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.
I know many are tired of the debate. And if so, they can just ignore this thread. And I for one surely thought the debate was history when Peyton finally hung them up. Brady was the undisputed GOAT of his generation and possibly all time.
But I am sorry, Pats fans, the success that we are seeing from Belicheck does cast new light on the debate IMO. I can't and won't say that it now makes Peyton the better QB, but there is a real possibility that I may view the two QBs as equals rather than Brady clearly being better than Peyton.
I was always a huge advocate of QB over coach. And I still do believe that in most cases that does hold true. But what Belicheck has achieved is just crazy. Now I do still think individual talent does come into play. If I had to take a guess, I think Garoppola is actually a good QB. Not like Cassel who was a product of a great Patriot team. And I'm not so certain that had the Patriots needed to rely on Mallett a few seasons ago, I don't think they would have gotten the same success out of him. Because again, Mallett's just not that good.
On Brady's side, we still don't know how long he will keep playing. He very well could win a couple more super bowls. But I'm not even sure anymore if that would get me back on the Brady is the undisputed GOAT bandwagon anymore.
I'm 27 years old, I literally grew up in the Manning-Brady era. All stats and accomplishments aside, it comes down to the fact that Brady has always been the better Big Game quarterback. If I had to have one with the game on the line, down by 4, 2 minutes left, I trust Brady more. If we're down by 17 going into the 4th, I trust Brady more. His performances when the entire world was watching at crunch time are literally legendary...
Obviously, Peyton had his big performances, but by far, he put up gaudy regular season numbers and it is well-documented his postseason struggles...
Does coaching and supporting cast play a part in overall impact? Sure, but Brady has NEVER looked afraid of the moment. Ever...I can't say the same for Peyton...
Thin margin either way, but my money is on Brady. Certainly in the 17 years I've been watching football, he's the best I've ever seen...
There's so many moving parts involved and impossible to reach a definite conclusion but I think Brady benefits greatly from Belichick. He builds teams that win and he has shown he can win with 2nd & 3rd string quarterbacks. Imagine Manning or Marino playing for him. Brady is one of the best but not GOAT.
I don't think it is disputable that Brady performed better in the playoffs compared to Peyton. Especially early in their careers. But was it the Belicheck factor that put Brady over the top? I mean if Brady is already a stand alone HOF type talent, AND you pair him up with Belicheck who has cemented himself as the GOAT coach, it shouldn't be all that surprising that Brady 1. had tons of success and 2. never looked flustered in a big game.
Now perhaps part of that is Brady's willingness to buy into the system. To be the student to Belichek's teacher. Not all mega star players are willing or capable of doing that. Would Peyton have done the same within the Patriot's organization? That's something we will never know.
I think the one thing we have found out so far in the early 2016 season is that there is just absolutely nobody comparable to Belicheck.
The amazing thing as well is all the assistants that have left the Patriots and gone on to head coach other teams. Why can't they find the same success that Belicheck had? Or do they just need more time as head coaches? If McDaniel's ever wants to leave New England I would think he could get a head coaching job again in a heart beat. And since he is now in his second stint with the team, he would have to be one of the dullest human beings out there if he couldn't learn a few things from the Patriot way.
I think all of this "Brady is good because of Belichick" stuff is nonsense. Brady is great because of Brady.
I agree. But when you start talking GOAT, you have to get inside the details. We aren't arguing is Brady better than Jim Kelly or Phil Simms? We are asking is he is the best to ever do it?
That's also why I brought up Ryan Mallet. I believe Mallet is inferior to Garoppola. If the pats were stuck with Mallet instead of Garoppola for the firs two games, they very well may have been 1-2 so far this season. Individual talent does come into play, but I also can't deny how great of a coach Belicheck is.
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.
On the other hand, Bill Belichick was 5-18 in New England before Drew Bledsoe went down in the fourth quarter of week two in 2001. Brady came in, they Patriots finished the regular season 11-3 and went 3-0 in the postseason.
And, yes, the postseason. You can attribute that to Belichick, too, but why aren't the wins of the Colts similarly to Tony Dungy? He was no slouch of a coach, and he built the team in Tampa that Gruden took in one season to a Super Bowl championship. Consider, 2001 thru 2006 - Brady's first season starting through the Colts Super Bowl title. The Patriots won 70 regular season games during that span to 66 for the Colts - marginal difference. But the Patriots won 12 postseason games to 7 for the Colts during the same time. You can't really say 'it's all the coach' for one but not the other when they had basically the same regular season record.
Do I think Belichick is a factor? Absolutely. Brady would not be considered one of the greatest if the Patriots had hired Wayne Fontes in 2000 instead. But then, neither would Manning had the Colts been the ones to hire Fontes. 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 mean, where does this go? Is Marino the same absent Shula? Probably not. Is Montana the same absent Walsh and Rice? Almost certainly not.
While a curious stat, I think little of the 'Manning won a Super Bowl with multiple teams' trivia. I wouldn't claim that Trent Dilfer or Brad Johnson are as good as Steve Young because they won as many Super Bowls, (or better than Marino and Tarkenton and Kelly). Steve Young won a Super Bowl. Dilfer and Johnson were on teams that won Super Bowls. Similarly, Peyton Manning won one Super Bowl and was on another team that won one (I say the same thing, although to a somewhat lesser degree, about Brady's last Super Bowl ring).
Now, I don't mean to diminish Manning. He is certainly a great. But like Brett Favre - who arguably had a more meager supporting cast than either Brady or Manning - it seems as though Manning fell short of his championship potential, considering all the gaudy regular season numbers he put up. With Brady, it doesn't.
I know many are tired of the debate. And if so, they can just ignore this thread. And I for one surely thought the debate was history when Peyton finally hung them up. Brady was the undisputed GOAT of his generation and possibly all time.
But I am sorry, Pats fans, the success that we are seeing from Belicheck does cast new light on the debate IMO. I can't and won't say that it now makes Peyton the better QB, but there is a real possibility that I may view the two QBs as equals rather than Brady clearly being better than Peyton.
I was always a huge advocate of QB over coach. And I still do believe that in most cases that does hold true. But what Belicheck has achieved is just crazy. Now I do still think individual talent does come into play. If I had to take a guess, I think Garoppola is actually a good QB. Not like Cassel who was a product of a great Patriot team. And I'm not so certain that had the Patriots needed to rely on Mallett a few seasons ago, I don't think they would have gotten the same success out of him. Because again, Mallett's just not that good.
On Brady's side, we still don't know how long he will keep playing. He very well could win a couple more super bowls. But I'm not even sure anymore if that would get me back on the Brady is the undisputed GOAT bandwagon anymore.
Football is truly a TEAM sport. This isn't basketball where you can have someone completely take over the game and drop 60 points. Or baseball where you can have a pitcher throw a complete game 2 hit shutout. A QB is only as good as his line, his receivers and the game plan. Both Brady and Manning have been so good because they benefited from one or all of those things at some point in their career. Take this past season - Manning won another Super Bowl because of how great the Denver defense was last year. Manning had an awful season, one of the worst ever by a Super Bowl winning QB. But he had an amazing defense keeping games from turning into shootouts, giving him great field position, helping to keep the turnover battle close, etc. 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.
At the end of the day both Manning and Brady have been fantastic QBs and two of the best ever. I give the edge to Brady simply because of how well he has played in the big games and the fact that has has won more Super Bowls and more playoff games. But the difference between the two is VERY close, imo.
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.
