Multiple Scores
Footballguy
Where was Peyton on nfln top 100 all time? I only watched the 20-40 shows so far.
#8Where was Peyton on nfln top 100 all time? I only watched the 20-40 shows so far.
In the same timeframe, Brady - has a better win % in the regular season- has a better won/loss record in the playoffs- won/earned 2 more mvps- led his team to an undefeated season- set the td record- has thrown for more yards/season and more tds/season- led his team to a SuperbowlIf anything, Manning has fallen back in the race to catch Brady.Bump. In the four seasons since my OP, Manning has:- Gone 51-13 in the regular season- Gone 2-3 in the playoffs- Won/earned 2 more MVPs, 2 1st team All Pro selections, and 4 Pro Bowl selections- Thrown for 4000+ yards each season and averaged more than 30 passing TDs per seasonSo... more regular season dominance, more great numbers, more honors/awards... but no more championships and just 2 more playoff wins.I ask again... best ever? If not already there, what does he need?
And? Your the only one talking about Weinke in this conversation.Chris Weinke beat Florida, won the Heisman, and won a national title.he already isSays the Vols fan.It is beyond me how you can say this when he couldn't Florida, win the heisman, or win a national title. He's a great QB, but stats don't make you the greatest.
Saying Manning shouldn't be considered the best ever because he didn't do those things is like saying Weinke should be considered the best ever because he did.And? Your the only one talking about Weinke in this conversation.Chris Weinke beat Florida, won the Heisman, and won a national title.he already isSays the Vols fan.It is beyond me how you can say this when he couldn't Florida, win the heisman, or win a national title. He's a great QB, but stats don't make you the greatest.
In his 1st 2 seasons (without Manning), Harrison averaged 850 yds and 7 TDs. His QBs were Jim Harbaugh, Paul Justin and Kelly Holcomb. Not sure how I missed this thread the first time around, but it's laughable to say that Manning is the best ever. Top-5? Sure. But not a clear-cut #1. Not even close.I disagree with that assumption. I can see by your post below (wanting to see Peyton after Harrison retires) that you probably place far more weight on Harrison's impact on Peyton's success than I do. I don't think Marvin is a HOFer without Peyton or the system in Indy.How do you explain the fac that Favre has better numbers, has a longer win streak, has the same number of Superbowls, has more MVPs, more Pro Bowls, and has done it with substantially worse surrounding talent, if Manning is better than him?Nope. He's better than Elway, Montana, Favre, and Marino right now, in my opinion. Even if he was hit by a bus tonight.I disagree with this. If his career ended today, he would still be rightfully ranked below Elway, Montana, and Favre among modern era QBs, as well as some of the older generation guys like Unitas and Graham. And depending on how Brady's career progresses from here, he may well be ranked below him as well.Already is.
Manning may have lost ground to Brady in "the race" for where they will ultimately rank in the list of all time QBs, but he is still ahead of Brady.In the same timeframe, Brady - has a better win % in the regular season- has a better won/loss record in the playoffs- won/earned 2 more mvps- led his team to an undefeated season- set the td record- has thrown for more yards/season and more tds/season- led his team to a SuperbowlIf anything, Manning has fallen back in the race to catch Brady.Bump. In the four seasons since my OP, Manning has:- Gone 51-13 in the regular season- Gone 2-3 in the playoffs- Won/earned 2 more MVPs, 2 1st team All Pro selections, and 4 Pro Bowl selections- Thrown for 4000+ yards each season and averaged more than 30 passing TDs per seasonSo... more regular season dominance, more great numbers, more honors/awards... but no more championships and just 2 more playoff wins.I ask again... best ever? If not already there, what does he need?
No it isn't, and I never said Manning shouldn't be considered. I just don't consider him the greatest. He's always been quite the choke artist regardless of his career stats. To use Weinke in your argument is illogical. Was he even in the league more than a year? How many games did he start in the NFL?Saying Manning shouldn't be considered the best ever because he didn't do those things is like saying Weinke should be considered the best ever because he did.And? Your the only one talking about Weinke in this conversation.Chris Weinke beat Florida, won the Heisman, and won a national title.he already isSays the Vols fan.It is beyond me how you can say this when he couldn't Florida, win the heisman, or win a national title. He's a great QB, but stats don't make you the greatest.
No it isn't, and I never said Manning shouldn't be considered. I just don't consider him the greatest. He's always been quite the choke artist regardless of his career stats. To use Weinke in your argument is illogical. Was he even in the league more than a year? How many games did he start in the NFL?Saying Manning shouldn't be considered the best ever because he didn't do those things is like saying Weinke should be considered the best ever because he did.And? Your the only one talking about Weinke in this conversation.Chris Weinke beat Florida, won the Heisman, and won a national title.he already isSays the Vols fan.It is beyond me how you can say this when he couldn't Florida, win the heisman, or win a national title. He's a great QB, but stats don't make you the greatest.
Manning - Better career totals- Healthier career- More yards- More TDsBrady - Better win%- Better best season (TD record, best offense in NFL history, INT record)- Better playoff performance- More championships- Fewer INTsManning's a better accumulator. He's led his team to more yards, but while playing in a dome with better talent and playing from behind more often. Brady's had the better career.Manning may have lost ground to Brady in "the race" for where they will ultimately rank in the list of all time QBs, but he is still ahead of Brady.In the same timeframe, Brady - has a better win % in the regular season- has a better won/loss record in the playoffs- won/earned 2 more mvps- led his team to an undefeated season- set the td record- has thrown for more yards/season and more tds/season- led his team to a SuperbowlIf anything, Manning has fallen back in the race to catch Brady.Bump. In the four seasons since my OP, Manning has:- Gone 51-13 in the regular season- Gone 2-3 in the playoffs- Won/earned 2 more MVPs, 2 1st team All Pro selections, and 4 Pro Bowl selections- Thrown for 4000+ yards each season and averaged more than 30 passing TDs per seasonSo... more regular season dominance, more great numbers, more honors/awards... but no more championships and just 2 more playoff wins.I ask again... best ever? If not already there, what does he need?
Great stuff BF.Manning - Better career totals- Healthier career- More yards- More TDsBrady - Better win%- Better best season (TD record, best offense in NFL history, INT record)- Better playoff performance- More championships- Fewer INTsManning's a better accumulator. He's led his team to more yards, but while playing in a dome with better talent and playing from behind more often. Brady's had the better career.Manning may have lost ground to Brady in "the race" for where they will ultimately rank in the list of all time QBs, but he is still ahead of Brady.In the same timeframe, Brady - has a better win % in the regular season- has a better won/loss record in the playoffs- won/earned 2 more mvps- led his team to an undefeated season- set the td record- has thrown for more yards/season and more tds/season- led his team to a SuperbowlIf anything, Manning has fallen back in the race to catch Brady.Bump. In the four seasons since my OP, Manning has:- Gone 51-13 in the regular season- Gone 2-3 in the playoffs- Won/earned 2 more MVPs, 2 1st team All Pro selections, and 4 Pro Bowl selections- Thrown for 4000+ yards each season and averaged more than 30 passing TDs per seasonSo... more regular season dominance, more great numbers, more honors/awards... but no more championships and just 2 more playoff wins.I ask again... best ever? If not already there, what does he need?
Manning has had stronger peak seasons. He has been the best QB in the NFL 4-5 times, compared to 2 times for Brady. 4 MVPs and 5 1st team All Pro selections for Manning, compared to 2 and 2 for Brady. Also, while only 1 year older, Manning has started 65 more games. Regardless of the reasons, Manning has delivered a lot more value to his team through all of those extra starts, which have generally been played at a very high level. Manning has very clearly had a better career to date IMO.'bostonfred said:Manning'Just Win Baby said:Manning may have lost ground to Brady in "the race" for where they will ultimately rank in the list of all time QBs, but he is still ahead of Brady.In the same timeframe, BradyBump. In the four seasons since my OP, Manning has: - Gone 51-13 in the regular season - Gone 2-3 in the playoffs - Won/earned 2 more MVPs, 2 1st team All Pro selections, and 4 Pro Bowl selections - Thrown for 4000+ yards each season and averaged more than 30 passing TDs per season So... more regular season dominance, more great numbers, more honors/awards... but no more championships and just 2 more playoff wins. I ask again... best ever? If not already there, what does he need?
- has a better win % in the regular season
- has a better won/loss record in the playoffs
- won/earned 2 more mvps
- led his team to an undefeated season
- set the td record
- has thrown for more yards/season and more tds/season
- led his team to a Superbowl
If anything, Manning has fallen back in the race to catch Brady.
- Better career totals
- Healthier career
- More yards
- More TDs
Brady
- Better win%
- Better best season (TD record, best offense in NFL history, INT record)
- Better playoff performance
- More championships
- Fewer INTs
Manning's a better accumulator. He's led his team to more yards, but while playing in a dome with better talent and playing from behind more often.
Brady's had the better career.
Really? This sentence doesnt even make sense. If he had the better talent then why was he playing from behind more often? You dont think the Patriots have had the better players over the last 8-10 years? Not only has Brady had the more talented teams, he has had the better coach. As a matter of fact, the Patriots having the better kicker is a big reason why Brady has 3 SB's instead of one like Manning. I cant imagine what Mannings numbers would look like right now behind that Pats Oline and Belichik running up scores. Manning is the better QB, Brady is better at being on a better team.'bostonfred said:Manning - Better career totals'Just Win Baby said:Manning may have lost ground to Brady in "the race" for where they will ultimately rank in the list of all time QBs, but he is still ahead of Brady.In the same timeframe, Brady - has a better win % in the regular seasonBump. In the four seasons since my OP, Manning has:
- Gone 51-13 in the regular season
- Gone 2-3 in the playoffs
- Won/earned 2 more MVPs, 2 1st team All Pro selections, and 4 Pro Bowl selections
- Thrown for 4000+ yards each season and averaged more than 30 passing TDs per season
So... more regular season dominance, more great numbers, more honors/awards... but no more championships and just 2 more playoff wins.
I ask again... best ever? If not already there, what does he need?
- has a better won/loss record in the playoffs
- won/earned 2 more mvps
- led his team to an undefeated season
- set the td record
- has thrown for more yards/season and more tds/season
- led his team to a Superbowl
If anything, Manning has fallen back in the race to catch Brady.
- Healthier career
- More yards
- More TDs
Brady
- Better win%
- Better best season (TD record, best offense in NFL history, INT record)
- Better playoff performance
- More championships
- Fewer INTs
Manning's a better accumulator. He's led his team to more yards, but while playing in a dome with better talent and playing from behind more often.
Brady's had the better career.
Yes, well those of us who have watched football for longer than three years know that Manning has had far superior offensive talent around him throughout his entire career. The notion that Manning would have better numbers if he played on the teams Brady has played on is laughable.As for championships, Manning has had plenty of shots, and the main reason Brady has three rings while he is stuck on one is that he craps the bed in big games/playoff games whereas Brady has ice in his veins.Really? This sentence doesnt even make sense. If he had the better talent then why was he playing from behind more often? You dont think the Patriots have had the better players over the last 8-10 years? Not only has Brady had the more talented teams, he has had the better coach. As a matter of fact, the Patriots having the better kicker is a big reason why Brady has 3 SB's instead of one like Manning. I cant imagine what Mannings numbers would look like right now behind that Pats Oline and Belichik running up scores.
Manning is the better QB, Brady is better at being on a better team.
Spot on. Brady never had a RB as talented as Edge, and only briefly had Moss (whereas Manning had Harrison, Wayne & D Clark - all more talented than the corresponding receivers Brady threw to...minus the short Moss stint). It's impossible to argue that Brady had more offensive talent around him.Additionally, the Colts - while not as good defensively as the Pats - still had some pretty good defensive talent. Dwight Freeney, Bob Sanders, Robert Mathis, Gary Brackett. Not exactly junk. Oh yeah, they were also coached by Tony Dungy....if memory serves, people thought he was kinda a great defensive mind.Yes, well those of us who have watched football for longer than three years know that Manning has had far superior offensive talent around him throughout his entire career. The notion that Manning would have better numbers if he played on the teams Brady has played on is laughable.As for championships, Manning has had plenty of shots, and the main reason Brady has three rings while he is stuck on one is that he craps the bed in big games/playoff games whereas Brady has ice in his veins.Really? This sentence doesnt even make sense. If he had the better talent then why was he playing from behind more often? You dont think the Patriots have had the better players over the last 8-10 years? Not only has Brady had the more talented teams, he has had the better coach. As a matter of fact, the Patriots having the better kicker is a big reason why Brady has 3 SB's instead of one like Manning. I cant imagine what Mannings numbers would look like right now behind that Pats Oline and Belichik running up scores.
Manning is the better QB, Brady is better at being on a better team.
IMO had Manning been on the Pats for his entire career, his numbers would probably not be as good as they are, but they would be better than Brady's have been.Yes, well those of us who have watched football for longer than three years know that Manning has had far superior offensive talent around him throughout his entire career. The notion that Manning would have better numbers if he played on the teams Brady has played on is laughable.As for championships, Manning has had plenty of shots, and the main reason Brady has three rings while he is stuck on one is that he craps the bed in big games/playoff games whereas Brady has ice in his veins.Really? This sentence doesnt even make sense. If he had the better talent then why was he playing from behind more often? You dont think the Patriots have had the better players over the last 8-10 years? Not only has Brady had the more talented teams, he has had the better coach. As a matter of fact, the Patriots having the better kicker is a big reason why Brady has 3 SB's instead of one like Manning. I cant imagine what Mannings numbers would look like right now behind that Pats Oline and Belichik running up scores.
Manning is the better QB, Brady is better at being on a better team.
Game Pass Rk Player From To Tm GS Att Yds TD Int Sk Y/A SkYds AY/A ANY/A1 Peyton Manning 2004 2010 CLT 112 3827 29943 232 88 105 7.82 643 8.00 7.622 Tom Brady 2004 2010 NWE 97 3166 24511 192 65 140 7.74 914 8.03 7.413 Philip Rivers 2004 2010 SDG 80 2455 19661 136 58 140 8.01 868 8.05 7.284 Tony Romo 2004 2010 DAL 61 2070 16650 118 62 106 8.04 660 7.84 7.155 Aaron Rodgers 2005 2010 GNB 47 1611 12723 87 32 124 7.90 800 8.08 7.046 Drew Brees 2004 2010 TOT 110 3913 29653 206 101 137 7.58 980 7.47 6.977 Matt Schaub 2004 2010 TOT 56 1987 15457 83 52 108 7.78 699 7.44 6.728 Donovan McNabb 2004 2010 TOT 91 3101 23199 143 66 211 7.48 1355 7.45 6.569 Kurt Warner 2004 2009 TOT 66 2382 17897 106 63 146 7.51 952 7.21 6.4210 Ben Roethlisberger 2004 2010 PIT 98 2800 22502 144 86 274 8.04 1821 7.68 6.41
But in a QB friendly offense, and possibly while benefiting from cheating. Venom injection successful.Just to inject some venom into this discussion.Please lets all just forget that Peyton manning has always had better offensive weapons (exception of 2007) and since 2006 the Pats D has found a way to be worse than the colts.Brady has been more successful, set records that were equally impressive and some more so, with a lot less talent around him than manning.
Clutch don't mean perfect.Brady's had three really standout seasons -- '07 and '10, obviously, but also 2009 stands out from the rest of his career (before remembering that he put up those impressive numbers against one of the hardest schedules in the league that season). Interestingly enough, he's 2-3 in the playoffs during those three years. To the people who argue that Brady is the clutchiest clutch quarterback of all-time, it's probably not worth asking them why when he's at his best his team wasn't as successful as when he wasn't as good.
If you really believe this, then you should be able to pick out some of those "stronger peak seasons" in response to this post, which was there when you made the above response. I'll assume you didn't see it:Manning has had stronger peak seasons.'bostonfred said:Manning - Better career totals- Healthier career- More yards- More TDsBrady - Better win%- Better best season (TD record, best offense in NFL history, INT record)- Better playoff performance- More championships- Fewer INTsManning's a better accumulator. He's led his team to more yards, but while playing in a dome with better talent and playing from behind more often. Brady's had the better career.
'bostonfred said:Simple litmus test for Manning vs. Bradyick a season for Manning, any season, and I'll show you a better season from Brady. Use any criteria you want. Take his 49 TD season, for example. That was incredible! Oh, but Brady had 50 TDs. And led his team to the Superbowl. But Manning had another MVP season, when he was co-MVP with Steve McNair. Brady's MVP season, where he set the INT record, and led yet another top offense despite losing all of their top running backs and their HoF receiver, was better.What about Manning's Superbowl winning season? His 3 TD, 7 INT performance pales in comparison to any of Brady's Superbowl wins. What about Manning's Superbowl losing season, coming off an MVP? Brady's Superbowl losing season, he was also MVP, and had thrown 50 TDs. The closest one I can come up with that favors Manning is best rookie season - Manning's 26 TDs, 28 INTs was impressive as a rookie. And Brady effectively red-shirted his rookie year. But change the criteria to first year as starter, and Brady, after holding a clipboard behind Bledsoe as a fourth stringer, led the Patriots to a Superbowl. Manning's an accumulator. It's really impressive accumulation, but it's just not as impressive as Brady's accomplishments in the same era.
The answer was in the part of my post you cut off for some reason:If you really believe this, then you should be able to pick out some of those "stronger peak seasons" in response to this post, which was there when you made the above response. I'll assume you didn't see it:Manning has had stronger peak seasons.'bostonfred said:Manning
- Better career totals
- Healthier career
- More yards
- More TDs
Brady
- Better win%
- Better best season (TD record, best offense in NFL history, INT record)
- Better playoff performance
- More championships
- Fewer INTs
Manning's a better accumulator. He's led his team to more yards, but while playing in a dome with better talent and playing from behind more often.
Brady's had the better career.
'bostonfred said:Simple litmus test for Manning vs. Brady:
...
I notice you also chose to ignore the additional 4 seasons' worth of top caliber QB play Manning has provided over Brady. He has played more than 30% more games, generally at a very high level. If one is to evaluate careers, that cannot be completely discounted, but it seems to be generally ignored by those who would rank Brady higher, or somehow lumped under an "accumulator" label, which is laughable.Manning has had stronger peak seasons. He has been the best QB in the NFL 4-5 times, compared to 2 times for Brady. 4 MVPs and 5 1st team All Pro selections for Manning, compared to 2 and 2 for Brady.
Also, while only 1 year older, Manning has started 65 more games. Regardless of the reasons, Manning has delivered a lot more value to his team through all of those extra starts, which have generally been played at a very high level.
Manning has very clearly had a better career to date IMO.
Nobody's ignoring Manning's longer and healthier career. This isn't news. It's on my list of things that favor Manning. You're conceding that Manning hasn't been as impressive as Brady in their best seasons. You counter that he's been impressive during more seasons. What do you want to call it besides accumulation?Maybe you associate Manning's accumulation of stats with something negative, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Manning's been one of the best - arguably the best - accumulators of stats in an era where passing stats have been inflated. Brady's been the best quarterback of the era so far. Both have a chance to go down as the best quarterback of all time, but Brady's done more to earn that title so far.I notice you also chose to ignore the additional 4 seasons' worth of top caliber QB play Manning has provided over Brady. He has played more than 30% more games, generally at a very high level. If one is to evaluate careers, that cannot be completely discounted, but it seems to be generally ignored by those who would rank Brady higher, or somehow lumped under an "accumulator" label, which is laughable.
No I'm not. How do you get that from a quote like this? "Manning has had stronger peak seasons. He has been the best QB in the NFL 4-5 times, compared to 2 times for Brady." In fact, you are for some reason saying I'm conceding something that is the exact opposite of what I said in multiple posts that you have responded to.You're conceding that Manning hasn't been as impressive as Brady in their best seasons.
Using the term accumulator definitely minimizes Manning's accomplishments. And I'm quite certain that is your intent.You counter that he's been impressive during more seasons. What do you want to call it besides accumulation? Maybe you associate Manning's accumulation of stats with something negative, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Manning's been one of the best - arguably the best - accumulators of stats in an era where passing stats have been inflated.
No he hasn't. Can you cite a single source that is not New England-/Pats-based that would agree with this statement? I know you might not care about that, but you are clearly biased, so we need objective sources. (And I am not biased for Manning; I am a Chargers/Rivers fan.) For example, NFL Network just ranked the top 100 NFL players of all time last fall, and they had Manning #8 and Brady #21. I certainly think their rankings had issues, so I'm not claiming their rankings were necessarily perfect. My question is whether any objective ranking has had Brady higher.Brady's been the best quarterback of the era so far. Both have a chance to go down as the best quarterback of all time, but Brady's done more to earn that title so far.
That was before this years season, which further proved that without the weapons manning cant deliver the same success. Also that Brady (with belichick's direction) can take anybody and elevate them to the top most level.I would like to say that the only 3 things that should even matter in this discussion are: Individual Success, Talent around them and Milestones. But doing so would heavily favor Brady.No I'm not. How do you get that from a quote like this? "Manning has had stronger peak seasons. He has been the best QB in the NFL 4-5 times, compared to 2 times for Brady."In fact, you are for some reason saying I'm conceding something that is the exact opposite of what I said in multiple posts that you have responded to.You're conceding that Manning hasn't been as impressive as Brady in their best seasons.
Using the term accumulator definitely minimizes Manning's accomplishments. And I'm quite certain that is your intent.You counter that he's been impressive during more seasons. What do you want to call it besides accumulation?
Maybe you associate Manning's accumulation of stats with something negative, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Manning's been one of the best - arguably the best - accumulators of stats in an era where passing stats have been inflated.No he hasn't. Can you cite a single source that is not New England-/Pats-based that would agree with this statement? I know you might not care about that, but you are clearly biased, so we need objective sources. (And I am not biased for Manning; I am a Chargers/Rivers fan.)For example, NFL Network just ranked the top 100 NFL players of all time last fall, and they had Manning #8 and Brady #21. I certainly think their rankings had issues, so I'm not claiming their rankings were necessarily perfect. My question is whether any objective ranking has had Brady higher.Brady's been the best quarterback of the era so far. Both have a chance to go down as the best quarterback of all time, but Brady's done more to earn that title so far.
I asked you specifically to show a season Manning had that was more impressive than a similar season from Brady. I asked you to pick your criteria. I've asked you repeatedly. You have repeatedly answered that "Manning has had stronger peak seasons", but you aren't backing it up in any way. You just keep repeating that he's had MORE great seasons. Not that he's had STRONGER peak seasons. You're the one making the accumulator argument, whether you intend to or not. You keep doing it, then getting mad at me for saying that that's what you'redoing. I get that you think his accumulation is impressive, because you've repeated it in just about every post so far. Here's your arguments in favor of Manning:best QB in the NFL 4-5 times, compared to 2 times for Brady4 MVPs and 5 1st team All Pro selections for Manning, compared to 2 and 2 for BradyManning has started 65 more gamesManning has delivered a lot more value to his team through all of those extra starts, which have generally been played at a very high leveladditional 4 seasons' worth of top caliber QB play Manning has provided over Brady. He has played more than 30% more games, generally at a very high level. Every single one of those is about his accumulation of good seasons. Every one of them. Now go ahead and show me how you've posted the "exact opposite".No I'm not. How do you get that from a quote like this? "Manning has had stronger peak seasons. He has been the best QB in the NFL 4-5 times, compared to 2 times for Brady."In fact, you are for some reason saying I'm conceding something that is the exact opposite of what I said in multiple posts that you have responded to.You're conceding that Manning hasn't been as impressive as Brady in their best seasons.
Putting it out there for the third time since you said you aren't conceding this point.Simple litmus test for Manning vs. Bradyick a season for Manning, any season, and I'll show you a better season from Brady. Use any criteria you want. Take his 49 TD season, for example. That was incredible! Oh, but Brady had 50 TDs. And led his team to the Superbowl. But Manning had another MVP season, when he was co-MVP with Steve McNair. Brady's MVP season, where he set the INT record, and led yet another top offense despite losing all of their top running backs and their HoF receiver, was better.What about Manning's Superbowl winning season? His 3 TD, 7 INT performance pales in comparison to any of Brady's Superbowl wins. What about Manning's Superbowl losing season, coming off an MVP? Brady's Superbowl losing season, he was also MVP, and had thrown 50 TDs. The closest one I can come up with that favors Manning is best rookie season - Manning's 26 TDs, 28 INTs was impressive as a rookie. And Brady effectively red-shirted his rookie year. But change the criteria to first year as starter, and Brady, after holding a clipboard behind Bledsoe as a fourth stringer, led the Patriots to a Superbowl. Manning's an accumulator. It's really impressive accumulation, but it's just not as impressive as Brady's accomplishments in the same era.
You said I conceded Brady has been better in his best seasons. I have never conceded that, because it isn't true. I specifically said that Manning has been the best QB in the NFL at least twice as often as Brady. Best. QB. in. the. NFL. That's the best peak performance a QB can get. To me saying Manning has been the best QB in the NFL at least twice as often as Brady shows that Manning's has had stronger, or at least more sustained, peak performance.I asked you specifically to show a season Manning had that was more impressive than a similar season from Brady. I asked you to pick your criteria. I've asked you repeatedly. You have repeatedly answered that "Manning has had stronger peak seasons", but you aren't backing it up in any way. You just keep repeating that he's had MORE great seasons. Not that he's had STRONGER peak seasons. You're the one making the accumulator argument, whether you intend to or not. You keep doing it, then getting mad at me for saying that that's what you'redoing. I get that you think his accumulation is impressive, because you've repeated it in just about every post so far. Here's your arguments in favor of Manning: best QB in the NFL 4-5 times, compared to 2 times for Brady 4 MVPs and 5 1st team All Pro selections for Manning, compared to 2 and 2 for Brady Manning has started 65 more games Manning has delivered a lot more value to his team through all of those extra starts, which have generally been played at a very high level additional 4 seasons' worth of top caliber QB play Manning has provided over Brady. He has played more than 30% more games, generally at a very high level. Every single one of those is about his accumulation of good seasons. Every one of them. Now go ahead and show me how you've posted the "exact opposite".No I'm not. How do you get that from a quote like this? "Manning has had stronger peak seasons. He has been the best QB in the NFL 4-5 times, compared to 2 times for Brady." In fact, you are for some reason saying I'm conceding something that is the exact opposite of what I said in multiple posts that you have responded to.You're conceding that Manning hasn't been as impressive as Brady in their best seasons.
Just addressed it. Your bias skews your comparisons.Putting it out there for the third time since you said you aren't conceding this point.Simple litmus test for Manning vs. Bradyick a season for Manning, any season, and I'll show you a better season from Brady. Use any criteria you want. Take his 49 TD season, for example. That was incredible! Oh, but Brady had 50 TDs. And led his team to the Superbowl. But Manning had another MVP season, when he was co-MVP with Steve McNair. Brady's MVP season, where he set the INT record, and led yet another top offense despite losing all of their top running backs and their HoF receiver, was better.What about Manning's Superbowl winning season? His 3 TD, 7 INT performance pales in comparison to any of Brady's Superbowl wins. What about Manning's Superbowl losing season, coming off an MVP? Brady's Superbowl losing season, he was also MVP, and had thrown 50 TDs. The closest one I can come up with that favors Manning is best rookie season - Manning's 26 TDs, 28 INTs was impressive as a rookie. And Brady effectively red-shirted his rookie year. But change the criteria to first year as starter, and Brady, after holding a clipboard behind Bledsoe as a fourth stringer, led the Patriots to a Superbowl. Manning's an accumulator. It's really impressive accumulation, but it's just not as impressive as Brady's accomplishments in the same era.
You left out another important fact: Despite Brady throwing 81 more attempts, he threw fewer INTs (10 for Manning 2004, 8 for Brady 2007). And with Brady setting the INT record last year (the good one, not the Favre one), while Manning threw a dozen picks in a three game stretch, it seems like this was no fluke. Another impressive fact about that season is that, unlike Manning, who played with Harrison, Wayne, Clark and Edge for years, Brady was in his first year playing with Welker and Moss. It's hard to say how much they would have improved if they'd stayed healthy together for years in the same offense, the way Manning had the luxury of doing.And, by the way, Manning's best season statistically (2004) was clearly better than Brady's best season statistically (2007). Brady had one more passing TD but attempted 81 more passes. Brady had more yards, but Manning's ypa was much better, so again it was due to the extra attempts.
I'm glad that's important to you. Tom Brady has a better QB rating than Peyton Manning over their careers. 95.2 to 94.9. Interestingly, he's done this despite playing outdoors. Brady has a better passer rating by every split: indoors, outdoors, home, and away.Manning had a better QB rating.
You're right that I want to give some credit to Brady for the team success. Manning throwing 49 TDs in a 12-4 season where he lost in the second round of the playoffs isn't "clearly better" than Brady throwing 50 TDs in a 16-0 season, and taking the Patriots to the Superbowl. But if you don't think Brady deserves credit for leading his team to an all time great season, then let's look at the other teams with a #4 ranked defense or better this year and see how many of them went 16-0. Were there any? What about the year before? Or the year before that? If having the #4 defense is a ticket to 16-0, then we can go ahead and dismiss the argument that Brady deserves credit for the team's success.Brady's team had more success in 2007 than Manning's did in 2004, and you want to give more credit for that to Brady, and thus say Brady's season was better, but it's team success. Brady deserves plenty of credit for it, but not sole credit... the Pats had a great defense and a great coach that season in addition to Brady. Consider that the Pats' defense in 2007 was #4 in yards allowed and #4 in points allowed, while the Colts defense in 2004 was #19 and #29, respectively. The Pats offense certainly helped the Pats defense by running up the score early and often, but that's not enough to explain away this gap. It's apples and oranges to compare team success for these teams.
Manning has 37,874 passing yards. Barring injury, he should finish this season 9th all time, behind Marino, Favre, Elway, Moon, Tarkenton, Testaverde, Bledsoe, and Fouts. He is currently 23,487 yards behind Marino. That is still a substantial gap. Manning has averaged 4176 passing yards per season in his career. If he maintains that pace, he'll need five more seasons after this season to claim the mark. If his pace slips, maybe he'll need another season beyond that. Note I'm assuming Favre doesn't advance much, if at all, beyond Marino's mark.
Manning has 278 passing TDs. With 23 more, he will be in 4th place all time, behind only Marino, Favre, and Tarkenton. Depending on how far Favre advances beyond Marino, Manning would stand a very good chance to become the all time leader in four more seasons after this season.
His career QB rating is 94.6, which is 2nd all time to Steve Young. I assume it is fairly unlikely that he can elevate it above Young, and it is possible it could ultimately drop below Kurt Warner, who is in third place.
Manning is 10th in all time completions, but "only" 13th in all time passing attempts.
Manning holds the single season records for passing TDs and QB rating.
Manning holds the record for both most career seasons with 4000 passing yards and most consecutive seasons with 4000 passing yards.
Manning's consecutive starts streak is second only to Favre's for QBs in NFL history. It is certainly possible he could play long enough to pass Favre, though that is a long way off and would obviously require sustained durability.
In 9 seasons, Manning has 2 MVP awards (2003 & 2004), an NFL Man of the Year award (2005), and a Super Bowl MVP award (2007), has been to 7 Pro Bowls, and has been selected All Pro 6 times.
This is very clearly one of Brady's biggest positives in this comparison. No doubt about it. However, passer rating takes into account interceptions along with a number of other elements, and Manning's was still better. My read on that is that passer rating is saying that 9.9% TD percentage, 2.0% interception percentage, and 9.2 ypa trumps 8.7% TD percentage, 1.4% interception percentage, and 8.3 ypa... and I agree with that.You left out another important fact: Despite Brady throwing 81 more attempts, he threw fewer INTs (10 for Manning 2004, 8 for Brady 2007). And with Brady setting the INT record last year (the good one, not the Favre one), while Manning threw a dozen picks in a three game stretch, it seems like this was no fluke.And, by the way, Manning's best season statistically (2004) was clearly better than Brady's best season statistically (2007). Brady had one more passing TD but attempted 81 more passes. Brady had more yards, but Manning's ypa was much better, so again it was due to the extra attempts.
I don't think it's particularly hard to say. We're not talking about rookies here... Welker and Moss were veterans. IMO you are technically correct that more experience together could help, but the difference would have been trivial.Another impressive fact about that season is that, unlike Manning, who played with Harrison, Wayne, Clark and Edge for years, Brady was in his first year playing with Welker and Moss. It's hard to say how much they would have improved if they'd stayed healthy together for years in the same offense, the way Manning had the luxury of doing.
Out of curiosity, what source do you use for career splits?I'm glad that's important to you. Tom Brady has a better QB rating than Peyton Manning over their careers. 95.2 to 94.9. Interestingly, he's done this despite playing outdoors. Brady has a better passer rating by every split: indoors, outdoors, home, and away.Manning had a better QB rating.
Please remind me... did any of those teams have BB at head coach?But if you don't think Brady deserves credit for leading his team to an all time great season, then let's look at the other teams with a #4 ranked defense or better this year and see how many of them went 16-0. Were there any? What about the year before? Or the year before that? If having the #4 defense is a ticket to 16-0, then we can go ahead and dismiss the argument that Brady deserves credit for the team's success.
You are comparing apples and oranges here. I cited the TD record (at the time) as one of many things I mentioned in the OP. Of course I would list it as I listed the case for Manning. I didn't put any particular emphasis on it.If setting the TD record and getting more yards, TDs, wins, and Superbowl appearances don't matter, then why are they featured so prominently in your own post at the start of this thread?
Matt Cassel:2008- (15 games started)63.4% Completion, 3,693 Yds, 21 TD, 11 Int.2010- (14 games started)60.2% Completion, 3,001 Yds, 27 TD, 5 Int.2008 Colts:RB: Joseph Addai, Mike HartTE: Dallas ClarkWR: Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Pierre Garcon, Anothony Gonzalez2008 Pats (best offensive unit they have had ever, until 2011):RB: Laurence Maroney, Sammy Morris, LaMont JordanTE: Benjamin WatsonWR: Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Jabar Gaffney, Sam AikenEven the year that Cassel played on the best Patriots roster the Colts roster was still more stacked with talent.Put Matt Cassel on ANY Colts team over the last 10 years and the Colts dont win 11 games in any season. I cant believe Patriots fans are trying to use supporting cast, or lack of it, for an argument.
In 2008Addai rushed for less than 600 yards, Hart managed to rush for 9 yards. Garcon caught 4 passes, and Harrison and Gonzalez had less than 700 yards. Clark had the second best season of his career and Reggie Wayne did well but that was about it.The 2008 Colts were not stacked.Matt Cassel:2008- (15 games started)63.4% Completion, 3,693 Yds, 21 TD, 11 Int.2010- (14 games started)60.2% Completion, 3,001 Yds, 27 TD, 5 Int.2008 Colts:RB: Joseph Addai, Mike HartTE: Dallas ClarkWR: Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Pierre Garcon, Anothony Gonzalez2008 Pats (best offensive unit they have had ever, until 2011):RB: Laurence Maroney, Sammy Morris, LaMont JordanTE: Benjamin WatsonWR: Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Jabar Gaffney, Sam AikenEven the year that Cassel played on the best Patriots roster the Colts roster was still more stacked with talent.Put Matt Cassel on ANY Colts team over the last 10 years and the Colts dont win 11 games in any season. I cant believe Patriots fans are trying to use supporting cast, or lack of it, for an argument.
Um, well the team went from being 16-0 and shattering some of the greatest records in NFL history to a middle of the road offense going 11-5. So if you're arguing that Brady was made by his supporting cast, that doesn't really make any sense.Not to mention that most people would agree that Brady's supporting cast got better later in his career, but Manning had a 5-6 year head start surrounded by offensive HOF/elite players while Brady was throwing to David Givens and Jabar Gaffney.Put Matt Cassel on ANY Colts team over the last 10 years and the Colts dont win 11 games in any season. I cant believe Patriots fans are trying to use supporting cast, or lack of it, for an argument.
I meant to get back to you on this one since it was clearly important to you: http://top100.nfl.com/Can you cite a single source that is not New England-/Pats-based that would agree with this statement? I know you might not care about that, but you are clearly biased, so we need objective sources. (And I am not biased for Manning; I am a Chargers/Rivers fan.)For example, NFL Network just ranked the top 100 NFL players of all time last fall, and they had Manning #8 and Brady #21. I certainly think their rankings had issues, so I'm not claiming their rankings were necessarily perfect. My question is whether any objective ranking has had Brady higher.
I feel that if he's close enough to your 'next tier' that one game plunges him into it, then he should already be there. I've got Manning and Montana neck and neck in the same tier at the top with this next game not changing a whole lot considering their body of work. Football is a team game and there's too much emphasis on QBs and Super Bowls when they're not the only ones determining the outcome. If Seattle wins is it because Russel Wilson is a top QB? Unless he has a spectacular game, probably not, and he's not the main reason Seattle is in the Super Bowl (just like how Kaep wasn't the main reason SF has been to 2 straight NFC championship games).Conclusion:
I have always felt that Montana and Unitas are the best QBs in NFL history. I have a hard time separating them since their eras were so different. I would put both Manning and Brady in the next tier with some others. If the Broncos win this Super Bowl, odds are Manning will have to play well and will win SBMVP. If that happens, I think he cements his place at #3 all time, at least, and possibly elevates himself into the top tier with Montana and Unitas.
Thoughts?
Just curious what your thoughts are now. The points you made about Brady's record-breaking season now apply to Peyton. Does that mean you know believe Peyton is better? If Peyton wins the big one the same season he broke all of the records, something Brady wasn't able to do, does that mean that Brady would have to do the same before he could be considered in the same tier?Putting it out there for the third time since you said you aren't conceding this point.Simple litmus test for Manning vs. Brady: Pick a season for Manning, any season, and I'll show you a better season from Brady. Use any criteria you want. Take his 49 TD season, for example. That was incredible! Oh, but Brady had 50 TDs. And led his team to the Superbowl. But Manning had another MVP season, when he was co-MVP with Steve McNair. Brady's MVP season, where he set the INT record, and led yet another top offense despite losing all of their top running backs and their HoF receiver, was better. What about Manning's Superbowl winning season? His 3 TD, 7 INT performance pales in comparison to any of Brady's Superbowl wins. What about Manning's Superbowl losing season, coming off an MVP? Brady's Superbowl losing season, he was also MVP, and had thrown 50 TDs. The closest one I can come up with that favors Manning is best rookie season - Manning's 26 TDs, 28 INTs was impressive as a rookie. And Brady effectively red-shirted his rookie year. But change the criteria to first year as starter, and Brady, after holding a clipboard behind Bledsoe as a fourth stringer, led the Patriots to a Superbowl. Manning's an accumulator. It's really impressive accumulation, but it's just not as impressive as Brady's accomplishments in the same era.
Its a fair question. No, but it does mean that there's a conversation again. Let me explain why. The reason I made this statement wasn't because I believe that the best qb is defined by the best statistical season, or total career numbers, or postseason play, or ability to succeed in different offensive schemes, or ability to play at an all time level with elite receivers, or ability to succeed with subpar receivers.Jrodicus said:Just curious what your thoughts are now. The points you made about Brady's record-breaking season now apply to Peyton. Does that mean you know believe Peyton is better? If Peyton wins the big one the same season he broke all of the records, something Brady wasn't able to do, does that mean that Brady would have to do the same before he could be considered in the same tier?Putting it out there for the third time since you said you aren't conceding this point.Simple litmus test for Manning vs. Brady: Pick a season for Manning, any season, and I'll show you a better season from Brady. Use any criteria you want. Take his 49 TD season, for example. That was incredible! Oh, but Brady had 50 TDs. And led his team to the Superbowl. But Manning had another MVP season, when he was co-MVP with Steve McNair. Brady's MVP season, where he set the INT record, and led yet another top offense despite losing all of their top running backs and their HoF receiver, was better. What about Manning's Superbowl winning season? His 3 TD, 7 INT performance pales in comparison to any of Brady's Superbowl wins. What about Manning's Superbowl losing season, coming off an MVP? Brady's Superbowl losing season, he was also MVP, and had thrown 50 TDs. The closest one I can come up with that favors Manning is best rookie season - Manning's 26 TDs, 28 INTs was impressive as a rookie. And Brady effectively red-shirted his rookie year. But change the criteria to first year as starter, and Brady, after holding a clipboard behind Bledsoe as a fourth stringer, led the Patriots to a Superbowl. Manning's an accumulator. It's really impressive accumulation, but it's just not as impressive as Brady's accomplishments in the same era.
I agree. People have no problem calling Montana the best QB in history and he had the GOAT to throw to.I don't understand QB's being penalized for having good WRs.