upstater1

Manning has a ring from the 2004 season?

NO

upstater1

Brady has all this over Manning:

Best statistical season by a QB: BRADY
Best statistics in postseason: BRADY
Most completions in a Super Bowl: BRADY

Better stats outdoors: BRADY
Better stats in a dome: BRADY

AFC Championships: BRADY
Super Bowl victories: BRADY
Playoff record: BRADY

The thing that sticks out to me is that Manning choked badly three times in the biggest games, and until 2007, Brady hadn't.

The fact is, were it not for incredibly generous calls from the referees in 2006, the Colts should not even have a ring. That championship game had Manning choke written all over it with his pick 6 to Samuel. and when the Patriots were about to go up 24-3 at halftime, a totally bogus referee's call on Troy Brown knocked them out of field goal position and gave the Colts the ball. A 21 point lead became a 11 point lead. It was compounded in the second half with a bogus PI on the Patriots that gave the Colts the ball at the 1 (and a TD), a call later admitted to be bogus by the NFL, and a horrid non-call on Hayden taking down Reche Caldwell in the end zone. Taken all together, these 3 made for 11 points difference, or a 22 point swing.

Brady, with receivers like Caldwell and Gaffney, had it all over Manning that day.

And until Bernard Pollard dove for Brady's knee, Brady was easily the better QB.

FootballFan85

Misinformed Argument #1: Polian had the rules changed to favor the Colts.

Truth: The rule was already on the books, it was just not enforced regularly. Polian did get that changed. I'd love to know how refs calling plays by the actual rules is some sort of massive coup on Polians part? It's amazing how many Pats fans ***** about Polian getting that rule enforced, but then when anyone mentions the words 'tuck rule' they immediately come back with 'hey, it might be obscure, but its in the rule book'.

So which is it? Do you like the rules or don't you?


Misinformed Argument #2: Manning always has the benefit of being surrounded by all-star wide receivers.

Truth: Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne are both amazing receivers without a doubt. But anyone who points to Garcon and Collie needs their head checked. Collie is a fresh rookie. Garcon caught 4 passes last year (his rookie season). They're good prospects no doubt, but the reason they look as good as they do is that they play for Peyton Manning.

As for Anthony Gonzalez, if he was in the line up, there would be no reason to believe he wouldn't be just as successful. He was playing as the 3rd man behind Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne. How could you really expect him to do anything when he was barely ever a target? When he was thrown the ball, he performed admirably and many Colts fans were excited about his potetial. This year, when he gets his shot to be the #2 guy, he gets hurt straight away.

Dallas Clark is what he is from being developed within Mannings offense. Dallas Clark today is not the same Dallas Clark he was when he started with the Colts. Another guy is Brandon Stokley. Manning made him look like a machine, in reality he's a mediocre receiver.


Misinformed Argument #3: Peyton Manning has the benefit of being with the same offense.

Truth: Sure, he's had the same offense and the same OC his entire career, but unlike essentially all of the other QB's in the league, Peyton Manning isn't working Tom Moore's offense, Tom Moore is working Peyton Manning's offense. Players on other teams comment on it regularly. Manning is like a coach on the field. Moore calls in concepts, Manning calls the plays. All the guys on the offense do exactly what Peyton Manning tells them to. He doesn't wear an arm band with plays on it and then just run what the OC says and then maybe audible. He owns that offense.

Peyton Manning doesn't benefit from being with the same offense as much as new players benefit from being in Peyton Manning's offense. If you're a new kid like Garcon and Collie, and you have some talent and you come in and do as your told, you have a very good chance to succeed.

Really, does anyone here, anyone, think Jim Caldwell would be going to the Superbowl in his rookie season if Peyton Manning wasn't running that offense?

Now as to who's better? That debate will rage on forever. I like Manning, but I'm also a Colts fan so take that for what its worth. I just thought I'd clear up some of the mistakes that constantly get spouted around here.

fair catch fryar

Hands down this is one of the dumbest arguments in football today. When both have hung up their jerseys for the last time then and only then can this debate be carried on with any substance. At this point, the debate of who's better is like a 15 round heavyweight fight and this is like the 9th or 10th round. Between their respective records and Superbowl wins it's pretty close. In this particular round manning is putting a beat down on Brady because of the season he's had and the very distinct possibility that he'll win his 2nd Superbowl. If this happens, even as a kool-aid chugging homer I'd have to concede the award to Peyton because he is simply the best right now and it's not even close.

JoeShmoe

Totally agree. You can homer up all you like but Mannings been the best QB (by a mile) this season given what he's had to work with. His O-Line is no better than ours. His decision making, play calling, pocket presence etc is second to no-one right now. The way against the Jets he took what was given and got Garcon/Collie 100 yards each shows just how specical he is.

Over the course of thier careers but it may well be different but if Manning
wins another ring next week then that argument starts to differ somewhat

I'll probably get banned for this

upstater1

Kind of a schizophrenic post. You say at first the whole history needs to be looked at and then you conede the award the Peyton if he wins the Super Bowl.

upstater1

You can change the emphasis on rules and it's the same impact as changing the rules. I can say, "Call holding if you see so much as a hand grab on the offensive line," and immediately that emphasis will favor teams with strong and big defensive lineman who can just plow through.

You're arguing something that means very little in reality.

The game has always been played by letting chucks go within a reasonable distance, by letting holding go as well, and a lot of other areas.

That's why the NFL starts each preseason with a so-called new point-of-emphasis.

Brady2Welker

First; I love me some Tom Brady.


But even I, a huge Tom fanboy, admits that technically speaking Peyton is a superior quarterback. Not even gonna joke around about that.


I always felt that Peyton has the skills, but Brady had the 'intangibles' (as much as I loathe that word). Undeniably, pre-injury, Brady was like ice under pressure.

As for the whole "Brady rode his defense to wins", with the exception of maybe 2001, I think that each of the playoffs games easily surpassed its over/under pt estimatem, it wasn't exactly like Brady was just doing diddly squat. Meaning that it wasn't a Trent Dilfer lolravens game where the defense absolutely destroyed the other team. Sure they made big plays, but I've seen the colts defense make big plays. So that argument is pretty moot.

upstater1

The idea that Brady rode the defense to wins is totally undercut byb the actual Super Bowls.

He threw for 350 yards against Carolina.

The defense gave up 325 passing yards.

Brady set the Super Bowl record for completions, 33.

So, I fail to see how a Colts fan could make that argument with a straight face.

It's a completely biased Colts argument.

AndyJohnson

My opinion on this is that stats are nice to look at but you play to win.
Compiling better stats while losing is not better than compiling lesser stats while winning.
Naturally, everything is not black and white, there must be a gray area.
The gray area comes in when comparing winners to winners, and determining their impact.
In other words:
Marino doesnt get in the discussion because he never won, so the stats that were compiled on the way to ultimately losing are not relevant.
Manning, Dilfer, Favre, Doug Williams, Mark Rypien, Jim McMahon, etc won one SB.
You distingusih between them by looking at how much they had to do with winning it all. You also look at the quality of their play when they didn't win because we are comparing careers not just one season. (For example Mark Rypien played better the year he won a SB than Manning did the year he won one, but Rypien did pretty much nothing else)

I could accept the argument that 0 wins vs 1 especially when considering how vital the QB was to the win, is reasonable, because of the flukiness of one win vs a career.
I could agree with lumping the QBs who 3 with the ones who won 4, and judging on contribution as well as if they had played well enough to win another but the supporting cast let them down. I do not think QBs who won less than 3 belong in the same group as those who won more than 3.

With that in mind, IN TE SB ERA, because I have no clue where to put Otto Graham or Johnny Unitas who played when the game was entirely different, I conclude the following rankings.

The top group should only include 3 time winners.
Terry Bradshaw with 4 is downgraded IMO because his contribution was the least, overall, partly due to era, and partly due to having dominant defenses that aided him. Nonetheless, and this is the point people seem to want to ignore, 4 times Terry Bradshaw went through a full season, playoffs and a SB making the plays at the QB position that were necessary to win. That destroys making a lot of good plays, but not the ones required to win (Marino).
I would have had Brady ahead of Montana (so far) up until the 2007 SB loss, because up to then, he was ahead at the same stage, but had not yet reached Montanas accomplishments but appeared likely to. Since, I no longer say he is aheadof Montana (so far) but that will still be determined.
I put Troy Aikman closely behind. He was a smaller part of the puzzle for the Cowboys, as unlike Brady and Montana, the team revolved around a group of players that included him, not just him.

Therefore, I limit my top 4 to those who have won 3 or more, and rank them
Montana
Brady
Aikman
Bradshaw

Again, I must be clear, I am not ranking simply who I would want on the field on a given day, but I am HEAVILY weighting what they accomplished over what people think they could have accomplished under diferent circumstances.
For example, in 2004 when Manning broke all the records, and Brady beat him and won the SB, some would argue Manning would have won if they switched teams. I put ZERO weight on that argument, because each had the opportunity to accomplish a title, and I find it foolish to grade them on what may have been when you have the exact plays they made on the field to judge it for you, with the understanding that the only reason you play is to win.

The next level would be 1 or 2 time winners.
Without listing all, I would consider Manning, Starr, Favre, Elway, Young, Warner, in this group. (NOTE I AM GOING FROM MEMORY AND MAY HAVE LFET SOMEONE OUT)
Interestingly, along with Marino, those 1 time winners, (Favre, Manning, Young) were often the reason their team, when it contended, lost, due to their poor play, even given the fact that they were asked to carry the team. (I do not believe a player who is asked to carry the team is forgiven for not carrying it in the big game because he didnt have a running game or defense or whatever caused him to be rated higher to begin with due to 'havng to carry the team')

So my second group would go, starting at 5th
Elway
Starr (by far hardest to rank becuase the game has changed so much)
Manning
Favre
Young

It should be noted that what Manning lacks at this point, is substance behind the numbers, that is add the numbers up as high as you wish, but they only resulted in one title, and great numbers with ultimate failure did not bring the only sought after result. Manning, with a win next week moves to the head of this group (past Elway because Elway won only after his role was made less critical by adding a 2000 yard runner)
Manning certainly could move into the top group within his career. If he were to reach 3 SB wins, he may be considered ahead of Brady and even possibly Montana, although that will probably require 4, because winning 4 as the center piece of a team is unique.
But he hasn't done that. Until he fulfills the minimum requirement for consideration, which is by far the factor that separates the greatest, and the one that is the rarest quality of all, you can't just give them to him.
Roethlisberger, IMO, has the opportunity to join both of these groups, with 2 under his belt, but so far, he is not near the top of the 1 or 2 time winners. But he has the opportunity to get there, and if he does win another, there really aren't any factors that should preclude him from being consider with the 4 others who have accomplished more than any other QBs who have played in the SB era.