Manning or Brady

Wins impress me too. But teams win. Unfortunately for Peyton his teams haven't been as good as Brady's.

Manning has done it. He led the biggest comeback in Championship Game history when the Colts beat the Pats in 2006 including the GW TD drive with a minute left in the game.

I don't know this off the top of my head, but has Brady ever led a team to a postseason GW TD drive or has it always been FGs?

 

His team HAS been as good as Brady's but HE has held Indy back w/ his poor play in postseason.

He did a great job in that 2nd half against NE, if he had more moments like that this debate would be much closer and I thought after he broke through he'd keep doing it but he went right back to choking the next 2 years in losses at home to SD and on the road to SD.

I don't think he's ever led NE to a TD drive to win a postseason game but neither has Peyton.

Let's look at each postseason game of their careers:

Brady:

2001: vs. Oak div rd: down 10 pts in 4th qtr he leads them to tie and the win in OT

at Pitt title game: knocked out early after a big 1st down completion to Pitt 40.

SB XXXVI vs. SL: leads amazing drive w/ no Tos and just over a minute left to beat SL

2003:

div rd: leads NE to FG in 4th qtr to beat Ten 17-14
AFC Title Game: led NE to comfortable leads most of game, as soon as Indy finally cuts it to 7 he leads them to a FG to make it a 2 score game and NE wins 24-14

SB XXXVII: NE D gets thrashed, leads NE to 32 pts inclduing SB winning drive that ends w/ FG.

2004:

div rd: never in doubt as the great peyton Manning could only lead his high powered ) to 3 points.

AFC title Game: against #1 ranked D he leads 41-27 rout.

SB XXXVIII: tie game heading into 4th qtr, leads O to 10 points and another SB win.

2005:

WC rd: no contest vs. Jags
div rd: has first bad playoff game, lose 27-13 at Denver

2006:

WC rd: Jets pull w/in 7 in the 4th w/ 8 mins left, takes 4 mins off the clock and seals it w/ TD drive as NE eventually wins 37-16.

div rd: not a great game individually but down 21-13 in 4th qtr he leads his team to TD and 2 pt conversion to tie 3 then FG to win.

Title game: had chances late, couldn't pick up D who choked away big lead.

2007:

Div rd: Jax pulled w/in 21-17 and from there Brady led Pats to 10 more pts in 31-20 win.

Title Game: SD gets it w/in 2 at 14-12 and he leads them down for a game clinching TD to win 21-12.

SB XLII: Not his best game but was ok and led team on 80 yd TD drive in final minutes to take the lead.



Manning:

1999: div rd vs. Ten: 19-42 w/ 0 TDs, led team to 16 pts w/ the last TD coming in garbage time.

2000: WC rd led Indy to 3 2nd half and OT pts against a legendary choking Defense in 23-17 loss

2002: WC rd was SHUT OUT against the Jets.

2003: WC rd was GREAT against Denver

div rd was GREAT against KC

Title game: down 15-0, 21-7, loset 24-14 throwing 4 INTs

2004:

WC rd was very good against Den

dic rd led his O to THREE points in 20-3 loss

2005:

div rd: was handed gift after gift by officials and Pitt but couldn't take advantage in 21-18 loss. The biggest difference btw Brady and Manning- when Brady was handed a gift w/ the tuck rule he led his team to the win, when Peyton was handed multiple gifts against pitt he couldn't even get the game to OT.

2006:

WC rd vs. KC: ok in 23-8 win
div rd at Bal: ok in 15-6 win
title game vs. NE: great in the 2nd half but had he performed in 1st half(including INT for TD) he wouldn't have needed great 2nd half bt he FINALLY came through.
SB XLI: ok, definitely did not deserve MVP award.

2007:
div rd vs. SD: 2 kep picks cost Indy

2008:
WC at SD: couldn't get one first down to put game away, only made one play( a busted one) in entire 2nd half.

 

At least this time you tried, you failed miserably but I give you credit for trying. Those individual regular season #s are nice especially considering Manning has played 3 more seasons BUT why hasn't that level of play translated to postseason for Peyton? Why, w/ all that talent, has Peyton and that O been held to less than 14 PPG in their 8 playoff losses? Did you know he led his O to 20+ points ONCE in a playoff loss? and of course he had 2 killer INTs that cost his team that game.

Keep trying and keep paying attention so the next time this debate comes up you can join fromt he start and have useful tidbits of info to present your case.

 

Brady would need at least 5 more great seasons to even approach Manning. If he stays healthy maybe he can get them but for now he has half the yards and half the TDs. He was on a great team and that helps but it certainly wasn't all him by a long shot.

Manning - 45000 yards and 333 TDs

Brady - 26000 yards and 197 TDs

This is why Junc likes to talk about fantasy stats. He has no other way to explain the disparity.

 

Just throwing this out there, how do you think these guys would have done had they been QB for the other's team (i.e. Brady at QB for Colts, Manning for Pats)? Do you think one had the fortune of having a better team? The QB isn't the only reason a team does or doesn't make the playoffs. They may be the most important player, but not the only one.

 

Junc is absolutely right. Manning can't hang. Head to head in the playoffs, Chad Pennington for fucks sake blew him away.











PS. This is your brain on sarcasm.

 

Stats are only meaningful if they are used to bolster a Junc opinion.

 

Brady has 3 less season. Even then, he wouldn't catch Manning's numbers. Probably something like 39000 and 300 TDS.

But that's not how I judge QB greatness. If that was the case, I'd think Marino was better than Montana (I don't).

That said, I don't know how you can argue with someone who thinks Brady is the best, or someone who thinks Manning is the best. They both have good arguments in their favor. It's in the eye of the beholder really.

 

Good post and while normally I would agree with you, Junc will point out that it isn't his opinion that Brady is better than Manning, its fact.

 

You're losing it. You can't even keep a cogent argument together, so you're having to twist words or carry out our arguments to illogical extensions that are completely removed from both original intent and denotation.

I didn't say it was easy to stop those dumpoffs. In fact, I said it was a brilliantly put together and executed system. The point, which I'm sure you were aware, is that you're giving Brady credit for everything his offense does, even when his role in a play is simply dumping the ball to his RB after the play develops. It's NOT easy to stop, and other teams don't use it because they don't subscribe to the same "system of parts" offensive approach that Belichick does. Brady is a significant part in that offensive scheme, but he is frequently not the motive force.

Again you try to twist words and change the terms of argumentation. You use the word led again to define what he did, but it is that very term that I argued against. Please address my argument instead of disregarding it because it doesn't fit with yours. Much appreciated.

I never brought up the Pitt game. You're right, he had a good game there. 14/21 for 207 yards and 2 TDs. Of course, 105 of those yards came when Deion Branch broke tackles on 2 plays, but I'm willing to acknowledge that Brady did well. He was solid, if not spectacular, the whole game by remaining efficient and avoiding mistakes. Again, that's what I've acknowledged he does well this whole time. For better or worse, he doesn't change games. That's the whole point. He does what he is supposed to do better than anyone else in the game, but again, he's given the best opportunity to succeed. Certainly more so than Manning.

Again, you can't argue based on what the other person says, so you resort to ridiculous statements and logical fallacies. It's sad, really, to see you fall apart this way. He IS fortunate to play with such amazing coaches and in such an amazing system. He is NOT just really lucky, nor has anyone said that. He is in a system built for his success, and he does fantastically within that. He is NOT the leader of that system (Bellichick is), nor is he the game changer you seem to think. He uses his talents and the system he's in better than anyone in the game which, IMO, makes him the best QB in the game. Manning has better tools and a bigger role which, in other people's opinions, makes HIM the best QB in the game. It's really not an objectively quantitative argument, and so it isn't one that can be objectively decided, despite your best efforts. Watching you fall apart should demonstrate that to any objective observer.

Again, no one said he sucked. You again fail to address the argument itself. It's like a car crash. I said he was decent. That's what he was. He was efficient, but not spectacular. He didn't lose the game for his team, he didn't win the game for his team. The reason why Peyton loses games is because the expectations for him are higher. He's expected to carry the team on his back and win games on his own. Brady and Ben don't have that onus. As a result, they are more successful. Are they better? Again, it depends on perspective. In Brady's case, I'd argue yes. In the case of Ben, I'd argue that he'd be an utter disaster in Indianapolis. Actually, I'd say Tom would be merely average in Peyton's position as well. You like to talk about putting people in New England's system. How about going the other way?

Great. Wins impress you. You seem to watch a lot of football, so I'm sure you realize that football, more than any other sport, is a team game. Those wins are generated by teams, not players. You can argue all day long that the glory for a comeback belongs solely to a QB. I'll argue that it depends on the situation and that analyzing individual situations and games is a much better approach than making blanket statements based on wishful thinking. We can keep that up as long as you like, but I can already see the wheels coming off, and I'd hate to see you abandon the board again because of a flameout.

 

I realize that but look at the difference in the stats. It isn't like Brady has played half the years Manning has. Manning has played 11 years and Brady 7 actual years. I also agree that both are great but to say, as Junc does, that it isn't even close is ridiculous.

 

Wait...

If we apply your definition of "leading a team" to a game winning score, then Peyton led his team to a game winning TD against the Patriots in 2007. How can you say he didn't lead his team to a TD drive to win a postseason game? They took the lead 38 - 34 with a TD with 2 minutes to play. In fact, Peyton was MORE instrumental in that drive, passing them from their own 20 to the New England 23. After a roughing the passer call moved them to the 11, they ran the ball into the end zone to eat up the clock. That's certainly more than Brady does with his dumpoffs, and yet Brady "leads them" to game winning FGs, but the same isn't true for Manning on a TD drive? Huh...interesting...

For the record, I'd argue that Brady's comeback against the Chargers the week prior should qualify. Vinateiri won the game, but Brady had to lead them downfield to score and tie it in the 4th quarter.

 

Brady would have won ZERO rings on any Colts team this decade.

Manning would have 3-4 SB rings if he played for the Pats.

Manning has carried the Colts during the regular season year after year. Brady wouldn't be able to carry them to those regular season records on his back.

 

First this is not true. Peyton led the Colts on a GW TD drive against the Patriots in the 2006 AFC Championship Game (Addai 3 yd TD with a minute left). Manning was 3 for 4 for 57 yards on the drive.

He left it up to a Vinateri to kick a 45 yd FG in the snow! Good thing for him he didn't have Vanderjagt kicking for them.

An amazing drive yes. On the feet of JR Redmond, Troy Brown and Jermaine Wiggins. 32 of the 53 yards they gained were yards after the catch. And they still only in position for Vinateri to try a 48 Yd FG!

Brady was 1 for 4 for 4 yards on the GW FG drive

Vinateri kicked 5 FGs in the game. The drive that you mentioned that made it a 2 score game started at the Indy 20 where he didn't pass the ball once. The only yardage gained on the drive was a 5 yard encroachment penalty.

He played a great game.

Brady didn't do anything special in this game (18/27 144 yards). This game was not "never in doubt". The reason Peyton couldn't get the offesnse going was because he was hardly on the field. NE held the ball for over 37 minutes in the game. Nearly a 2 to 1 advantage. The Patriots held the ball for 7 or more minutes 3 different drives. On two separate drives Manning threw a pass that was caught and fumbled. The first in the 2nd qtr while they were driving inside the Patriots 30. And the 2nd in the 4th qtr in the Colts territory.

Yes, he played a good game, but the Steelers 4 turnovers helped decide the route more than Brady including an 87 yard INT return by Rodney Harrison while the Steelers were driving.

4 turnovers by the Eagles helped. But I'll give him his due in this game. But I want to point out that the Patriots defense in the three playoff games in 2004 had 11 turnovers. 3 vs. Indy, 4 vs. Pitt and 4 vs. Phi.

2005:

No contest, but this game illustrates my most frustrating thing about Brady. His 63 yard TD pass to Ben Watson was on a swing pass / TE screen. Patriots defense had 6 sacks and 2 turnovers.

Yes, he did not play well.

Brady played well.

Brady was awful in this game. He threw 3 INTs and what should have been the game clincher by Marlon McCree. The 2pt conversion was a run by Kevin Faulk.

They put the game on Brady in the 2nd half and he was only able to guide them to two 4th qtr FGs when they desperately needed a TD. They started both drives with great field position. The first one started at the Colts 43 and the second one started at the Patriots 46.

This was Brady's best game. Only missing on 2 passes.

Brady was awful in this game. He threw 3 INTs. The only reason they won IMO is because the Chargers were without Tomlinson and Gates.

The 80 yd TD drive the Pats went back to their quick passing scheme which allowed Welker and Faulk to work underneath.

He struggled but didn't throw any INTs and threw for 227 yards.

That "choking defense" allowed only 14 points per game on the year, was 5th in passing defense and had the most INTs. Manning was able to throw for a TD and 0 INTs.

This was fantastic!

yes he was going 22 for 26 for 377 yds and 5 TDs

He was 22 of 30 for 304 yds and 3 TDs

He threw 3 INTs to Ty Law who had his number. Law really played well and baited Manning a few times.

2004:

458 yds and 4 TDs

only had the ball for 22 minutes. 2 fumbles hurt their chances while moving the ball.

Actually I'm glad you made this comparison. Brady "led" the Patriots into a position where he needed Vinateri to kick a 45 yd FG in horrible kicking conditions to tie. If it wasn't for Vinateri making that FG then a 2nd to win the game, Brady never "leads his team to victory". Manning got his team in position to tie and Vanderjagt missed a 46 yd FG.

He threw 3 INTs early (two of them by you know who - Ty Law who just happens to have his number throughout his career...makes a little more sense that he threw 3 to him in 2003) but bounced back to guiding them to the go ahead TD in the 4th qtr after KC got the game within a score going 5 for 5 for 57 yards on the drive and 30 of 38 passes for the game.

He played a great D and was lucky to have Vinateri who did what he did for Brady in 2003 by kicking 5 FGs.

Here's the difference btwn Brady and Manning as I see it. When Manning stepped up to lead the offense it was Manning himself that led the team to victory. There wasn't screen passes and short quick passes. It was all on Manning and he did it.

No, but neither did Brady in SB XXXVI. But they always give it to the QB when there isn't another clear cut winner.

This is the same Defense that would intercept Brady 3 times the next week.

Still threw for 310 yards and a TD with 0 INTs. He had pressure on 3rd and 2 on the drive that you said he couldn't get one first down to put the game away.

 

Tom Brady was the unquestioned leader of the teams that won their super bowls. It's not like he was a quiet, no-name guy up until 2007 that simply played by "the system" and kept his head down. The "no talent w/ great intangibles vs. talented but a pussy" dilemma doesn't even apply here. The difference in their career qb ratings is a whopping 1.8.

His success early in his career especially is something Manning has yet to match. People forget how bad Manning has choked in the playoffs... there have been plenty of games where the reason they loose is not the shitty defense, just bad offense by Manning. Saying that the reason he scored less points because he had greater "responsibilities" sounds like a complete cop-out.

CHFBF wrote a pretty in-depth article on this, siding with Brady. I do think Brady is better but the gap isn't that great. It pretty much is all defined by post-season performances, and Manning has just choked too many times without enough to really make up for that, yet. Maybe he wins a few more and Brady does nothing, and in 20 years they both look relatively similar. Right now the opposite looks more likely though, but who knows. It's silly to generalize about who had more surrounding talent than to actually look at what they've done in the playoffs. So far Manning just has too many games in his past where he did nothing and choked early in the playoffs.

Not that the difference is even really that huge. Any team would kill for a quarterback that would put up great season after great season with a championship or two mixed into the years. The problem with this entire arguement is that Brady's career has still yet to be really defined. If he never wins another super bowl, he'll probably be viewed as a run-of-the mill HOFer (if that makes sense) who in a way, was a let down because of his unsustainable success early in his career. That is for sure. If the second half of his career is as dominant as his first, it would be extremely difficult to make a case against him. The outlook for the Pats over the next 5 years is probably as good if not better than it was in 2004 I think. With Dungy's retirement and a couple flat playoff performances against mediocre teams, plus a couple extra years, Manning's career seems to have less potential left in it than Brady's. People will always feel like Manning should have done better than only 1 if things stay the same.

Here's the article in case you're interested http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php?Page=261

 

Why would he? Did you think that the Colts were overmatched in 2003, 2004, or 2005? Those were all years were they arguably could have gone all the way. In those losses his offenses averaged 11.7 fucking points a game while giving the ball away ever chance he got (often in the red zone)after spending regular seasons carving up the rest of the league. That's his fault, not the defense. He choked all those years.

 

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Indy has 2-3 SB titles and NE MAYBE has one if you switch them on their teams. Peyton plays scared in big games and makes too many mistakes.

Stats are meaningful when they are relevant to a discussion. We all know Manning is a great reg season QB so what does posting his #s do for this discussion? Both players have played w/ SB caliber talent around them but one has won 3 and been to 4 and the other has won 1 and been to 1.

3 less seasons, 3 more Championships. Amazing, isn't it?



Here's another good #:

Reg season win %:

Manning: 117-59, 66%
Brady: 87-24, 78%

Postseason win %:

Manning: 7-8, 47%
Brady: 14-3, 82%

Brady's win % goes UP in postseason and Peyton's goes down. In a nutshell that's all we really need to know. Again, bith players have good talent around them but one QB elevates his team whenn it matters and the other does not.

You can keep all yuor meaningless fantasy #s playing at least half his games in domes and not playing very many games in the Northeast in Nov and Dec. Manning is about individual #s, Brady is about winning.

It is a fact and anyone who truly understands the game would agree.