Pick the 2 Best QBs... (1 Viewer)

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Do you think Manning actually plays as well during the post season as he does in the regular season?

Yes I do. He's had some bad games in the regular season, and he's had some in the post season. Every QB is going to have some bad games, and if none of them happen in the post season, you're just lucky. Not that Brady doesn't have bad games in the postseason, but he's been lucky to have the rest of his team bail him out when it happened. When Peyton has a bad game though, the Colts are pretty much sunk.Tell you what, let's play a game. Without looking them up, choose which QB put up which of the following postseason games.

Yds TD INT

115 0 0

137 0 2

144 1 0

145 1 0

194 1 0

201 1 0

207 2 0

227 0 0

236 2 0

237 1 1

237 1 4

238 0 1

304 3 0

312 0 1

354 3 1

377 5 0

457 4 1

Well GregR, if you think Manning has played as well during the post season as he does in the regular season, there's no way I'm going to change your mind. I know that Manning has some incredible games vs. Denver in the playoffs etc... where they ran up the score but ultimately when they finally came up against someone formidable, he didn't perform. Against stiff competition, Brady seems to do just that. On this, we can just agree to disagree I guess or until Manning wins a SB I'll jump to your side of the fence. Until then......tic toc

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Thanks for looking that up and making my argument look bad. 

Maybe it is more of a perception, but Brady seems to play his best in the SB and playoffs all together.  Are Brady's numbers the same in the regular season as the playoffs or does he truly up his game like we think?

In our world of football, whether it is fair or not, qb's get bonus points more than any other position for winning SB's.  When you are the QB that has recently won 3 out of 4 and has played magnificantly in each.......you get the title of best QB in the NFL.

The only part of Brady's game that improves in the playoffs is he throws fewer picks. His passing yardage stays constant (drops by 1 yard per game in the playoffs) and his Tds per game drop by 20%.216 yds/playoff game vs 217yds/reg season game

1.2 TD/playoff game vs 1.5 TD/reg season game

.3 INT/playoff game vs .8 INT/reg season game

He averages 2 more passing attempts per game in the post season than in the regular season.

I think the drop in playoff interceptions is pretty significant, wouldn't you say.

 

[valhallan]

Yes I do. He's had some bad games in the regular season, and he's had some in the post season. Every QB is going to have some bad games, and if none of them happen in the post season, you're just lucky. Not that Brady doesn't have bad games in the postseason, but he's been lucky to have the rest of his team bail him out when it happened. When Peyton has a bad game though, the Colts are pretty much sunk.Tell you what, let's play a game. Without looking them up, choose which QB put up which of the following postseason games.

Brady's had a few below average games, but never absolute disasters like Manning has. Brady has never thrown more than one pick in postseason game, Manning has twice.Brady has never completed fewer than 50% of his passes in a postseason game, Manning has three times. As for Brady's team bailing him out, they certainly didn't do a very good job in XXXVI when they surrundered a 14-point lead in the fourth quarter or XXXVIII when they let Delhomme light 'em up for 300 yards and 3 scores. The fact is Brady has never actually lost a game on his own in the playoffs, Manning has. More than once.

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

I thought this thread was about picking the two best, not the two best remembered.

That's a valid point, but it doesn't escape the fact that SB wins and postseason success are HUGE determinents in how players, particularly QBs, are remembered. Take a look at Terry Bradshaw's numbers. He wasn't the "best" QB. He didn't have the best mechanics, the most TDs, the highest rating. He won Super Bowls. Four of them. And he's in the Hall of Fame as a result. Jim Kelly...a very prolific QB certainly, but arguably never the best (again, in terms of skills and ability) during his playing career. But he got into the Hall of Fame on his first try. Why? Postseason success and 4 straight Super Bowl appearances.

So while I understand your point GregR that it's not necessarily logical to factor in a QB's postseason accomplishments when comparing them to others of their era, it ABSOLUTELY is a factor in both how people remember them and also how likely they are to be given consideration for the PFHOF.

throw this argument out the door. dilfer has a ring, people won't remember his name after he retires.

 

[bostonfred]

Here's how the last few seasons have ended for Indy:1999: Manning completes 19 of 43 passes in a loss to Tennessee.2000: Manning breaks the 50% completion barrier, with a 17 of 32 for 194 stinker against Miami. This is his fourth best playoff game ever. 2001: Missed playoffs2002: Back under 50%, Manning throws 14 for 31 for 131 yards and 2 picks. 2003: Still under 50%, Manning throws 23 of 47 for 237 throwing 4 picks.2004: Fresh off a record setting season, Manning leads his team to a field goal in four full quarters of football action.If Manning were losing a bunch of 38-31 shootouts, you could blame the D. But they lose because he chokes. Period. Besides, it's nonsense that Manning doesn't have a team around him. Manning has every QBs dream around him on offense; Brady has two pro bowlers on defense and the best coach in the NFL. It's not like either one of them doesn't have a supporting cast.

 

[jurb26]

I didn't read through all of this thread, but let me say this. For all of those you are asking what makes Brady a better QB than Manning I urge you to simply find a tape of the NE/Pitt AFCC this past year. In that 1st half of football, Brady showed basically everything that makes him the best QB in football today. He was the one who mainly set the tone of that game and shut the door on Pitt ( ). His ability to avoid pressure and make down field throws in the pocket, hit WR with deadly accuracy, keep drives alive, leadership, ect all in one of the more hostile envirnments in all of football were unbelievable. This is coming from a Steeler fan. Tom Brady was the major difference in that football game. Yeah the D helped, but Brady set the tone.

 

[GregR_2]

Well GregR, if you think Manning has played as well during the post season as he does in the regular season, there's no way I'm going to change your mind. I know that Manning has some incredible games vs. Denver in the playoffs etc... where they ran up the score but ultimately when they finally came up against someone formidable, he didn't perform. Against stiff competition, Brady seems to do just that. On this, we can just agree to disagree I guess or until Manning wins a SB I'll jump to your side of the fence. Until then......tic toc

I suppose I didn't do a good enough job of explaining that. Probably should have just posted the results to the match-the-QB thing since you ignored it and it would have helped illuminate what I was saying.I think when you look at the odds of Peyton having a bad game vs the defenses he's faced in playoff games, and when you consider the odds of Brady having a bad game vs the defenses he's faced, I don't see anything that indicates Brady is clutch and Manning is a choker. I don't see anything that I don't think can be accounted for by simple random variation that sometimes you play well and sometimes you don't.

Since you skipped it, I'll fill in the answers for you.

Yds TD INT QB Opp Resuilt

115 0 0 Brady PIT W 24-17

137 0 2 Manning NYJ L 0-41

144 1 0 Brady IND W 20-3

145 1 0 Brady Rams W 20-17

194 1 0 Manning Miami L 17-23

201 1 0 Brady TEN W 17-14

207 2 0 Brady PIT W 41-27

227 0 0 Manning Titans L16-19

236 2 0 Brady PHI W 24-21

237 1 1 Brady IND W 24-14

237 1 4 Manning NE L 14-24

238 0 1 Manning NE L 3-20

304 3 0 Manning KC W 38-31

312 0 1 Brady OAK W 16-13

354 3 1 Brady CAR W 32-29

377 5 0 Manning Den w 41-10

457 4 1 Manning Den won 49-24

Brady had clunkers against Pit, Indy, St Louis (for which he got a SB MVP ). None of those games did the Pats deserve to win because of his performance, if anything they deserved to lose because of it. The defense was the key to the Rams super bowl. It was the key to beating Pit in 2001 when he couldn't crack their D, but his D picked off Kordell 3 times.

None of those did he step up and win it for his team, and his team would have lost if it wasn't for his defense. By comparison, when Manning has had his rotten games, his team generally folds. 41-0 against the Jets? Yeah, he sucked, and so did all the rest of his team.

When I look at how each guy actually did in his games, Brady hasn't stepped it up every game like some like to think, he's had as many bad games as Peyton. It's just more glaring when Peyton has a bad one because the rest of his team isn't able to make up for it. That's what I mean when I say I think Peyton and Brady both played about the same in the regular season as in the playoffs. Both have clunkers in both spots, just Brady has had more luck in the form of us supporting cast.

And just think, even with those clunkers, they are still unarguably two of the best QBs in the league. Imagine if we started looking at everyone else.

 

[valhallan]

Brady had clunkers against Pit, Indy, St Louis (for which he got a SB MVP ).

So Brady's rating of 86.2 in the Rams Super Bowl was a clunker? Suurre.. Don't forget he was only 24 years old and in his first-year as starter. Oh and he also didn't start for four years at a D-I school and have an all-pro quarterback as a father. But anyway, you've consistently ignored every valid point I've made in both threads so I don't expect this discussion to continue.

 

[bostonfred]

Brady, on the other hand, has worked with such exciting receivers as: David Patten. I hope you all bumped up your projections for the Washington passing attack, he's a pro Bowler for sure.Troy Brown. Look at all the free agent interest he's getting. What QB wouldn't want him?Christian Fauria. Sucked everywhere he went, catches 9 TDs his first year with Brady.Deion Branch and David Givens, a second rounder and a seventh rounder. You could argue that they're more talented than people realized, but they were rookies and/or injured while Brady was putting up his best numbers. Fine, it was Vinatieri's kick that won the Snow Bowl. But it was Brady that led them on three straight drives in that blizzard, rushing for a TD and leading them to two field goals. Brady threw for 312 yards and ran for a TD in a blizzard. Gannon, an MVP candidate, threw for half that with two hall of famers at wide receiver. Even if Brady's incomplete pass had been incorrectly ruled a fumble , the Pats still would have lost with him putting up a very good playoff game, especially under the conditions. Remember when he drove the Pats to a game winning field goal against the Rams? On the biggest stage in the world, against the #3 defense in the league, and in his first year as starter, coming off an ankle injury, Tom Brady led them to a game winning drive with a minute and a half remaining. Remember when the Pats D had their worst year? Brady responded with his best year, leading the league in TDs, despite the fact the Troy Brown got hurt, Deion Branch got hurt, Daniel Graham got hurt, David Givens got hurt, Christian Fuaria got hurt, and Kevin Faulk got hurt. Brady got them into position to make the playoffs, and led the Patriots to a win against the heavily favored Dolphins in the last game to get in first place in the division when the season ended. Remember when Brady led the Patriots to 21 wins in a row? I know, I know, he didn't win all 21 games by himself. But he went 21 games without putting up even one stinker. Think that's easy? Name one other QB who has ever done it. That's just the start of Brady's accomplishments. But look how many I can name without saying the words "Super Bowl rings". The people taking Manning's side in the debate inevitable throw up that straw man argument to weaken Brady's position, because somehow it makes it easier to say "All he does is win Superbowls".

 

[GregR_2]

Brady had clunkers against Pit, Indy, St Louis (for which he got a SB MVP ).

So Brady's rating of 86.2 in the Rams Super Bowl was a clunker? Suurre.. Don't forget he was only 24 years old and in his first-year as starter. Oh and he also didn't start for four years at a D-I school and have an all-pro quarterback as a father. But anyway, you've consistently ignored every valid point I've made in both threads so I don't expect this discussion to continue.

Yes it was a clunker. When your defense accounts for as many points as your QB, and when they have nearly as many yards of interception returns as your QB has passing yards going into the last minute of the game, I'd call that a clunker. He was able to sustain one whole drive all game until the Rams went into prevent. That is a clunker.Why can't Brady fans be happy with the stuff he's actually done without having to embellish it? He was absolutely solid against Carolina in that Super Bowl, and he deserved that Super Bowl MVP award. He is very elusive for someone who doesn't have great speed, which was a great fit behind what was a mediocre line in 2002. Why can't people be realistic in seeing when he puts up less than 200 yards and 1 or 0 TDs, and realize teams don't win consistently with such play and so there's got to be some other part of his team that deserves the credit at such times?

 

[valhallan]

Brady had clunkers against Pit, Indy, St Louis (for which he got a SB MVP  ).

So Brady's rating of 86.2 in the Rams Super Bowl was a clunker? Suurre.. Don't forget he was only 24 years old and in his first-year as starter. Oh and he also didn't start for four years at a D-I school and have an all-pro quarterback as a father. But anyway, you've consistently ignored every valid point I've made in both threads so I don't expect this discussion to continue.

Yes it was a clunker. When your defense accounts for as many points as your QB, and when they have nearly as many yards of interception returns as your QB has passing yards going into the last minute of the game, I'd call that a clunker. He was able to sustain one whole drive all game until the Rams went into prevent. That is a clunker.Why can't Brady fans be happy with the stuff he's actually done without having to embellish it? He was absolutely solid against Carolina in that Super Bowl, and he deserved that Super Bowl MVP award. He is very elusive for someone who doesn't have great speed, which was a great fit behind what was a mediocre line in 2002. Why can't people be realistic in seeing when he puts up less than 200 yards and 1 or 0 TDs, and realize teams don't win consistently with such play and so there's got to be some other part of his team that deserves the credit at such times?

Any coach will tell you it's just as important for your quarterback to not lose the game as it is for him to throw for 300 yards.So again, Brady has never lost a playoff game on his own. Manning has. More than once. Therefore Manning has had bad playoff games, Brady has not.

 

[GregR_2]

Remember when Brady led the Patriots to 21 wins in a row? I know, I know, he didn't win all 21 games by himself. But he went 21 games without putting up even one stinker. Think that's easy? Name one other QB who has ever done it.

See, this is exactly the blinders on mindset I'm talking about. He didn't put up a stinker during that time. So 8 for 21 and 116 yards is a good game then? Is 16 for 31 and 163 yards worthy of another SB MVP?Why can't you give him credit where he deserves it, and give the defense and coaching staff credit where they deserve it? Jesus, it isn't like I'm here saying Brady sucks, I'm just saying let's be a little objective about him, please?He's been one of the integral parts of a team whose success has been based on a strong defense and few mistakes from the QB position. Their success is based on attention to detail and good game planning and having players who are smart and can adapt to widely varying game plans. He makes his offensive line better in particular, and is very accurate. He doesn't get rattled easily. All great qualities. But let's stop treating him like he never has bad games, including in the playoffs. Let's stop treating him like there weren't other parts of the team that were just as or more important in many of their games.

 

[bostonfred]

I think when you look at the odds of Peyton having a bad game vs the defenses he's faced in playoff games, and when you consider the odds of Brady having a bad game vs the defenses he's faced, I don't see anything that indicates Brady is clutch and Manning is a choker. I don't see anything that I don't think can be accounted for by simple random variation that sometimes you play well and sometimes you don't.

Greg, do you even watch the games? Have you not seen Manning's face when he gets that hangdog "Oh no not again" look when you know it's over? Indy fans were celebrating on this board when he suddenly took command in the San Diego game this year, and everyone said he finally looked like a leader. Then it happened again, when Manning got down early in the Pats game, and he looked confused and frustrated and angry and like he just wanted to get out of there. It's not just random variance. These are real human beings playing a game of football and you can see on this real human being's face when he's lost a game well before it's over.

Brady had clunkers against Pit, Indy, St Louis (for which he got a SB MVP ).

Brady didn't get the MVP for statistical excellence in the St. Louis game. He got the MVP for keeping drives alive, keeping the ball away from the Rams offense, capitalizing on turnovers, and making a game winning drive with 1:30 left, all while facing a team that had the third best defense in the league (a fact lost on people who remember them as an all offense team is that opponents couldn't score on them despite the fact they were always behind).

None of those games did the Pats deserve to win because of his performance, if anything they deserved to lose because of it. The defense was the key to the Rams super bowl. It was the key to beating Pit in 2001 when he couldn't crack their D, but his D picked off Kordell 3 times.

The Patriots weren't the only team that picked off Kurt Warner. Warner threw 22 regular season picks. And yet only five teams all season were able to score 20 or more points against them. The Rams steamrolled teams with a ridiculous offense and one of the best defenses in the league. Brady converted on turnovers, took advantage of short field opportunities when he got them, and avoided mistakes, which is exactly how you're supposed to beat those teams. And it worked. You really don't have a leg to stand on in calling that a "clunker".

None of those did he step up and win it for his team, and his team would have lost if it wasn't for his defense. By comparison, when Manning has had his rotten games, his team generally folds. 41-0 against the Jets? Yeah, he sucked, and so did all the rest of his team.

The only person who has ever discussed why the team folds when Manning folds was an idiot liquored up kicker who said everything that Manning's detractors have known for years - Manning's not a leader. You can say what you want about his ability to adjust to a defense, if he has a personal failing that prevents his team from winning, then he's simply not a great quarterback.

When I look at how each guy actually did in his games, Brady hasn't stepped it up every game like some like to think, he's had as many bad games as Peyton. It's just more glaring when Peyton has a bad one because the rest of his team isn't able to make up for it. That's what I mean when I say I think Peyton and Brady both played about the same in the regular season as in the playoffs. Both have clunkers in both spots, just Brady has had more luck in the form of us supporting cast.

With four years of evidence for Brady and seven years for Manning, I don't think you can chalk it up to statistical anomalies anymore. If we were flipping coins and they kept coming up heads for Brady and tails for Manning, I'd agree that it's just a statistical oddity. But when you see two different people acting completely differently en route to their respective wins and losses, you have more information than raw statistics. Oh, and stop with the excuse that Brady's had the better supporting cast. Brady's supporting cast on defense is no better than Manning's supporting cast on offense. And things like Manning's 0 points in the Jets game, 4 picks in the Pats game, and 3 points in the next Pats game when he was playing scared, really don't let you lay a lot of blame on the Colts' defense.

 

[GregR_2]

Any coach will tell you it's just as important for your quarterback to not lose the game as it is for him to throw for 300 yards.

So again, Brady has never lost a playoff game on his own. Manning has. More than once. Therefore Manning has had bad playoff games, Brady has not.

Brady hasn't lost a playoff game on his own because his team always made up for him when he deserved to have lost it. Manning hasn't had that luxury of having being bailed out.

 

[bostonfred]

Remember when Brady led the Patriots to 21 wins in a row?  I know, I know, he didn't win all 21 games by himself.  But he went 21 games without putting up even one stinker.  Think that's easy?  Name one other QB who has ever done it. 

See, this is exactly the blinders on mindset I'm talking about. He didn't put up a stinker during that time. So 8 for 21 and 116 yards is a good game then? Is 16 for 31 and 163 yards worthy of another SB MVP?Why can't you give him credit where he deserves it, and give the defense and coaching staff credit where they deserve it? Jesus, it isn't like I'm here saying Brady sucks, I'm just saying let's be a little objective about him, please?

He's been one of the integral parts of a team whose success has been based on a strong defense and few mistakes from the QB position. Their success is based on attention to detail and good game planning and having players who are smart and can adapt to widely varying game plans. He makes his offensive line better in particular, and is very accurate. He doesn't get rattled easily. All great qualities. But let's stop treating him like he never has bad games, including in the playoffs. Let's stop treating him like there weren't other parts of the team that were just as or more important in many of their games.

I'm not saying he had a statistically excellent game against the Rams. I'm saying he played good, smart football against a great defense (the Rams were #3 in the league). The Rams were one of the biggest ballhawking defenses in the league. Brady didn't come out slinging it, he took what was available, avoided turnovers, let the Pats D get good field position for him, and capitalized on the Rams mistakes. That's exactly what you want your quarterback to do. This was the Superbowl, not fantasy football. And yes, he had a statistically mediocre game, but the individual accomplishment of Tom Brady on the game winning drive was one of the greatest and most memorable accomplishments in Superbowl history. If you look at the game instead of the numbers for a minute you'd realize that he was a lot better than you're giving him credit for.

 

[GregR_2]

The Patriots weren't the only team that picked off Kurt Warner. Warner threw 22 regular season picks. And yet only five teams all season were able to score 20 or more points against them. The Rams steamrolled teams with a ridiculous offense and one of the best defenses in the league. Brady converted on turnovers, took advantage of short field opportunities when he got them, and avoided mistakes, which is exactly how you're supposed to beat those teams. And it worked. You really don't have a leg to stand on in calling that a "clunker".

Kept drives going, to the tune of 2 for 11 on 3rd down conversions?Took advantage of short field opportunities and converting on turnovers, like the Pats settling for a field goal when the defense gave them the ball already in field goal range? He did take advantage of short field once, he deserves credit for that. It was also about the only thing he did until the last drive of the game.Kept the Rams off the field, to the tune of a 7 minute deficiency in time of possession? The only points you make that are valid are exactly what I've been saying along, that the defense was the key to the win. Held the Rams to 17 points and were directly responsible for 10 points on their own, plus set up Brady with short field for his 1 TD.Why can't you just give Brady the credit he's due without having to make up extra for him?

 

[bostonfred]

Any coach will tell you it's just as important for your quarterback to not lose the game as it is for him to throw for 300 yards.

So again, Brady has never lost a playoff game on his own.  Manning has.  More than once.  Therefore Manning has had bad playoff games, Brady has not.

Brady hasn't lost a playoff game on his own because his team always made up for him when he deserved to have lost it. Manning hasn't had that luxury of having being bailed out.

His defense didn't bail him out? Manning throws four INTs against the Patriots, and you blame it on the defense. That sounds a little like the "Leon can't do everything" argument to me.

And I guess Manning's defense should have shut out the Jets, so they'd go into overtime tied 0-0 when Manning led his team to 0 points.

And when Manning played scared this year in New England, maybe his defense didn't realize they'd have to shut the Patriots out again because all Manning could muster was a field goal.

Manning has played so badly in some of those playoff losses that he's made it impossible for his team to bail him out.

People like to say it's a team game and the QB can't win it all - and in Marino's case, I have some sympathy for that argument. But Manning's individual performance in some of those losses was legitimately so bad that they just plain lost.

 

[jurb26]

Any coach will tell you it's just as important for your quarterback to not lose the game as it is for him to throw for 300 yards.

So again, Brady has never lost a playoff game on his own.  Manning has.  More than once.  Therefore Manning has had bad playoff games, Brady has not.

Brady hasn't lost a playoff game on his own because his team always made up for him when he deserved to have lost it. Manning hasn't had that luxury of having being bailed out.

What games did he deserve to loose? The guy has NEVER had a playoff game in which he caused more TOs than he did scores! That is freaking amazing. As a matter of fact in 6 of his 9 playoff games he has scored more TDs than he did TOs.We are talking about 13 TDs and only 3 TOs in playoff games.

 

[GregR_2]

Fred, I've looked at the game. Going into that last drive, the amazing thing wasn't Tom Brady, it was that the defense had done as good a job of stopping the Rams as they had.But you've touched on the key of it. The last drive and FG were one of the biggest memorable moments, and that's exactly why people give Brady more credit for that win than he deserved. The moment itself was momentous, so they want a hero to put in place there to go along with it and make it more special.It's sad that people have to point to that game when he had another Super Bowl where he deserves the credit for the victory, where he had to take over the game.

 

[GregR_2]

Any coach will tell you it's just as important for your quarterback to not lose the game as it is for him to throw for 300 yards.

So again, Brady has never lost a playoff game on his own. Manning has. More than once. Therefore Manning has had bad playoff games, Brady has not.

Brady hasn't lost a playoff game on his own because his team always made up for him when he deserved to have lost it. Manning hasn't had that luxury of having being bailed out.

What games did he deserve to loose? The guy has NEVER had a playoff game in which he caused more TOs than he did scores! That is freaking amazing. As a matter of fact in 6 of his 9 playoff games he has scored more TDs than he did TOs.We are talking about 13 TDs and only 3 TOs in playoff games.

I've already posted all his post season games. If you don't think passing for 115 yards qualifies as deserves to lose unless the rest of your team bails you out... I'll just agree to disagree with you.

 

[taylorj99]

I fail to see the point of this thread. Obviously, 99% of all Brady fans are going to vote Montana as best all time. I'm not trying to argue the point, but its moot.Let me give you something that hasn't been discussed. Instead of imagining what each team would be like with either Marino or Montana throwing the ball, think about this. Would New England have beaten Chicago in '85 with Marino throwing the ball instead of Eason? How many Superbowls would Buffalo have won if they had drafted Marino instead of Kelly?Also, is it really fair to say that someone isn't worthy of being the "Best All-Time" because they failed to win a Superbowl. Consider this. Four of the top ten rushers of all time have not won a championship. Names tossed around for best RB of all-time always include Earl Campbell, Gale Sayers, Barry Sanders, and Eric Dickerson. However, none of them have rings either.I'll say nothing to try and diminish the accomplishments of Tom Brady. However, doesn't your offensive line, offensive scheme, coaches, and generally your whole team, have a great determining effect on how good of a player you'll become? Take these factors into account before anointing Brady the next Montana. He's got a long way to go in my eyes.

 

[bostonfred]

The Patriots weren't the only team that picked off Kurt Warner.  Warner threw 22 regular season picks.  And yet only five teams all season were able to score 20 or more points against them.  The Rams steamrolled teams with a ridiculous offense and one of the best defenses in the league. 

Brady converted on turnovers, took advantage of short field opportunities when he got them, and avoided mistakes, which is exactly how you're supposed to beat those teams.  And it worked.  You really don't have a leg to stand on in calling that a "clunker". 

Kept drives going, to the tune of 2 for 11 on 3rd down conversions?Took advantage of short field opportunities and converting on turnovers, like the Pats settling for a field goal when the defense gave them the ball already in field goal range? He did take advantage of short field once, he deserves credit for that. It was also about the only thing he did until the last drive of the game.

Kept the Rams off the field, to the tune of a 7 minute deficiency in time of possession?

The only points you make that are valid are exactly what I've been saying along, that the defense was the key to the win. Held the Rams to 17 points and were directly responsible for 10 points on their own, plus set up Brady with short field for his 1 TD.

Why can't you just give Brady the credit he's due without having to make up extra for him?

The Rams six minute advantage in time of possession came because they had almost 450 yards of offense, which is just as damning to your argument that the Patriots defense won the game. The fact is, the defense HAD TO play bend but don't break. Brady HAD TO play conservative football. And yes, Brady kept drives alive. He completed 60% of his passes, and while you're right that he was 2 of 11 on third down conversions, it's because they were in quite a few third and long situations after running Antowain Smith for three yards and a cloud of dust on the first two downs, and he didn't force the ball long. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I've watched the 2001 Superbowl more times than you have.

 

[valhallan]

Any coach will tell you it's just as important for your quarterback to not lose the game as it is for him to throw for 300 yards.

So again, Brady has never lost a playoff game on his own.  Manning has.  More than once.  Therefore Manning has had bad playoff games, Brady has not.

Brady hasn't lost a playoff game on his own because his team always made up for him when he deserved to have lost it. Manning hasn't had that luxury of having being bailed out.

Are you even reading this thread? Manning completed less than 50% of his passes in 3 of his playoff losses and tossed multiple picks in two of them. Even the 2000 Baltimore Ravens defense would have trouble "bailing out" those disasters. For example, here are the quarterback performances from each of their losses that year:Week 3 mia 19 of 31, 189 yards, 0 td, 1 int

Week 7 was 16 of 27, 135 yards, 0 td, 1 int

Week 8 ten 24 of 45, 287 yards, 0 td, 4 int

Week 9 pit 11 of 24, 152 yards, 0 td, 1 int

The fact is Brady has won his first 9 playoff games without having one performance even close to the atrocities Manning has had. No quarterback in history has ever played better than Brady in playoffs. Look at Montana's first 11 games:

Result C-A Yds TD-Int

1981 nyg W,38-24 | 20-31 304 2-1

1981 dal W,28-27 | 25-33 286 3-3

*1981 cin W,26-21 | 14-22 157 1-0

1983 det W,24-23 | 18-31 201 1-1

1983 was L,21-24 | 27-48 347 3-1

1984 nyg W,21-10 | 25-39 309 3-3

1984 chi W,23-0 | 18-34 233 1-2

*1984 mia W,38-16 | 24-35 331 3-0

1985 nyg L,3-17 | 26-47 296 0-1

1986 nyg L,3-49 | 8-15 98 0-2

1987 min L,24-36 | 12-26 109 0-1

Lost despite a great game against Washington in 1983, but threw picks and completed less than 50% of his passes in the other losses - the same way Manning loses in the playoffs. Brady doesn't have games like that.

 

[bostonfred]

Fred, I've looked at the game. Going into that last drive, the amazing thing wasn't Tom Brady, it was that the defense had done as good a job of stopping the Rams as they had.

But you've touched on the key of it. The last drive and FG were one of the biggest memorable moments, and that's exactly why people give Brady more credit for that win than he deserved. The moment itself was momentous, so they want a hero to put in place there to go along with it and make it more special.

It's sad that people have to point to that game when he had another Super Bowl where he deserves the credit for the victory, where he had to take over the game.

I agree that Brady wasn't individually amazing for the whole game. That's never been my argument. It's that he did what he had to during the game, and he did what he had to to win the game at the end. He did everything the Pats wanted their first year quarterback to do in that game. Could the Patriots have won by more if Weis had told Brady to go out there and sling it early and often? Maybe. But they played it conservative and won, so there's really no need to second guess.

I do agree that in the list of Brady's Superbowls, his extraordinary drive in 2001 is just one of many great accomplishments, but that hardly strengthens the argument that Brady is somehow less than Manning.

 

[GregR_2]

The Rams six minute advantage in time of possession came because they had almost 450 yards of offense, which is just as damning to your argument that the Patriots defense won the game. The fact is, the defense HAD TO play bend but don't break. Brady HAD TO play conservative football.

And yes, Brady kept drives alive. He completed 60% of his passes, and while you're right that he was 2 of 11 on third down conversions, it's because they were in quite a few third and long situations after running Antowain Smith for three yards and a cloud of dust on the first two downs, and he didn't force the ball long. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I've watched the 2001 Superbowl more times than you have.

Fred, this is the kind of thing that frustrates me so much about this topic, which is also probably why I don't give up on discussing it yet when it's obviously pointless to continue.You just wrote did a wonderful job of describing how Brady's role in the game was not to be the key piece and win it... his job was to not lose it so the defense could win it. And that is exactly what happened. Time and again when that Super Bowl comes up, the same people who treat Brady like a savior in the game obviously realize what his role really was, because they say exactly this. Yet to use your words, the momentousness of the last FG clouds their objectivity on it.

 

[hitmenssharpshooters]

Marino and Montana. Marino's lack of support and the records. Montana and his game winning drives and big game play because you can't judge Brady or Manning yet.

What about Favre and/or Elway?

This thread is a spinoff of the other thread and is deliberately set up to talk about these four QBs b/c the Manning-Brady debate is a mirror image of the Montana-Marino debates from way back when.Not to be rude, but favre and elway have no place in this thread.

I have been a fan of Marino since 1986 so I am a little bias but tend to think that I am very objective. Obviously if I had to choose which career I would want it would be Montana because it is about winning...just ask Peyton.I understand you don't be rude...likewise over the years I have had just as many conversations about Marino-Elway maybe even more than Marino-Elway conversations.

oh man - can o worms with that one.

I digress..I understand Marino-Elway is not the thread..I'd rather discuss Montana-Marino than Marino-El##y.I don't think you can compare Manning and Brady since their careers are not over. Manning could win a few Super Bowls or none- Brady could be done with his 15 minutes or be on SNL 20 more times...who knows..

You can't take Marino and Brady. You can't take Montana-Manning. Either you like Marino and take Manning or Brady-Montana.

 

[GregR_2]

Valhallan, I get that you feel that Brady hasn't had as bad of games as Manning, and I agree that Manning's worst playoff games have been worse than Brady's worst.But that doesn't change that people give Brady too much credit for his team's success. He does deserve credit, as I've said numerous time, and I've gone into detail on what his strengths are and how they play a role on his team. I don't care if Manning has lost every playoff game ever, and thrown 30 picks per game. I'm still going to call BS when people act like the Patriot's Super Bowls are all Brady's doing, and that because his team has won as much as they have, that he automatically gets the credit for those wins.As I recall, you never did that, so I'm not sure why you keep coming after me that others are not being objective in the role Brady played on those teams.

 

[bostonfred]

The Rams six minute advantage in time of possession came because they had almost 450 yards of offense, which is just as damning to your argument that the Patriots defense won the game.  The fact is, the defense HAD TO play bend but don't break.  Brady HAD TO play conservative football. 

And yes, Brady kept drives alive.  He completed 60% of his passes, and while you're right that he was 2 of 11 on third down conversions, it's because they were in quite a few third and long situations after running Antowain Smith for three yards and a cloud of dust on the first two downs, and he didn't force the ball long.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I've watched the 2001 Superbowl more times than you have.

Fred, this is the kind of thing that frustrates me so much about this topic, which is also probably why I don't give up on discussing it yet when it's obviously pointless to continue.You just wrote did a wonderful job of describing how Brady's role in the game was not to be the key piece and win it... his job was to not lose it so the defense could win it. And that is exactly what happened. Time and again when that Super Bowl comes up, the same people who treat Brady like a savior in the game obviously realize what his role really was, because they say exactly this. Yet to use your words, the momentousness of the last FG clouds their objectivity on it.

Greg, what made that performance great is that in the end, when it was a tie game, with the heavily favored Rams had just made a huge come back and had all the momentum, and Madden is saying he should play for overtime, Brady WAS THE SAVIOR. I just don't see how you can look at the statistics and say "He really didn't do that much" when, after both teams battled for 58:39 and ended up perfectly even, Brady picked the team up on his back and carried them to victory.

 

[Dancing Bear]

I hate to side-track things here, but I will ...Even with Peyton's great season last year he still did not outscore Daunte Culpepper! And over the last 5 years Culpepper has consistently outscored Manning!Daunte Culpepper is by far a better QB from the standpoint of overall production. He is over 2 Fantasy Point per Game better over that entire period!Manning is good, I am not arguing that, but he is not the best! That title belongs to Daunte!This thread is flawed because it does not consider the best statistically proven QB of this era in the discussion.

 

[bostonfred]

But that doesn't change that people give Brady too much credit for his team's success. He does deserve credit, as I've said numerous time, and I've gone into detail on what his strengths are and how they play a role on his team.

I'm still going to call BS when people act like the Patriot's Super Bowls are all Brady's doing, and that because his team has won as much as they have, that he automatically gets the credit for those wins.

Greg, Brady led the league in TDs and made the Pats a top 10 offense with nothing but Antowain Smith and the Lilliputian infirmary ward, then reeled off 15 straight wins to close out the following season with even less of a running game. You can say he had a great defense behind him till you're blue in the face, but give the man some credit for turning a bunch of castoffs, most of whom literally would not have started for most teams, into a consistently good offense.

 

[jurb26]

Any coach will tell you it's just as important for your quarterback to not lose the game as it is for him to throw for 300 yards.

So again, Brady has never lost a playoff game on his own.  Manning has.  More than once.  Therefore Manning has had bad playoff games, Brady has not.

Brady hasn't lost a playoff game on his own because his team always made up for him when he deserved to have lost it. Manning hasn't had that luxury of having being bailed out.

What games did he deserve to loose? The guy has NEVER had a playoff game in which he caused more TOs than he did scores! That is freaking amazing. As a matter of fact in 6 of his 9 playoff games he has scored more TDs than he did TOs.We are talking about 13 TDs and only 3 TOs in playoff games.

I've already posted all his post season games. If you don't think passing for 115 yards qualifies as deserves to lose unless the rest of your team bails you out... I'll just agree to disagree with you.

Well, no I don't agree with you in least then. I'll take the QB who throws for 150 yds, 1 td, and 0 ints over the one who throws 300 yds, 2 tds, and 3 ints any day and twice on Sundays if I am trying to WIN football games.Did you ever happen to think that maybe the reason that NE's D looks so great all the time and plays so well is becasue they have an O and more importantly a QB who DOES NOT PUT THEM IN BAD SITUATIONS VERY OFTEN. TOs put your D at a disadvantege in both field position and stratagy. Brady limits mistakes in big games and makes plays when he has to. This GREATLY HELPS HIS D. You see you can sit here and point to how great that D is all you want. These stats however do not lie. TOs jepordize your Ds ability to play sound an solid football.

You know there is a reason that the TO margin is so telling towards which teams win and loose every year. The bottom line is that QBs have more of a direct impact then any other single player in the NFL over TO margin for every team. THIS IS WHY THEY ARE GIVEN MORE CREDIT FOR WINS AND MORE CRITISISM FOR LOOSES!

 

[creeps1313]

Rings.....I think Manning is the best pure QB in the game, but Brady just keeps winning. Brady has three rings....thats a good track record

 

[valhallan]

Valhallan, I get that you feel that Brady hasn't had as bad of games as Manning, and I agree that Manning's worst playoff games have been worse than Brady's worst.

But that doesn't change that people give Brady too much credit for his team's success.  He does deserve credit, as I've said numerous time, and I've gone into detail on what his strengths are and how they play a role on his team. 

I don't care if Manning has lost every playoff game ever, and thrown 30 picks per game.  I'm still going to call BS when people act like the Patriot's Super Bowls are all Brady's doing, and that because his team has won as much as they have, that he automatically gets the credit for those wins.

As I recall, you never did that, so I'm not sure why you keep coming after me that others are not being objective in the role Brady played on those teams.

Obviously Patriots fans may have trouble being objective about Brady's performance in Super Bowl XXXVI, as it was their first championship and came out of nowhere. However, it's quite easy to argue Brady is the savior of that team and they would have accomplished nothing without him. They were 5-11 in 2000 and 0-2 to start 2001 when Brady came in. We're talking about Bill Belichick, Romeo Crennel, Charlies Weis, Troy Brown, Willie McGinest, Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy, Tedy Bruschi, Adam Vinatieri - this supporting cast you keep touting - were 5-13 pre-Brady. You can not dispute that.

 

[GregR_2]

But that doesn't change that people give Brady too much credit for his team's success. He does deserve credit, as I've said numerous time, and I've gone into detail on what his strengths are and how they play a role on his team.

I'm still going to call BS when people act like the Patriot's Super Bowls are all Brady's doing, and that because his team has won as much as they have, that he automatically gets the credit for those wins.

Greg, Brady led the league in TDs and made the Pats a top 10 offense with nothing but Antowain Smith and the Lilliputian infirmary ward, then reeled off 15 straight wins to close out the following season with even less of a running game. You can say he had a great defense behind him till you're blue in the face, but give the man some credit for turning a bunch of castoffs, most of whom literally would not have started for most teams, into a consistently good offense.

I have never failed to give him credit for being a great QB when he deserved it. He deserved credit for having done as well as he did in that season, and it's also probably the closest he's come (other than the Carolina super bowl) to carrying the team on his back for any significant amount of time. He deserves credit for having the evasiveness that allowed him to be effective behind that 2001 line as well.I just am realistic that praising him for playing great for 1:20 in a game where his biggest accomplishment otherwise was to just not lose, is not valid to start with, and so certainly isn't a valid argument here. And when people continue to have as their main reason how he was so clutch in games like that, I'm going to continue to call BS on it.

I'm saying why don't you guys make more arguments like that one I just quoted above, rather than "he's clutch" and "all he does is win super bowls"? I might not agree with the final conclusion of such an argument, but it's at least a valid position to take. That's what I've been #####ing about all this time Fred.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The Patriots weren't the only team that picked off Kurt Warner. Warner threw 22 regular season picks. And yet only five teams all season were able to score 20 or more points against them. The Rams steamrolled teams with a ridiculous offense and one of the best defenses in the league.

Brady converted on turnovers, took advantage of short field opportunities when he got them, and avoided mistakes, which is exactly how you're supposed to beat those teams. And it worked. You really don't have a leg to stand on in calling that a "clunker".

Kept drives going, to the tune of 2 for 11 on 3rd down conversions?Kept the Rams off the field, to the tune of a 7 minute deficiency in time of possession?

 

[Dancing Bear]

I'm sorry GregR, but I think that you are understating the pressure to compete and execute under pressure at the QB position.The list is endless of good QB's that just plain "choke" in the big game.Peyton ManningJim KellyDonovan McNabbare some of the big ones to come to mind.However, Joe Montana and Tom Brady are two QB's that DO NOT "choke" in the big game and they both have continuously risen to the occasion!Arguing about the other intangibles is silly and futile. There are over 50 players on a team, and over 10 coaches involved! DefenseO-CoordinatorEtc.None of this matters.Of those given the chance to execute at the QB position. Brady is superior to anyone else in the league today!

 

[jurb26]

The Patriots weren't the only team that picked off Kurt Warner.  Warner threw 22 regular season picks.  And yet only five teams all season were able to score 20 or more points against them.  The Rams steamrolled teams with a ridiculous offense and one of the best defenses in the league. 

Brady converted on turnovers, took advantage of short field opportunities when he got them, and avoided mistakes, which is exactly how you're supposed to beat those teams.  And it worked.  You really don't have a leg to stand on in calling that a "clunker". 

Kept drives going, to the tune of 2 for 11 on 3rd down conversions?Kept the Rams off the field, to the tune of a 7 minute deficiency in time of possession?

Laugh all you want. How many times that game did he turn the ball over and give St.L an easy score with great field position and jepordize his D's ability to pplay sound and agressive football?

 

[Chase Stuart]

You know Barry Bonds was called a choker once too...And I'd love to hear all the Patriots fans tell me how great of a player Derek Jeter is That being said...Peyton Manning has played 120 games in his career. And essentially, Manning haters (of which I was the biggest one for years*) want to call him out on three of those games -- the Jets game and both Patriots games. Three bad games out of 120...all on the road. If I have to project future/current performance, I'm certainly not going to base much of my decision on those three games, because the sample size is too small. Remember when everyone said Bonds would stink in the post-season in 2002 because he always stunk in the post-season? The best predictor of future success would be regular season success, not three games out of 120.*For several years, I said that Peyton Manning is a POS because he avoided the Jets and NY by going back for his senior year at Tennessee. He couldn't handle being the number one pick for Parcells and being in NY IMO, and I had a personal grudge against him for some time. I thought it was pretty ironic that years later Archie wanted Eli to go to NY so bad.I still think Manning stinks, but the Jets success in recent years has made it a lot easier.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'm sorry GregR, but I think that you are understating the pressure to compete and execute under pressure at the QB position.

The list is endless of good QB's that just plain "choke" in the big game.

Peyton Manning

Jim Kelly

Donovan McNabb

are some of the big ones to come to mind.

However, Joe Montana and Tom Brady are two QB's that DO NOT "choke" in the big game and they both have continuously risen to the occasion!

Arguing about the other intangibles is silly and futile. There are over 50 players on a team, and over 10 coaches involved!

Defense

O-Coordinator

Etc.

None of this matters.

Of those given the chance to execute at the QB position. Brady is superior to anyone else in the league today!

You must not have seen Brady give this stat line before, have you?19-37, 133 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT

3.6 YPA in a big game is far from rising to the occasion, don't you think?

 

[Chase Stuart]

The Patriots weren't the only team that picked off Kurt Warner. Warner threw 22 regular season picks. And yet only five teams all season were able to score 20 or more points against them. The Rams steamrolled teams with a ridiculous offense and one of the best defenses in the league.

Brady converted on turnovers, took advantage of short field opportunities when he got them, and avoided mistakes, which is exactly how you're supposed to beat those teams. And it worked. You really don't have a leg to stand on in calling that a "clunker".

Kept drives going, to the tune of 2 for 11 on 3rd down conversions?Kept the Rams off the field, to the tune of a 7 minute deficiency in time of possession?

Laugh all you want. How many times that game did he turn the ball over and give St.L an easy score with great field position and jepordize his D's ability to pplay sound and agressive football?

None, but that's hardly my definition of a great QB. If it's yours, then there's no need for me to try and convince you that I think Manning's a better QB.

 

[jurb26]

The Patriots weren't the only team that picked off Kurt Warner.  Warner threw 22 regular season picks.  And yet only five teams all season were able to score 20 or more points against them.  The Rams steamrolled teams with a ridiculous offense and one of the best defenses in the league. 

Brady converted on turnovers, took advantage of short field opportunities when he got them, and avoided mistakes, which is exactly how you're supposed to beat those teams.  And it worked.  You really don't have a leg to stand on in calling that a "clunker". 

Kept drives going, to the tune of 2 for 11 on 3rd down conversions?Kept the Rams off the field, to the tune of a 7 minute deficiency in time of possession?

Laugh all you want. How many times that game did he turn the ball over and give St.L an easy score with great field position and jepordize his D's ability to pplay sound and agressive football?

None, but that's hardly my definition of a great QB. If it's yours, then there's no need for me to try and convince you that I think Manning's a better QB.

Wow, FF has really messed with some peoples judement of what quality QB play is at an organized football level.Are you trying to tell me that having 0 TOs in that game had nothing to do with NE winning it?

 

[Chase Stuart]

The Patriots weren't the only team that picked off Kurt Warner. Warner threw 22 regular season picks. And yet only five teams all season were able to score 20 or more points against them. The Rams steamrolled teams with a ridiculous offense and one of the best defenses in the league.

Brady converted on turnovers, took advantage of short field opportunities when he got them, and avoided mistakes, which is exactly how you're supposed to beat those teams. And it worked. You really don't have a leg to stand on in calling that a "clunker".

Kept drives going, to the tune of 2 for 11 on 3rd down conversions?Kept the Rams off the field, to the tune of a 7 minute deficiency in time of possession?

Laugh all you want. How many times that game did he turn the ball over and give St.L an easy score with great field position and jepordize his D's ability to pplay sound and agressive football?

None, but that's hardly my definition of a great QB. If it's yours, then there's no need for me to try and convince you that I think Manning's a better QB.

Wow, FF has really messed with some peoples judement of what quality QB play is at an organized football level.Are you trying to tell me that having 0 TOs in that game had nothing to do with NE winning it?

Why would you think I was trying to tell you that?

 

[jurb26]

Why would you think I was trying to tell you that?

Well, what are you trying to say then?BTW I am still waiting for 1 on the Manning cult to address my previous post in regards to TOs.

 

[jurb26]

Just a quick note. Being a great QB isn't just about stats. Its about doing what it takes and filling the roll it takes to help your TEAM WIN. That is what Brady does. You site that St.L game as a bad one for him. Guess what though. He did what it took to win that game and performed his roll. He limited mistakes and helped his D by forcing St.L to have to drive the maximun distance on every drive. He came threw in the end when they needed a big drive and won the game.You and Brady haters (not that you are) see this as a bad game. I see it as a coming out party for the best QB of today.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Just a quick note. Being a great QB isn't just about stats. Its about doing what it takes and filling the roll it takes to help your TEAM WIN. That is what Brady does. You site that St.L game as a bad one for him. Guess what though. He did what it took to win that game and performed his roll. He limited mistakes and helped his D by forcing St.L to have to drive the maximun distance on every drive. He came threw in the end when they needed a big drive and won the game.

You and Brady haters (not that you are) see this as a bad game. I see it as a coming out party for the best QB of today.

If what Brady needs to do to win is much easier than what Manning needs to do to win, would you agree that comparing their winning percentages isn't the best way to determine which one is better?

 

[Dancing Bear]

Chase,I just finished saying that this was a team game ...How much of that YPA are you going to attribute to a mediocre front line? No RB? No WR? No TE? A good defensive game plan by the opposition ...Stating his stat line does not indicate how he played as a whole ... and no I do not think that it shows at all how he may have reacted in the clutch.If those 19 completions led to completions on 3rd down to sustain drives or to put his team in position to score points, then I would say the rest is much less relevant. If a majority of the incompletions are thrown out of bounds to avoid a sack or covered receiver, then I would say it is also a bad representation of his performance.Incidentally, I would be pointing to his Pittsburgh game [2001] if I was going to try to disuade me from pursuing my train of thought. Even then I would not relent because he led the team to victory by completing the passes he needed to under pressure.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Why would you think I was trying to tell you that?

Well, what are you trying to say then?BTW I am still waiting for 1 on the Manning cult to address my previous post in regards to TOs.

You said: Laugh all you want. How many times that game did he turn the ball over and give St.L an easy score with great field position and jepordize his D's ability to pplay sound and agressive football?I said: None, but that's hardly my definition of a great QB. If it's yours, then there's no need for me to try and convince you that I think Manning's a better QB.

I'm not sure then why you interpreted my statement to mean this:

Are you trying to tell me that having 0 TOs in that game had nothing to do with NE winning it?

If you think the best QB in the NFL is the one that best doesn't turn the ball over, that's fine. But I don't think Neil O'Donnell is the best QB ever, and I think the best QB should be one that can carry a team to victory. And frankly, I've seen Manning carry his team to victory a lot more times than Brady.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Chase,

I just finished saying that this was a team game ...

How much of that YPA are you going to attribute to a mediocre front line? No RB? No WR? No TE? A good defensive game plan by the opposition ...

Stating his stat line does not indicate how he played as a whole ... and no I do not think that it shows at all how he may have reacted in the clutch.

If those 19 completions led to completions on 3rd down to sustain drives or to put his team in position to score points, then I would say the rest is much less relevant. If a majority of the incompletions are thrown out of bounds to avoid a sack or covered receiver, then I would say it is also a bad representation of his performance.

Incidentally, I would be pointing to his Pittsburgh game [2001] if I was going to try to disuade me from pursuing my train of thought. Even then I would not relent because he led the team to victory by completing the passes he needed to under pressure.

Hey Dancing Bear,I specifically avoided mentioning what game I was talking about for a reason. Brady's game was horrible, but some people will try to give him credit no matter what. 19-37 for 133 yards is terrible. There's no Tom Brady magic quality that makes the game better.

And those 19 completions didn't lead to third down conversions to save drives, nor were the majority of the incompletions thrown out of bounds to avoid a sack. And there was no clutch performance from Brady, because his bad performance led to the game being a blowout.

As GregR said, I'm not sure why Tom Brady can't simply be given credit for what he deserves, and not more. For who else would people try and analyze a 19-37 game and try to make it look good?

 

[bostonfred]

Why do people only talk about Brady and the postseason? What Brady has done with the Patriots in the regular season may be more impressive than what Manning has done with the Colts in the regular season. Until 2004 he was singlehandedly carrying that offense and yet he led the league in touchdowns once and made the Patriots the #6, #10, and #12 offense in the league while throwing to a bunch of castoffs who are always hurt because they're smurfs, his offensive line changes dramatically every year, and with the exception of 2002 he has had a defense that didn't force him into shootouts that artificially inflate his stats. There is no quarterback in the league who has done so much with so little around him on offense, which is more proof that Tom Brady is the best quarterback in football today. Sure, Manning had a record setting season. And he's been impressive in other years, too. But he was throwing to Harrison, Wayne, Pollard, Clark, Stokley, and Edgerrin, and has kept the anchors of his offensive line together for years. He's had everything a QB could ask for; Brady's had virtually nothing to work with and yet he's singlehandedly kept the offense going.

 

[Dancing Bear]

Chase,I was not trying to overjustify Brady's performance or try to sweep it aside. I was simply trying to point out that there are many, many intangibles associated with a stat line.If he stunk the joint up, then he stunk the joint up.I hope that you use the same objectivity when discussing McNabb or Manning or Kelly ...