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

[Jason Wood]

In the discussions between Brady and Manning, the debate usually comes down to Manning supporters contending that he's a better player but hasn't won because of his defense. They point to his numbers and suggest Brady is a product of the Patriots system. Meanwhile the Brady supporters point to Brady's 3 SB rings (and 2 MVPs) as evidence that he's better than Manning, suggesting that the great QBs find a way to win games above all else. In one of these threads someone else pointed to the Montana vs. Marino debate in the same light. Montana has the rings, Marino has the records. So I'm curious to see how folks rate these four against one another. This isn't about whether you think Marino or Montana are the very best QBs in history, but rather which of them ranks higher.TIA

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I know where you're going with this:Answer is Montana and BradyIf you answer Brady and Marino you contradict yourselfIf you answer Manning and Montana you contradict yourselfIf you answer Manning and Marino, you're consistant in thought, but just wrong.

 

[Jason Wood]

I know where you're going with this:

Answer is Montana and Brady

If you answer Brady and Marino you contradict yourself

If you answer Manning and Montana you contradict yourself

If you answer Manning and Marino, you're consistant in thought, but just wrong.

Hey Iwanna...some may disagree with your contention though. That's what I want to find out. I'm right there with you though. I'm much more interested in hearing from folks who voted Manning+Montana OR Brady+Marino. I could see Manning supporters making the claim that when all is said and done, he'll have the records AND a championship or two. I have more trouble understanding the folks who would vote Brady+Marino though.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Meanwhile the Brady supporters point to Brady's 3 SB rings (and 2 MVPs) as evidence that he's better than Manning,

Antowain Smith has more SB rings than Edgerrin James, so I guess Antowain Smith is the better RB.

 

[valhallan]

Meanwhile the Brady supporters point to Brady's 3 SB rings (and 2 MVPs) as evidence that he's better than Manning

I was possibly the most vocal Brady supporter in the Best QB thread and never once mentioned his SB rings.

 

[djcolts]

I voted Montana and Brady. I hope someday Manning will somewhat catch up and get a ring someday.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I voted Montana and Brady. I hope someday Manning will somewhat catch up and get a ring someday.

Maybe one day, as I am a Manning fan too. Just can't believe how well Brady plays when it counts.

 

[Marc Levin]

I voted Montana and Brady.  I hope someday Manning will somewhat catch up and get a ring someday.

Maybe one day, as I am a Manning fan too. Just can't believe how well Brady plays when it counts.

Me too - I see Manning, and I see Marino - have seen it since his second or third year. Loving the way a QB throws the ball, and thinkgin he's the "best" QB are radically different concepts.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Meanwhile the Brady supporters point to Brady's 3 SB rings (and 2 MVPs) as evidence that he's better than Manning,

Antowain Smith has more SB rings than Edgerrin James, so I guess Antowain Smith is the better RB.

Come on Ivan, I've read a lot of your posts in the Free For All and even here in the Shark Pool, you can come up with a better argument that this.You know there's a difference "intangible" (you like that Jason) when talking about Antwan Smith and Edgerin James and just saying who has the most rings is better.

For one, QB's are measured more on SB rings. It's just the way it is, fair or not. Coaches are held in the same regard.

Two 99 percent of the people would agree that James is much more talented of a RB than Smith.

You at least have to name 2 guys that are close in talent.

The Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders debate comes to mind.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

For one, QB's are measured more on SB rings. It's just the way it is, fair or not.

That's basically what I'm getting at. I'm not very keen on measuring one player based on the success of his 22-man team. I'm not arguing that either Brady or Montana suck, and I could certainly imagine somebody making a good case for why Brady > Manning or Montana > Marino, but that case probably wouldn't involve who won more rings.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

For one, QB's are measured more on SB rings.  It's just the way it is, fair or not. 

That's basically what I'm getting at. I'm not very keen on measuring one player based on the success of his 22-man team. I'm not arguing that either Brady or Montana suck, and I could certainly imagine somebody making a good case for why Brady > Manning or Montana > Marino, but that case probably wouldn't involve who won more rings.

I see your point, but on the flip side those rings measure greatness to a lot of people. So, for a QB to be the GREATEST of all time, you'd think that that QB would find a way, at least once in his career to reach that level.

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

Brady - Manning I care little about, both are great QB's and I agree with everyone here that Brady shines when it counts. Too bad I'm not a Pats fan, otherwise I'd boast his abilities under preasure instead of hating him for it. IMHO Manning is nothing more than an accurate Kerry Collins. He can chuck it well and he has the receivers to retrieve it well.As far as Marino - Montana, I'm in the minority here. Montana was the general you want in every battle, no doubt about it, but Marino made it happen. I'm sure you are all aware of how small his sack count was. The man had the field vision of an iguana (you know, the ones with eyes on the opposite sides of its head).Think of it this way, take the worst team today, say the Bears, and plug in all four of these QB's. Marino is the only one in the group that I can see getting the wins despite a poor supporting cast.

 

[valhallan]

Brady is not superior to Manning because of his postseason record. He's better because of his ability to stay calm under pressure, his mechanics, and his decision-making. It just so happens those qualities usually lead to victories and sometimes Super Bowls. If Manning ever cures his happy feet and stops forcing throws into zone coverage, he'll win postseason games too.

 

[James Dean]

This is a good one, but you have to realize one simple thing. And that is, if you put Manning on the Patriots he would have all those rings. Without a doubt. But if you put Brady on the Colts there is no way he could ever put up those numbers. Manning is a better QB.you got me, fixed it.

 

[valhallan]

This is a good one, but you have to realize one simple fact. The thing is, if you put Manning on the Patriots he would have all those rings. Without a doubt. But if you put Brady on the Colts there is no way he could ever put up those numbers. Manning is a better QB.

Uhm, how is this a fact? Sounds like an opinion to me.

 

[hitmenssharpshooters]

Meanwhile the Brady supporters point to Brady's 3 SB rings (and 2 MVPs) as evidence that he's better than Manning,

Antowain Smith has more SB rings than Edgerrin James, so I guess Antowain Smith is the better RB.

I am with the same thinking as you..here is another comparison..Roger Craig with 3 SB rings is better than Barry Sanders?Marino never had a RB like a Roger Craig (Bernie Parmalee, Terry Kirby) or Edge or a Defense. Brady is a product of the coaching staff and system (Palmer, Grossman in Spurrier's system) along with Montana in the "west coast" that nobody could game plan yet. Montana also had Jerry Rice to throw to. Marino had Duper and Clayton but not his entire career. Manning calls his own plays but I will wait before I give him greatest of all time love. If Adam Vinatieri misses the kick against Oakland (tuck rule) a few years ago we may not be talking about Brady.

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?

 

[djcolts]

This is a good one, but you have to realize one simple thing. And that is, if you put Manning on the Patriots he would have all those rings. Without a doubt. But if you put Brady on the Colts there is no way he could ever put up those numbers. Manning is a better QB.

you got me, fixed it.

I don't agree. Here's my reasoning:2001: Brady was what the team needed at thte time and the team played better around him because they knew that they needed to. Brady did his job very well - however at this time I don't think he was an "elite" QB - but I think for that season there were few if any elite QBs. Manning had his worst non-rookie season in 2001 as well, and probably the Pats would not have played with such urgency with him at QB.

2002: Brady show the NFL that he can sling the ball, but the Pats didn't make the playoffs. However, this was key because Brady worked harder in the film room after this season and thus was the key jump from "caretaker QB with a ring" to the best in the NFL.

2003: Brady's best overall season. This is probably the season to debate whether another QB would have won a ring as the Pats QB or not. I don't have the answer.

2004: The Pats most dominate season of the 3 title years. This is season that other elite QBs probably could have won a title with this Pats team because of their increased weaponry on offense (Dillon).

So - my answer would be that Manning could have won 1, maybe 2 (very debatable), but not 3 rings with this Pats team.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Hmmm... Another Manning/Brady thread...

 

[Just Win Baby]

If I was starting a team today, with both Brady and Manning in their primes, and I was able to choose my QB from between them, I'd take Manning. This is no slight on Brady, who I think is a great QB.However, this is a scenario in which the QB I choose will have a generic supporting cast (i.e., not necessarily the Colts great set of wideouts, but also not necessarily a solid to great coach, defense, and special teams). Since all things are equal, I personally feel Manning is a better QB, taking into account all facets needed to be successful at the position.Using the same thought process, I'd take Montana over Marino. I understand the basic premise of the poll is that my two selections are inconsistent, but I disagree.These are impossible comparisons to prove, but I think Montana in Miami would have been as great or greater than Marino there (where greatness does not equate simply to passing numbers), and I do not think Marino in SF would have been as great as Montana was. Similarly, I think Manning in New England would have been as great or greater than Brady, and I doubt Brady would have been as great as Manning in Indy.I don't expect anyone to agree, but that's my opinion.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Brady is not superior to Manning because of his postseason record. He's better because of his ability to stay calm under pressure, his mechanics, and his decision-making. It just so happens those qualities usually lead to victories and sometimes Super Bowls. If Manning ever cures his happy feet and stops forcing throws into zone coverage, he'll win postseason games too.

But in part, his post season record is a measure of the things you're talking about. When you're calm, when the pressure doesn't affect you........you win football games.

 

[valhallan]

Brady is not superior to Manning because of his postseason record.  He's better because of his ability to stay calm under pressure, his mechanics, and his decision-making.   It just so happens those qualities usually lead to victories and sometimes Super Bowls.  If Manning ever cures his happy feet and stops forcing throws into zone coverage, he'll win postseason games too.

But in part, his post season record is a measure of the things you're talking about. When you're calm, when the pressure doesn't affect you........you win football games.

Right, what I'm getting at is we don't think Brady is better because he wins games. He wins games because he's better.

 

[James Dean]

Honestly, what makes him a better QB? I have never seen anything that makes him a better QB than Manning. You guys are all the same people that praised Brady for completing that pass while he was on his ####. Everyone thouht how amazing of a QB he was to be able to do something like that. If any other QB in the league were to do something like that people would say how stupid it was. But not for Brady, cause people think he can't do no wrong. By the way, didn't he try doing something like that again a couple weeks later and it didn't work that time. What did people say then?

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Honestly, what makes him a better QB? I have never seen anything that makes him a better QB than Manning. You guys are all the same people that praised Brady for completing that pass while he was on his ####. Everyone thouht how amazing of a QB he was to be able to do something like that. If any other QB in the league were to do something like that people would say how stupid it was. But not for Brady, cause people think he can't do no wrong. By the way, didn't he try doing something like that again a couple weeks later and it didn't work that time. What did people say then?

I don't recall praising him for what you're saying, but what makes him a better QB is playing better in the big games. He hasn't just done it once, it's a pattern. However, he is human and makes mistakes, for sure.

 

[valhallan]

I think he's better because of his mechanics, calmness in the pocket, and decision-making - the three most important qualities needed to be a successful quarterback. I have no doubt Manning is intellectually and athletically superior, but he hasn't mastered the art of quarterbacking like Brady has.

It's plain to see when you watch each of them react to tough situations. I have distinct memories of Brady standing tall in the pocket and calmly surveying the field before he launches the ball to the right receiver as a defender drills him. In those circumstances I can recall Manning's feet getting jumpy and him throwing too soon or forcing the ball into zone coverages.

There's also the leadership aspect, but none of us can really know how much of a leader each guy is in the huddle and in the locker room. I think Brady probably brings more confidence to his teammates than Manning, but who knows for sure.

 

[Marc Levin]

Brady is not superior to Manning because of his postseason record. He's better because of his ability to stay calm under pressure, his mechanics, and his decision-making. It just so happens those qualities usually lead to victories and sometimes Super Bowls. If Manning ever cures his happy feet and stops forcing throws into zone coverage, he'll win postseason games too.

I completely agree that Manning is not a good pressure QB. Just curious how you see Marino (since this is a comparison thread) In his heydey, he was the only one out there doing anything correctly in the playoffs. Those years the Bills were knocking the phins out of the playoffs, and the other times that the phins got the AFC championship game, you could point to a lot of reasons why they lost, but you could NEVER point to Dan in the AFC championship game and say it was his fault they didn't win.

Manning can't say the same thing - his poor games have often been the reason that the Colts' season ended.

 

[Marc Levin]

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.

 

[valhallan]

Just curious how you see Marino (since this is a comparison thread) In his heydey, he was the only one out there doing anything correctly in the playoffs. Those years the Bills were knocking the phins out of the playoffs, and the other times that the phins got the AFC championship game, you could point to a lot of reasons why they lost, but you could NEVER point to Dan in the AFC championship game and say it was his fault they didn't win.

I became a hardcore fan around 1992, so it's hard to give a reasonable opinion on the Montana/Marino debate. I'm inclined to think Montana was a product of the innovative West Coast system, but there's no doubt he engineered some amazing comebacks in his day. He also performed surprisingly well late in his career for the Chiefs. It sounds like Marino performed well under pressure too, so I'd likely give Dan the nod considering the utter dearth of talent surrounding him.

 

[hitmenssharpshooters]

Brady is not superior to Manning because of his postseason record.  He's better because of his ability to stay calm under pressure, his mechanics, and his decision-making.  It just so happens those qualities usually lead to victories and sometimes Super Bowls.  If Manning ever cures his happy feet and stops forcing throws into zone coverage, he'll win postseason games too.

I completely agree that Manning is not a good pressure QB. Just curious how you see Marino (since this is a comparison thread) In his heydey, he was the only one out there doing anything correctly in the playoffs. Those years the Bills were knocking the phins out of the playoffs, and the other times that the phins got the AFC championship game, you could point to a lot of reasons why they lost, but you could NEVER point to Dan in the AFC championship game and say it was his fault they didn't win.

Manning can't say the same thing - his poor games have often been the reason that the Colts' season ended.

Agreed..it would be interesting to see how many AFC Championships and/or SB the phins would have gone to had they not had to play the Bills. I know of at least 3 times the Bills beat the phins in the playoffs all in the division or championship rounds.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I voted Manning + Montana, although I'm less certain about Montana than I am about Manning.Winning a Super Bowl (or several) doesn't make one player better than another...and it doesn't even make one team better than another (luck certainly plays a part in the Super Bowl. Were the 90 Giants better than the 90 Bills? Now if Norwood makes that kick, are the 90 Bills better than the 90 Giants? I'm far from comfortable in saying that).Manning's yards per attempt has been at least a half yard higher than Brady's ever year, and was a LOT higher last year. Manning is the top QB in the league right now, and having a big salary, a bad defense and a coach that isn't Bill Belichick doesn't make him any worse of a QB in my eyes.If Vinatieri misses the FG against the Raiders, how does Brady compare to Manning? What's two SBs vs. three SBs?Now what if Manning wins one...does that put him on an even playing field? Or is two vs. one still the rule?The fact that guys like Dilfer and Brad Johnson won the SB shows that you don't need to be a star QB to win the Super Bowl. The fact that Favre won the SB and has subsequently blown up (bad) in multiple playoff games since, shows that there's no mythical higher power that a GREAT SB QB has. As for Marino vs. Montana, I certainly saw a lot more of Marino. And he rocked. But Montana does have a higher YPA for his career, has a much better TD/INT ratio, and as a result I'm sure has a higher QB rating. Statistically they're a lot closer than people give Montana credit.I'm sure if someone factored in Rice + Walsh + 49ers D arguments, I could be swayed Marino is better than Montana.

 

[BassNBrew]

I voted Manning + Montana, although I'm less certain about Montana than I am about Manning.

Winning a Super Bowl (or several) doesn't make one player better than another...and it doesn't even make one team better than another (luck certainly plays a part in the Super Bowl. Were the 90 Giants better than the 90 Bills? Now if Norwood makes that kick, are the 90 Bills better than the 90 Giants? I'm far from comfortable in saying that).

Manning's yards per attempt has been at least a half yard higher than Brady's ever year, and was a LOT higher last year. Manning is the top QB in the league right now, and having a big salary, a bad defense and a coach that isn't Bill Belichick doesn't make him any worse of a QB in my eyes.

If Vinatieri misses the FG against the Raiders, how does Brady compare to Manning? What's two SBs vs. three SBs?

Now what if Manning wins one...does that put him on an even playing field? Or is two vs. one still the rule?

The fact that guys like Dilfer and Brad Johnson won the SB shows that you don't need to be a star QB to win the Super Bowl. The fact that Favre won the SB and has subsequently blown up (bad) in multiple playoff games since, shows that there's no mythical higher power that a GREAT SB QB has.

As for Marino vs. Montana, I certainly saw a lot more of Marino. And he rocked. But Montana does have a higher YPA for his career, has a much better TD/INT ratio, and as a result I'm sure has a higher QB rating. Statistically they're a lot closer than people give Montana credit.

I'm sure if someone factored in Rice + Walsh + 49ers D arguments, I could be swayed Marino is better than Montana.

I find myself agreeing with this guy a lot lately. He's either growing up and becoming wise or the beer is killing too many of my brain cells.

 

[valhallan]

The fact that guys like Dilfer and Brad Johnson won the SB shows that you don't need to be a star QB to win the Super Bowl.

Yeah you need to not make mistakes in critical situations, something Manning seems to have trouble figuring out. Super Bowl wins are the deciding factor for casual fans. We're supposed to be experts here, so let's stop with the cop outs.Spare us Manning's ypa - he has some extremely fast and talented receivers getting chunks of yac. Spare us the Belichick genius garbage - he won nothing before Brady, in fact he was 5-13 as the Patriots head coach prior to the quarterback change. Yes, we might not talk about Brady if Vinatieri misses those kicks. Doesn't change the fact that he's a masterful quarterback and has been almost since his first snap in the league. In my opinion, Delhomme is right up there in the best current quarterback discussion, but he hasn't accomplished enough to warrant consideration for most of us. I believe he's viewed as Brady would be without rings. Shortsighted.

 

[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.

 

[GregR_2]

Hold Manning's and Brady's skill and ability from last year constant over the next few years. By the logic of the people using Brady's SB rings as the determining factor, if the Colts win 3 rings in the next 4 years, Manning would become the better QB despite there being no change in ability or skill between the two players.That just isn't a logically defensible position that 'the best' can change from one player to another when nothing about either player changed.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The fact that guys like Dilfer and Brad Johnson won the SB shows that you don't need to be a star QB to win the Super Bowl.

Yeah you need to not make mistakes in critical situations, something Manning seems to have trouble figuring out. Super Bowl wins are the deciding factor for casual fans. We're supposed to be experts here, so let's stop with the cop outs.

Spare us Manning's ypa - he has some extremely fast and talented receivers getting chunks of yac. Spare us the Belichick genius garbage - he won nothing before Brady, in fact he was 5-13 as the Patriots head coach prior to the quarterback change.

Yes, we might not talk about Brady if Vinatieri misses those kicks. Doesn't change the fact that he's a masterful quarterback and has been almost since his first snap in the league. In my opinion, Delhomme is right up there in the best current quarterback discussion, but he hasn't accomplished enough to warrant consideration for most of us. I believe he's viewed as Brady would be without rings. Shortsighted.

Making mistakes in critical situations? Manning has thrown 20 INTs the last TWO years combined...Brady has thrown 26, despite 62 more pass attempts. I'd say Manning is less prone to making mistakes than Brady, based on that fact alone. To prove that Brady makes less mistakes in critical situations than Manning you'd need to prove a lot of things to me:1) Brady historically has made less mistakes in critical situations

2) Brady has some ability to make less mistakes in critical situations than normal situations

3) Manning has some ability to make less mistakes in normal situations than critical situations

4) Making mistakes in critical situations in the past is a better indicator of making mistakes in critical situations in the future, than making mistakes overall in the past.

Basically, I think the "making mistakes in critical situations" thing, even if true (no numbers have been shown yet), is a lot like batting average with runners in scoring position. Certain plays will play three or four years and have a significantly higher BA with RISP. But this is more due to chance and small sample size than anything else, and over time players don't tend to be better or worse with RISP. Any "critical situation mistakes" Manning has made that Brady hasn't, if true, is likely indicative of a small sample size over anything else.

I can spare the SB ring talk.

Manning's YPA is better than Brady's, and don't forget that Brady has Charlie Weis. I'm [extremely] curious to see how Brady does without Weis this year, who I happen to think is a genius (he was phenomenal with the Jets, and in his earlier stint with NE...and his last stint with NE). I'll agree that Manning has had better offensive talent with which to work, but the Weis factor should not be dismissed.

I agree Delomme is good, but I'm not sure he's among the tops in the game.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Hold Manning's and Brady's skill and ability from last year constant over the next few years. By the logic of the people using Brady's SB rings as the determining factor, if the Colts win 3 rings in the next 4 years, Manning would become the better QB despite there being no change in ability or skill between the two players.

That just isn't a logically defensible position that 'the best' can change from one player to another when nothing about either player changed.

GregR,I think the argument people are making is if you hold Manning's skill constant, he couldn't win three of the next four years.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Hold Manning's and Brady's skill and ability from last year constant over the next few years. By the logic of the people using Brady's SB rings as the determining factor, if the Colts win 3 rings in the next 4 years, Manning would become the better QB despite there being no change in ability or skill between the two players.

That just isn't a logically defensible position that 'the best' can change from one player to another when nothing about either player changed.

I hate to say your wrong because it sounds so blunt.......but things would change. What would change is the fact that Peyton Manning would have played A LOT better when it counted, something he is NOT doing now.I think Peyton Manning is the best QB during the regular season......period. But somehow, someway Brady ups his game during the playoffs, while Manning seems to slide down. Again, this has happened enough times to form a pattern.

So, if Peyton Manning who I think is the best regular season QB somehow turns into the best post season QB as well....yes I'll change my mind, I'm not a hard head about it.

But something in Manning's game/mental state whatever would have to change for that to happen.

 

[GregR_2]

Hold Manning's and Brady's skill and ability from last year constant over the next few years. By the logic of the people using Brady's SB rings as the determining factor, if the Colts win 3 rings in the next 4 years, Manning would become the better QB despite there being no change in ability or skill between the two players.

That just isn't a logically defensible position that 'the best' can change from one player to another when nothing about either player changed.

GregR,I think the argument people are making is if you hold Manning's skill constant, he couldn't win three of the next four years.

That seems a pretty poor argument especially if the team around him changes. If the Colts defense goes from 29th worst to 9th best, while the Patriots go from 9th best to 29th worth.... with the QBs staying the same in skill, do those people really think the Patriots would be more likely to win the Super Bowl than the Colts?Which is exactly what the point is, that people are giving more credit for a team win to the QB than he deserves, and that creates a position which is logically contradictive, that the best guy can change even if nothing about the QBs change.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Hold Manning's and Brady's skill and ability from last year constant over the next few years.  By the logic of the people using Brady's SB rings as the determining factor, if the Colts win 3 rings in the next 4 years, Manning would become the better QB despite there being no change in ability or skill between the two players.

That just isn't a logically defensible position that 'the best' can change from one player to another when nothing about either player changed.

GregR,I think the argument people are making is if you hold Manning's skill constant, he couldn't win three of the next four years.

That seems a pretty poor argument especially if the team around him changes. If the Colts defense goes from 29th worst to 9th best, while the Patriots go from 9th best to 29th worth.... with the QBs staying the same in skill, do those people really think the Patriots would be more likely to win the Super Bowl than the Colts?Which is exactly what the point is, that people are giving more credit for a team win to the QB than he deserves, and that creates a position which is logically contradictive, that the best guy can change even if nothing about the QBs change.

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

 

[Marc Levin]

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.

 

[radballs.]

Brady is not superior to Manning because of his postseason record.  He's better because of his ability to stay calm under pressure, his mechanics, and his decision-making.  It just so happens those qualities usually lead to victories and sometimes Super Bowls.  If Manning ever cures his happy feet and stops forcing throws into zone coverage, he'll win postseason games too.

I completely agree that Manning is not a good pressure QB. Just curious how you see Marino (since this is a comparison thread) In his heydey, he was the only one out there doing anything correctly in the playoffs. Those years the Bills were knocking the phins out of the playoffs, and the other times that the phins got the AFC championship game, you could point to a lot of reasons why they lost, but you could NEVER point to Dan in the AFC championship game and say it was his fault they didn't win.

Manning can't say the same thing - his poor games have often been the reason that the Colts' season ended.

Isn't part of the reason that Brady is able to remain calm under pressure because he has a better team (especially on the defensive side of the ball) surrounding him. Everything regarding the team winning doesn't have to rest on his shoulders alone like it does for Manning. Brady is asked to lead his team and not make mistakes. Manning is being asked to win the game by overcoming huge defensive shortcomings. In turn, couldn't it be that Manning isn't necessarily poor under pressure, but that no human being could be asked to compensate for so many team deficiencies? If Trent Dilfer had won one more Super Bowl with that outstanding Baltimore defense, where is he in this conversation? I guarantee he would be more closely compared to Brady than any of the other three QBs.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Hold Manning's and Brady's skill and ability from last year constant over the next few years. By the logic of the people using Brady's SB rings as the determining factor, if the Colts win 3 rings in the next 4 years, Manning would become the better QB despite there being no change in ability or skill between the two players.

That just isn't a logically defensible position that 'the best' can change from one player to another when nothing about either player changed.

GregR,I think the argument people are making is if you hold Manning's skill constant, he couldn't win three of the next four years.

That seems a pretty poor argument especially if the team around him changes. If the Colts defense goes from 29th worst to 9th best, while the Patriots go from 9th best to 29th worth.... with the QBs staying the same in skill, do those people really think the Patriots would be more likely to win the Super Bowl than the Colts?Which is exactly what the point is, that people are giving more credit for a team win to the QB than he deserves, and that creates a position which is logically contradictive, that the best guy can change even if nothing about the QBs change.

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

Manning averages 271 passing yards per game in the playoffs, and 7.6 yards per attempt. He has a 14/8 TD/INT ratio in eight games.In the regular season, Manning averages 263 passing yards per game, and 7.6 yards per attempt. He has a almost an identical TD/INT ratio in the regular season.

Suffice it to say, Manning seems to play about as well in the regular season as he does in the playoffs, despite a fairly limited sample size.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Hold Manning's and Brady's skill and ability from last year constant over the next few years. By the logic of the people using Brady's SB rings as the determining factor, if the Colts win 3 rings in the next 4 years, Manning would become the better QB despite there being no change in ability or skill between the two players.

That just isn't a logically defensible position that 'the best' can change from one player to another when nothing about either player changed.

GregR,I think the argument people are making is if you hold Manning's skill constant, he couldn't win three of the next four years.

That seems a pretty poor argument especially if the team around him changes. If the Colts defense goes from 29th worst to 9th best, while the Patriots go from 9th best to 29th worth.... with the QBs staying the same in skill, do those people really think the Patriots would be more likely to win the Super Bowl than the Colts?Which is exactly what the point is, that people are giving more credit for a team win to the QB than he deserves, and that creates a position which is logically contradictive, that the best guy can change even if nothing about the QBs change.

Hey GregR,I agree with you. I think it's a pretty poor argument too.

 

[Marc Levin]

Making mistakes in critical situations? Manning has thrown 20 INTs the last TWO years combined...Brady has thrown 26, despite 62 more pass attempts. I'd say Manning is less prone to making mistakes than Brady, based on that fact alone. To prove that Brady makes less mistakes in critical situations than Manning you'd need to prove a lot of things to me:1) Brady historically has made less mistakes in critical situations

All due respect, Chase, but I think his point is that the most "critical" situations for a QB have to be the playoffs, and Manning in the playoffs v. Brady in the playoffs . . . i am with you that Manning is unbelievable in the regular season. Same argument when I used to argue with folks about Marino/Montana - almost every one of them ended with "I'll tell you what, Dan Marino is the best quarterback in the history of the game if you only consider the regular season - if you include the postseason, noone beats Montana"

 

[valhallan]

The fact that guys like Dilfer and Brad Johnson won the SB shows that you don't need to be a star QB to win the Super Bowl.

Yeah you need to not make mistakes in critical situations, something Manning seems to have trouble figuring out. Super Bowl wins are the deciding factor for casual fans. We're supposed to be experts here, so let's stop with the cop outs.

Spare us Manning's ypa - he has some extremely fast and talented receivers getting chunks of yac. Spare us the Belichick genius garbage - he won nothing before Brady, in fact he was 5-13 as the Patriots head coach prior to the quarterback change.

Yes, we might not talk about Brady if Vinatieri misses those kicks. Doesn't change the fact that he's a masterful quarterback and has been almost since his first snap in the league. In my opinion, Delhomme is right up there in the best current quarterback discussion, but he hasn't accomplished enough to warrant consideration for most of us. I believe he's viewed as Brady would be without rings. Shortsighted.

Making mistakes in critical situations? Manning has thrown 20 INTs the last TWO years combined...Brady has thrown 26, despite 62 more pass attempts. I'd say Manning is less prone to making mistakes than Brady, based on that fact alone. To prove that Brady makes less mistakes in critical situations than Manning you'd need to prove a lot of things to me:1) Brady historically has made less mistakes in critical situations

2) Brady has some ability to make less mistakes in critical situations than normal situations

3) Manning has some ability to make less mistakes in normal situations than critical situations

4) Making mistakes in critical situations in the past is a better indicator of making mistakes in critical situations in the future, than making mistakes overall in the past.

Basically, I think the "making mistakes in critical situations" thing, even if true (no numbers have been shown yet), is a lot like batting average with runners in scoring position. Certain plays will play three or four years and have a significantly higher BA with RISP. But this is more due to chance and small sample size than anything else, and over time players don't tend to be better or worse with RISP. Any "critical situation mistakes" Manning has made that Brady hasn't, if true, is likely indicative of a small sample size over anything else.

I can spare the SB ring talk.

Manning's YPA is better than Brady's, and don't forget that Brady has Charlie Weis. I'm [extremely] curious to see how Brady does without Weis this year, who I happen to think is a genius (he was phenomenal with the Jets, and in his earlier stint with NE...and his last stint with NE). I'll agree that Manning has had better offensive talent with which to work, but the Weis factor should not be dismissed.

I agree Delomme is good, but I'm not sure he's among the tops in the game.

The 16 game regular season isn't a "critical situation." Unless we're going to dive into specific plays and sort out how each performed given the gravity of each occasion, it would be impossible to give a totally accurate assessment of "critical situation" ability. However to meet your requirements as best I can:Regular Season Interception %

Brady: 2.58

Manning: 3.09

Postseason Interception %

Brady: 0.99

Manning: 2.82

Beyond these numbers, we've all seen Manning crumble under pressure countless times and Brady rise to the occasion nearly every time. I can't believe any objective observer would dispute Brady's superior "critical situation" ability, but if you do, that's fine. It's your opinion.

Manning can easily surpass Brady if he hones his mechanics, decision-making, and learns to stay cool in the pocket when pressured. Mastery of those three qualities propels Brady to the front of the class, but Manning and any other quarterback is free to attain them and stake his claim as the best. Imo, Delhomme is the only other QB that can rival Brady in those areas, and everyone saw it in Super Bowl XVIII. He also showed it when he came in and threw the game-sealing pass against Tampa Bay you asked about a few weeks ago. (Curse the Saints for letting him go )

Anyway, I completely agree the loss of Weis should tell us a lot about Brady, and I conceded that to djcolts in the other thread. We've seen Manning's winning % without James (and it's not good), so let's see Brady's without Weis. However as I said earlier, winning simply puts him in our minds.. he can still be the best on a losing team.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Hold Manning's and Brady's skill and ability from last year constant over the next few years.  By the logic of the people using Brady's SB rings as the determining factor, if the Colts win 3 rings in the next 4 years, Manning would become the better QB despite there being no change in ability or skill between the two players.

That just isn't a logically defensible position that 'the best' can change from one player to another when nothing about either player changed.

GregR,I think the argument people are making is if you hold Manning's skill constant, he couldn't win three of the next four years.

That seems a pretty poor argument especially if the team around him changes. If the Colts defense goes from 29th worst to 9th best, while the Patriots go from 9th best to 29th worth.... with the QBs staying the same in skill, do those people really think the Patriots would be more likely to win the Super Bowl than the Colts?Which is exactly what the point is, that people are giving more credit for a team win to the QB than he deserves, and that creates a position which is logically contradictive, that the best guy can change even if nothing about the QBs change.

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

Manning averages 271 passing yards per game in the playoffs, and 7.6 yards per attempt. He has a 14/8 TD/INT ratio in eight games.In the regular season, Manning averages 263 passing yards per game, and 7.6 yards per attempt. He has a almost an identical TD/INT ratio in the regular season.

Suffice it to say, Manning seems to play about as well in the regular season as he does in the playoffs, despite a fairly limited sample size.

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.

 

[Marc Levin]

Hold Manning's and Brady's skill and ability from last year constant over the next few years.  By the logic of the people using Brady's SB rings as the determining factor, if the Colts win 3 rings in the next 4 years, Manning would become the better QB despite there being no change in ability or skill between the two players.

That just isn't a logically defensible position that 'the best' can change from one player to another when nothing about either player changed.

GregR,I think the argument people are making is if you hold Manning's skill constant, he couldn't win three of the next four years.

That seems a pretty poor argument especially if the team around him changes. If the Colts defense goes from 29th worst to 9th best, while the Patriots go from 9th best to 29th worth.... with the QBs staying the same in skill, do those people really think the Patriots would be more likely to win the Super Bowl than the Colts?Which is exactly what the point is, that people are giving more credit for a team win to the QB than he deserves, and that creates a position which is logically contradictive, that the best guy can change even if nothing about the QBs change.

Hey GregR,I agree with you. I think it's a pretty poor argument too.

yup - how was brady/pats in 2002??

 

[Jason Wood]

Hold Manning's and Brady's skill and ability from last year constant over the next few years. By the logic of the people using Brady's SB rings as the determining factor, if the Colts win 3 rings in the next 4 years, Manning would become the better QB despite there being no change in ability or skill between the two players.

That just isn't a logically defensible position that 'the best' can change from one player to another when nothing about either player changed.

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.

 

[GregR_2]

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

 

[BassNBrew]

Hold Manning's and Brady's skill and ability from last year constant over the next few years.  By the logic of the people using Brady's SB rings as the determining factor, if the Colts win 3 rings in the next 4 years, Manning would become the better QB despite there being no change in ability or skill between the two players.

That just isn't a logically defensible position that 'the best' can change from one player to another when nothing about either player changed.

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.

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

 

[GregR_2]

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.