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.
Sorry, but I think you are buying into this system stuff way too much. Yes the Pats have had success in the Brady era when he's been down (currently 14-5). But wins and losses doesn't tell the tale of what you see on the field. The mechanics, the precision, the timing. It is glaringly obvious how great of a QB Brady is, and just because the media wants to spark this debate doesn't make it true.
Brady > Peyton. On pure stats people will lean Manning. On playoff success people will lean Brady. From watching football and trying to see "into" the game with intangibles, whether it be leadership or what have you, I give the edge to Brady. We're splitting hairs here, but call me a Pats homer, but Brady is the best IMO.
I'm just surprised that this is even a debate. Anyone who watches football on a regular basis should know that, hands down, Brady takes it over Peyton. Brady is a machine.
Montana played for the best offensive coach ever, if people are going to knock Brady for having Belichick, they need to start knocking Montana for having Walsh. Montana also played a good chunk of his career with the best WR the game has ever seen and without a salary cap.
Now as for the Manning vs Brady debate, for me it has always been Brady, though Manning is an all time great, no doubt about it. I think even Manning's advantage in the stat department is a bit overblown, and I will explain why.
Brady has played 16 seasons in the NFL, for this argument I will carve out 2000, when he was a 4th string rookie, and 2008, when he was injured in the first quarter of the first game. So 14 seasons as the starter, we will include the 2001 season in spite of the fact that he only started 14 games.
Now let's look at Peyton. 18 seasons in the NFL. I will carve out 2011 when he did not play at all, and to be nice, I will also carve out last year when he was obviously a shell of his former self.
Ok, so Manning has a slight edge in yards, TDs, and completion percentage. BUT, factor in the fact that Manning spent his first 13 years playing under perfect dome conditions in Indianapolis. In additional, many of his road games were played in warm weather locales such as Jacksonville, Houston, Tennessee etc.
Brady on the other hand, play all of his home games outdoors in one of the harshest weather stadiums in the NFL, where wind, rain, and snow are often factors. He also goes on the road each year to New York and Buffalo, two additional bad weather cities.
So in spite of this massive advantage, Peyton only managed to throw on average 13.5 more yards then Tom per game.
In addition let's talk about the truly elite supporting characters each has had on offense. Peyton has had quite a few, and almost always had at least one in any given season.
Marvin Harrison
Reggie Wayne
Marshall Faulk
Edgerrin James
Dallas Clark
Demaryius Thomas
Tom Brady in my opinion has had two teammates on offense that were truly elite weapons.
Randy Moss
Rob Gronkowski
I will also include Corey Dillon for the sake of argument.
See why Manning's statistical edge is not so impressive in my eyes? The fact that he managed to throw four more INTs per season then Brady in spite of the advantages in his favor is rather shocking to me.
Montana played for the best offensive coach ever, if people are going to knock Brady for having Belichick, they need to start knocking Montana for having Walsh. Montana also played a good chunk of his career with the best WR the game has ever seen and without a salary cap.
Maybe we can have a thread about how Jerry Rice wasn't really that good 'cause, hey, he spent most of his career with Joe Montana and Steve Young throwing passes to him...
This is a complicated and delicate question, for a lot of reasons.
First, there can be no question that both Manning and Brady are in the conversation for greatest quarterback of their generation, if not all time. The success they have sustained at the professional level cannot be overstated. I think it's also worth mentioning that neither of them were physical specimens. In fact, as far as quarterbacks go, their physical talents trended more toward the average than the extraordinary. Brady and Manning have made their path in the NFL through superior mental preparation, mastery of their respective offensive schemes, and ability to get their offenses out of bad play calls on the field.
With that out of the way, I'm going to take Manning. The adversity he overcame with his potentially career ending neck injury in 2011, migration to Denver in 2012 and subsequently shattering almost every meaningful offensive record while leading a second team to two Super Bowls in three years is a lofty level that Brady has not and probably will not ever reach. To date, the only real adversity than Brady has faced (at least that wasn't at least partially self-inflicted) was his ACL tear in 2008.
Also, the success of their teams when both were lost is a valid point. The Patriots were coming off a Super Bowl appearance in 2008 and went 11-5 after losing Brady. in 2011 the Colts were just a season removed from a Super Bowl visit and went 2-14 without Manning's guidance. While the parity of the NFL doesn't make this a perfect 1:1 comparison, it's a pretty good indicator of who was carrying their team. Along these same lines, it's worth mentioning that Manning had far more autonomy in game-planning and play-calling than Brady has over his career. For all intents and purposes, Manning has been the offensive coordinator on every team he's played for.
Lastly, the fact that Brady has been involved in Spygate and Deflategate is a black mark against him. While I generally think the hoopla around these two events is massively overblown and Brady's role in them is debatable, the fact that he was involved while Manning has had a spotless record of integrity over his professional career is a fact that will not be ignored by the pundits.
Not that complicated a question and pretty much universally recognized that Brady is better than Manning at this point..
"Leading" a second team to Super Bowl is being overly generous as Brady was never benched for multiple games during a Super Bowl run the way Manning was and Brady never played as poorly in a Super Bowl as Manning did last year...not sure how "leading" a second team to 2 superbowls in 3 years and LOSING them in spectacular fashion is a more "lofty level" than WINNING 3 Superbowls in 4 years and being the last QB to win back to back Superbowls something Manning never did....not to mention 4>2
As for team success, the Colts were TWO seasons removed from a Super Bowl trip in 2011 and in 2010 were 10-6 and one and done in the playoffs....something else Manning accomplished more than any other QB in the Super Bowl era...most one and dones
So Colts were already in decline and went from 14-2 to 10-6 to 2-14 a difference of 8 wins...
Pats went from 16-0 to 11-5 a difference of 5 wins with one of the easiest schedules ever, they also missed the playoffs something the team has only done one other time with Brady playing.
Team success is one thing, how about individual performance on the biggest stage...
How about that last Super Bowl visit for the Colts with Manning in 2009....down a TD in the 4th Quarter, trying to drive his team to tying TD in the waning moments....and he throws a pick 6 guaranteeing the Saint's win..
Something else Brady has never done...
How about game adversity...
Brady has played in 6 Superbowls and in 5 out of 6 them he led his team to go ahead scores in the 4th quarter winning 3 of those games..something Manning NEVER did
Brady's level of play vs the Seahawks Defense vs Manning's level of play against the same team a year earlier is also glaring...
The Brady Manning Debate ended when Brady won his 4th Super bowl, Manning riding the coat tails of a stellar defense to a second ring considering how poorly he played all season didn't put him back in the conversation
The argument now is Brady vs Montana for top of the mountain
Not that complicated a question and pretty much universally recognized that Brady is better than Manning at this point..
A losing argument tries to shut down debate before it begins. Not a good look. I still am puzzled at why you feel so threatened that some out there believe Manning is the better QB than Brady. Why is that so upsetting to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedevilz
"Leading" a second team to Super Bowl is being overly generous as Brady was never benched for multiple games during a Super Bowl run the way Manning was and Brady never played as poorly in a Super Bowl as Manning did last year...not sure how "leading" a second team to 2 superbowls in 3 years and LOSING them in spectacular fashion is a more "lofty level" than WINNING 3 Superbowls in 4 years and being the last QB to win back to back Superbowls something Manning never did....not to mention 4>2
If you don't think Manning led the Broncos into the Super Bowl you weren't watching the final week of the regular season nor the playoffs. His return to the offense without question sparked the team and made the difference. Players themselves have said as much. Manning didn't play good in the Super Bowl but he did lead the Broncos on the only scoring drive to open a game against the Panthers for the entire 2015 season. Just three points on the board; and immeasurable boost to the team's psyche.
As for the bolded word, don't look now but Manning went 1-1 in Super Bowls started with the Broncos. "Losing THEM" is an ignorant mischaracterization.
Also, three QBs have started a Super Bowl for two different teams. Craig Morton (0-1 with the Cowboys and Broncos alike) Kurt Warner (1-1 with the Rams, 0-1 with the Cardinals) and Peyton Manning (1-1 with both the Colts and Broncos). Just three QBs in 50 years worth of Super Bowls. And of the three only one is credited with a win with two teams. If you fail to see how that is a significant achievement then there really is no point in talking further. It's entirely possible to acknowledge how significant that is without conceding Manning was better. You can still have your dogmatic and zealous belief that Brady is the best ever while also acknowledging what someone else has achieved is itself on an unparalleled level. But if you cannot even give a nod to another position you're a waste of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedevilz
As for team success, the Colts were TWO seasons removed from a Super Bowl trip in 2011 and in 2010 were 10-6 and one and done in the playoffs....something else Manning accomplished more than any other QB in the Super Bowl era...most one and dones
So Colts were already in decline and went from 14-2 to 10-6 to 2-14 a difference of 8 wins...
Pats went from 16-0 to 11-5 a difference of 5 wins with one of the easiest schedules ever, they also missed the playoffs something the team has only done one other time with Brady playing.
You're really making Manning's argument for him. The drop off from 10-6 to 2-14 is catastrophic. The drop off from 16-0 to 11-5 is the difference between an outlier of a season (as evidenced by the fact that no other team has done it) to a still high level, playoff caliber team. An unusually crowded playoff slate and a tie breaker kept the Pats out that year, but 11-5 is a playoff caliber team regardless of tie breakers that kept them out. The take away is that Manning was the reason the Colts made the playoffs in 2010 and without him in 2011 they fell apart. Brady was a big part of the Pats success, but the team was able to function without him. That a single player carried an entire team is really a testament to him, and it was evident that the Pats weren't relying on Brady the way the Colts relied on Manning.
That is not a knock on Brady. In fact, it's one of the highest compliments you can pay a team: they will succeed regardless of circumstances. They're showing it again this year, sitting at 3-0 even without Brady.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedevilz
Team success is one thing, how about individual performance on the biggest stage...
How about that last Super Bowl visit for the Colts with Manning in 2009....down a TD in the 4th Quarter, trying to drive his team to tying TD in the waning moments....and he throws a pick 6 guaranteeing the Saint's win..
Something else Brady has never done...
How about game adversity...
Brady has played in 6 Superbowls and in 5 out of 6 them he led his team to go ahead scores in the 4th quarter winning 3 of those games..something Manning NEVER did
Brady's level of play vs the Seahawks Defense vs Manning's level of play against the same team a year earlier is also glaring...
Earlier in this thread I noticed you asked a hypothetical about Manning and Brady switching places with the Broncos and Pats in their respective Super Bowls with the Seahawks. While I find these types of counter factuals pointless because they are entirely impossible to definitively prove one way or the other, I did notice you weren't interested in speculating how the Patriots would have fared with Manning in either of their performances against the Giants. Eli's Giants have never beat a Manning led Colts or Broncos team, after all. Why not open the speculation on this front too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedevilz
The Brady Manning Debate ended when Brady won his 4th Super bowl, Manning riding the coat tails of a stellar defense to a second ring considering how poorly he played all season didn't put him back in the conversation
The argument now is Brady vs Montana for top of the mountain
There will always be Manning vs Brady debate. Try as you might to shut it down, it just won't stop. Your position is not universally right nor is it universally accepted. Both are great players and nobody with a brain can really fault anyone for taking one side or the other in this debate. To get upset about it the way you do is really sort of concerning. It reeks of cult-like dedication. Newsflash: Tom Brady is a man; a mere mortal same as you and I. He's not a god and simply believing another player was a better player is not something you should let ruin your day.
A losing argument tries to shut down debate before it begins. Not a good look. I still am puzzled at why you feel so threatened that some out there believe Manning is the better QB than Brady. Why is that so upsetting to you?
Pretty much why I was hesitant to post in this thread. I knew it was just going to draw a few inferiority complex having Pats fans like moths to a flame. Unsurprisingly, the rebuttal was pretty much devoid of any intelligent thought but overflowing with emotion. Meh, what can ya do?
I noticed Bluedevilz brought up Tracy Porter's interception of Manning in 2009. I would like to take this moment to ask that Bluedevilz give us a breakdown of what happened on that play and exactly how (as he contends) Manning screwed up. Let's give him another chance to show that he has some rudimentary schematic knowledge of football.
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.
