Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And if we want to play the supporting-cast game, there's been a qualitative difference between the wide receivers and, to a lesser extent, the running backs that have supported the offenses of the two quarterbacks.
I don't play that game anymore.
1. The Patriot's system might arguably be better with role players than stars. That's the brilliance of Belicheck's system.
2. I'm assuming these star players are Harrison, Wayne, Clark, Edge, and Faulk in Manning's early days? Only one went on to be something outside of Indianapolis. So was it that those guys were HOF type level offensive players or were they good players made into HOF level players because of Peyton?
In Peyton's stint with Denver, offensively, he absolutely was stacked in his first couple seasons with Denver. Welker, DT, Julius Thomas, Decker. And he absolutely lived up to it by having one of the statistically greatest seasons ever for a QB. But like Brady and New England when they were stacked with Moss and a prime Welker, they fell short too. Too bad Brady missed 2008, because we didnt get a proper follow up to the 16-0 season. It took a ridiculous play for the Pats to lose that super bowl. But it took about an equally ridiculous play for the Broncos to lose to the Ravens in Manning's first year with the Broncos. With the Raven's going on to win the super bowl that year, it's not out of the question to think what would have been in that game.
Brady has benefited by having played for the great coach in NFL history. Of course that's simply my opinion, but playing for a team coached by Belichick is a big benefit for any player.
Not just your opinion. I don't believe that fact is even debatable anymore. BB is the best to ever do it and it's probably not even that close.
As for BB's so-so record before Brady stepped in, I think like anything, even the QB position, you are not going to be at your greatest right out of the gate. It very well could take several years and two teams before a coach not only finds his identity, but finds ways to pass it along to his players effectively.
The Colts without Manning in 2011 plunged from 10-6 the year prior to 2-14. The Patriots without Brady are 13-5 (10-5 in 2008, 3-0 this year). It reflects well on the Patriots that they have 1) developed a 6th round QB into the great player Brady is today and 2) built a team that survives even without its star QB. Brady was less important to the Patriots than Manning was to the Colts, and even the Broncos.
To me where this debate favors Manning is in the qualitative. Manning has done something no other QB has ever done: won a Super Bowl for two different teams. Brady won't ever do that. And I don't have a crystal ball, but I'd be willing to theorize Manning is the only QB in any of our lifetimes to achieve that accomplishment. Manning's 4 Super Bowls are also with 4 different OCs, also a pretty noteworthy achievement.
I don't think one is definitively better than the other. There's a lot to like about both QBs and compelling arguments can be made for either player. Given the Patriots' success even without Brady, I am inclined to believe he has benefitted from better overall coaching and organizational practices over the course of his career than has Manning, and through that Manning has still achieved unparalleled qualitative and pretty hard to equal quantitative success. I give the edge to Manning. That's not even a knock on Brady but nod toward the Patriots as a whole.
But you can't teach or coach that ice cold killer instinct that Brady has had throughout his career. That's uncoachable, either you have it or you don't. And by and large, Tom Brady is a killer in the clutch of legendary proportions, of the best who ever did it. That's a decided edge in favor of Brady to me....
Maybe Manning had the best natural talent, I can concede that. Manning had that "it" to probably the greatest extent we've ever seen. I'm not sure we'll ever see a quarterback as talented before the snap as Peyton Manning in his prime was. His ability to recognize the defense, to bend the defense to his will before even snapping the ball, is legendary. I'm getting excited thinking about it lol...
I tend to agree with everyone else that this is a razor-thin margin either way it goes....
But you can't teach or coach that ice cold killer instinct that Brady has had throughout his career. That's uncoachable, either you have it or you don't. And by and large, Tom Brady is a killer in the clutch of legendary proportions, of the best who ever did it. That's a decided edge in favor of Brady to me....
Which is what makes him the greatest QB of all time. Hands down, no debate, imo. The dude is dominant, period. My dad and I go back and forth about this as he's a huge Elway fan.
The Colts without Manning in 2011 plunged from 10-6 the year prior to 2-14. The Patriots without Brady are 13-5 (10-5 in 2008, 3-0 this year). It reflects well on the Patriots that they have 1) developed a 6th round QB into the great player Brady is today and 2) built a team that survives even without its star QB. Brady was less important to the Patriots than Manning was to the Colts, and even the Broncos.
To me where this debate favors Manning is in the qualitative. Manning has done something no other QB has ever done: won a Super Bowl for two different teams. Brady won't ever do that. And I don't have a crystal ball, but I'd be willing to theorize Manning is the only QB in any of our lifetimes to achieve that accomplishment. Manning's 4 Super Bowls are also with 4 different OCs, also a pretty noteworthy achievement.
I don't think one is definitively better than the other. There's a lot to like about both QBs and compelling arguments can be made for either player. Given the Patriots' success even without Brady, I am inclined to believe he has benefitted from better overall coaching and organizational practices over the course of his career than has Manning, and through that Manning has still achieved unparalleled qualitative and pretty hard to equal quantitative success. I give the edge to Manning. That's not even a knock on Brady but nod toward the Patriots as a whole.
Manning didn't "win" 2 Superbowls....
He won ONE and was along for the ride for number 2...
If you are going to talk "qualitative" and discuss how the Pats did with and without Brady lets talk about how the Broncos did( and are doing) with and without Manning...
Was Brady ever benched for multiple games for ineffectiveness DURING a Super Bowl run??
Don't think so....
I also believe no QB had LESS to do with a SB victory than Trent Dilfer with the Ravens and Peyton Manning with the Broncos last year...
How are the Broncos doing this year without Manning???
Same argument folks are using for Brady...
I would argue the Broncos look BETTER this year because they actually have a QB and Siemian looks better than Manning EVER did last season..
Brady is the GOAT
4 SB rings (and counting) trumps 2 anyway you slice it
He won ONE and was along for the ride for number 2...
If you are going to talk "qualitative" and discuss how the Pats did with and without Brady lets talk about how the Broncos did with and without Manning...
Was Brady ever benched for multiple games for ineffectiveness DURING a Super Bowl run??
Don't think so....
I also believe no QB had LESS to do with a SB victory than Trent Dilfer with the Ravens and Peyton Manning with the Broncos last year...
How are the Broncos doing this year without Manning???
Same argument folks are using for Brady...
I would argue the Broncos look BETTER this year because they actually have a QB and Siemian looks better than Manning EVER did last season..
Brady is the GOAT
4 SB rings (and counting) trumps 2 anyway you slice it
If you disagree with that fact.and it is a FACT....maybe you don't knowftbll
"Manning finished the game with a passer rating of 56.6, the fourth worst in Super bowl history among winning quarterbacks. Even Trent Dilfer, the quintessential quarterback-who-was-carried-to-a-ring-by-a-dominant-defense, managed an 80.9 rating in the Ravens’ Super Bowl win back in 2001." Peyton Manning had the worst season of any Super Bowl-winning QB | For The Win
If you disagree with that fact.and it is a FACT....maybe you don't knowftbll
"Manning finished the game with a passer rating of 56.6, the fourth worst in Super bowl history among winning quarterbacks. Even Trent Dilfer, the quintessential quarterback-who-was-carried-to-a-ring-by-a-dominant-defense, managed an 80.9 rating in the Ravens’ Super Bowl win back in 2001." Peyton Manning had the worst season of any Super Bowl-winning QB | For The Win
FACT: QB is the only player with a W-L associated with his NFL starts. FACT: Manning as the starting QB for the Broncos is credited with a win in that game. FACT: He is the only QB to be credited with a win in a Super Bowl start for two different teams.
Try to diminish it because his line and QBR from the game were low, but you can't change the facts. Stats don't matter: Wins and losses do. And the leagues methodology credits Manning with 2 Super Bowl wins, one each with two different teams. That's a fact.
FACT: QB is the only player with a W-L associated with his NFL starts. FACT: Manning as the starting QB for the Broncos is credited with a win in that game. FACT: He is the only QB to be credited with a win in a Super Bowl start for two different teams.
Try to diminish it because his line and QBR from the game were low, but you can't change the facts. Stats don't matter: Wins and losses do. And the leagues methodology credits Manning with 2 Super Bowl wins, one each with two different teams. That's a fact.
Fine stats don't matter wins and losses do I'm good with that....if you are going to ignore the "qualitative" aspect of how poorly Manning played in his second Superbowl win, not to mention how poorly he played in both his Super Bowl losses while making an argument for the "qualitative" aspect of winning Superbowls with 2 different teams is rather silly.
So QB is the only player with W-L associated with his NFL starts lets stick with that then....
Fact: Brady has more playoff wins than Manning
Fact: Brady has twice as many Super Bowl wins as Manning
Fine stats don't matter wins and losses do I'm good with that....if you are going to ignore the "qualitative" aspect of how poorly Manning played in his second Superbowl win, not to mention how poorly he played in both his Super Bowl losses while making an argument for the "qualitative" aspect of winning Superbowls with 2 different teams is rather silly.
So QB is the only player with W-L associated with his NFL starts lets stick with that then....
Fact: Brady has more playoff wins than Manning
Fact: Brady has twice as many Super Bowl wins as Manning
Fact: Brady is the better QB
Wow, it really is upsetting to you when someone doesn't agree with you. Do you even know what I mean when I say "qualitative?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
