Brady vs Manning

[mzf5c5 0]

Despite this declaration...Peyton is still better than Brady.

 

Oh...and Elway?

Prior to his last 2 years...his postseason record was 7-7.

He was a career 54% passer in the postseason. 27 TDs, 21 INTs and a sub 80 rating.

 

Manning has already thrown for more Tds than Elway...with 2 fewer INTs...a higher passer rating...a higher passing percentage...more yards...

 

Just comparing QB numbers to Brady in the playoffs...

same number of games.

Same amount of TDs...Manning has 4 more INTs...a higher passing percentage...higher rating...and 1000 more yards passing.

Perhaps...maybe...just maybe...Tom had a little more help at some point in his career. Fair to say I think.

 

As a pure QB...Manning is simply the better player.

 

I was watching Mike and Mike on ESPN this morning, they were comparing this stuff. Montana was still a beast! Probably still number 1 QB ever right now, with Manning coming in second or third and I think they had Brady down past 5.

[three out of four 0]

BTW, How did Brady do in that ONE game this post season? 4 turnovers right? IN ONE GAME? OMG!!!!

 

I guess clutch boy, isn't so clutch after all, huh?

 

Brady has had a few bombs but at least he doesn't blame his teammates - Manning: "We had protection probems"

 

Brady = Clutch

Manning = great REGULAR season QB

[Walter34 3]

Brady has had a few bombs but at least he doesn't blame his teammates - Manning: "We had protection probems"

 

Brady = Clutch

Manning = great REGULAR season QB

 

12 post season Ints since the last SB win for Brady. How is that clutch?

[mzf5c5 0]

Brady has had a few bombs but at least he doesn't blame his teammates - Manning: "We had protection probems"

 

Brady = Clutch

Manning = great REGULAR season QB

 

Dude, saying they had protection problems isn't blaming his teammates, they had protection problems. That is one of the dumbest arguements alive today. The only people that think that is Manning blaming his teammates are the Pat fans.

 

Brady isn't clutch anymore. IF HE WAS, YOU WOULD STILL BE WINNING SB's. Your last win was 2004. 6 years ago. So he isn't clutch anymore and Vinateri was more clutch than Brady is.

 

BTW, regarding stats in post season, Manning is actually rated second or third per Mike and Mike this morning on ESPN. Enjoy. And no, Brady isn't 1 or 2.

[three out of four 0]

12 post season Ints since the last SB win for Brady. How is that clutch?

 

See my earlier post breaking down what Brady did in the 4th quarter of his 4 SB appearances.

 

As far as INTs - as I posted earlier he has had a few bad games - Denver in '05, Balt this year, etc. Manning has thrown more picks in the same amount of games and Manning also has had the advantage of playing a lot of his games indoors.

 

 

BTW - I'm a huge Walter Payton fan. Still can't believe he didn't get a TD in that SB.

[redtodd 7]

Dude, saying they had protection problems isn't blaming his teammates, they had protection problems. That is one of the dumbest arguements alive today. The only people that think that is Manning blaming his teammates are the Pat fans.

 

Brady isn't clutch anymore. IF HE WAS, YOU WOULD STILL BE WINNING SB's. Your last win was 2004. 6 years ago. So he isn't clutch anymore and Vinateri was more clutch than Brady is.

 

BTW, regarding stats in post season, Manning is actually rated second or third per Mike and Mike this morning on ESPN. Enjoy. And no, Brady isn't 1 or 2.

 

You are basing your opinion on Mike and Mike? What are you 14?

[three out of four 0]

BTW, regarding stats in post season, Manning is actually rated second or third per Mike and Mike this morning on ESPN. Enjoy. And no, Brady isn't 1 or 2.

 

Have fun scouring the different media outlets trying to find something that will take the sting away from ANOTHER disappointing postseason loss.

[mzf5c5 0]

You are basing your opinion on Mike and Mike? What are you 14?

 

Mike and Mike is pretty good. Oh, that is right. They arne't Pat fans. So that explains why you hate them.

 

Have fun scouring the different media outlets trying to find something that will take the sting away from ANOTHER disappointing postseason loss.

 

It didn't take me long to find this out, I did no work. And why is it a disappointing postseason loss? It sucked that they didn't win it, but I am proud of what they did this season! GO COLTS! BEST TEAM EVER!

 

[jgcrawfish 232]

I was poking around and found this. It's QB's with at least 10 playoff games and their winning %. In thinking about this, a lot, I would still rather have Manning that Brady as my QB, but

 

Quarterback Total Wins Losses Percent

Bart Starr 10 9 1 90.0%

Ben Roethlisberger 10 8 2 80.0%

Jim Plunkett 10 8 2 80.0%

Tom Brady 18 14 4 77.8%

Terry Bradshaw 19 14 5 73.7%

Troy Aikman 15 11 4 73.3%

Joe Montana 23 16 7 69.6%

Kurt Warner 13 9 4 69.2%

John Elway 21 14 7 66.7%

Roger Staubach 17 11 6 64.7%

Phil Simms 10 6 4 60.0%

Ken Stabler 12 7 5 58.3%

Steve Young 14 8 6 57.1%

Donovan McNabb 16 9 7 56.3%

Bob Griese 11 6 5 54.6%

Fran Tarkenton 11 6 5 54.6%

Brett Favre 24 13 11 54.2%

Jim Kelly 17 9 8 52.9%

Peyton Manning 18 9 9 50.0%

Craig Morton 10 5 5 50.0%

Danny White 10 5 5 50.0%

Mark Brunell 10 5 5 50.0%

Steve McNair 10 5 5 50.0%

Dan Marino 18 8 10 44.4%

Warren Moon 10 3 7 30.0%

 

Needless to say I was surprised to find Manning ranked so lowly. The "current" players (Favre and Warner included since they just played this year) are in bold and all ahead of Manning. I must admit, it does make one think...

[WhiteWonder 2,733]

I was poking around and found this. It's QB's with at least 10 playoff games and their winning %. In thinking about this, a lot, I would still rather have Manning that Brady as my QB, but

 

Quarterback Total Wins Losses Percent

Bart Starr 10 9 1 90.0%

Ben Roethlisberger 10 8 2 80.0%

Jim Plunkett 10 8 2 80.0%

Tom Brady 18 14 4 77.8%

Terry Bradshaw 19 14 5 73.7%

Troy Aikman 15 11 4 73.3%

Joe Montana 23 16 7 69.6%

Kurt Warner 13 9 4 69.2%

John Elway 21 14 7 66.7%

Roger Staubach 17 11 6 64.7%

Phil Simms 10 6 4 60.0%

Ken Stabler 12 7 5 58.3%

Steve Young 14 8 6 57.1%

Donovan McNabb 16 9 7 56.3%

Bob Griese 11 6 5 54.6%

Fran Tarkenton 11 6 5 54.6%

Brett Favre 24 13 11 54.2%

Jim Kelly 17 9 8 52.9%

Peyton Manning 18 9 9 50.0%

Craig Morton 10 5 5 50.0%

Danny White 10 5 5 50.0%

Mark Brunell 10 5 5 50.0%

Steve McNair 10 5 5 50.0%

Dan Marino 18 8 10 44.4%

Warren Moon 10 3 7 30.0%

 

Needless to say I was surprised to find Manning ranked so lowly. The "current" players (Favre and Warner included since they just played this year) are in bold and all ahead of Manning. I must admit, it does make one think...

 

good stuff, i think. but you do have alot of guys who only played 10 or 11 games vs guys playing 18+ like manning and Brady. Big Ben may be number two on this list but after he plays 8 more games will he still have an 80% success rate?

[jgcrawfish 232]

the original list has all the records...but I figured that 10 games was a fair representation of a Qb's/Team's rate of success. To have 10 games, at a minimum, you must have at least 3 post-seasons under your belt, more than likely at least 4 seasons.

[redtodd 7]

I was poking around and found this. It's QB's with at least 10 playoff games and their winning %. In thinking about this, a lot, I would still rather have Manning that Brady as my QB, but

 

Quarterback Total Wins Losses Percent

Bart Starr 10 9 1 90.0%

Ben Roethlisberger 10 8 2 80.0%

Jim Plunkett 10 8 2 80.0%

Tom Brady 18 14 4 77.8%

Terry Bradshaw 19 14 5 73.7%

Troy Aikman 15 11 4 73.3%

Joe Montana 23 16 7 69.6%

Kurt Warner 13 9 4 69.2%

John Elway 21 14 7 66.7%

Roger Staubach 17 11 6 64.7%

Phil Simms 10 6 4 60.0%

Ken Stabler 12 7 5 58.3%

Steve Young 14 8 6 57.1%

Donovan McNabb 16 9 7 56.3%

Bob Griese 11 6 5 54.6%

Fran Tarkenton 11 6 5 54.6%

Brett Favre 24 13 11 54.2%

Jim Kelly 17 9 8 52.9%

Peyton Manning 18 9 9 50.0%

Craig Morton 10 5 5 50.0%

Danny White 10 5 5 50.0%

Mark Brunell 10 5 5 50.0%

Steve McNair 10 5 5 50.0%

Dan Marino 18 8 10 44.4%

Warren Moon 10 3 7 30.0%

 

Needless to say I was surprised to find Manning ranked so lowly. The "current" players (Favre and Warner included since they just played this year) are in bold and all ahead of Manning. I must admit, it does make one think...

 

Plunkett?

[Fumbleweed 546]

I was poking around and found this. It's QB's with at least 10 playoff games and their winning %. In thinking about this, a lot, I would still rather have Manning that Brady as my QB, but

 

Quarterback Total Wins Losses Percent

Bart Starr 10 9 1 90.0%

Ben Roethlisberger 10 8 2 80.0%

Jim Plunkett 10 8 2 80.0%

Tom Brady 18 14 4 77.8%

Terry Bradshaw 19 14 5 73.7%

Troy Aikman 15 11 4 73.3%

Joe Montana 23 16 7 69.6%

Kurt Warner 13 9 4 69.2%

John Elway 21 14 7 66.7%

Roger Staubach 17 11 6 64.7%

Phil Simms 10 6 4 60.0%

Ken Stabler 12 7 5 58.3%

Steve Young 14 8 6 57.1%

Donovan McNabb 16 9 7 56.3%

Bob Griese 11 6 5 54.6%

Fran Tarkenton 11 6 5 54.6%

Brett Favre 24 13 11 54.2%

Jim Kelly 17 9 8 52.9%

Peyton Manning 18 9 9 50.0%

Craig Morton 10 5 5 50.0%

Danny White 10 5 5 50.0%

Mark Brunell 10 5 5 50.0%

Steve McNair 10 5 5 50.0%

Dan Marino 18 8 10 44.4%

Warren Moon 10 3 7 30.0%

 

Needless to say I was surprised to find Manning ranked so lowly. The "current" players (Favre and Warner included since they just played this year) are in bold and all ahead of Manning. I must admit, it does make one think...

 

I'll keep saying it as long as anyone will listen...

 

Attributing wins and losses to individual players is the stupidest thing EVER. Until Peyton Manning and Tom Brady line up one-on-one on a football field, the stat is darn near meaningless. It's meaningful when comparing Andre Agassi to Pete Sampras. That's about it.

 

ESPN is to blame for this. Seriously. They have dumbed down sports to nonsense like this and everyone has bought into it even though it defies all logic.

[Walter34 3]

See my earlier post breaking down what Brady did in the 4th quarter of his 4 SB appearances.

 

As far as INTs - as I posted earlier he has had a few bad games - Denver in '05, Balt this year, etc. Manning has thrown more picks in the same amount of games and Manning also has had the advantage of playing a lot of his games indoors.

BTW - I'm a huge Walter Payton fan. Still can't believe he didn't get a TD in that SB.

 

I'm not claiming that Manning is more clutch, just pointing out that the clutch label for Brady is largely based on 2001 -2004. Since then, he has had numerous flops during crunch time.

 

Clutch in general is a very gray area. Most will say that Montana was clutch - he came up big in big games. True, but his team did, not just the individual. he also had the strongest team of his era, so you would expect wins and SBs. As someone posted qb records, look at Plunkett, Starr and Rothlisberger - are they more clutch? Or did their teams as a whole perform well when they went on runs?

[jgcrawfish 232]

I'll keep saying it as long as anyone will listen...

 

Attributing wins and losses to individual players is the stupidest thing EVER. Until Peyton Manning and Tom Brady line up one-on-one on a football field, the stat is darn near meaningless. It's meaningful when comparing Andre Agassi to Pete Sampras. That's about it.

 

ESPN is to blame for this. Seriously. They have dumbed down sports to nonsense like this and everyone has bought into it even though it defies all logic.

 

and I agree with you, to a certain extent. There is no certain, infallible and unbiased way to determine the GOAT. Teams win titles, systems determine stats. There is no real apples to apples.

[WhiteWonder 2,733]

the original list has all the records...but I figured that 10 games was a fair representation of a Qb's/Team's rate of success. To have 10 games, at a minimum, you must have at least 3 post-seasons under your belt, more than likely at least 4 seasons.

 

i hear you. Im just tossing out more ideas. Big Ben is at 80% and this is largely off two SB winning teams. Im wondering how he would fair with a larger sample size especially if he makes a few post seasons where his team isn't all that good going into the playoffs. There isn't really any way to know until it happens.

 

Personally I am more impressed by someone like Bradshaw, Brady, Elway and Montana off this list. They are below guys like Star and Big Ben but have almost twice the games played.

 

I'll keep saying it as long as anyone will listen...

 

Attributing wins and losses to individual players is the stupidest thing EVER. Until Peyton Manning and Tom Brady line up one-on-one on a football field, the stat is darn near meaningless. It's meaningful when comparing Andre Agassi to Pete Sampras. That's about it.

 

ESPN is to blame for this. Seriously. They have dumbed down sports to nonsense like this and everyone has bought into it even though it defies all logic.

 

it is stupid to a degree but you also have to realize that its the nature of things. We are always going to want to try to break things down to individuals. You see it everywhere in sports but especially at the headline positions like QB in football or pitcher in baseball.

 

Even golf, which i follow very closely, does this to a bit of a fault. Comparing Tiger and Phil when they often are not playing in the same group... The nature of the sport is still every man for himself and every man against the course but the pairing you play in has an effect.

 

Tennis is probably the best sport for 1 on 1 comparison as you said.

[three out of four 0]

I'm not claiming that Manning is more clutch, just pointing out that the clutch label for Brady is largely based on 2001 -2004. Since then, he has had numerous flops during crunch time.

 

Clutch in general is a very gray area. Most will say that Montana was clutch - he came up big in big games. True, but his team did, not just the individual. he also had the strongest team of his era, so you would expect wins and SBs. As someone posted qb records, look at Plunkett, Starr and Rothlisberger - are they more clutch? Or did their teams as a whole perform well when they went on runs?

 

I'm not sure Brady has become less clutch. It's not his fault the Pats D let the Colts score 32 points in the second half of the AFC Championship game. Brady kept putting up points and got the ball back at the end with very little time left. Then he drove them to a go ahead TD against the Giants but the D coughed up the lead. If Asante Samuel doesn't drop that INT then it's a much different story. My argument then is that Brady came thru but his defense didn't.

 

Compare that to Manning's 9-9 playoff record. The argument is that he has played on inferior teams. But in those 9 loses, the Colts offense has averaged 14 points/game. So you can't really say that Manning was let down by his defense.

 

Are there exceptions on both sides? Of course. This year it was Brady turning the ball over and continually putting the D in a tough spot.

 

I agree about clutch being a gray area to an extent. How someone's teammates play definitely factors in. But ask any baseball fan who they want to see up with the bases loaded in the ninth of a tie game and they will give you an answer very quickly. They will also tell you who they DON'T want to see up in that same situation.

[mzf5c5 0]

I'm not sure Brady has become less clutch. It's not his fault the Pats D let the Colts score 32 points in the second half of the AFC Championship game. Brady kept putting up points and got the ball back at the end with very little time left. Then he drove them to a go ahead TD against the Giants but the D coughed up the lead. If Asante Samuel doesn't drop that INT then it's a much different story. My argument then is that Brady came thru but his defense didn't.

 

Compare that to Manning's 9-9 playoff record. The argument is that he has played on inferior teams. But in those 9 loses, the Colts offense has averaged 14 points/game. So you can't really say that Manning was let down by his defense.

 

Are there exceptions on both sides? Of course. This year it was Brady turning the ball over and continually putting the D in a tough spot.

 

I agree about clutch being a gray area to an extent. How someone's teammates play definitely factors in. But ask any baseball fan who they want to see up with the bases loaded in the ninth of a tie game and they will give you an answer very quickly. They will also tell you who they DON'T want to see up in that same situation.

 

This is the perfect example of why Pats fans are the laughing stock of the world.

[TD Ryan2 316]

I'll keep saying it as long as anyone will listen...

 

Attributing wins and losses to individual players is the stupidest thing EVER. Until Peyton Manning and Tom Brady line up one-on-one on a football field, the stat is darn near meaningless. It's meaningful when comparing Andre Agassi to Pete Sampras. That's about it.

 

ESPN is to blame for this. Seriously. They have dumbed down sports to nonsense like this and everyone has bought into it even though it defies all logic.

 

 

yesterday, WEEI, Boston Sports Radio had a playoff statistical breakdown of Brady and Manning.

 

Since 2004 (post NE SuperBowls), Manning and Brady are nearly identical in playoff stats, everything from wins/losses to QB rating.

 

Interestingly enough, that's about the time that the NE Defense started slipping and it's also the time that Brady was supposed to take on a "more Manning-like" role... calling his own plays, more 5-wide set, more passing focused attack.

 

Well, low and behold, Brady did become more "Manning like" his passing stats increased and were finally on par with Manning's.

But the team didn't win any more SuperBowls.

 

So this idea that you can take a great QB and just heave the entire team on his shoulders is bogus.

It may work for a game or two. It may work against lesser teams. But not in the playoffs. Not against the league's elite teams.

Even the Greatest QBs need a complete team around them; they need a defense or they won't win.

[Fumbleweed 546]

 

yesterday, WEEI, Boston Sports Radio had a playoff statistical breakdown of Brady and Manning.

 

Since 2004 (post NE SuperBowls), Manning and Brady are nearly identical in playoff stats, everything from wins/losses to QB rating.

 

Interestingly enough, that's about the time that the NE Defense started slipping and it's also the time that Brady was supposed to take on a "more Manning-like" role... calling his own plays, more 5-wide set, more passing focused attack.

 

Well, low and behold, Brady did become more "Manning like" his passing stats increased and were finally on par with Manning's.

But the team didn't win any more SuperBowls.

 

So this idea that you can take a great QB and just heave the entire team on his shoulders is bogus.

It may work for a game or two. It may work against lesser teams. But not in the playoffs. Not against the league's elite teams.

Even the Greatest QBs need a complete team around them; they need a defense or they won't win.

 

Exactly. The reason Manning and Brady's stats go down a bit in the playoffs is because they're playing against BETTER teams. It isn't too hard to pad one's stats vs. the Bills and Jaguars of the world. And, it isn't too hard for a QB to go 6-2 in the playoffs if he's surrounded by tremendous talent.

 

The QB win-loss record is a joke. Teams win and lose games.

[jgcrawfish 232]

i hear you. Im just tossing out more ideas. Big Ben is at 80% and this is largely off two SB winning teams. Im wondering how he would fair with a larger sample size especially if he makes a few post seasons where his team isn't all that good going into the playoffs. There isn't really any way to know until it happens.

 

Personally I am more impressed by someone like Bradshaw, Brady, Elway and Montana off this list. They are below guys like Star and Big Ben but have almost twice the games played.

 

Well, Ben's Steelers won two SB, one as a #2 seed, and one as the #6 seed. that's 7 of the wins right there. The other victory came over the Jets in his rookie year if I recall, which would put him at 1-1 his first season. The other loss was 1st round to the Jags.

 

I'm with you on your belief that quantity gives a better sampling, however, it's pretty easy to say "well, excluding those two superbowls". by the same token, you should exclude Montana's four or Bradshaw's four as well. The reality is that there is only 1 QB/Team that has an unblemished playoff record at the end of the season...everybody else is either 0-1, 1-1, 2-1 or rarely 3-1. And it's double edged sword. People rip McNabb because he has only been to one SB and lost, but we're saying that playoff record excluding SB's weighs in as well.

 

First Last Total W L %

Tom Brady 18 14 4 77.80%

Terry Bradshaw 19 14 5 73.70%

Troy Aikman 15 11 4 73.30%

Joe Montana 23 16 7 69.60%

John Elway 21 14 7 66.70%

Roger Staubach 17 11 6 64.70%

Donovan McNabb 16 9 7 56.30%

Brett Favre 24 13 11 54.20%

Jim Kelly 17 9 8 52.90%

Peyton Manning 18 9 9 50.00%

Dan Marino 18 8 10 44.40%

 

That's QB's with 15 games or more of playoffs...that's some pretty damned select company McNabb is in for a QB people have been ripping for years, IMO.

[itsbigmoni 1]

 

yesterday, WEEI, Boston Sports Radio had a playoff statistical breakdown of Brady and Manning.

 

Since 2004 (post NE SuperBowls), Manning and Brady are nearly identical in playoff stats, everything from wins/losses to QB rating.

 

Interestingly enough, that's about the time that the NE Defense started slipping and it's also the time that Brady was supposed to take on a "more Manning-like" role... calling his own plays, more 5-wide set, more passing focused attack.

 

Well, low and behold, Brady did become more "Manning like" his passing stats increased and were finally on par with Manning's.

But the team didn't win any more SuperBowls.

 

So this idea that you can take a great QB and just heave the entire team on his shoulders is bogus.

It may work for a game or two. It may work against lesser teams. But not in the playoffs. Not against the league's elite teams.

Even the Greatest QBs need a complete team around them; they need a defense or they won't win.

 

You're on the wrong board. We don't appreciate logical assessments. We value ignorance with a helping of homerism.

[Stewburtx8 67]

Well, Ben's Steelers won two SB, one as a #2 seed, and one as the #6 seed. that's 7 of the wins right there. The other victory came over the Jets in his rookie year if I recall, which would put him at 1-1 his first season. The other loss was 1st round to the Jags.

 

I'm with you on your belief that quantity gives a better sampling, however, it's pretty easy to say "well, excluding those two superbowls". by the same token, you should exclude Montana's four or Bradshaw's four as well. The reality is that there is only 1 QB/Team that has an unblemished playoff record at the end of the season...everybody else is either 0-1, 1-1, 2-1 or rarely 3-1. And it's double edged sword. People rip McNabb because he has only been to one SB and lost, but we're saying that playoff record excluding SB's weighs in as well.

 

First Last Total W L %

Tom Brady 18 14 4 77.80%

Terry Bradshaw 19 14 5 73.70%

Troy Aikman 15 11 4 73.30%

Joe Montana 23 16 7 69.60%

John Elway 21 14 7 66.70%

Roger Staubach 17 11 6 64.70%

Donovan McNabb 16 9 7 56.30%

Brett Favre 24 13 11 54.20%

Jim Kelly 17 9 8 52.90%

Peyton Manning 18 9 9 50.00%

Dan Marino 18 8 10 44.40%

 

That's QB's with 15 games or more of playoffs...that's some pretty damned select company McNabb is in for a QB people have been ripping for years, IMO.

 

 

Agreed. He could end up being one of, if not the most, underappreciated Hall of Fame QB ever. At age 33, give McNabb another 3 seasons even and he could finish with over 40,000 passing yards; 3,500 rushing yards; 300 total touchdowns; a better than 2 to 1 TD to INT ratio. He's also been to 6 pro bowls to this point. The knock on the guy has always been he can't win the big game. Well maybe he just never has been on the best team either. The Eagles were always a good team in a "weaker" NFC, but they were never considered the best team in football. Their best chance was probably the awful loss to Tampa in the NFC Championship game, where I think they could of also beat a "weak" Raiders team in the Super Bowl if given the chance. There one Super Bowl against the Pats was a very close game, they just lost a tight game to a slightly better team. McNabb will be remembered for the ending of that game, but he did throw for the 3rd most passing yards in Super Bowl history and threw 3 TD passes against a very good Patriots defense. Its unfortunate that the city of Philadelphia never really has given him his due. He's been the best QB the franchise has ever seen. I'm hoping he hasn't played his last game for the franchise.

[Stewburtx8 67]

Tom Brady has thrown for 30,000 + yards. Thats very good.

BUT Peyton Manning has thrown for 50,000+ yards. That's a "slight" advantage for Peyton.

 

Tom Brady has thrown 225 TD passes. That's also very good.

Peyton Manning has thrown for 366 TD passes. That's a "little bit" better.

 

Tom Brady has a career completion percentage of 63.3. Again, very good.

Peyton Manning has a career completion percentage of 64.8. Again, he's better.

 

Tom Brady has a career QB rating of 93.3.

Peyton Manning has a career QB rating of 95.2.

 

Tom Brady has been to 5 pro bowls and has 1 first team All-pro selection.

Peyton Manning has been to 10 pro bowls and has 5 first team All-pro selections.

 

Tom Brady has 1 NFL MVP and 2 Super Bowl MVP's.

Peyton Manning has 4 NFL MVP's and 1 Super Bowl MVP.

 

Peyton Manning has led his team to 7 straight years of at least 12+ wins.

Tom Brady has never done it for more than 2 straight seasons.

 

Yes, the 3 Super Bowls to 1 argument does have some heavy weight, but look above...it can't possibly have that much weight.

Especially when Tom Brady has played on far superior TEAMS and has had far superior defenses than Manning to help him out.

 

Without Peyton Manning, the Colts are not even a .500 football team.

Without Tom Brady, the Patriots still win 11 games.

 

Enough said...

 

 

I also liked how a Pats fan told me "these are some of the worst arguments I've ever seen," while a Jets fan said "great post."

 

Obviously Manning has played more games so his stats are inflated over Brady's, but if you do it on a per game basis, per start basis, whatever basis you'd like, Peyton Manning has still been the better QB over his career.

 

And the whole Peyton Manning plays in a dome reference isn't a very strong argument. Mannings career QB rating at home is 98.1. Tom Brady's career QB rating at home is 94.2. So the difference between the two of them at home versus ANY game isn't a huge difference.

[kmbryant09 1]

Have fun scouring the different media outlets trying to find something that will take the sting away from ANOTHER disappointing postseason loss.

It absolutely was disappointing, but I'd rather be disappointed with a SuperBowl loss, than embarrassed with an opening round loss. And also, at least we have a more recent SuperBowl to take the sting off a little bit. You guys have been waiting for what, 6 years now?

 

And also - how ironic is it for a Patriots' fan to be bashing a team for a disappointing post-season loss.

 

I'll keep saying it as long as anyone will listen...

 

Attributing wins and losses to individual players is the stupidest thing EVER. Until Peyton Manning and Tom Brady line up one-on-one on a football field, the stat is darn near meaningless. It's meaningful when comparing Andre Agassi to Pete Sampras. That's about it.

 

ESPN is to blame for this. Seriously. They have dumbed down sports to nonsense like this and everyone has bought into it even though it defies all logic.

Absolutely - even in other sports like baseball or basketball....there are fewer players contributing to the outcome of a game, and EVERYBODY gets to play both offense and defense. Peyton doesn't get to go out and stop the Saints from putting together 2-3 straight LONG, scoring drives to change the momentum of the game...He didn't get to be out there to recover the onside kick. He wasn't the one who didn't convert the 3rd & 1 before half. Pretty sure he didn't call for the 51 one field goal from the 51-year-old kicker. So much more goes into winning a football game than just a QB's performance, no matter how important that player is to his team.

 

I'm not sure Brady has become less clutch. It's not his fault the Pats D let the Colts score 32 points in the second half of the AFC Championship game. Brady kept putting up points and got the ball back at the end with very little time left. Then he drove them to a go ahead TD against the Giants but the D coughed up the lead. If Asante Samuel doesn't drop that INT then it's a much different story. My argument then is that Brady came thru but his defense didn't.

 

Compare that to Manning's 9-9 playoff record. The argument is that he has played on inferior teams. But in those 9 loses, the Colts offense has averaged 14 points/game. So you can't really say that Manning was let down by his defense.

 

Are there exceptions on both sides? Of course. This year it was Brady turning the ball over and continually putting the D in a tough spot.

 

I agree about clutch being a gray area to an extent. How someone's teammates play definitely factors in. But ask any baseball fan who they want to see up with the bases loaded in the ninth of a tie game and they will give you an answer very quickly. They will also tell you who they DON'T want to see up in that same situation.

So you're saying your QB couldn't overcome a sh!tty defense, which means it's not his fault?????

 

Wow, sounds a lot like the argument you guys have used to bash Manning for the past 10 years.

[three out of four 0]

So you're saying your QB couldn't overcome a sh!tty defense, which means it's not his fault?????

 

Wow, sounds a lot like the argument you guys have used to bash Manning for the past 10 years.

 

No that's the excuse Colts fans have used to explain Manning's 9-9 postseason record. My argument is that Manning is the one who has let his defense down. How else do you explain the fact that in those 9 loses, the Colts offense has averaged only 14 points/game.

[kmbryant09 1]

No that's the excuse Colts fans have used to explain Manning's 9-9 postseason record. My argument is that Manning is the one who has let his defense down. How else do you explain the fact that in those 9 loses, the Colts offense has averaged only 14 points/game.

Haaaaa - you just made an excuse for Brady saying his DEF couldn't make stops...and that's the reason why the Patriots lost, and that you can't hold Brady accountable for that....That's been Manning's ENTIRE career. His DEF has given up 29 ppg in those 9 losses. And Manning lost his first 4 playoff games...games that the Colts wouldn't have even been playing in if it weren't for Manning...Manning was very young and inexperienced, 3 of them were on the road....The bottom line is Manning DID NOT play well in those games...but it's somewhat understandable why he did struggle. Since then, he's 9-5, with 2 SB appearances, 1 SB ring, with a 105+ QB rating. Many of the losses, Manning played well, but the Colts didn't play well enough to win, mostly because of special teams and the DEF.

 

I'm not holding Brady accountable for the loss against the Colts, because it wasn't his fault. The SB loss wasn't his fault, nor were the SuperBowl wins a direct product from Brady. I think you get my point...you can very rarely hold ONE PERSON accountable for a TEAM loss, as you just did so yourself to defend Brady. The one argument Pats' fans continue to bring up against Manning is his playoff record and his "so-called struggles" in the playoffs.

[mzf5c5 0]

Haaaaa - you just made an excuse for Brady saying his DEF couldn't make stops...and that's the reason why the Patriots lost, and that you can't hold Brady accountable for that....That's been Manning's ENTIRE career. His DEF has given up 29 ppg in those 9 losses. And Manning lost his first 4 playoff games...games that the Colts wouldn't have even been playing in if it weren't for Manning...Manning was very young and inexperienced, 3 of them were on the road....The bottom line is Manning DID NOT play well in those games...but it's somewhat understandable why he did struggle. Since then, he's 9-5, with 2 SB appearances, 1 SB ring, with a 105+ QB rating. Many of the losses, Manning played well, but the Colts didn't play well enough to win, mostly because of special teams and the DEF.

 

I'm not holding Brady accountable for the loss against the Colts, because it wasn't his fault. The SB loss wasn't his fault, nor were the SuperBowl wins a direct product from Brady. I think you get my point...you can very rarely hold ONE PERSON accountable for a TEAM loss, as you just did so yourself to defend Brady. The one argument Pats' fans continue to bring up against Manning is his playoff record and his "so-called struggles" in the playoffs.

 

[redtodd 7]

Well, of course Eli Manning is a better QB than Kyle Brady. Kyle played TE and he is retired.

[three out of four 0]

Haaaaa - you just made an excuse for Brady saying his DEF couldn't make stops...and that's the reason why the Patriots lost, and that you can't hold Brady accountable for that....That's been Manning's ENTIRE career. His DEF has given up 29 ppg in those 9 losses. And Manning lost his first 4 playoff games...games that the Colts wouldn't have even been playing in if it weren't for Manning...Manning was very young and inexperienced, 3 of them were on the road....The bottom line is Manning DID NOT play well in those games...but it's somewhat understandable why he did struggle. Since then, he's 9-5, with 2 SB appearances, 1 SB ring, with a 105+ QB rating. Many of the losses, Manning played well, but the Colts didn't play well enough to win, mostly because of special teams and the DEF.

 

I'm not holding Brady accountable for the loss against the Colts, because it wasn't his fault. The SB loss wasn't his fault, nor were the SuperBowl wins a direct product from Brady. I think you get my point...you can very rarely hold ONE PERSON accountable for a TEAM loss, as you just did so yourself to defend Brady. The one argument Pats' fans continue to bring up against Manning is his playoff record and his "so-called struggles" in the playoffs.

 

Wow, all the typical excuses with Manning's INEXPERIENCE now thrown in.

 

Let me ask you, the 29 points/game that the defense has given up - did you subtract out the INTs that were returned for TDs. If not you should - after all, there's no way the Colts D could prevent those from happening.

 

Here's an article that extensively covers Manning's playoff shortcomings:

 

http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/football...eatest?page=0,0

[kmbryant09 1]

Wow, all the typical excuses with Manning's INEXPERIENCE now thrown in.

 

Let me ask you, the 29 points/game that the defense has given up - did you subtract out the INTs that were returned for TDs. If not you should - after all, there's no way the Colts D could prevent those from happening.

 

Here's an article that extensively covers Manning's playoff shortcomings:

 

http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/football...eatest?page=0,0

You may be the first person with selective READING.

 

I cited Manning's inexperience in his first 4 playoff games - in which he was put in difficult positions to try and carry his team to victory, all before the age of 26. I didn't say that excuses his performance, because he was certainly awful...but similar to his career against the Patriots, he's learned from his mistakes/team's mistakes, and has really picked up his game to another level. Did you ignore his 9-5 record, SB ring, another SB appearence, 105+ QB rating in the playoffs after his awful start to his post-season career?

 

How about you factor the DEF's short-comings into Manning's statistics...aka the DEF giving up tons of points, making the Colts fall behind early, forcing Manning to throw 30+ times, and putting added pressure on the offense...that certainly lead to some of Manning's INT's.

 

But enough digression - Patriot fans ALWAYS point to 2 things when comparing Manning/Brady - playoff/SB record, and playoff performance...Well guess what - even when you include Manning's early struggles, he still has more impressive individual stats than Brady does in the post-season. Individual statistics is far and away the most reliable stat when comparing 2 individuals who play the same position. Yes Brady wins the SB category, but again - those SB teams were more a product of the NE DEF and kicker. How many championships have you won since that DEF started declining and Vinatieri left the team? Brady has never been the most important player on a team that has won the SB. So even though he wins the SB category, it's NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH to overcome Manning's OVERWHELMING domination in just about every other statistical measurement of QB's.

[mzf5c5 0]

Here's an article that extensively covers Manning's playoff shortcomings:

 

http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/football...eatest?page=0,0

 

LMAO, this is an article by a crying Pats/Brady fan. LMAO. How would this even be credible?

 

hahahahahaha That is all I can say. hahahaha. You guys are getting so desperate.

[three out of four 0]

LMAO, this is an article by a crying Pats/Brady fan. LMAO. How would this even be credible?

 

hahahahahaha That is all I can say. hahahaha. You guys are getting so desperate.

 

Facts are facts regardless of who wrote the article.

 

Besides this is the same guy who recently wrote articles titled "Patriots stuck in a sorry state" and "Belichick no longer a defensive genius". Not exactly articles a blind homer would write.

 

 

http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/football...uation?page=0,0

 

http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/football...efensive-genius

 

 

Besides, if his article about Manning is such a joke, let's see you dispute the facts that he laid out.

[three out of four 0]

But enough digression - Patriot fans ALWAYS point to 2 things when comparing Manning/Brady - playoff/SB record, and playoff performance...Well guess what - even when you include Manning's early struggles, he still has more impressive individual stats than Brady does in the post-season. Individual statistics is far and away the most reliable stat when comparing 2 individuals who play the same position. Yes Brady wins the SB category, but again - those SB teams were more a product of the NE DEF and kicker. How many championships have you won since that DEF started declining and Vinatieri left the team? Brady has never been the most important player on a team that has won the SB. So even though he wins the SB category, it's NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH to overcome Manning's OVERWHELMING domination in just about every other statistical measurement of QB's.

 

Here we go again, the whole "dome-assisted passing stats and QB rating argument".

 

Do you really expect Brady to put up similar stats when he's played more times than not in freezing temps in the playoffs. I'd much rather have a QB who can perform in both a dome and zero degree weather. And a QB who has come thru over and over again in the fourth quarter of the biggest games.

 

That's ok though. You can have your stats and 1 SB title. I'd take the clutch QB with 3 titles.

[mzf5c5 0]

That's ok though. You can have your stats and 1 SB title. I'd take the clutch QB with 3 titles.

 

How cluth has he been the last 6 years? Once again, living in the past. He isn't cluth. He never was. He never is going to be. Why? Because a player is only cluth if he NEVER lets you down. I am sure, he has let you down the last 6 years.

[kmbryant09 1]

Here we go again, the whole "dome-assisted passing stats and QB rating argument".

 

Do you really expect Brady to put up similar stats when he's played more times than not in freezing temps in the playoffs. I'd much rather have a QB who can perform in both a dome and zero degree weather. And a QB who has come thru over and over again in the fourth quarter of the biggest games.

 

That's ok though. You can have your stats and 1 SB title. I'd take the clutch QB with 3 titles.

It's pretty easy to move your team 30 yards downfield to get into a 45 yard field goal range. You really think Brady is the reason for your SuperBowls? Hell, he's not even close to the most-clutch member of the Patriots who won those games. Vinatieri kicks 2 game winners in SuperBowls, and a 47 yarder in a blizzard to beat the Raiders after Pretty Boy got bailed out by the Tuck Rule.

 

After reviewing their careers, you really think Brady is a better QB than Manning??

[WhiteWonder 2,733]

one of the best (sarcasm) arguments I hear for Brady and how clutch he is in the postseason is the old "its not his fault they only needed field goals" routine.

 

well, ofcourse it isn't his fault.. but I would hardly point to that in order to state my case for Tom being clutch. They only needed field goals so we will never really know if he could have been clutch enough to drive them for TD's. Just like we never would have known how clutch a kicker Vinatieri was if the Pats had needed more than 3 to tie or win a game.

 

I do rank Manning above Brady but I do admit Brady is great and I respect his accomplishments. There is alot of evidence against him tho. Just as much as there is against Peyton if not more.

 

- cheating scandal. just how much did it help?

- only 1 amazing statistical year once they brought in Moss and Welker.

- high Int total since their last SB win.

- tuck rule bailed him out

 

and something not alot of people mention. AFC championship game against Pitt in 2001. Remember when Brady had to leave the game and Drew Bledsoe marched them 40 yards for a TD? I believe it was the game winner. Clutch

[Jeff Garcia 8]

There is a reason why people are disgusted with Patriot fans. Today is the perfect example. It's not because yall's team is good, as you guys were non-factors this year. It's because yall are dooshbags. Plain and simple.

I agree with this statement.

[three out of four 0]

I do rank Manning above Brady but I do admit Brady is great and I respect his accomplishments. There is alot of evidence against him tho. Just as much as there is against Peyton if not more.

 

- cheating scandal. just how much did it help?

- only 1 amazing statistical year once they brought in Moss and Welker.

- high Int total since their last SB win.

- tuck rule bailed him out

 

and something not alot of people mention. AFC championship game against Pitt in 2001. Remember when Brady had to leave the game and Drew Bledsoe marched them 40 yards for a TD? I believe it was the game winner. Clutch

 

Brady should not get credit for that win in Pitt as he got knocked out in the first half.

 

As for all the people who point to the stats, here's one for ya:

 

Brady 92.5

Manning 91.6

 

These are their career QB ratings in ROAD games.

 

Take away the dome and the stats say that Brady is the better QB.

 

Come on Colts/Manning fans. Let's hear you blame this one on his defense/kicker!

[kmbryant09 1]

Brady should not get credit for that win in Pitt as he got knocked out in the first half.

 

As for all the people who point to the stats, here's one for ya:

 

Brady 92.5

Manning 91.6

 

These are their career QB ratings in ROAD games.

 

Take away the dome and the stats say that Brady is the better QB.

 

Come on Colts/Manning fans. Let's hear you blame this one on his defense/kicker!

So now you've narrowed down your argument to ROAD PLAYOFF GAMES - to convince us that Brady is better? And on top of that, Brady's rating is less than a point better than Manning's

 

Also - ROAD games does not equate to NON-DOME games. In fact, Brady is more likely to play a DOME game on the ROAD (@ Indy), than Manning is on the road (@ Foxboro).

 

This really is one of the more entertaining arguments