you. You are saying that stats are all that matters...and the stats that matter are the ones that you define. Here are some stats you won't compete with...you can ignore them and post your regular season stuff all you want...but I'll take the guys that get it done when it really matters: 5 Super Bowls...2 titles...and a Superbowl MVP > 2 Superbowls...1 title...no Super Bowl MVP14-8 in the playoffs > 11-9 in the playoffs4 Super Bowls...4 titles... 3 Superbowl MVPs > 2 Super Bowls...1 title...no Super Bowl MVP16-7 in the playoffs > 11-9 in the playoffsI guarantee you that your QB would trade accomplishments with these two guys in a heartbeat.
So with Elway its postseason that matters most when compared to Favre, and with Marino then its regular season numbers. Gotcha....nice consistency. What are you going to do when Favre breaks Marinos's records this year? You'll still need to justify keeping him off your list....
I have Favre ahead of Marino...so I have no idea what you're talking about.
My point is that good QBs make WRs better than their talent.Manning, Elway, Favre all took moderately talented WRs and turned them into superstars. Brady simply doesn't do that with his receivers.Shannon Sharpe was an amazing TE, but Graham and Watson are both extremely talented TEs as well. Maybe not Sharpe calibre but why? Is it them, or is it their QB.
As I mentioned before (which was either missed or not discussed), maybe the Pats system of spreading the ball around is to adjust to marginal talent at WR.Do you really believe that the conglomerate of:- Reche Caldwell, Doug Gabriel, Jabbar Gaffney, Chad Jackson, and Troy Brown with 4 of them new to the team and the system (having lost 5 receivers from 2005)- is on par with -Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne who have been with Manning for 6 seasons?Do you really, really think that those are even keel comparisons?
And what about the coach? Certainly not fair either.
The above stats do not tell you too much. I mean what if Favre was on a Raider team like the past 2 years his entire career? He would still be the same exact player but people wouldn't think he was as good. What if Marino had the best defense in the league every year, how many rings would he have? You need to look at the body of work with the talent around the guy and make an evaluation. Unfortunately, too many people just don't have the depth to look at how the team around them impacts their play. Do you think it was a coincidence that Brady had some really bad games this year? He had 12 fumbles compared to 4 last year (not lost fumbles). His YPA was almost 1 full yard less. He didn't all of a sudden get bad, his team didn't give him the consistent protection he was used to (thus dealing with what most QB's do)Neutral team I take Marino over Favre and I started a thread that did a poll about who you would choose for your career. More Shark Members took Marino over Favre, but it was very close. Personally, I think that younger people probably chose Favre, because I am confident Marino was the better all around QB. And I think Favre is Top Notch!
Which offensive coordinatordo you think helps their quarterback's numbers more, Moore or Belichick?And what about the coach? Certainly not fair either.
both the arguments have flaws. Bradshaw won SB games as well so why isn't he on your list. The point is that we KNOW Bradshaw was not in the league of many of these guys.If that is the case, why can't a hypothetical guy who never won any Superbowls or even playoff games be on the list as a great if we KNOW he was the best QB to ever play the game. It is not his fault that this personnel around him was by far the worst in NFL history.Isn't it possible that Elway was better in the years he didn't win the SB than he was the two years he won it? Iwould find it very hard to argue that he was better in the SB years. The reason he won was that his defense was solid and he had the best RB in the league. It is so obvious, that I am shocked more people can't see this. Yet people still point to titles as the the mark of greatness
both the arguments have flaws. Bradshaw won SB games as well so why isn't he on your list. The point is that we KNOW Bradshaw was not in the league of many of these guys.If that is the case, why can't a hypothetical guy who never won any Superbowls or even playoff games be on the list as a great if we KNOW he was the best QB to ever play the game. It is not his fault that this personnel around him was by far the worst in NFL history.Isn't it possible that Elway was better in the years he didn't win the SB than he was the two years he won it? Iwould find it very hard to argue that he was better in the SB years. The reason he won was that his defense was solid and he had the best RB in the league. It is so obvious, that I am shocked more people can't see this. Yet people still point to titles as the the mark of greatness
I'm right there with ya bangin my head on this one as well. 
My honest answer is Belichick because when your defense is playing well it is far easier to not have to force the ball when you are the QB. When you are constantly playing from behind and the defense can pin their ear backs to get to the QB and not worry about the running game it is tougher to QB well. Also the nickel and dime puts better pass defenders on the field. I also think the NE scheme is a solid one.Which offensive coordinatordo you think helps their quarterback's numbers more, Moore or Belichick?And what about the coach? Certainly not fair either.
This is laughable or
Wouldn't it stand to reason that with a softer Colts defense that Manning would have to pass more frequently, score more, and compile better numbers than say a team that had a tougher defense and then spent much of the game playing ball control to run out the clock? And when have the Colts been "constantly playing from behind" in the first place? IIRC, their record over the past 5 years is 60-20.
Here is a perfect example from the past four years:The 2005 Colts were #2 in Points Against, the highest ever with Manning at QB. This caused Manning to have the fewest passing attempts in his career with only 453. The result was 3,743 yards passing, 2nd lowest in his career (only 8 yards higher than his rookie season). In 2003, 2004, & 2006, the Colts were 20, 19, & 23rd respectively in PA. So the Colts needed to score more to win, so Manning threw much more when his D was worse.Conversely, the 2005 Patriots were 17th in Points Against, and Tom Brady passed for 4,110 yards the most in his career. In 2003, 2004, & 2006, the Patriots were 1st or 2nd in PA. This means the Patriots needed to score less to win, so Brady had fewer attempts in those years.LMFAO at people who rank "stat" guys over champions on the premise that if they played for a better team they would have had won titles, too. Of course, in this flawed conjecture they fail to mention that their "stat" guy's numbers would have been worse because winning teams aren't usually going to be throwing the ball all over the field for 60 minutes. Amazing how many people miss this concept.Weiss and his ghost. Because BB didnt let it disappear after he left. BBs too damn good for that. Advantage Brady. A huge advantage at that.bostonfred said:Which offensive coordinatordo you think helps their quarterback's numbers more, Moore or Belichick?And what about the coach? Certainly not fair either.
H.K. said:David Yudkin said:
On this point, though, I disagree with you. I'm not LMFAO about it. I understand the argument of the "Manning would be just as good on the Pats" crowd. Just because the Colts' poor defense allowed Manning more opportunities to throw doesn't mean that he would throw well. It takes a certain level of skill to accumulate stats with a bad D. It takes an even greater level of skill to accumulate those stats AND elevate the team to a consistent winning record, and even more to make them a perennial contender for home field advantage. So yes, Manning's defense has helped him accumulate numbers, but he's still had an incredible start. I happen to think that Brady has shown that he could make up for a bad defense, too, though. Brady's made more than enough comebacks for me to think his stats would benefit every bit as much from playing on a team with a worse defense, and his performance in years when he's had good receivers versus his performance in years where he hasn't has made me think his stats would be absolutely enormous with receivers like Harrison and Wayne. I see plenty of reason to believe that Brady could put up Manning's numbers in the Colts' offense, considering that there have been years when Brady has outperformed Manning in much less ideal circumstances. On the other hand, the argument goes, could Manning succeed in the Pats' offense? I don't know the answer to that. Harrison has only missed four games due to injury during Manning's career, and they were all during Manning's rookie season, and Harrison was already in his third year at that time. So it's hard to judge whether Manning would be able to do as well without a Hall of Fame receiver. I do know that Harrison did well enough in his rookie and second season (137 catches for 1700 yards and 14 TDs combined) that we can't say that Manning "made him". Even in college, he was throwing to an NFL caliber WR who put up 3300 yards and 22 TDs in his first four seasons before having career threatening vision problems. Manning has never had to "rough it". Given the data I have, I feel confident that Brady could put up stats like Manning in Manning's situation, but I don't know whether Manning could do as well as Brady in his situation. I've heard plenty of people argue that they "know" Manning would do just as well if not better than Brady, but the fact is we've never seen it. They're both excellent quarterbacks, but I can attribute more of Brady's success to Brady's skill than I can attribute Manning's to Manning's skill.
Agree with everything you said, but consider:Manning has averaged ~543 attempts per year with the Colts
Agreed, Weis by a decent margin.
Is it not impossible to make a legitimate argument that none of the 5 greatest QB's of all time are currently active players? The NFL's been around 87 years.Sabertooth said:This is laughable or
Sure, you can look at Weis from 2001-2004. But what happened the last two years? Did Brady watch a lot of Notre Dame game film in 2005 when he led the league in passing yards? Did Brady's receivers have Weis on speed dial this year when the Pats had a revolving door at the position?And why do you think Weis helped Brady's numbers more? Weis favored a short passing game. Maybe that's a better fit for Brady, maybe it isn't - we've seen Brady throw virtually every pass in the book. It may be a better fit for the receivers they have than it is for Brady. And it may be that the style contributes to his relatively low yards per pass. To be fair, it's also possible that Brady could not succeed in the same offense that Manning runs. Or that Manning couldn't succeed in the offense Brady runs. But I don't understand why you'd say that an offense that features a lot of screens and short passes is more favorable for Brady's end of year statistics than the multiple option passing routes that are favored by Moore. It seems like you're answering a different question than the one I asked.
Right. The combination of that "extra game", the style of offense, and the Hall of Famer and Pro Bowler he's throwing to gives Manning a huge lead in his statistics. The combination of Brady's fewer attempts, the shorter passing game he runs, and the complete scrubs at wide receiver gave Brady a huge disadvantage in statistics.
Anyone have any team data on Yards After the Catch from year-to-year? If I remember correctly, New England pass catchers (including RBs, WRs, TEs) ranked 3rd in the league in this category in 2004 and was in the top-10 in 2005 (Actually, the NE WRs ranked #1 in the league with 1919 yards after the catch). I don't think Indy made it in the top-10 in either year.Yet, Manning's YPA is always off the charts (nearly a yard more than Brady each pass attempt). If my recollection of past yards-after-the-catch data is correct, it suggests that Manning's delivering deeper balls (not bombs, but certainly not many dinks-dunks) more effectively than anyone in the league.
This is attributable to offensive scheme. Pats are more YAC oriented than the Colts. If the Colts need 10 yards, Harrison & Manning are deadly on timing an out at the marker. The Pats will clear out and throw underneath so the WR can get yardage needed.
Is it not impossible to make a legitimate argument that none of the 5 greatest QB's of all time are currently active players? The NFL's been around 87 years.Sabertooth said:This is laughable or
I already said I had Favre in the top 7 and Manning in the top 10. To say that those two guys are clearly the two best of all-time is the thing that is laughable.
Um, they ALL have Favre in their top 5...(3rd twice, 4th twice, and 5th three times)
