Noahs Troopers
Footballguy
If you were an NFL GM and could have your choice of starting your franchise with Peyton Manning or Tom Brady, which quarterback would you choose?
Last edited by a moderator:
Because he's a better quarterback than Tom Brady.If they're being the same salary, I'd take Manning in a heartbeat.Why?
Got it. Ask a stupid question.....Because he's a better quarterback than Tom Brady.If they're being the same salary, I'd take Manning in a heartbeat.Why?
You asked a question, I gave you an answer. I think he'd have won a Super Bowl by now if he had an actual play-off defense behind him.Got it. Ask a stupid question.....Because he's a better quarterback than Tom Brady.If they're being the same salary, I'd take Manning in a heartbeat.Why?
This years Colts D wasnt a playoff D? Anyway, I voted Brady. I love the way this guy can adapt to a gameplan, move in the pocket, keep his cool in the tightest of situations, lead his team and oh, he can make any throw on the field as well.You asked a question, I gave you an answer.
I think he'd have won a Super Bowl by now if he had an actual play-off defense behind him.
Is this really true?I'm looking at the contract numbers (Brady and Manning) ... certainly doesn't seem like a big difference the next several years.Brady. Aside from being polar opposites when it comes to coming through when it counts, Brady has a far more cap-friendly contract.
They were great when Peyton gave them a 10-point cushion and other teams had to abandon the run. But they're pretty much screwed if Manning doesn't drop 30 points on the opposing defense. Do you think Brady would have won those Colts/Patriots match-ups if their roles were reversed?This years Colts D wasnt a playoff D?You asked a question, I gave you an answer.
I think he'd have won a Super Bowl by now if he had an actual play-off defense behind him.
I respect that. I just think Manning has been on some soft play-off teams, and if he had played on a football team with a reputation for being physical and tough on defense, he'd have won a Super Bowl by now. I really hope he wins one some day, although it will be tough with his salary where it is.Anyway, I voted Brady. I love the way this guy can adapt to a gameplan, move in the pocket, keep his cool in the tightest of situations, lead his team and oh, he can make any throw on the field as well.![]()
In the last six Manning era Colt playoff losses, 5 of the six teams have scored 24 points or LESS- the lone exception being NY's 41. The Colts have scored 16, 17, 0, 14, 3, and 18 in those losses. In the playoffs losses, where Manning has 3 TD's and 7 INT's, the Colts have a problem on offense, not defense.You asked a question, I gave you an answer.
I think he'd have won a Super Bowl by now if he had an actual play-off defense behind him.
In the last six Manning era Colt playoff losses, 5 of the six teams have scored 24 points or LESS- the lone exception being NY's 41. The Colts have scored 16, 17, 0, 14, 3, and 18 in those losses. In the playoffs losses, where Manning has 3 TD's and 7 INT's, the Colts have a problem on offense, not defense.You asked a question, I gave you an answer.
I think he'd have won a Super Bowl by now if he had an actual play-off defense behind him.
Brady and it's not really close IMO. People always give so much credit to NE's D for their success and while the D does deserve a lot of credit, Brady has led an offense of virtually no-namers and made them very successful over the past 4 years.
Sure, Manning hasn't had the defense that Brady has had but Brady also hasn't had Marvin Harrison, Edge James, and Reggie Wayne on offense.
Do you realize how idiotic it is to dream of such things? Youre talking in a fantasy world wondering WHAT IF?????? Lets not dwell on hypotheticals and deal with reality. We live in a world of WHAT DID and WHAT WILL ....not what if. WHAT IF Manning wasnt soft???? And could move around in the pocket under pressure?? ANd he wasnt a cry baby?? And he could make a play in a big game when his team really needed it??? WHAT IF, WHAT IF, WHAT IF..........Put Brady on the Colts and Manning on the Pats. Whats the likely outcome?
1) Manning and the Pats win several Super Bowls.
2) Brady and the Colts win nothing.
Let me put it another way:
Is Tedy Bruschi "better" than **** Butkus because he anchored three Super Bowl defeses, while Butkus never won anything? Is Super Bowl MVP Deion Branch better than Randy Moss? Of course, not. Because Football is a TEAM game, and its irresponsible to confuse team achievements with individual players accomplishments.
Ok, so who would you rather have - Tedy Bruschi or **** Butkus? Please justify how you would rather have Bruschi.Do you realize how idiotic it is to dream of such things? Youre talking in a fantasy world wondering WHAT IF?????? Lets not dwell on hypotheticals and deal with reality. We live in a world of WHAT DID and WHAT WILL ....not what if. WHAT IF Manning wasnt soft???? And could move around in the pocket under pressure?? ANd he wasnt a cry baby?? And he could make a play in a big game when his team really needed it??? WHAT IF, WHAT IF, WHAT IF..........Put Brady on the Colts and Manning on the Pats. Whats the likely outcome?
1) Manning and the Pats win several Super Bowls.
2) Brady and the Colts win nothing.
Let me put it another way:
Is Tedy Bruschi "better" than **** Butkus because he anchored three Super Bowl defeses, while Butkus never won anything? Is Super Bowl MVP Deion Branch better than Randy Moss? Of course, not. Because Football is a TEAM game, and its irresponsible to confuse team achievements with individual players accomplishments.
WTH am I missing? Even after Brady's 1st playoff loss this season, the gap between the two grew much wider after this postseason. I used to think Brady was better by a bit, now I think Brady is better by about 5 miles.Edit: I said before this postseason that this was the postseason where Manning is going to be judged because the excuses will be completely gone. Well, he came up REALLY small when everything was set up for his team. He failed. End of story.P. Manning [ 34 ] [53.13%] T. Brady [ 30 ] [46.88%]
Is your argument that the middle linebacker has as much responsibility for the play of the defense as the quarterback?Put Brady on the Colts and Manning on the Pats. Whats the likely outcome?
1) Manning and the Pats win several Super Bowls.
2) Brady and the Colts win nothing.
Let me put it another way:
Is Tedy Bruschi "better" than **** Butkus because he anchored three Super Bowl defeses, while Butkus never won anything? Is Super Bowl MVP Deion Branch better than Randy Moss? Of course, not. Because Football is a TEAM game, and its irresponsible to confuse team achievements with individual players accomplishments.
Manning CHOSE to stay w/ the Colts. They don't have the money to spend on D, BECAUSE he taks up 20% of the cap space, or there about. To me, it's been Brady time and again. Blame the D's all you want, but you might want to take a gander at Peytons playoff loss numbers. They're not always bad, but never great when the team needs him to be.They were great when Peyton gave them a 10-point cushion and other teams had to abandon the run. But they're pretty much screwed if Manning doesn't drop 30 points on the opposing defense. Do you think Brady would have won those Colts/Patriots match-ups if their roles were reversed?This years Colts D wasnt a playoff D?You asked a question, I gave you an answer.
I think he'd have won a Super Bowl by now if he had an actual play-off defense behind him.I respect that. I just think Manning has been on some soft play-off teams, and if he had played on a football team with a reputation for being physical and tough on defense, he'd have won a Super Bowl by now. I really hope he wins one some day, although it will be tough with his salary where it is.Anyway, I voted Brady. I love the way this guy can adapt to a gameplan, move in the pocket, keep his cool in the tightest of situations, lead his team and oh, he can make any throw on the field as well.![]()
An excellent point.Brady and it's not really close IMO. People always give so much credit to NE's D for their success and while the D does deserve a lot of credit, Brady has led an offense of virtually no-namers and made them very successful over the past 4 years.
Sure, Manning hasn't had the defense that Brady has had but Brady also hasn't had Marvin Harrison, Edge James, and Reggie Wayne on offense.
Because his play in the losses is often the reason for the loss. When you take the huge money, and build you team to win w/ offense, you can't be average in the playoff game. This year was the year they were going to do it. solid D, home field, and again he chokes in the playoffs. Also, it's not just winning superbowls, he hasn't even gotten to one. He can't even win a conference championship.I don't think it's as cut and dry as you guys are making it out. Again, if their roles were reversed, do you think the Colts would have beaten the Patriots and be Super Bowl champs by now? Are we supposed to believe that Tom Brady wouldn't have also had a few bad games against a brilliant Patriots defense in Foxboro? I also love how someone cherry-picked Peyton Manning's statistics in play-off LOSSES to make him look much worse.
While I agree with this assessment, based on the question who would I build a franchise around, it would be Manning. I believe Brady is clearly a better big game QB, but if you put both of them on bad teams, Peyton instantly makes them a contender (this is exactly what he did with the Colts even as a young QB). Peyton may not ever get them over the hump, but I am a person that would rather be in the mix every year. Brady is great, no question, and with all the right pieces around him he is a champion like no other. But put one of the two of them on Texans for instance, and I think Peyton makes them a contender first.Brady and it's not really close IMO. People always give so much credit to NE's D for their success and while the D does deserve a lot of credit, Brady has led an offense of virtually no-namers and made them very successful over the past 4 years.
Sure, Manning hasn't had the defense that Brady has had but Brady also hasn't had Marvin Harrison, Edge James, and Reggie Wayne on offense.
No, not really. By and large, the QB has a bigger impact on the game than a MLB. But different QB's carry different levels of accountability, imo. Peyton Manning carries a far greater responsibilty for the Colts successes (or failures) than Tom Brady does for the Pats. People continually (almost blindly) overlook that when assessing the two. Using the same argument, people can proclaim that Trent Dilfer was better than Manning as well - when its clear as day that there were ulterior drivers dictating his teams success.Tom Brady is not the dominant force in the Patriots offense; hes simply their most recognizable player. Their have been many playoff games where Bradys play has been subpar yet the Pats have continued to roll - due to the defense, the running game, and above all the gameplan. This tells me that the credit that he receives for leading the Pats to three Super Bowl victories is somewhat overrated. I prefer to give credit to Bill Bellicheck, whose schemes and playcalling is the real motor to the Pats success.Is your argument that the middle linebacker has as much responsibility for the play of the defense as the quarterback?Put Brady on the Colts and Manning on the Pats. Whats the likely outcome?
1) Manning and the Pats win several Super Bowls.
2) Brady and the Colts win nothing.
Let me put it another way:
Is Tedy Bruschi "better" than **** Butkus because he anchored three Super Bowl defeses, while Butkus never won anything? Is Super Bowl MVP Deion Branch better than Randy Moss? Of course, not. Because Football is a TEAM game, and its irresponsible to confuse team achievements with individual players accomplishments.
You mean like this year when Brady carried the team while 3 offensive linemen, the top 3 RB's, and the top WR and Tight End were out, while the defense was a sieve? Is that what you mean by making a bad team better?While I agree with this assessment, based on the question who would I build a franchise around, it would be Manning. I believe Brady is clearly a better big game QB, but if you put both of them on bad teams, Peyton instantly makes them a contender (this is exactly what he did with the Colts even as a young QB). Peyton may not ever get them over the hump, but I am a person that would rather be in the mix every year. Brady is great, no question, and with all the right pieces around him he is a champion like no other. But put one of the two of them on Texans for instance, and I think Peyton makes them a contender first.Brady and it's not really close IMO. People always give so much credit to NE's D for their success and while the D does deserve a lot of credit, Brady has led an offense of virtually no-namers and made them very successful over the past 4 years.
Sure, Manning hasn't had the defense that Brady has had but Brady also hasn't had Marvin Harrison, Edge James, and Reggie Wayne on offense.
It's not a double standard. The Pats offense isn't loaded with first round talent. They CHOSE to build a solid TEAM, and try to balance the scoring to be more than the D gives up. The Colts have decided to build their team around first round talent on offense, and it's worked, in the regular season and in first or second round playoff games. But, consistently, because of poor play from Manning, they lose in the playoffs. It's not a double standard. If the Pats had 7 of 11 starters on offense as first round talent, Brady would get the same criticism. But, they don't.Anyway, the MLB poll is just an example to drive home a point. You can plug in any number of players/positions. For example, Barry Sanders gets the same treatment as Peyton Manning for failing to win a Super Bowl - and hes not even a QB. Butkus, on the other hand, seems immune from such criticism. So there seems to be a double standard here, that Im strying (succesfully or not) to exploit.
Just go ahead and blame P. Fulmer for the lack big game success in college too.I'll just throw it out there that Manning has been coached by possibly the two worst choking head coaches in the history of the playoffs. Who has been worse in the playoffs than Mora and Dungy?
Brady on the other hand....
Wasn't Manning undefeated against Alabama? How did he do against Georgia? Wasn't he 3-1 in Bowl games?Just go ahead and blame P. Fulmer for the lack big game success in college too.I'll just throw it out there that Manning has been coached by possibly the two worst choking head coaches in the history of the playoffs. Who has been worse in the playoffs than Mora and Dungy?
Brady on the other hand....If it wasn't it for him Manning would have been a champion rather than the best QB the Citrus Bowl has ever seen.
![]()
Unlike the NFL the last game of the season in college is not always the biggest. Go ask a Vols fan what they would rather do given the choice, beat Florida or win the Old El Paso made in San Antoinio not New York City Salso Bowl.Wasn't Manning undefeated against Alabama? How did he do against Georgia? Wasn't he 3-1 in Bowl games?Just go ahead and blame P. Fulmer for the lack big game success in college too.I'll just throw it out there that Manning has been coached by possibly the two worst choking head coaches in the history of the playoffs. Who has been worse in the playoffs than Mora and Dungy?
Brady on the other hand....If it wasn't it for him Manning would have been a champion rather than the best QB the Citrus Bowl has ever seen.
![]()
This year was without question Brady's best year, for the reasons you mention. I still believe that this years offensive team, even without all the people mentioned, is better than the Texans. I also believe that the Pats benefitted from a very weak second half of the season schedule. Just my opinion, though.You mean like this year when Brady carried the team while 3 offensive linemen, the top 3 RB's, and the top WR and Tight End were out, while the defense was a sieve? Is that what you mean by making a bad team better?While I agree with this assessment, based on the question who would I build a franchise around, it would be Manning. I believe Brady is clearly a better big game QB, but if you put both of them on bad teams, Peyton instantly makes them a contender (this is exactly what he did with the Colts even as a young QB). Peyton may not ever get them over the hump, but I am a person that would rather be in the mix every year. Brady is great, no question, and with all the right pieces around him he is a champion like no other. But put one of the two of them on Texans for instance, and I think Peyton makes them a contender first.Brady and it's not really close IMO. People always give so much credit to NE's D for their success and while the D does deserve a lot of credit, Brady has led an offense of virtually no-namers and made them very successful over the past 4 years.
Sure, Manning hasn't had the defense that Brady has had but Brady also hasn't had Marvin Harrison, Edge James, and Reggie Wayne on offense.
They were also in a hole because of playing all four of the final four teams in the first half. They didn't pick the schedule, and they're all still NFL teams that beat other teams down the stretch. There are no gimmes on the schedule. Some are harder than others, but any week, any team can beat any other.This year was without question Brady's best year, for the reasons you mention. I still believe that this years offensive team, even without all the people mentioned, is better than the Texans. I also believe that the Pats benefitted from a very weak second half of the season schedule. Just my opinion, though.You mean like this year when Brady carried the team while 3 offensive linemen, the top 3 RB's, and the top WR and Tight End were out, while the defense was a sieve? Is that what you mean by making a bad team better?While I agree with this assessment, based on the question who would I build a franchise around, it would be Manning. I believe Brady is clearly a better big game QB, but if you put both of them on bad teams, Peyton instantly makes them a contender (this is exactly what he did with the Colts even as a young QB). Peyton may not ever get them over the hump, but I am a person that would rather be in the mix every year. Brady is great, no question, and with all the right pieces around him he is a champion like no other. But put one of the two of them on Texans for instance, and I think Peyton makes them a contender first.Brady and it's not really close IMO. People always give so much credit to NE's D for their success and while the D does deserve a lot of credit, Brady has led an offense of virtually no-namers and made them very successful over the past 4 years.
Sure, Manning hasn't had the defense that Brady has had but Brady also hasn't had Marvin Harrison, Edge James, and Reggie Wayne on offense.
Brady, any day of the week, for multiple reasons...
1. Testicular fortitude
I actually agree with you. Which is exactly why I said, in my very first post:Manning CHOSE to stay w/ the Colts. They don't have the money to spend on D, BECAUSE he taks up 20% of the cap space, or there about.
They're certainly not built to contend in the near future unless Manning takes a mammoth paycut, and considering the joker head coaches he's played for, I don't blame him for taking the money while he can.If they're being paid the same salary, I'd take Manning in a heartbeat.
(edit for insertion of word)
For what it's worth, Brady is 6-1 in play-off games where he throws 1 TD pass or less. Care to take a guess at what Manning's record is in the 6 games where he's thrown 1 TD pass or less? Think about that for a minute.To me, it's been Brady time and again. Blame the D's all you want, but you might want to take a gander at Peytons playoff loss numbers. They're not always bad, but never great when the team needs him to be.
Okay, if we want to blame Manning for not performing up to what is an absurdly high standard, that's fine. But let's not pretend that he's a worse QB than Brady because he fails to meet that standard. So the Steelers won because he choked, eh? Or was it because the Steelers manhandled the Colts offensive line, got pressure on Manning, got themselves a 10-point lead and forced the Colts, and Manning, to play right into their hands? The blame that Manning shoulders every year for play-off losses is unbelievable to me.And yeah, I remember a few years ago, "Manning can't win a play-off game," now it's "Manning can't even make it to the Super Bowl!" The arguments that people make against him are honestly pretty hilarious.Because his play in the losses is often the reason for the loss. When you take the huge money, and build you team to win w/ offense, you can't be average in the playoff game. This year was the year they were going to do it. solid D, home field, and again he chokes in the playoffs.
Also, it's not just winning superbowls, he hasn't even gotten to one. He can't even win a conference championship.
There may not be any gimmes, but it does not hurt to play the Jets twice, Buffalo and New Orleans in 4 of your last 8 games. Nothing you have said here changes my opinion that Manning is the guy that will more quickly make a team a contender.By the way, I am a Bears fan, and have no horse in this race. You are welcome to think that Brady is the second coming (as you are clearly a Pats fan). I just don't see it that way. If you were to ask me which quarterback I would rather have had playing on this years Bears team, I would have chosen Brady in a heartbeat. If you were to ask me which one I would have rather had playing for the Bears last year, I would have said Manning in a heartbeat. The difference, this year the Bears as a team were put in a position where that big game QB might have made a difference in teh playoffs. Last year, they needed something completely different that might have put them in a position to make the playoffs instead of the 4th worst team in the league. Manning fits that bill, in my eyes.They were also in a hole because of playing all four of the final four teams in the first half. They didn't pick the schedule, and they're all still NFL teams that beat other teams down the stretch. There are no gimmes on the schedule. Some are harder than others, but any week, any team can beat any other.This year was without question Brady's best year, for the reasons you mention. I still believe that this years offensive team, even without all the people mentioned, is better than the Texans. I also believe that the Pats benefitted from a very weak second half of the season schedule. Just my opinion, though.You mean like this year when Brady carried the team while 3 offensive linemen, the top 3 RB's, and the top WR and Tight End were out, while the defense was a sieve? Is that what you mean by making a bad team better?While I agree with this assessment, based on the question who would I build a franchise around, it would be Manning. I believe Brady is clearly a better big game QB, but if you put both of them on bad teams, Peyton instantly makes them a contender (this is exactly what he did with the Colts even as a young QB). Peyton may not ever get them over the hump, but I am a person that would rather be in the mix every year. Brady is great, no question, and with all the right pieces around him he is a champion like no other. But put one of the two of them on Texans for instance, and I think Peyton makes them a contender first.Brady and it's not really close IMO. People always give so much credit to NE's D for their success and while the D does deserve a lot of credit, Brady has led an offense of virtually no-namers and made them very successful over the past 4 years.
Sure, Manning hasn't had the defense that Brady has had but Brady also hasn't had Marvin Harrison, Edge James, and Reggie Wayne on offense.
You're the one who wants to call him great. Great players aren't great all the time, but they're great when they need to be. Manning has never lived up to this standard. yes, I am a Pats fan (how'd you figure it out? It was the name, right? ) YOu want to put Manning in all these situations and say he'd be a difference maker. He's not going to be ina better position to be a difference maker than he's in now, and he's consistently failed to be the difference maker. That's the knock against him. Again, you keep comparing Brady throwing to Givens and Branch (7th and 3rd round picks) to Manning throwing to his first round picks of Harrison and Wayne. Manning HAS TO PERFORM. It's what his team was built for. Brady doesn't. He's there to make whatever play he can. It's a significant difference.The blame that Manning shoulders every year for play-off losses is unbelievable to me.
Brady has set a very high standard for quarterback play over the last five years. It's not unfair to compare Manning to it in a thread entitled P. Manning or T. Brady.Okay, if we want to blame Manning for not performing up to what is an absurdly high standard, that's fine. But let's not pretend that he's a worse QB than Brady because he fails to meet that standard.
OK, so admittedly the argument has changed, but Manning's behavior hasn't. Are we discussing how some people inaccurately characterized Manning back then, or are we discussing Manning's well documented struggles in the playoffs? And to recap those struggles, it's not like Manning has suddenly righted the ship. Yes, he has won three playoff games. But after failing to win a playoff game in his first three appearances, he's done even worse in their more recent losses. He let the team get shut out against a Jets team that got steamrolled the following week, threw four picks to lose the next game, then led his team to three points in a season when he'd thrown 49 TDs, and lost this most recent game three times despite a lot of good fortune that gave him opportunity after opportunity.And yeah, I remember a few years ago, "Manning can't win a play-off game," now it's "Manning can't even make it to the Super Bowl!" The arguments that people make against him are honestly pretty hilarious.
It's not that the Steelers won because he choked. The Steelers played a good game, and deserved to win. They did everything they were supposed to do (at least until the fumble). I don't blame Manning for failing to beat them. I don't think he's automatically supposed to pass for 350 yards and 3 TDs in the playoffs. And his stats in this game were arguably nothing to sneeze at, even if you count the Polamalu INT. It's that the Colts got extremely fortunate, and Manning failed to take advantage of it. The Colts had some huge opportunities when the Polamalu interception was overturned, and they recovered the fumble on the goalline, and yet in three straight opportunities, Manning did some of the worst things a quarterback can do - he threw a pick, he took two sacks and forced an embarrassingly dangerous hookshot pass for no gain, and he led an inept comeback attempt with bad game and clock management.So the Steelers won because he choked, eh? Or was it because the Steelers manhandled the Colts offensive line, got pressure on Manning, got themselves a 10-point lead and forced the Colts, and Manning, to play right into their hands? The blame that Manning shoulders every year for play-off losses is unbelievable to me.
This is an interesting argument, and one I hadn't heard before. I looked it up, and here's what we have:Brady has had one "0 TD" game. I don't think you can count the snow game, where he was 32 of 52 passing for 312 yards and ran for a score. His only zero TD game was against Pittsburgh, where he was off to a hot start (12 of 18 for 115 yards in a little over a quarter of play), but got injured.For what it's worth, Brady is 6-1 in play-off games where he throws 1 TD pass or less. Care to take a guess at what Manning's record is in the 6 games where he's thrown 1 TD pass or less? Think about that for a minute.
I used to be just like this when defending Drew Bledsoe back in the late 90s.Brady, any day of the week, for multiple reasons...
1. Testicular fortitude
I actually agree with you. Which is exactly why I said, in my very first post:Manning CHOSE to stay w/ the Colts. They don't have the money to spend on D, BECAUSE he taks up 20% of the cap space, or there about.They're certainly not built to contend in the near future unless Manning takes a mammoth paycut, and considering the joker head coaches he's played for, I don't blame him for taking the money while he can.If they're being paid the same salary, I'd take Manning in a heartbeat.
(edit for insertion of word)For what it's worth, Brady is 6-1 in play-off games where he throws 1 TD pass or less. Care to take a guess at what Manning's record is in the 6 games where he's thrown 1 TD pass or less? Think about that for a minute.To me, it's been Brady time and again. Blame the D's all you want, but you might want to take a gander at Peytons playoff loss numbers. They're not always bad, but never great when the team needs him to be.Okay, if we want to blame Manning for not performing up to what is an absurdly high standard, that's fine. But let's not pretend that he's a worse QB than Brady because he fails to meet that standard. So the Steelers won because he choked, eh? Or was it because the Steelers manhandled the Colts offensive line, got pressure on Manning, got themselves a 10-point lead and forced the Colts, and Manning, to play right into their hands? The blame that Manning shoulders every year for play-off losses is unbelievable to me.And yeah, I remember a few years ago, "Manning can't win a play-off game," now it's "Manning can't even make it to the Super Bowl!" The arguments that people make against him are honestly pretty hilarious.Because his play in the losses is often the reason for the loss. When you take the huge money, and build you team to win w/ offense, you can't be average in the playoff game. This year was the year they were going to do it. solid D, home field, and again he chokes in the playoffs.
Also, it's not just winning superbowls, he hasn't even gotten to one. He can't even win a conference championship.
I agree.This argument always turns into an argument of Brady's supporters saying "Brady is awesome because he's a big game QB" vs Manning's supporters saying "You can't blame Manning for his team's failures in the playoffs" but it should be much more than that. Brady's REGULAR season statistics aren't far off Manning's despite the fact that Manning is surrounded by vastly superior talent on offense.
Manning's career rating is 5 points better than Brady, he has a slightly better completion %, and Brady has a better TD-to-INT ratio. All this despite playing with a supporting cast of Brown, Givens, Branch, and Dillon/Faulk vs Harrison, Wayne, Stokely, James. Furthermore, and this would be tough to prove so it's only my opinon, I'd wager that Brady has faced tougher defenses over this span, having to play in the AFC East vs the South.
So, not only is Brady is a better big game QB than Manning, but an argument can be made that he's also a better regular season QB than Manning.
I'm not really trying to make an argument against Manning; Manning is a top QB in the league for sure. I just think it's pretty cut and dried that Brady is the best QB in the NFL right now.I agree.This argument always turns into an argument of Brady's supporters saying "Brady is awesome because he's a big game QB" vs Manning's supporters saying "You can't blame Manning for his team's failures in the playoffs" but it should be much more than that. Brady's REGULAR season statistics aren't far off Manning's despite the fact that Manning is surrounded by vastly superior talent on offense.
Manning's career rating is 5 points better than Brady, he has a slightly better completion %, and Brady has a better TD-to-INT ratio. All this despite playing with a supporting cast of Brown, Givens, Branch, and Dillon/Faulk vs Harrison, Wayne, Stokely, James. Furthermore, and this would be tough to prove so it's only my opinon, I'd wager that Brady has faced tougher defenses over this span, having to play in the AFC East vs the South.
So, not only is Brady is a better big game QB than Manning, but an argument can be made that he's also a better regular season QB than Manning.However, I hope you're wearing some sort of protective gear for when the Manning posse catches wind of this and goes on an all out attack.