Manning 49 TDs in 15 games. Brady 49+ in 16 games (1 Viewer)

[The Pitbull]

And Truman wants his guy to be best, even if the numbers don't back it up. This is weak stuff here. Why is it that any time Brady's name comes up as a ( or the ) top QB in the game the Manning mancrush crowd has to shout it down with stuff like the Patriots D is better and running up the score crap. And why does every Manning related post have to be turned into a Manning hasn't got as many SBs as TB?How difficult is it to put aside the glasses for a minute and notice that Brady puts up Manning-like numbers with top tier talent and Manning won a SB on a complete team. These 2 guys are 1a and 1b ( in no particular order ) and it is tiring to see any accomplishment by one be attacked or diminished by the crowd of the other.

I'll be the second.. Seriously... These are two of the best QB's ever. Pats/Colts fans should feel lucky to have them. Spend more time appreciating the two, instead of comparing them.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

This comes from a Colts take it with a grain of salt...While I think that Brady has had a great year, I cannot give him his due when he passes Manning in week 17 for TDs. Manning in 2004 only played 1 series in week 17. It was painful as a football fan to see Brady still in the game against the Dolphins, up 21 points, airing it out late into the 4th quarter.I like Brady, I'm glad he is getting more recognition this year. But, unless he ties Manning with a TD pass in the 1st series against the Giants, then in my mind, Manning's mark is still the best.49 in 15 games is better than 50 in 16 IMO. Both terrific seasons, just a matter of preference. I know the record books won't care, but do the fans?Does it matter to you?

Manning was playing for his teams survival with that mediocre defense. Brady is going for the record. It's pathetic, really.

 

[Footballg]

Manning was playing for his teams survival with that mediocre defense. Brady is going for the record. It's pathetic, really.

 

[Master of Past and Present]

That's not really provable one way or the other. Manning's had a much better collection of offensive talent than Brady for most of his career, while Brady's had better defensive talent. We also know that Brady did everything necessary to win from his position, while a significant number of Manning's playoff losses were the result of his own individually poor performances. To say that Brady's team was better implies that the team didn't win because of Brady alone. That's debatable, but it's clear that they didn't lose because of Brady.

What else do you call it when he throws an INT in the redzone that gets returned to the 1 yard line??

We can now compare them on two things. First, Manning couldn't win a Superbowl until his defense stepped up.

Neither could Brady.

We also know that first year that Brady had comparable weapons to Manning, he put up better numbers than Manning and led his team to more wins than Manning ever has.

He also had a better defense + better field position = easier to score TDs. And played on a team that ran up the score.

Do you have any numbers to back that up? Here is what I came up with.Average TD pass for Manning: 18.04 yardsAverage TD pass for Brady: 18.08 yardsAverage TD drive resulting in passing TD Manning: 65.92Average TD drive resulting in passing TD Brady: 69.27Average Ranking Overall Def per Yardage Manning: 19.75 (20.8 if you take out week 17)Average Ranking Overall Def per Yardage Brady: 16.33Average Ranking Passing Def per yardage Manning: 21.69 (22.73 if you take out week 17)Average Ranking Passing Def per yardage Brady: 14.40So it seems MANNING scored his TDs on a shorter field against lesser defenses so I guess you'd now agree Brady is more impressive.edited to fix something that was wrong resulting in Brady's Average TD pass to be wrong.

 

[thayman]

A record is a record. Babe Ruth hit his homeruns in an era where the ball parks were bigger and they used "dead" bal

AB

 

[Footballg]

:data:So it seems MANNING scored his TDs on a shorter field against lesser defenses so I guess you'd now agree Brady is more impressive.

burn.

 

[ChromeWeasel]

Is Brady's 49+ even more impessive since he plays in an outdoor stadium in the Northeast and Manning plays his home games in a dome?

Is Peyton Manning's 48 TD's in 15 games even more impressive since the 2004 Colts weren't trying to blatantly run up the score like the 2007 Patriots? I say yes.And unless Tom Brady and the Patriots run up the score again vs the Giants he won't have Peyton Manning's single-season qb rating record. 2004 Peyton Manning > 2007 Tom Brady

Lol that you think the Colts werent running up the score. Shows you werent watching the games I guess.

 

[ChromeWeasel]

That's not really provable one way or the other. Manning's had a much better collection of offensive talent than Brady for most of his career, while Brady's had better defensive talent. We also know that Brady did everything necessary to win from his position, while a significant number of Manning's playoff losses were the result of his own individually poor performances. To say that Brady's team was better implies that the team didn't win because of Brady alone. That's debatable, but it's clear that they didn't lose because of Brady.

What else do you call it when he throws an INT in the redzone that gets returned to the 1 yard line??

We can now compare them on two things. First, Manning couldn't win a Superbowl until his defense stepped up.

Neither could Brady.

We also know that first year that Brady had comparable weapons to Manning, he put up better numbers than Manning and led his team to more wins than Manning ever has.

He also had a better defense + better field position = easier to score TDs. And played on a team that ran up the score.

Do you have any numbers to back that up? Here is what I came up with.Average TD pass for Manning: 18.04 yardsAverage TD pass for Brady: 18.08 yardsAverage TD drive resulting in passing TD Manning: 65.92Average TD drive resulting in passing TD Brady: 69.27Average Ranking Overall Def per Yardage Manning: 19.75 (20.8 if you take out week 17)Average Ranking Overall Def per Yardage Brady: 16.33Average Ranking Passing Def per yardage Manning: 21.69 (22.73 if you take out week 17)Average Ranking Passing Def per yardage Brady: 14.40So it seems MANNING scored his TDs on a shorter field against lesser defenses so I guess you'd now agree Brady is more impressive.edited to fix something that was wrong resulting in Brady's Average TD pass to be wrong.

beyond belief

 

[bostonfred]

I hate to blow this whole thread apart but....Brady has 2 RUSHING TDs this year. He already has 50 TDs. Manning had ZERO rushing TDs during his record setting year. There is no argument because Brady already out TDed Manning in the same number of games, the fact that he was able to do it with his legs is even MORE impressive./thread

Wow, and if the record in discussion was total TDs and not Passing TDs, then you'd be on to something!

And if the record had anything to do with passing TDs through 15 games, you'd have been on to something. It isn't, but you seem to have decided that 49 in 15 games is "more impressive" than whatever Brady will end up with after 16 games. Apparently you're only a stickler on technicalities like this (Brady has 50 through 15 games, but that doesn't count because two were on the ground) when they favor your side of the argument.

 

[bostonfred]

Manning was playing for his teams survival with that mediocre defense. Brady is going for the record. It's pathetic, really.

Manning must have thought his defense was pretty mediocre when he threw his fifth TD against HOU in a 49-14 rout. The next week against Chicago, when he threw his fourth TD in a 41-10 blowout, he must have just been worried about that darn defense again. And the week after that, when he threw his sixth TD against Detroit in a 41-9 blowout on Thanksgiving, he was just trying to protect his defense. And the week after that, when they crushed Tennessee 51-24, he was just worried about that darn D. Even though his defense held their opponents to an average of 14 points per game, Manning was a hero for throwing 18 TDs against them, playing for their survival and all. Certainly not going for the record, and certainly not pathetic, really.

 

[bostonfred]

What 'happened to Manning' was that he was resting for the playoffs, because he had already set the record. Brady could be resting for the playoffs as well if:- he had already set the record- he cared more about winning the superbowl than setting statistical records against second stringersAs to how many TDs Manning would have scored if he'd played the whole game, he did play the Broncos 1 week later and threw for 4 TDs....

The reason he's still playing is that there's still something to play for - the right to call this the greatest team of all times. That's something the Colts didn't have in 2004, because they lost their first game of the season to the Patriots. Brady is not only having one of the best seasons of any quarterback ever, he's also architected several comeback wins, including a road win against the then-undefeated Colts. And you can't assume that Manning would have scored 4 TDs against the Broncos if he'd played, because the playoff game was in Indy, while Manning would have played in the cold weather in Denver. Manning's not so good in the cold.

 

[Footballg]

Manning was playing for his teams survival with that mediocre defense. Brady is going for the record. It's pathetic, really.

Manning must have thought his defense was pretty mediocre when he threw his fifth TD against HOU in a 49-14 rout. The next week against Chicago, when he threw his fourth TD in a 41-10 blowout, he must have just been worried about that darn defense again. And the week after that, when he threw his sixth TD against Detroit in a 41-9 blowout on Thanksgiving, he was just trying to protect his defense. And the week after that, when they crushed Tennessee 51-24, he was just worried about that darn D. Even though his defense held their opponents to an average of 14 points per game, Manning was a hero for throwing 18 TDs against them, playing for their survival and all. Certainly not going for the record, and certainly not pathetic, really.

OMG he was running up the scorez!!!111

 

[bostonfred]

That's not really provable one way or the other. Manning's had a much better collection of offensive talent than Brady for most of his career, while Brady's had better defensive talent. We also know that Brady did everything necessary to win from his position, while a significant number of Manning's playoff losses were the result of his own individually poor performances. To say that Brady's team was better implies that the team didn't win because of Brady alone. That's debatable, but it's clear that they didn't lose because of Brady.

What else do you call it when he throws an INT in the redzone that gets returned to the 1 yard line??

I'd call it 11-2 in the playoffs, with a 20:9 TD:INT ratio in 13 full games.Manning is 7-6 and has a 18:15 TD:INT ratio in 13 games. Brady has more TDs and less INTs despite playing outdoors.

We can now compare them on two things. First, Manning couldn't win a Superbowl until his defense stepped up.

Neither could Brady.

Manning has led his team to 23 points per game in the playoffs. Brady has led his team to 25.3. That's a difference of 2.3 points per game. Overall, Manning's defense has allowed 21.4 points per game in the playoffs. Brady's has allowed 18.7. That's a difference of 2.4 points per game. The amount by which Brady has outscored Manning is just as much a factor as the amount by which the Pats D has been better than the Colts D. Moreover, Manning's defense allowed 16 PPG in his Superbowl run. Brady's allowed 16, 19 and 17 PPG in his three Superbowl runs. Last but not least, Manning's offenses have been shut out and held to 3 points in the playoffs. Brady's offenses have never scored less than 13. So Manning has been the reason more often than not.

We also know that first year that Brady had comparable weapons to Manning, he put up better numbers than Manning and led his team to more wins than Manning ever has.

He also had a better defense + better field position = easier to score TDs. And played on a team that ran up the score.

This has been so thoroughly debunked that I won't even bother replying. But I wanted to make sure the deconstruction of your post was completed.

 

[Footballg]

Before this thread, I actually had a lot more respect for Manning. You do learn a few things on this board, after all.

 

[Tau837]

Is Brady's 49+ even more impessive since he plays in an outdoor stadium in the Northeast and Manning plays his home games in a dome?

Is Peyton Manning's 48 TD's in 15 games even more impressive since the 2004 Colts weren't trying to blatantly run up the score like the 2007 Patriots? I say yes.

And unless Tom Brady and the Patriots run up the score again vs the Giants he won't have Peyton Manning's single-season qb rating record.

2004 Peyton Manning > 2007 Tom Brady

Lol that you think the Colts werent running up the score. Shows you werent watching the games I guess.

See Post #84. Brady has done it to a much greater degree than Manning did.

 

[Tau837]

Manning was playing for his teams survival with that mediocre defense. Brady is going for the record. It's pathetic, really.

Manning must have thought his defense was pretty mediocre when he threw his fifth TD against HOU in a 49-14 rout. The next week against Chicago, when he threw his fourth TD in a 41-10 blowout, he must have just been worried about that darn defense again. And the week after that, when he threw his sixth TD against Detroit in a 41-9 blowout on Thanksgiving, he was just trying to protect his defense. And the week after that, when they crushed Tennessee 51-24, he was just worried about that darn D. Even though his defense held their opponents to an average of 14 points per game, Manning was a hero for throwing 18 TDs against them, playing for their survival and all. Certainly not going for the record, and certainly not pathetic, really.

OMG he was running up the scorez!!!111

Brady has done much more of that than Manning did.

 

[Footballg]

You guys really crack me up. What level of running up the score do you think Manning was at vs Brady? To be perfectly serious about it, I don't think any of you guys who throw the phrase around even knows what it means. Dudes, enjoy your own teams and stop crying about the Pats --- it was tired 3 months ago.

 

[Tau837]

Brady is not only having one of the best seasons of any quarterback ever, he's also architected several comeback wins, including a road win against the then-undefeated Colts.

I agree with your first point, which is the important point, but the bolded part seemed like a bit of overstatement to me, so I looked it up. Here are the times New England trailed this season:Week 3: Trailed Buffalo 7-3 for about 12 minutes spanning the first and second quarters.

Week 6: Trailed Dallas 24-21 for about 5 1/2 minutes in the third quarter.

Week 9: Trailed Indy most of the game, going ahead for good with about 3 minutes remaining in the 4th.

Week 12: Trailed Philly twice, including in the 4th quarter, going ahead for good with about 7 minutes remaining.

Week 13: Trailed Baltimore most of the game, going ahead for good with 44 seconds remaining in the 4th.

Week 14: Trailed Pittsburgh 3-0 for less than 5 minutes in the first quarter.

I guess you will say that all of these technically qualify as comeback wins, but to me the only ones worthy of noting as having required Brady to "architect" comebacks were the Indy, Philly, and Baltimore games. I suppose the Dallas game could also qualify, since Dallas's brief lead was at least in the second half.

I watched all four of those games, and it felt to me like the comebacks against Philly and Baltimore had as much or more to do with other factors (mistakes by the other teams, the Pats defense, etc.) as with Brady. Not saying he doesn't deserve credit for those wins, just that those comebacks required help, particularly against Philly and Baltimore. Whereas, for example, I think Brady deserves the bulk of the credit (as much as one player can deserve in a team sport) for the Indy comeback.

EDIT: That's right, New England never trailed in 9 of its games. I wonder what the record is... I wonder how this compares to other dominant teams, like the 85 Bears, 89 49ers, etc. Anyone know?

 

[Tau837]

You guys really crack me up. What level of running up the score do you think Manning was at vs Brady? To be perfectly serious about it, I don't think any of you guys who throw the phrase around even knows what it means. Dudes, enjoy your own teams and stop crying about the Pats --- it was tired 3 months ago.

What level? See the post I referenced - it's all laid out there. Unfortunately, I don't think it lends itself to an easy retort that makes Manning look bad or Brady look good, so I'm not surprised you would react this way.EDIT: And I'm not "crying about the Pats". I would have never made my post in the first place if someone earlier in this thread didn't attempt to justify Brady's padded numbers by referencing Manning in 2004. The situations are not very similar.

 

[Footballg]

Why is it they're always '03 members....? Dude, you've been here for a few years, so I'm going to assume you probably watch some team play football, or at the very least watch a stat crawl. Let me ask you a question and you give me your honest informed football fan answer.

If Brady wanted more TD's this season, could he have gotten them, or is this all he could get?

Also, since I'm asking, what is it about a 34-21 TD that makes it so much more magically delicious than a 45-10 TD, which must be somehow better than a 54-9 TD?

 

[bostonfred]

IMO, the record is the record, with no qualifiers or asterisks.That said, I've seen some people suggesting that Brady has not done any more than Manning did in terms of padding his stats. I disagree with that. Actually, I'm not sure it is Brady himself seeking to pad his stats, since I assume he is merely executing the play calls that he is given... maybe it is Belicheck who is the one seeking to pad stats. Who is to blame is irrelevant to the point.In 15 games this season, Brady had attempted 56 passes and thrown 4 TDs with his team ahead by 22 or more points. In 15 games in 2004 (ignoring his 2 attempt game 16), Manning attempted 21 passes and threw 3 TDs with his team ahead by 22 or more points.In 15 games this season, Brady had attempted 124 passes and thrown 10 TDs with his team ahead by 15 or more points. In 15 games in 2004 (ignoring his 2 attempt game 16), Manning attempted 40 passes and threw 6 TDs with his team ahead by 22 or more points.Before someone asks, I used 22 and 15 as cutoffs because that is where ESPN splits their stats.So Brady has thrown more than twice as often as Manning did in situations in which his team had a big lead. There is no comparison on that point. Now, people will rightfully point out that Brady has been in game situations with a big lead more often than Manning was. Obviously, that is true. But IMO it is clear that the Pats didn't need Brady to throw as often as he has to win games; they could have chosen to run more often once they achieved those 15 point and/or 22 point leads. Because the Colts' games were typically closer, Manning's offensive output was more necessary for them to be successful as a team.And remember how people criticized Manning in 2004 for throwing near the goal line, because he supposedly wanted the single season TD record? Heck, it's been raised in this thread. Check out this comparison:In 15 games this season, Brady had attempted 49 passes and thrown 23 TDs from the opponent's 10 yard line and closer. In 15 games in 2004 (ignoring his 2 attempt game 16), Manning attempted 37 passes and threw 19 TDs from the opponent's 10 yard line and closer.EDIT: Updated with week 15 numbers for Brady.

The 2004 Colts had 10 rushing TDs. The 2007 Patriots already have 15. It's easy to point out that the Patriots have thrown more TDs in certain situations, because they have more total TDs. But it's still fair to say that Manning threw more near the goal line because the Patriots have more rushing TDs. 23:14 rush/pass ratio near the goal line is a lower ratio than 19:10. What we're really seeing is that Manning was slinging it into the endzone from outside the 10, while Brady was passing short middle and long. That's actually one of the things that hurt the Colts the most that year - Manning was too fond of the long bomb, and ended up keeping his defense on the field for longer than he should have. While Brady has some long bombs this year, he's also been able to generate a ball control passing game. The Patriots have outscored the Colts in TDs 4 to 3 when up by 22. That seems like a pretty good counterargument to the people who say that the Patriots are running up the score more than the Colts - it's been virtually identical. The fact that Brady has thrown more passes is irrelevant - they don't have Edgerrin James, and they use the passing game instead of the run game to control the clock. Overall, the criticism that the Patriots are running up the score to pad Tom Brady's stats, but Manning didn't, is wrong. As you've shown, the Colts did it about as much as the Pats. Meanwhile, the idea that Manning passed more, by comparison, near the goal line than Brady is also true. It's just that the Pats have been inside the ten more often.

 

[bostonfred]

Brady is not only having one of the best seasons of any quarterback ever, he's also architected several comeback wins, including a road win against the then-undefeated Colts.

I agree with your first point, which is the important point, but the bolded part seemed like a bit of overstatement to me, so I looked it up. Here are the times New England trailed this season:Week 3: Trailed Buffalo 7-3 for about 12 minutes spanning the first and second quarters.

Week 6: Trailed Dallas 24-21 for about 5 1/2 minutes in the third quarter.

Week 9: Trailed Indy most of the game, going ahead for good with about 3 minutes remaining in the 4th.

Week 12: Trailed Philly twice, including in the 4th quarter, going ahead for good with about 7 minutes remaining.

Week 13: Trailed Baltimore most of the game, going ahead for good with 44 seconds remaining in the 4th.

Week 14: Trailed Pittsburgh 3-0 for less than 5 minutes in the first quarter.

I guess you will say that all of these technically qualify as comeback wins, but to me the only ones worthy of noting as having required Brady to "architect" comebacks were the Indy, Philly, and Baltimore games. I suppose the Dallas game could also qualify, since Dallas's brief lead was at least in the second half.

I watched all four of those games, and it felt to me like the comebacks against Philly and Baltimore had as much or more to do with other factors (mistakes by the other teams, the Pats defense, etc.) as with Brady. Not saying he doesn't deserve credit for those wins, just that those comebacks required help, particularly against Philly and Baltimore. Whereas, for example, I think Brady deserves the bulk of the credit (as much as one player can deserve in a team sport) for the Indy comeback.

EDIT: That's right, New England never trailed in 9 of its games. I wonder what the record is... I wonder how this compares to other dominant teams, like the 85 Bears, 89 49ers, etc. Anyone know?

No doubt the Indy comeback was the most impressive. The Philly comeback (trailing by 4 to start the quarter, leading a 10 play, 69 yard drive to break the Eagles' back) was also impressive. The Ravens comeback was less memorable for Brady's performance than for the Ravens' poorly timed timeout and the arguable call on the reception in the end zone. I won't argue that one too strongly. The Dallas game is not one of the comebacks I was referencing, but the fact that he has already outdueled Manning, Romo and Roethlisberger this season is remniscent of the 2003 playoffs when Brady beat both of the co-MVPs en route to a Superbowl duel where the entire New England secondary was hurt and Brady won a game where the team that held the ball last was bound to win. I guess what I was pointing out is that it hasn't just been a case of Brady throwing to these awesome receivers and getting out to huge leads. Brady has passed every test that's come up so far.

 

[Tau837]

Why is it they're always '03 members....? Dude, you've been here for a few years, so I'm going to assume you probably watch some team play football, or at the very least watch a stat crawl. Let me ask you a question and you give me your honest informed football fan answer.If Brady wanted more TD's this season, could he have gotten them, or is this all he could get?Also, since I'm asking, what is it about a 34-21 TD that makes it so much more magically delicious than a 45-10 TD, which must be somehow better than a 54-9 TD?

Yes, I've been around since cheatsheets.net. Sure, Brady could have more if they tried to pad his stats even further. They certainly didn't go for it on every 4th down in their blowout wins, and he didn't throw every time inside the opponent's 10 yard line. But Manning could also have gotten more, so I'm not sure what your point is there. The numbers I posted showed that Brady passed 2-3 times as often with huge leads. It is factual, not opinion.

 

[Footballg]

My point is about all this 'stat padding' people like you talk about. You just said he's padding his TD stats while running up the score, then tell me he's turning down TD's by not padding as much as he could be and maybe only running up 30 point leads. Is he padding or not? I'm really not buying into this halfway padding theory of yours. If you actually think there's some kind of halfway running up the score, then I'd say I was dead on when I just mentioned that you don't know what the phrase means. If they can't run the ball, and don't run the ball, as I hear so often, then why do they have 15 rushing TD's while he's trying to pad his TD stats? Why would he come out of a game? This sounds like the same kind of theory that has Bush setting up 9/11 as a giant hoax.

 

[bostonfred]

Why is it they're always '03 members....? Dude, you've been here for a few years, so I'm going to assume you probably watch some team play football, or at the very least watch a stat crawl. Let me ask you a question and you give me your honest informed football fan answer.If Brady wanted more TD's this season, could he have gotten them, or is this all he could get?Also, since I'm asking, what is it about a 34-21 TD that makes it so much more magically delicious than a 45-10 TD, which must be somehow better than a 54-9 TD?

Yes, I've been around since cheatsheets.net. Sure, Brady could have more if they tried to pad his stats even further. They certainly didn't go for it on every 4th down in their blowout wins, and he didn't throw every time inside the opponent's 10 yard line. But Manning could also have gotten more, so I'm not sure what your point is there. The numbers I posted showed that Brady passed 2-3 times as often with huge leads. It is factual, not opinion.

I don't know why you're using that statistic. Of course Brady has more attempts. The Pats have had injuries to their running backs, and have used the passing game in lieu of a running game when it's appropriate to do so. But that's the wrong statistic to be talking about. Brady is not looking to set the pass attempts record, or completions, or yards (although he looked good for a while). He is looking to set the TD record. And the fact is that the Patriots have rushed the ball for more TDs than the Colts. They've thrown for about the same number of TDs as the Colts when up big. In other words, they've done less to run up the record for Brady than the Colts did for Manning. But you do bring up an interesting point about the number of passes. The fact that Brady has fewer INTs in more pass attempts is another feather in the cap of a season that has been better than Manning's 2004.

 

[Footballg]

There's this guy on a Pats board that claims that through 15 games '04 Manning actually played 20 more minutes than '07 Brady. Since we're talkin'......

 

[pizzatyme]

Why is it they're always '03 members....? Dude, you've been here for a few years, so I'm going to assume you probably watch some team play football, or at the very least watch a stat crawl. Let me ask you a question and you give me your honest informed football fan answer.If Brady wanted more TD's this season, could he have gotten them, or is this all he could get?Also, since I'm asking, what is it about a 34-21 TD that makes it so much more magically delicious than a 45-10 TD, which must be somehow better than a 54-9 TD?

Yes, I've been around since cheatsheets.net. Sure, Brady could have more if they tried to pad his stats even further. They certainly didn't go for it on every 4th down in their blowout wins, and he didn't throw every time inside the opponent's 10 yard line. But Manning could also have gotten more, so I'm not sure what your point is there. The numbers I posted showed that Brady passed 2-3 times as often with huge leads. It is factual, not opinion.

I don't know why you're using that statistic. Of course Brady has more attempts. The Pats have had injuries to their running backs, and have used the passing game in lieu of a running game when it's appropriate to do so. But that's the wrong statistic to be talking about. Brady is not looking to set the pass attempts record, or completions, or yards (although he looked good for a while). He is looking to set the TD record. And the fact is that the Patriots have rushed the ball for more TDs than the Colts. They've thrown for about the same number of TDs as the Colts when up big. In other words, they've done less to run up the record for Brady than the Colts did for Manning. But you do bring up an interesting point about the number of passes. The fact that Brady has fewer INTs in more pass attempts is another feather in the cap of a season that has been better than Manning's 2004.

BF, you're certainly on a roll! How does Brady's TDs/game rate this season versus Manning's Tds/game in '04?Since you like to pull every stat that skews the argument towards the Pats/Brady. Give us some more.I guess what concerns me most about all of your statistical puking is that you have the need to know this in the first place. Scary, really scary.

 

[Tau837]

The 2004 Colts had 10 rushing TDs. The 2007 Patriots already have 15. It's easy to point out that the Patriots have thrown more TDs in certain situations, because they have more total TDs. But it's still fair to say that Manning threw more near the goal line because the Patriots have more rushing TDs. 23:14 rush/pass ratio near the goal line is a lower ratio than 19:10.

Not sure why you would focus on TDs rather than attempts... I'll assume "near the goal line" means opponent's 10 yard line and closer.In 2004, Manning threw 37 times (per ESPN; FBG Data Dominator says 44) and the Colts (other than Manning himself) ran 37 times; so Manning threw 50% or 54% of the time, depending on which number you use.In comparison, this year Brady has thrown 49 times (per ESPN; FBG DD says 65, quite a disparity) and the Pats (other than Brady himself) have run 57 times; so Brady threw 46% or 53% of the time, depending on which number you use.No idea why the split numbers are different. In my original post, I used ESPN split stats, but I went to DD for the team rushing totals and saw the disparity in passing attempts. Anyway, assuming the numbers are correct for both players on one of the sources, it is true that Manning threw more often at the 10 and closer, though it was a small margin - either 1% or 4%.

The Patriots have outscored the Colts in TDs 4 to 3 when up by 22. That seems like a pretty good counterargument to the people who say that the Patriots are running up the score more than the Colts - it's been virtually identical.

I must be misunderstanding your point here. According to DD, which unfortunately cuts off at 21 rather than 22:In 2004, the Colts had 4 passing TDs and 1 rushing TD when up by 21 or more points.This year, the Pats have 8 passing TDs and 3 rushing TDs when up by 21 or more points.From a passing TD standpoint, that is twice as many for the Pats. From a total TD standpoint (since I'm not sure what you are really getting at with your post), the Pats have more than twice as many.The next cutoff in the DD is 24 points. Using that cutoff, this year's Pats have 5 passing TDs and 3 rushing TDs, and the 2004 Colts had 3 and 1, respectively. So the Pats still have twice as many TDs, though it narrows the passing TD ratio a bit.

The fact that Brady has thrown more passes is irrelevant - they don't have Edgerrin James, and they use the passing game instead of the run game to control the clock.

No, they don't have Edgerrin James, but they do have a top 10 running game (10th in rushing yards, 9th in ypc). I agree they use the passing game to control the clock, but IMO their running game is good enough that they could have passed less often and still controlled the clock to close out games. I think most coaches would have done exactly that. The point is, it isn't like they have been forced into not running because their running game is poor. They have chosen to pass more often.

Overall, the criticism that the Patriots are running up the score to pad Tom Brady's stats, but Manning didn't, is wrong. As you've shown, the Colts did it about as much as the Pats.

I didn't show anything of the sort. The Colts were not in position to run up the score nearly as much as the Pats. I suspect if they were, they would not have followed the same pattern as the Pats have this year, and would have instead turned more to the running game, but that is merely speculation.The fact is that Brady has attempted 2-3 times more passes with 15+ point leads. The Pats could easily have chosen to run in those situations and it is very unlikely it would have had a negative impact on their winning. The same could be said of the 2004 Colts, but they did it less than half as often.

 

[Tau837]

My point is about all this 'stat padding' people like you talk about. You just said he's padding his TD stats while running up the score, then tell me he's turning down TD's by not padding as much as he could be and maybe only running up 30 point leads. Is he padding or not? I'm really not buying into this halfway padding theory of yours. If you actually think there's some kind of halfway running up the score, then I'd say I was dead on when I just mentioned that you don't know what the phrase means. If they can't run the ball, and don't run the ball, as I hear so often, then why do they have 15 rushing TD's while he's trying to pad his TD stats? Why would he come out of a game? This sounds like the same kind of theory that has Bush setting up 9/11 as a giant hoax.

So you think the Pats needed Brady to throw 124 times this season when they were up by 15+ points? I mean, do you think they needed those pass attempts to win those games? Do you think most teams would have passed as often if they were good enough to be in that situation as often as the Pats? Yes, there was some padding. In retrospect, I suspect they wish they had done just a bit more of it, so the record would already be Brady's by now.

 

[Tau837]

Why is it they're always '03 members....? Dude, you've been here for a few years, so I'm going to assume you probably watch some team play football, or at the very least watch a stat crawl. Let me ask you a question and you give me your honest informed football fan answer.

If Brady wanted more TD's this season, could he have gotten them, or is this all he could get?

Also, since I'm asking, what is it about a 34-21 TD that makes it so much more magically delicious than a 45-10 TD, which must be somehow better than a 54-9 TD?

Yes, I've been around since cheatsheets.net. Sure, Brady could have more if they tried to pad his stats even further. They certainly didn't go for it on every 4th down in their blowout wins, and he didn't throw every time inside the opponent's 10 yard line. But Manning could also have gotten more, so I'm not sure what your point is there. The numbers I posted showed that Brady passed 2-3 times as often with huge leads. It is factual, not opinion.

I don't know why you're using that statistic. Of course Brady has more attempts. The Pats have had injuries to their running backs, and have used the passing game in lieu of a running game when it's appropriate to do so. But that's the wrong statistic to be talking about. Brady is not looking to set the pass attempts record, or completions, or yards (although he looked good for a while). He is looking to set the TD record. And the fact is that the Patriots have rushed the ball for more TDs than the Colts. They've thrown for about the same number of TDs as the Colts when up big. In other words, they've done less to run up the record for Brady than the Colts did for Manning.

But you do bring up an interesting point about the number of passes. The fact that Brady has fewer INTs in more pass attempts is another feather in the cap of a season that has been better than Manning's 2004.

I'm using attempts because attempts show you the intent of the offense. How many attempts are converted to TDs is more about execution (which the Pats have excelled at, obviously). I realize the Pats have had RB injuries, but the fact remains they are 10th in rushing attempts, 10th in rushing yards, 9th in ypc, and 6th in rushing TDs. To me, that is a credit to the Pats in a number of ways: they have very good depth, a very good run blocking OL, a great passing game that keeps the defense focused on the passing game, a great coaching staff that knows how to adjust playcalling to different RBs, etc. I disagree with the notion that they needed to make all the pass attempts with large leads, as if they would have lost games had they done so.EDIT: If the coach/QB wants to pad passing TDs, what do they do? Do they just call the "sure TD" play a few times? No, they throw more passes, and in executing the passing offense more often, it leads to more passing TDs.

The bolded statement is simply untrue. As another example, besides the ones I have already given, Manning only threw 497 passes in 2004. As a team, the Colts were 15th in the NFL with 527. They obviously could have passed a good deal more often if they wanted to. Brady already has 536 attempts, despite the fact that the Pats have had an easier time winning games overall, and the Pats are 4th in the league.

 

[Footballg]

So you think the Pats needed Brady to throw 124 times this season when they were up by 15+ points? I mean, do you think they needed those pass attempts to win those games? Do you think most teams would have passed as often if they were good enough to be in that situation as often as the Pats? Yes, there was some padding. In retrospect, I suspect they wish they had done just a bit more of it, so the record would already be Brady's by now.

There it is --- discussion over.I've noticed mind reading and fortune telling are staples of the Pats haters. Certainly can't argue with that.

You guys are more predictable than a Pats win.

Do you guys know what projection is?

 

[Ghost Rider]

This was posted a while back, but it needs to be posted again, to remind some that Manning did not pad his stats in blowouts in '04 like Brady has this year.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...8/1058/SPORTS03

Don't you hate it when the facts get in the way of a good story?

A reporter for the Boston Globe Web site, Eric Wilbur, wondered why there weren't accusations of running up the score and padding statistics in 2004, when Peyton Manning was setting the single-season TD pass record and the Colts were winning by huge margins.

Here's why, good friend.

Of the 49 TD passes, just one came in the fourth quarter of a one-sided game.

Wilbur specifically alluded to a four-game stretch of Colts blowouts to buttress his argument. Problem is, the numbers don't support the argument.

The Colts beat Houston 49-14. Manning threw five TD passes, none in the fourth quarter.

The Colts beat Chicago 41-10. Manning had four TD passes. Jim Sorgi played the fourth quarter.

The Colts beat Detroit 41-9. Manning threw for six TD passes. Sorgi went into the game with 1:15 left in the third quarter.

The Colts beat Tennessee 51-24. Manning's last TD pass, his fourth of the game, made it 48-24 with 13 minutes left. That's when Sorgi entered the game.

By comparison, Brady has thrown six fourth-quarter touchdown passes in the Patriots' first eight games, five of them with a lead of 17 points or more.

Facts. They're so inconvenient sometimes.

-- Bob Kravitz

Also:

Last but not least, Manning's offenses have been shut out and held to 3 points in the playoffs. Brady's offenses have never scored less than 13. So Manning has been the reason more often than not.

Fact: In Brady's 2nd playoff game, the 24-17 win over Pittsburgh in the AFC title game, the Patriots OFFENSE scored 10 points. Drew Bledsoe was the QB for all 10 of those points. In nearly a half of play, Brady led the Patriots to a whopping ZERO points. The Patriots other 14 points were scored by special teams. Sorry, but you cannot accuse others of not keeping their facts straight when you are incapable of doing the same yourself.

 

[Footballg]

[i'm using attempts because attempts show you the intent of the offense. ....the fact remains they are 10th in rushing attempts,

ok, now discussion's over.

 

[Footballg]

The Colts beat Houston 49-14. Manning threw five TD passes, none in the fourth quarter.The Colts beat Chicago 41-10. Manning had four TD passes. Jim Sorgi played the fourth quarter.The Colts beat Detroit 41-9. Manning threw for six TD passes. Sorgi went into the game with 1:15 left in the third quarter.The Colts beat Tennessee 51-24. Manning's last TD pass, his fourth of the game, made it 48-24 with 13 minutes left. That's when Sorgi entered the game.

Why was he throwing those 4th, 5th, and 6th TD's instead of letting his team run the ball?

 

[Master of Past and Present]

For those trying to argue that Peyton was more impressive and the Pats ran up the score to help Brady, could you honestly tell me that if Brady ended up with 45, 46, 47, or 48 TDs BUT was pulled REALLY early (or sat this week) in a lot of games (like many suggest he should have been) you would be on here posting about Brady being more impressive even though he didn't get the record? I bet 99% of you who would claim to say 'yes you would' are lying or fooling yourself and instead would be shrugging your shoulders saying that it wasn't Manning's fault Brady got pulled so early in so many games.

 

[Tau837]

So you think the Pats needed Brady to throw 124 times this season when they were up by 15+ points? I mean, do you think they needed those pass attempts to win those games? Do you think most teams would have passed as often if they were good enough to be in that situation as often as the Pats? Yes, there was some padding. In retrospect, I suspect they wish they had done just a bit more of it, so the record would already be Brady's by now.

There it is --- discussion over.I've noticed mind reading and fortune telling are staples of the Pats haters. Certainly can't argue with that.

You guys are more predictable than a Pats win.

Do you guys know what projection is?

You know what I've noticed? No one can discuss the Pats on this board using anything but 100% praise without being labeled a Pats hater, since Pats fans will accept nothing less than 100% praise. This is a big reason for the reputation of Pats fans on this board.I'm not a Pats hater. I'm not a Colts fan either. I call it like I see it as a NFL fan.

 

[Tau837]

[i'm using attempts because attempts show you the intent of the offense. ....the fact remains they are 10th in rushing attempts,

ok, now discussion's over.

You're right. The fact that the Pats are 4th in pass attempts and 10th in rush attempts despite playing most of the season with huge leads tells us all we need to know.

 

[Footballg]

Sorry -- Pats detractor.

So sensitive.

 

[Ghost Rider]

So you think the Pats needed Brady to throw 124 times this season when they were up by 15+ points? I mean, do you think they needed those pass attempts to win those games? Do you think most teams would have passed as often if they were good enough to be in that situation as often as the Pats? Yes, there was some padding. In retrospect, I suspect they wish they had done just a bit more of it, so the record would already be Brady's by now.

There it is --- discussion over.I've noticed mind reading and fortune telling are staples of the Pats haters. Certainly can't argue with that.

You guys are more predictable than a Pats win.

Do you guys know what projection is?

You know what I've noticed? No one can discuss the Pats on this board using anything but 100% praise without being labeled a Pats hater, since Pats fans will accept nothing less than 100% praise. This is a big reason for the reputation of Pats fans on this board.I'm not a Pats hater. I'm not a Colts fan either. I call it like I see it as a NFL fan.

I also have no side in this debate, as I am neither a Colts fan nor a Patriots fan, not to mention that I have argued in Brady's favor for years in the countless Manning vs. Brady debates, but the facts remain that Brady has padded his numbers this year in blowouts far more than Manning did. Does it really matter? Not really, as history will remember the final number, whatever it ends up being, more than anything else, but right here and now, how each guy got to their number is relevant, especially considering why this thread was started in the first place.

 

[Footballg]

[especially considering why this thread was started in the first place.

To troll Pats fans?

 

[pizzatyme]

[especially considering why this thread was started in the first place.

To troll Pats fans?

No, not really. I asked a simple question. I stated my reasons for the post. If you want to consider any anti-Brady, Belichick, Patriots, Boston area, threads as "Pats fans trolling" then so be it.

 

[Tau837]

For those trying to argue that Peyton was more impressive and the Pats ran up the score to help Brady, could you honestly tell me that if Brady ended up with 45, 46, 47, or 48 TDs BUT was pulled REALLY early (or sat this week) in a lot of games (like many suggest he should have been) you would be on here posting about Brady being more impressive even though he didn't get the record? I bet 99% of you who would claim to say 'yes you would' are lying or fooling yourself and instead would be shrugging your shoulders saying that it wasn't Manning's fault Brady got pulled so early in so many games.

I assume you'd lump me into that category. First off, it's splitting hairs. Their seasons are so close that regardless what happens this weekend I think they are equally good.That said, if forced to choose, even if Brady ends up with 50 TDs, I will personally feel that Manning's 2004 regular season performance was ever so slightly better. The Colts needed more of Manning's passing output to win than the Pats needed of Brady's IMO. Manning did it in fewer passing attempts. And the final stats will presumably be close enough for it to come down to small judgments like that. Also, from a statistical standpoint, as of right now, Manning's 2004 QB rating was better than Brady's is right now. While I think Brady will get the TD record, he may not pass Manning in QB rating.To answer your question, if he was pulled earlier in several games, and/or passed much less often with big leads, and/or sat out this upcoming game, and still had 45+ TDs, I'd give him credit for that.

 

[Road Warriors]

So you think the Pats needed Brady to throw 124 times this season when they were up by 15+ points? I mean, do you think they needed those pass attempts to win those games? Do you think most teams would have passed as often if they were good enough to be in that situation as often as the Pats? Yes, there was some padding. In retrospect, I suspect they wish they had done just a bit more of it, so the record would already be Brady's by now.

There it is --- discussion over.I've noticed mind reading and fortune telling are staples of the Pats haters. Certainly can't argue with that.

You guys are more predictable than a Pats win.

Do you guys know what projection is?

You know what I've noticed? No one can discuss the Pats on this board using anything but 100% praise without being labeled a Pats hater, since Pats fans will accept nothing less than 100% praise. This is a big reason for the reputation of Pats fans on this board.I'm not a Pats hater. I'm not a Colts fan either. I call it like I see it as a NFL fan.

For someone who claims no dog in this fight, you sure did spend a lot of time digging up stats to show what "big meanies" the Pats have been all year. Why do you feel the need to diminish the passing TD record IF Brady gets it tomorrow? I really struggle with a collection of posters that claim no bias, but spend significant energy to lessen the accomplishments of the Patriots this year.

Guess what... Brady's pretty good. So's Manning. And the Pats and Colts are pretty good football teams, too. I'd assume an NFL fan would view the season at that level, not at the level of minutia I've seen from you in these recent posts.

 

[Footballg]

[especially considering why this thread was started in the first place.

To troll Pats fans?

No, not really. I asked a simple question. I stated my reasons for the post. If you want to consider any anti-Brady, Belichick, Patriots, Boston area, threads as "Pats fans trolling" then so be it.

Aren't I supposed to be on ignore?I think your internet's broken.

 

[Tau837]

So you think the Pats needed Brady to throw 124 times this season when they were up by 15+ points? I mean, do you think they needed those pass attempts to win those games? Do you think most teams would have passed as often if they were good enough to be in that situation as often as the Pats? Yes, there was some padding. In retrospect, I suspect they wish they had done just a bit more of it, so the record would already be Brady's by now.

There it is --- discussion over.I've noticed mind reading and fortune telling are staples of the Pats haters. Certainly can't argue with that.

You guys are more predictable than a Pats win.

Do you guys know what projection is?

You know what I've noticed? No one can discuss the Pats on this board using anything but 100% praise without being labeled a Pats hater, since Pats fans will accept nothing less than 100% praise. This is a big reason for the reputation of Pats fans on this board.I'm not a Pats hater. I'm not a Colts fan either. I call it like I see it as a NFL fan.

For someone who claims no dog in this fight, you sure did spend a lot of time digging up stats to show what "big meanies" the Pats have been all year. Why do you feel the need to diminish the passing TD record IF Brady gets it tomorrow? I really struggle with a collection of posters that claim no bias, but spend significant energy to lessen the accomplishments of the Patriots this year.

I already stated that I dug it up because others have continued to post that the circumstances for Brady's run were comparable to Manning's, which I didn't think was right. When I looked it up, I found that I was right. I was initially simply trying to keep the record straight, and here recently it evolved into a fair amount of discussion.

Guess what... Brady's pretty good. So's Manning. And the Pats and Colts are pretty good football teams, too. I'd assume an NFL fan would view the season at that level, not at the level of minutia I've seen from you in these recent posts.

I agree with everything you said here about Brady, Manning, the Pats, and the Colts. Why would you think that means I might not look at detailed statistics?

 

[Master of Past and Present]

For those trying to argue that Peyton was more impressive and the Pats ran up the score to help Brady, could you honestly tell me that if Brady ended up with 45, 46, 47, or 48 TDs BUT was pulled REALLY early (or sat this week) in a lot of games (like many suggest he should have been) you would be on here posting about Brady being more impressive even though he didn't get the record? I bet 99% of you who would claim to say 'yes you would' are lying or fooling yourself and instead would be shrugging your shoulders saying that it wasn't Manning's fault Brady got pulled so early in so many games.

I assume you'd lump me into that category. First off, it's splitting hairs. Their seasons are so close that regardless what happens this weekend I think they are equally good.That said, if forced to choose, even if Brady ends up with 50 TDs, I will personally feel that Manning's 2004 regular season performance was ever so slightly better. The Colts needed more of Manning's passing output to win than the Pats needed of Brady's IMO. Manning did it in fewer passing attempts. And the final stats will presumably be close enough for it to come down to small judgments like that. Also, from a statistical standpoint, as of right now, Manning's 2004 QB rating was better than Brady's is right now. While I think Brady will get the TD record, he may not pass Manning in QB rating.To answer your question, if he was pulled earlier in several games, and/or passed much less often with big leads, and/or sat out this upcoming game, and still had 45+ TDs, I'd give him credit for that.

From what I have read of yours I would put in the the low percentage of people who could be honest about it if you still felt the same. Personally I like a lot of people were sick of Pat fans and how them and their team always played the 'lack of respect' card year after year. It was annoying and stupid that people were still doing it after the 2nd and even 3rd titles. I actually enjoyed watching Manning play more because he did play in the more enjoyable style of offense to watch. I also would have said that put Manning on the Pats and they still win 3 titles and if Brady was on the Colts the numbers would be good but there would be a noticeable drop off. Now that Brady has had the chance to drive a top notch offense I see my thoughts were wrong.The things I notice that I would take Brady over Manning are stuff like the quality of defenses played. Brady has played tougher defenses by a good margin. Brady has 53 20+ passes this year compared to 68 for Manning. It is more impressive to sustain drives than toss a couple long bombs. If you take 15 20+ plays away from Manning, I bet he would rack up more pass attempts. Inside the 19 (what NFL.com does for a split) yard line of the opponent, EACH had 33 TDs but Manning threw 5 INTs. Brady hasn't lost his team a chance at points trying to squeeze one in there. I can't say I remember those 5 INTs but surely Manning was trying to thread the needle on a couple of them if not maybe all of them. Manning played in a better environment during the winter months and Brady just comes across as a better year.

 

[Road Warriors]

So you think the Pats needed Brady to throw 124 times this season when they were up by 15+ points? I mean, do you think they needed those pass attempts to win those games? Do you think most teams would have passed as often if they were good enough to be in that situation as often as the Pats? Yes, there was some padding. In retrospect, I suspect they wish they had done just a bit more of it, so the record would already be Brady's by now.

There it is --- discussion over.I've noticed mind reading and fortune telling are staples of the Pats haters. Certainly can't argue with that.

You guys are more predictable than a Pats win.

Do you guys know what projection is?

You know what I've noticed? No one can discuss the Pats on this board using anything but 100% praise without being labeled a Pats hater, since Pats fans will accept nothing less than 100% praise. This is a big reason for the reputation of Pats fans on this board.I'm not a Pats hater. I'm not a Colts fan either. I call it like I see it as a NFL fan.

For someone who claims no dog in this fight, you sure did spend a lot of time digging up stats to show what "big meanies" the Pats have been all year. Why do you feel the need to diminish the passing TD record IF Brady gets it tomorrow? I really struggle with a collection of posters that claim no bias, but spend significant energy to lessen the accomplishments of the Patriots this year.

I already stated that I dug it up because others have continued to post that the circumstances for Brady's run were comparable to Manning's, which I didn't think was right. When I looked it up, I found that I was right. I was initially simply trying to keep the record straight, and here recently it evolved into a fair amount of discussion.

Guess what... Brady's pretty good. So's Manning. And the Pats and Colts are pretty good football teams, too. I'd assume an NFL fan would view the season at that level, not at the level of minutia I've seen from you in these recent posts.

I agree with everything you said here about Brady, Manning, the Pats, and the Colts. Why would you think that means I might not look at detailed statistics?

The amount of time you've spent digging into "proof" that Manning did it better seems to me to be on the "agendaish" side. Thats all I'm saying. Let me ask you... Did you spend as much energy digging into Marino's 48 TD season, you know, to compare who was the "real" record holder?

 

[bostonfred]

Why is it they're always '03 members....? Dude, you've been here for a few years, so I'm going to assume you probably watch some team play football, or at the very least watch a stat crawl. Let me ask you a question and you give me your honest informed football fan answer.

If Brady wanted more TD's this season, could he have gotten them, or is this all he could get?

Also, since I'm asking, what is it about a 34-21 TD that makes it so much more magically delicious than a 45-10 TD, which must be somehow better than a 54-9 TD?

Yes, I've been around since cheatsheets.net. Sure, Brady could have more if they tried to pad his stats even further. They certainly didn't go for it on every 4th down in their blowout wins, and he didn't throw every time inside the opponent's 10 yard line. But Manning could also have gotten more, so I'm not sure what your point is there. The numbers I posted showed that Brady passed 2-3 times as often with huge leads. It is factual, not opinion.

I don't know why you're using that statistic. Of course Brady has more attempts. The Pats have had injuries to their running backs, and have used the passing game in lieu of a running game when it's appropriate to do so. But that's the wrong statistic to be talking about. Brady is not looking to set the pass attempts record, or completions, or yards (although he looked good for a while). He is looking to set the TD record. And the fact is that the Patriots have rushed the ball for more TDs than the Colts. They've thrown for about the same number of TDs as the Colts when up big. In other words, they've done less to run up the record for Brady than the Colts did for Manning.

But you do bring up an interesting point about the number of passes. The fact that Brady has fewer INTs in more pass attempts is another feather in the cap of a season that has been better than Manning's 2004.

BF, you're certainly on a roll! How does Brady's TDs/game rate this season versus Manning's Tds/game in '04?

Since you like to pull every stat that skews the argument towards the Pats/Brady. Give us some more.

I guess what concerns me most about all of your statistical puking is that you have the need to know this in the first place.

Scary, really scary.

Great question about Brady's TDs/game rate. The season's not over. If Brady threw five TDs tomorrow, it would be better than Manning's. At that point, would you be more impressed with Brady's season than Manning's? What if he doesn't do it, but I contend that he COULD have done it, just like you seem to contend that Manning COULD have thrown for more in week 17 at Denver? I'll tell you what. You write a letter to Roger Goodell and ask him to put a statistic in the record books for most passing TDs (but don't include rushing TDs) through 15 games, and another one for most passing (not total) TDs/game, minimum 15 games played. Cc me, and I'll send him a letter asking him to do the same. Maybe we can get a grass roots effort going.

As for how much I need to know in the first place, you're the one who started this thread. I'm answering your questions. But since you like my statistical puking, here's one:

Who posted in: Manning 49 TDs in 15 games. Brady 49+ in 16 games

Poster Posts

pizzatyme 39

Footballg 24

bostonfred 23

Just Win Baby 16

.

.

I guess I'm a little concerned with the number of posts you've had in your losing cause to convince people that Manning's season was better. If you've posted so much more than me, but you're concerned about how much information is in my posts, then my preliminary statistical analysis shows that your posts generally don't have that much to say. Maybe that's why the poll is still about 70/30 in favor of Brady, despite you writing almost a full page of this 5+ page thread yourself.

 

[bostonfred]

Last but not least, Manning's offenses have been shut out and held to 3 points in the playoffs. Brady's offenses have never scored less than 13. So Manning has been the reason more often than not.

Fact: In Brady's 2nd playoff game, the 24-17 win over Pittsburgh in the AFC title game, the Patriots OFFENSE scored 10 points. Drew Bledsoe was the QB for all 10 of those points. In nearly a half of play, Brady led the Patriots to a whopping ZERO points. The Patriots other 14 points were scored by special teams. Sorry, but you cannot accuse others of not keeping their facts straight when you are incapable of doing the same yourself.

Sorry, but even this contrived attempt is incorrect. The Patriots were actually ahead 7-3 when Brady was knocked out. He was 12 of 18 for 115 yards, and had just completed a 28 yard pass to put the Pats in long field goal distance before halftime. But if your point is that Manning didn't show up for the second half of a bunch of playoff games, too, then it's well taken.

 

[Boston]

So you think the Pats needed Brady to throw 124 times this season when they were up by 15+ points? I mean, do you think they needed those pass attempts to win those games? Do you think most teams would have passed as often if they were good enough to be in that situation as often as the Pats? Yes, there was some padding. In retrospect, I suspect they wish they had done just a bit more of it, so the record would already be Brady's by now.

There it is --- discussion over.I've noticed mind reading and fortune telling are staples of the Pats haters. Certainly can't argue with that.

You guys are more predictable than a Pats win.

Do you guys know what projection is?

You know what I've noticed? No one can discuss the Pats on this board using anything but 100% praise without being labeled a Pats hater, since Pats fans will accept nothing less than 100% praise. This is a big reason for the reputation of Pats fans on this board.I'm not a Pats hater. I'm not a Colts fan either. I call it like I see it as a NFL fan.

...and the second a Patriot fan defends the team, regardless of how much data they use to back it up they are labeled a homer or whiner. A case in point is this thread. It gets started to take a swipe at Brady's accomplishments. When his season gets defended by the homers the bashers get pissed off. The hypocrisy involved in so many of these threads (by both sides) is off the charts and the lack of honesty by many involving their agenda (be it pro or anti Patriot) is purely comical at this point.