Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Just jaggin ya about how Manning cant win "BIG" games. I know, I know, he won 2 playoff games last year, yada yada yada.i knew the game you were talking about, i just didnt understand your question.Last year in the playoffs vs. NE. You forget about this already?what?Forgiven, but care to else us when it came?
thats what i have as well.I'm getting 39 for Brady on 1540 attempts and 38 for Manning on 1608 attempts.
I'm glad you abandoned statitics as your sole measurement of QBs. I'm sorry you don't acknowledge the other arguments I've made besides Brady's Superbowls, but I'll let you off the hook. Let's get to your point about starting a team with Manning. What it really comes down to is, can he win without the weapons? In college, he had Peerless Price and Marcus Nash. In the pros, he's had Harrison, Edge and Pollard for most of his career, and now Wayne, Clark and Stokley. So let's get to your point. You're building a team around Manning. Do you spend money and first round picks on top weapons? Or do you build your offense around him and spend picks on other players? We don't know what Manning would do without weapons. Well, we know he threw 26 TDs in 2001, when Edge got hurt, while throwing 23 picks. Of course, it's hard to say how much of that was Manning and how much was Marvin Harrison, because Harrison caught 15 of those 26 TDS. Pollard caught 8 more. It's hard to say who was better, but it sure looks like his talented receivers helped him out there. (Of course, Brady carried an offense to a Superbowl and won without a single other first rounder on offense during his first year ever as a starter, but it was the team around him that did it.)We also know he threw 27 TDs in 2002 when Edge was coming back from an ACL, but that doesn't help much. He still threw the 11 of them to Harrison, 8 to Pollard, and 4 to an emerging 2nd year WR named Reggie Wayne. (By the way, Brady threw for 29 TDs that same year, and threw fewer picks, too, despite losing his #1 WR for most of the season, and having only one first rounder - Daniel Graham, who was injured for most of the year - on offense.)So my question for you is, if you're so confident you can start a winning team with Manning, do you surround him with studs? Or do you really think that Manning, in his first year as a starter, would have been able to make more out of cast off David Patten, and castoff Antowain Smith, while making a Pro Bowler out of a previously no-name 9th year receiver Troy Brown during his rookie year? Do you really think Manning would have thrown for much more than 29 TDs (spread across more than ten different receivers) to the previously mentioned cast of misfits when he got a 3rd round rookie named Deion Branch, a seventh round rookie named David Givens, castoff Christian Fauria, and toss a TD each to injured TEs named Daniel Graham (his rookie year) and Cam Cleeland? Forget the fact that Brady is undefeated in the playoffs in his first three years. That's a team stat. Remember that Manning lost 41-0 to the Jets in 2002, and threw 4 INTs to the Pats in 2003. Forget the fact that Manning cost his team the #1 overall pick. He was worth it. Remember that he's got a $100 million contract and has cost over four times what sixth rounder Brady has cost. Forget the fact that Manning didn't win a playoff game until his sixth year in the league - that's a team stat. Remember that Manning had one TD and 2 INTs, while averaging less than 200 yards a game, during those games. Tell me again why you'd start a team with Manning?
No, it hasn't been done since then. But if Brady isn't the only player to win 2 Superbowl rings because it's a team accomplishment, then Manning certainly isn't the only player to erase a 21-point deficit in the final 4 minutes of a game. There's 11 players on offense. I was just tweaking you for being selective about when you give the QB credit for his team's accomplishments.
You must think very poorly of Dan Marino, too. The loser.8-10 in the playoffsA rather pedestrian 32:24 TD to INT ratio in those 18 games.10 playoff games where he threw 2 or more picks.And, what, with all those weapons, what garbage he did with it.Jeff Hostetler's more your kind of QB. A record of 4-1 in the playoffs, with 7:0 TD to INT ratio. No real "weapons" the likes of Duper, Clayton, Harrison, et al. And HE won the big one; something ol' Danny Boy can't hold claim to.And, yet, I have this funny weird feeling that I would probably start my team with Dan Marino over Hoss.You've probably got the same take on Antowain Smith. Better RB than Edge, no doubt. Just look up the numbers. Virtually identical YPC. Smith has more postseason TDs than Edge. And, look at that...he outperformed Edge running the ball when they met in the playoffs. Of course, we must not forget, he has 2 rings, and Edge has none. Antowain Smith must be ther better RB.And, yet, I have this funny weird feeling that I would probably start my team with Edge over Antowain. Troy Brown. Better postseason record than Marvin Harrison. Same number of 100-yd games, more productive getting receptions. Two SB rings to Marvin's 0. He, too, must be better.Or, do you only evaluate quarterbacks based on their head-to-head matchups, as if they play the game 1-on-1. Do you just compare the number of rings a QB has when is name is "Brady" but not when it's "Dilfer" or "Brad Johnson" or "Jeff Hostetler"? Do you minimize Manning but somehow elevate Marino, Kelly, Tark to another level? They're on the all-time bust list for Super Bowls, after all. Biggest collection of busts, according to your method of evaluation.
not to hijack,but dan marino isnt a quarterback, he was a passer. think of him a media friendly jeff george.marino only threw the ball. he never wanted to hand it off, thats why miami never could run, it had nothing to do with the lack of talent at rb. the year after marino retires a career bum rushes for 1400 yards (lamar smith) and the fins win a playoff game. no coincedence if you ask me.ditto for not having a defense. they had a defense when marino was there, its just that if you throw all day, your defesne will be on the field more as the games last longer. no suprise that their defense is much much better since danny boy left.
So your point is, Marino never won a Superbowl, and yet is a Hall of Famer. Well, it's not what we were talking about, but sure, Manning's a future Hall of Famer. Brady's better. We weren't arguing whether Marino's a Hall of Famer, but he should be too. Don't put words in my mouth, it makes it look like you can't argue the words I'm actually saying.
I really like your argument that, since I said the reason Brady is better than Manning because of his Superbowls, I must think that Brown's better than Harrison and Smith better than Edge. It's funny, and not only because you're just proving that Brady's done more with less, but because I didn't say that the reason Brady is better than Manning is because of his Superbowls.
No, I don't only evaluate quarterbacks based on those criteria. I evaluate them based on a lot of criteria. In fact, I have throughout this thread, but every time I do, you go back to arguing against something I didn't say. In fact, I don't think you answered a single thing I said in the post you quoted, and since I was responding to you and your claim you'd start a team with Manning over Brady, I'm just going to post it again. Unless you're just conceding.
You've quoted your question and my answer twice, but not responded. Can you show me a question of yours I didn't respond to?
You haven't answered how you're evaluating Brady's brilliance. You point to the Super Bowls, but say it isn't about that. You say that he's beaten Manning 5-0, but you've conceded that they don't play football one-on-one. You've pulled up myriad selective stats, ignoring/dismissing others, but say it isn't all about the numbers.So, what, praytell is it that makes Brady a better QB? You just keep throwing numbers around and then saying they don't matter (e.g., SB wins, H2H, passer ratings, yards, TDs). What QUALITIES can you speak to that Brady has over Manning?
Fair enough. 1) Brady's clutch. I know he didn't look that way against Miami, which is one reason why the poll's as slanted as it is. But he hasn't had many of those bad weeks, and never in the playoffs. His undefeated records in playoff games and overtime games, his 54-14 record as a starter, and his incredible string of comebacks are all testaments to how clutch he is. Manning is huge during the regular season, but he couldn't win a playoff game until last year. And even then - he blew up against the KC D and against a mediocre Denver team, then threw 4 picks in a collapse against the Patriots. It's been beaten into the ground, but it's true. 2) Brady makes the players around him better. Every receiver that New England gets late in the draft or off the scrap heap turns to gold. Some of the credit goes to the Patriots' front office, but you have to give a lot of credit to Brady for turning a 9th year career #3 WR into a Pro Bowler, throwing 10 TDs to a scrap heap TE named Fauria, and consistently turning guys like a fourth year nothing named David Patten, a 7th round pick named David Givens, and a third rounder named Branch into 100+ yard receivers when everyone knew they were passing because their running game was made up of Antowain Smith and Kevin Faulk. In contrast, Manning has players around him that make him better, but when the playoffs come around, Manning falls apart. He threw one TD in his first three playoff games, all losses, including a 41-0 loss to the Jets. 3) Brady plays well in the cold on grass - he plays outside for almost half of his games and still puts up great numbers. Manning plays well on turf, but when he's playing in the cold on the grass, his numbers are terrible. In the last three years, Manning's numbers outdoors in his last six cold weather games (which I unscientifically got looking at cold weather climates, after Thanksgiving, outdoors) averages about 250 yards with exactly one TD and exactly one INT. Not terrible, but definitely not Manning-esque. Brady averages closer to 200 yards, but has 13 TDs vs 4 INTs in 11 regular games in the same conditions. Now let's look at why I don't think Manning's numbers make him better:1) I'll concede that Manning has significantly better stats, but a big part of that is that he blows up against weak Ds. He has a lot of trouble against good teams, which is probably another part of the reason he chokes in the playoffs. Look at this year - as impressive as it is, a big reason Manning's making this run is his competition. Manning's averaging more than 3 TDs a game. Let's look at the teams he's gotten those 3+ TDs against: Green Bay (25th in passing yards allowed), Oakland (#30), Jacksonville (#12), Kansas City (#31), Minnesota (#29), Houston (#27), Chicago (#17), Detroit (#23) and Tennessee (#20). That's not to take away from what he's doing - an amazing stat from Manning's run this year is that his first game with fewer than 2 TDs was against Baltimore in week 15 - but that was also his first game against a D in the top quarter of the league. 2) Manning needs the play action pass to be successful. The year Edge went out, he had 23 INTs. The year after, when Edge was struggling, he had 19. Brady has had his success without a running game. 3) Brady keeps ticking despite losing Branch, Brown, Graham, and Patten for significant amounts of time throughout his career. The only adversity Manning has faced was losing Edge, and his numbers fell apart. Notice all these points, and no mention of the word Superbowl. Now, you've asked me to answer two different things - this, and why I'd rather start my team around Brady than Manning. Your turn.
I agree it's very close. But please don't talk bad about the Boston Sports Guy.
I guess what I'd say to start is that Manning's career, like most QBs, demonstrates a model of improvement with experience. This year is a culmination of that growth. He put up gaudy stats early, to be sure. But, I also think he's been asked to do more than Brady has from day one, just in terms of what sort of offense needs to be run.I don't want to diminish Brady here, because he's run this NE offense just about as well as anyone can expect. But, it's been a low-risk offense for years. This is the first season he's been challenged to stretch the field. I think I saw the stat the other night that he leads the league in attempts over 10 yards (50% of all attempts). His YPA is up (7.9) but his completion percentage is below 60, the first time in his three years as a starter. With the dink-and-dunk routine he's been asked to execute prior to this year, I find it odd that he's never been over 65%. But, maybe that's the receivers dropping the ball. Who knows. It's a different offense, and that's not Brady's fault. It's just that he's had a low-risk type of passing scheme to work with that's operated much like a running game (hence the high attempts, low yards in his first two years). I think the case can be made that Manning has made his receivers better, as well. We're talking about Brandon Freaking Stokely, after all. This guy was a stiff in Baltimore and injured most of last year with Indy. But, he's gotten on the same page as Manning and has become a lethal threat down the seam.I don't know if Brady's really maximized Deion Branch very well. He's been hurt this year, but it still seems he's been underutilized when healthy. Brady's made more use of guys like Brown and Givens, two undersized little rabbits who dart and duck around the middle, giving a few bones to the RBs and TEs here and there.I don't have historical stats at my disposal to cite, but THIS YEAR, Manning's been terrific outdoors. He's got a 65.3% pass completion rate (Brady 59.6; all-but-one game has been outdoors, not just "more than half") and thrown a 17:4 TD to INT. That's ridiculously good for a guy who's used to the carpet. Brady's ratio is 22:13 in 7 more games played "in the elements."That Baltimore game you cited was one of Manning's best, imo. Not statistically on par with the balance of his season; but the way he managed the game, when Baltimore was throwing everything but the kitchen sink at him, mixing coverages, and focusing so much on the pass, Manning was cool, collected, efficient.Ala Marino, Manning eludes the pass rush as well as anybody. He's dropped back to pass 460 times and been sacked only 9 times. Brady, meanwhile, has been sacked 22 times in 434 passing plays. I don't think anbody would argue that Indy's line is all that. But, Manning has a pocket presence that, to me, supercedes anybody in the game right now.As far as clutch, I'd say this is where Manning has room to grow. Brady came out in his first year with ice blood in his veins. Nevermind the tuck rule, a game where the conditions were so horrendous, you can't judge against Brady on that (and, oh by the way they won, albeit with a rather absurd call in their favor). But, this year, Manning's been great when he's needed most. When down by 9 or more points, Manning's passer rating is 125, scoring 7 TDs and getting intercepted only once. We'll see what happens in the playoffs. My sense is that he, more than Brady, is aware of the magnitude of the playoff atmosphere and gets affected by it. Certainly, that NE game last year was a prime bit of evidence. Although, I will add (and this, I know gets Pats fans way on the defensive), that was a mugging clinic NE put on the receivers. You can't complete passes when the defenders are tackling receivers before the ball even gets to them. It was a tactic by Belichick that worked because the refs swallowed their whistles the whole game. But, everyone (save Pats fans, of course) who saw the game know what was going on, and it, as much as anything, brought about the ENFORCEMENT of the already-existing chuck rule.That said, Manning had a horrible game and couldn't work his way through it. The Indy defenders didn't give NE receivers the same treatment, and we all know what happened from there. It's where Brady gets an edge on Manning, I'd say. I think Manning is brilliant, but he's susceptible to the pressure of a big game. I think he's made strides--winning the two playoff games last year was a step in the right direction for him--but, obviously, Brady came into the league seemingly unphased by all the commotion. That is his biggest asset.But, I'll end by saying Manning's progression this season will be witnessed in the playoffs; I think this is his time. His "tangibles" (e.g., size, arm strength, moving around the pocket) exceed those of Brady. Obviously, he has talent around him that Brady doesn't, so it lends itself to the two of us hypothesizing about "how'd he do if...," so there is no answer that will satisfy both of us on that front. What we know is that Brady has a history of being ridiculously cool under fire (save this recent Miami game) and has benefited from having a coach and a defense that put him in a position where he can succeed...and he has. Manning, on the other hand, has been asked to do quite a bit more with the passing game than Brady. It's a contrast in styles, and Brady's teams have reaped greater success than Manning's. But, it's early in their careers. Manning has shown steady improvement (with an absurd spike this season), while Brady has been...well...pretty much the same (I don't think he's been as effective this year, but maybe that's the Miami game talking). If I'm asked which QB I want right now to lead my team, I'll take Manning without hesitation over Brady. I don't think Brady wins another SB, while Manning gets at least one. Maybe this will be the year.
He has been getting really irritating lately.I agree with some of your points on Brady in your last big post (I think he's better than Manning, after all), but I'm still not sure why you're so focused on the players' draft round.Just because Brady's supporting cast doesn't have a first rounder doesn't necessarily make them less talented. You could use the same argument to say that Brady is not talented, because after all, he was only a 6th rounder. You've used this point over and over and I don't think you're going to convince people using that route.It's also flawed argument to say that Brady makes his untalented teammates better but Manning's supremely talented teammates make him better ... if you're going to take that route successfully, you probably are going to need to identify what kind of numbers Manning would need to put up in order to demonstrate that he's making his teammates better. I'd wager that if you made a list of those numbers going into the season, they wouldn't be unreachable given his current paces.I think Brady's better than Manning because he's, as my friend who's a huge Patriots fan, "too stupid to realize he's being clutch." He doesn't actually think Brady is stupid, but he just thinks it's amazing at how Brady doesn't really "get" the moment until after it's done -- and thus is so calm. Most QBs are too self-aware, but Brady just doesn't seem to be. And he's a joy to watch.
), Patriots @ Colts.Patriots won 47-41 on a Bethel Johnson KO return TD in overtime 
....The Colts struck first, taking a 7-0 lead. But 2 Manning INTs and an Edge fumble helped the Patriots build a 26-14 lead -- 3 Brady TD passes (1 missed extra point) and 2 Vinatieri field goals. The Colts scored the next 17 points with Manning's 3rd and 4th TD throws of the game to take a 31-26 lead going into the 4th. The Patriots go up 41-31 in the 4th off 2 Dillon TDs (1 set up by a Manning INT), getting the 2-point conversion from Brady to Brown. Manning gets the ball with under 2 minutes left, and throws his 5th TD of the game with 38 seconds left. The Colts then successfully recover the onside kick (that was the luckiest bounce I've ever seen) and kick a 41-yarder to send it to OT, 41-41. But on the opening kickoff, Bethel Johnson goes 100 yards, and good night.Brady: 21/33, 280 yards, 3 TD, 0 INT, 1 sack, 120.7 ratingManning: 27/47, 438 yards, 5 TD, 3 INT, 1 sack, 97.6 ratingYes, this was stupid and pointless, but if I wasted my time I might as well waste yours too.You're making a great case for why Manning's surrounding cast doesn't prove that Manning isn't good. But Manning's success with all those great players around him DOES at least partially explain his huge numbers, and the fact Brady doesn't have those weapons DOES suggest that his numbers would be better with the same weapons. I think everyone agrees that Manning's the stats guy, while Brady's the clutch guy. Therefore, to argue that one is better than the other, you would have to show why the gap between Brady's stats and Manning's is less relevant, or that their relative performance in the clutch is less relevant. The question was asked earlier, if they switched teams, would Manning put up better numbers than Brady? Would Brady be able to put up anything close to Manning's numbers on the Colts? The fact that Manning's had a ridiculously good supporting cast, and that he used Harrison and Pollard as a crutch when Edge was out in his worst season, suggests he really needs the cast around him. The fact that Brady's put up good (but non-Manning) numbers with a bunch of unknown smurfs, and yet each of them suddenly looks good when they're catching passes from Brady, suggests that Brady makes a lesser supporting cast better. To me, that bridges the gap, at least partially, between Manning's numbers on the Colts and Brady's on the Pats - and the hypothetical reverse. If Manning were on the Pats, would he make the Patriots WRs better? Probably. But Brady already "makes them better". How much better would Manning make them? If Brady were on the Colts, would Harrison, Wayne, Stokley, Clark, Pollard, Edge, and an O line that has had very little turnover the last several years make Brady's stats better? I don't think there's any question. It's just a question of degree. To me, the comparison between the stats guy and the non stats guy comes down to:(Brady's non-statistical qualities - Manning's non statistical qualities) vs. ((Manning on Colts - Brady on Colts) + (Manning on Pats - Brady on Pats))/2And with that, I really am going to bed.
The question remains Could Brady maximize that talent in the way that Manning has? Could he win a Super Bowl with that Indy sieve of a defense?Brady's limited. He could dink-and-dunk all day to Harrison, Wayne, etc. But, his skills are limited, not being able to throw the deep ball, not making the deep reads the way that Manning can. He's off target on so many of those deep outs and sideline patterns, compared to Manning, that I think they'd be a waste of talent in Brady's hands.I know you gotta' like dem apples.
Brady can move within the pocket better than any NFL QB right now, and his deep ball is impressive, especially the 30 to 40 yard bombs down the middle he seems to complete 1-2 times a game. Every QB (except for maybe Elway in his prime) has some limitations, and needs to be in the right system to succeed.
hell noone knows whose better.. we just give our opinions.. no reason for any NE bashing or indy bashing here.. ITS DAMN XMAS!!!!!! be nice to all...Maybe. 1) Brady's ball control passing game may be just what the Colts need. Despite having the league's second leading rusher, the Colts have the 23rd best time of possession in the league. Their time of possession in their three losses? 24:54, 25:26, and 22:27. They've been slinging the ball for years - Manning's personal stats look great, but his style wins games, not championships. 2) Let's assume Manning's just a better passer, and that Brady wouldn't get as much out of that team. (Before we do, let me say that Brady's accuracy on the deep ball is underrated. Manning's certainly seems better, but the fact that Manning's receivers are open more often and the fact he has the threat of the play action pass gives him a little more leeway, too. Let me also reiterate that Brady's gotten more from less in bad conditions, while Manning's gotten more from more in a dome - so the assumption that Manning is just a "better passer" is not a gimme). Now how much does Brady's cool-under-fire outweight Manning's cool-except-in-the-playoffs? Would he have been able to put up a total of one TD in his first three playoff games with Harrison and Edge at their peak? Brady did more with less offensive talent around him, including a game in a blinding snowstorm. Would he have been completely shut out against the Jets the year before if he had a healthy Harrison, Wayne, Clark, Edge and Pollard? Brady's never been shut out in the playoffs, so it's hard to say. Would Brady have thrown 4 picks in the last AFC Championship game? People have manhandled the Patriots' smurf receivers for years (I'm sure they always backed off exactly five yards from the line of scrimmage though). Would Brady have won two Superbowls with the Colts? It's hard to say. But you'll have a hard time arguing that he'd have done any worse. What do Manning's stats get you? Would you or anyone take the "consecutive number of 25 TD seasons" record and the TD record over one, let alone two, Superbowls? 3) You've argued that Brady's success is all Belichick and the defense. So far I've focused on Manning's unquestionably awful personal performance in the playoffs. Let's look at team performances. Through the same point in their careers, Manning was 0-2 in the playoffs with 0 passing TDs, while Brady was 6-0 in the playoffs with two Superbowl MVPs. Also, remember that Belichick's record in Cleveland was average at best, and that he was 5-13 in games without Brady, including an 0-2 start the year that Brady took over. Belichick and the defense weren't winning games without Brady. So did Belichick make Brady? Or did Brady make Belichick?4) Let's assume you disagree with all of those arguments, and think that Manning's able to do everything Brady can do and more. In that case, let's also look at their salaries. Now you're comparing Manning with Brady and the defensive players you could get if you didn't have so much money tied up in Manning. When talking about who you'd rather start a team aroud, this becomes an important question - the Pats have been able to build a Superbowl winning team around Brady. The Colts haven't been able to do the same around Manning. Now you could argue that the Patriots' front office is better, and maybe it is. But remember that Polian was one of the most highly regarded GMs in the league. And Dungy was a defensive guru, able to find hidden gems for his defense. Until they got to the Colts. Now, they're throwing money at offense because Manning hasn't been able to develop the Pathons and Ismails of the world into a good enough WR2 to put them over the top, which means there's no salary cap left over for defense. So if you're building a team around Manning, and you want these gaudy numbers, you have to be willing to spend A LOT on offense. Can a team in today's NFL build a winning team around Peyton Manning? We haven't seen it yet. But a team in today's NFL can build a potential dynasty around Tom Brady.
Regular season success or postseason success?
Why would it be hard. I think Brady's an inferior QB to Manning, so of course I think he'd do worse. I've already said that all those weapons would be underutilized by Brady. Manning maximizes their abilities, Brady would not. That's my position, and you certainly have a different one. But, I have a rather easy time arguing that Brady would do worse than Manning in that offense.
Asked and answered already. Maybe this is the third time. No one's said this, so why do you keep bringing it up as though it's an argument for Manning? But, just because Brady's won two Super Bowls doesn't make him a better QB. Or, do you believe that does make him a better QB?
No, I haven't. Please stick to what I've said. I've praised Brady quite a number of times in this discussion, so please pay better attention and not misrepresent my position.
Is Brady a better value? Sure, I imagine he is. Mushin Muhammad's a better value than Marvin Harrison, too, but that doesn't mean he's the better wide receiver. It doesn't mean that I'd rather have Mush on my team than Marvin. If you're asking a financial question, we're getting into a totally different discussion that, frankly, I find less interesting. But, if you want to say Brady is a better value at the QB position, fine, I might cede that point. For that matter, Antowain Smith is a better value than Edge. So what? Edge is the better RB, and I'd rather start my team with him.
They were a bad defense before Peyton got the new contract. There are a lot of very good d-coordinators who haven't translated that to their respective teams as head coaches.
Yet. Manning's still young. Brady's still young. Maybe Manning is in the course of a progression that most QBs go through; took Steve Young, Brett Favre, Troy Aikman, John Elway a few years to develop and mature. Sometimes luck's involved. Brady, after all, is the beneficiary of one of the most absurd calls in NFL history that helped propel him to the Super Bowl. Vinatieri made an insane kick that, had it gone Norwood on him, would have erased a SB from Brady's legacy. He's actually made a few. If only Jim Kelly had that same good fortune.
Not in the cold, though. He'd benefit a ton from home field in the playoffs or a road game in a dome.
That's pretty funny. I consider this debate done, then. Just because you can't convince me to agree with you, doesn't mean I haven't responded to your questions. I think any fair reader of this so-called debate would conclude that I've answered your questions; just in a way that you disagree with. That's how we can sum this up in a nutshell: We disagree. You like Brady; I like Manning. End of story.Your tone has been rather smug and arrogant throughout, and I'm really pretty tired of looking over that fact; so I'm calling it a day on this thread.My last parting shot. Yes, Culpepper is better than Brady. Slim margin, though. But, still better.
Fair. I definitely used a negative tone a couple times, and you did the same (hello chicken, meet egg,
, thanks for playing, etc.). I thought you made some excellent points, too. It was fun going back and forth. That said, I'm not being smug when I say I think you didn't answer my questions. I had a couple of multi-page posts, where you quoted and responded to less than half of them. Seriously - there's huge spots in the quotes that are missing, and they were usually my biggest points. At first, I thought that was because you were conceding the points, and picking out the easy ones to respond to. Now I think you evaluate QBs completely different from me. I always thought Montana was better than Marino. Marino was a great QB doing everything he could to win and coming up short; Montana was a great QB doing enough to win when he had to and always leaving you wondering if he had even more up his sleeve. The only things that ever took away from Montana in my eyes was the fact he had Rice, and the fact that Young stepped in and walked into the Hall of Fame, too. But this time, it's Manning that's got the ridiculous weapons around him. That puts a little asterisk next to his name for me. And Brady, while not putting up numbers as good, has no Rice. That makes his accomplishments even more incredible to me. Which is why I honestly think what Brady's done is more impressive than what Manning's doing. You parthian shot that Culpepper's better than Brady is exactly where we differ. You seem to look at the measure of a QB as his ability to consistently hit his throws, get yards, and move his offense down the field. I think that's just a part of it. That's where we differ, and that's why my comments about what the team has done since Brady got there as opposed to when he was gone didn't even register on your list of important arguments to counter, while your comments about Manning's statistical accomplishments mean so little to me. I'll bet you dimes to donuts you don't think Vick is a top QB, either. In fact, I'd bet most of the people who think Brady is great think Vick is great, too, because they've both made their teams winners in their short careers. And I bet most people who think Manning is a little overrated think Culpepper is, too, because it's clear how much better he is when Moss is in there, and because QBs from Cunningham to Jeff George to Gus Frerotte have put up equally impressive passing numbers with Moss. I can't separate the QB from his weapons when measuring his statistics, and you can't separate the QB from his team when measuring his accomplishments. That's fair. Thanks for a good debate, and my apologies for rankling.
Ah, now that's the kind of post I'm looking for.Fair. I definitely used a negative tone a couple times, and you did the same (hello chicken, meet egg,
I certainly didn't intend to ignore any of the questions. I may have thought I answered them already. Who knows. Neither one of us will ever be accused of writing with brevity, so I likely tried to pick my spots and expand on them. Not surprisingly, I missed the most crucial ones you were after. I like C-Pepp. I like the physical talents he possesses and am probably more impressed with his completion % than I should be. That said, I don't think he's in an elite class of QBs, yet. I have yet to see him be a true leader, something Brady certainly is right now. So, I guess if I had to re-evaluate, I'd probably take Brady RIGHT NOW. But, I envision a pretty high ceiling for Culpepper. I sort of see him as an early version of Elway--immensely gifted, but hasn't put it all together yet. Time will tell if he can take it to the next level.Vick's a weird one for me. I keep going back and forth with him. He's ridiculous; he's a freak. One of the reasons I couldn't wait to get the Sunday Ticket this year was to be able to watch most of his games. But, gosh...he looks like one QB one day, and another QB the next. I'm waiting to see a little more consistency from him before I elevate him to the next tier of QBs. But, omg, with that arm/speed...he could be even better with more game experience.Personally, I was always a Montana guy, too. Marino was phenomenal, don't get me wrong. But, Montana was a guy that measured the game in a way I have yet to see from any QB, Manning and Brady included. He did the calculus on the field faster than anybody, and he had enough of the skills available to execute the decisions he made on the fly. As for that chicken and egg reference, I think that was just my way of saying it's difficult to say whether Manning makes his players better, or if the guys around him made Manning better. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The answer is undoubtedly that they assist each other. Very much like the Montana-Rice problem. But, either way, it was more directed at the problem of association--not to slight you.Regardless, 'twas a good debate. The next few years will define it even better. You made the best case for Brady I've heard, yet. Happy Holidays and all that jazz.
