Manning is more skilled than Brady? Please explain.

[feldspar]

I agree QBs don't play in a vacuum. But Colts fans always use the "Peyton didn't have the defense Brady had", but there is just as strong of an argument (probably a better argument) that Brady hasn't put the numbers up like Manning has because he had substandard weapons on offense. Seriously name one receiver who left the Pats and done anything. Branch even when he was healthy was sporatically good at best. The rest has been less than stellar. Brady has only had receivers of a quality similiar that Manning has had his entire year in 2007.

This point is valid up to a point if you want to apply the same standards to both QBs. I mean, how did Manning's receivers do after they left the Colts? You can't say because they never left. Great QBs in great offenses on great teams make everyone look good. You can speculate how good Marvin Harrison would have been on a different team, but you can't prove it. You can't prove how much better Manning made Harrison look, or whether it's the other way around and Harrison made Manning look better. It's pure speculation.

 

[efin98]

This keeps bugging me since I read all the posts- how the hell does Peyton's "bad" defenses affect his play on offense? Really, someone answer that.

How is the special teams not also given blame? Aren't they are also just as important in setting up field position and in most cases probably more so impact his offenses than the defense.

How is it that the lack of tools on offense for the Patriots that directly affect Brady's abilities to throw the ball and rack up higher completions, completion %age, and yardage numbers get ignored while the Colts' "bad" defense gets immediately pointed to as a reason for Peyton performing "bad" in certain games?

Can anyone finally clarify this?

 

[apple strudel]

This keeps bugging me since I read all the posts- how the hell does Peyton's "bad" defenses affect his play on offense? Really, someone answer that.

The traditional argument is that with a bad defense the offense is usually playing from behind and needs to throw the ball more, making it more predictable and as a result easier to defend. To really evaluate it you'd have to be somewhat rigorous about how often the Colts have played from behind and how Manning performed in those situations. You'd expect to see him play worse with larger deficits.

 

[feldspar]

The traditional argument is that with a bad defense the offense is usually playing from behind and needs to throw the ball more, making it more predictable and as a result easier to defend. To really evaluate it you'd have to be somewhat rigorous about how often the Colts have played from behind and how Manning performed in those situations. You'd expect to see him play worse with larger deficits.

This.

And it doesn't help your situation when the opposition knows that you have to throw the ball.

 

[apple strudel]

It's pure speculation.

Not really. It's not deductive, that's for sure, but you can come up with reasonable arguments. For example, the Colts have invested 1st round picks in Harrison, Wayne, Gonzalez, Clark, James, and Addai. That's really stacking the deck for the offense. The Pats have only invested 1st round picks in Maroney, Watson, and Graham. And Graham was primarily a blocker, while James was a very high draft pick. I'd say it's a 6-2 disparity, but in the best case it's still twice the investment that Pats made.

So it doesn't take much more than that to argue that the offensive talent surrounding Manning is greater than the offensive talent that surrounded Brady until 2007. Unless you want to argue that first round players aren't generally better than subsequent players. (Of course there are outliers and exceptions, but the trend is firmly in favor of the first rounder.)

 

[efin98]

The traditional argument is that with a bad defense the offense is usually playing from behind and needs to throw the ball more, making it more predictable and as a result easier to defend. To really evaluate it you'd have to be somewhat rigorous about how often the Colts have played from behind and how Manning performed in those situations. You'd expect to see him play worse with larger deficits.

That's not taking into consideration that he may well have already played behind due to his own actions and/or bad play(3 and out, fumble, INT) forcing the defense to compensate.

2004 he had four turnovers in the first half alone, love how the defense got blamed for that game.
2003 he had five punts, two INTs, and a missed field goal getting blanked by the Jets...must be the defense's fault for them not getting any points and getting nowhere on offense.
2000 he had three points in the second half with the lead...blame it on the defense for not getting them into field goal range or in any place they could score
2005 they missed a field goal...blame it on the kicker when Mr. Play Caller turned the ball over on downs the drive before and punted his first four drives of the game.
2007 they turned it over on downs consecutive drives in the fourth quarter...oh wait that game the defense actually gave them a chance in the 4th quarter to try to score at least a field goal to tie the game and they still lost.

Blame it on the defense...when in doubt just blame it on the defense

 

[feldspar]

Not really. It's not deductive, that's for sure, but you can come up with reasonable arguments. For example, the Colts have invested 1st round picks in Harrison, Wayne, Gonzalez, Clark, James, and Addai. That's really stacking the deck for the offense. The Pats have only invested 1st round picks in Maroney, Watson, and Graham. And Graham was primarily a blocker, while James was a very high draft pick. I'd say it's a 6-2 disparity, but in the best case it's still twice the investment that Pats made.

So it doesn't take much more than that to argue that the offensive talent surrounding Manning is greater than the offensive talent that surrounded Brady until 2007. Unless you want to argue that first round players aren't generally better than subsequent players. (Of course there are outliers and exceptions, but the trend is firmly in favor of the first rounder.)

Now you're suggesting that being picked in the first round automatically means a more talented player in the NFL?

What round was Brady picked in?

Where exactly was Manning picked?

That argument holds no water, and if it does, you know who the better QB is right there. Where players were picked is a pretty poor argument here.

 

[apple strudel]

Now you're suggesting that being picked in the first round automatically means a more talented player in the NFL?

What round was Brady picked in?

Where exactly was Manning picked?

That argument holds no water, and if it does, you know who the better QB is right there. Where players were picked is a pretty poor argument here.

You've got to read the post if you want to have a serious conversation. 1) I pointed out the existence of outliers (how can a Pats fan not?), and 2) I clearly use the trend of 1st rounder success as a measure. It's not perfect, but obviously helps us establish an increased likelihood of these players being successful in other similar systems in the NFL. Would James have been great with a nothing line? Probably not. Would he have been pretty good with an average line? Probably. Same with Wayne, Harrison, and Clark. Hard to say with Addai and Gonzalez.

 

[feldspar]

You've got to read the post if you want to have a serious conversation. 1) I pointed out the existence of outliers (how can a Pats fan not?), and 2) I clearly use the trend of 1st rounder success as a measure. It's not perfect, but obviously helps us establish an increased likelihood of these players being successful in other similar systems in the NFL. Would James have been great with a nothing line? Probably not. Would he have been pretty good with an average line? Probably. Same with Wayne, Harrison, and Clark. Hard to say with Addai and Gonzalez.

I am having a serious conversation. Do you mean that I have to agree with you if you are to give me any credit?

You "clearly use the trend of 1st rounder as a success as a measure." OK. Manning was picked #1 overall, and Brady was picked in the 6th round, 199th overall.

I'll admit that I'm being a little hard-nosed about this, but if I totally agree with you, I'd say that if the Patriots historically have picked defensive guys in the first round, their defense should naturally be better. If the Colts have neglected their defense, they should have a worse one.

You can't say that a QB doesn't rely on the defense.

 

[apple strudel]

That's not taking into consideration that he may well have already played behind due to his own actions and/or bad play(3 and out, fumble, INT) forcing the defense to compensate.

Yeah but you can probably establish pretty easily with defensive/offensive statistics over the course of a season.

If the offense is really bad, it does put pressure on the defense. If the offense is average or above average and the defense is still bad, it's hard to blame the offense.

From nfl.com total offense/defense stats for the regular season. It's just a data point to start the conversation since we could argue how useful a measure it is - it's certainly not rigorous. Still, it suggests that the offense isn't really putting the defense in a pinch a lot.

2008
Offense 15
Defense 11

2007
Offense 5
Defense 3

2006
Offense 3
Defense 21

2005
Offense 3
Defense 11

2004
Offense 2
Defense 29

2003
Offense 3
Defense 11

2002
Offense 9
Defense 8

2001
Offense 2
Defense 29

2000
Offense 3
Defense 21

1999
Offense 4
Defense 15

1998
Offense 12
Defense 29

 

[feldspar]

Look, I'll agree that Manning has had the benefit of better receivers. I think that's obvious. I also think it's obvious that Brady has had the benefit of a superior defense as well as the best coaching in the league.

How you weigh these completely different things against each other is up to you and is the center of the debate as I see it.

 

[efin98]

Yeah but you can probably establish pretty easily with defensive/offensive statistics over the course of a season.

If the offense is really bad, it does put pressure on the defense. If the offense is average or above average and the defense is still bad, it's hard to blame the offense.

From nfl.com total offense/defense stats for the regular season. It's just a data point to start the conversation since we could argue how useful a measure it is - it's certainly not rigorous. Still, it suggests that the offense isn't really putting the defense in a pinch a lot.

See my update in my post for analysis of the games where defense played little if any part in the final outcome...it was on the offense in those losses. The defense did let them down but that wasn't the deciding factor- the offense or lack there of when they needed them most and for what he is touted for let the Colts down in those games.

The wrong unit is being blamed.

 

[apple strudel]

I am having a serious conversation. Do you mean that I have to agree with you if you are to give me any credit?

Not if you don't read the posts and start posting things half-****ed. Otherwise we're having a different conversation, and that's just silly.

You "clearly use the trend of 1st rounder as a success as a measure." OK. Manning was picked #1 overall, and Brady was picked in the 6th round, 199th overall.

Trend =/= outlier. I'm talking trends. Obviously Brady is an outlier and I stated that plainly in the original post. How many times do I have to say it?

I'll admit that I'm being a little hard-nosed about this, but if I totally agree with you, I'd say that if the Patriots historically have picked defensive guys in the first round, their defense should naturally be better. If the Colts have neglected their defense, they should have a worse one.

Generally, that is what you'd expect, given a similar quality of player for each pick. The strengths of each team for the past 10 years or seem to support this. Until the Pats got Moss and Welker, at least.

You can't say that a QB doesn't rely on the defense.

To a certain extent, but there are ways of isolating this like efficiency and completion percentage. I'd say the effect of a good defense on an offense would be more pronounced for the running game rather than the passing game since teams with dominant defenses will be playing with the lead and running more. Except the Pats in '07, who ran up the score.

 

[apple strudel]

See my update in my post for analysis of the games where defense played little if any part in the final outcome...it was on the offense in those losses. The defense did let them down but that wasn't the deciding factor- the offense or lack there of when they needed them most and for what he is touted for let the Colts down in those games.

The wrong unit is being blamed.

No doubt Peyton has had some tremendously horrible games against good teams, especially in the playoffs. I think it makes a good argument for why Brady is better, because his really bad games are fewer and farther between. In a general sense, you can't blame the Colt's losses on the offense since the offense is so good, especially in the regular season. Certain specific losses, sure, especially against quality defenses. Of course, with better defenses they might still win those games.

 

[BradyFTW!]

This.

And it doesn't help your situation when the opposition knows that you have to throw the ball.

Too bad I already addressed that in post #339: I specifically went back to each postseason game they lost, and it has been true maybe one time that they lost because of defensive failings, in spite of Manning's superior play.

 

[feldspar]

Yeah but you can probably establish pretty easily with defensive/offensive statistics over the course of a season.

If the offense is really bad, it does put pressure on the defense. If the offense is average or above average and the defense is still bad, it's hard to blame the offense.

From nfl.com total offense/defense stats for the regular season. It's just a data point to start the conversation since we could argue how useful a measure it is - it's certainly not rigorous. Still, it suggests that the offense isn't really putting the defense in a pinch a lot.

2008
Offense 15
Defense 11

2007
Offense 5
Defense 3

2006
Offense 3
Defense 21

2005
Offense 3
Defense 11

2004
Offense 2
Defense 29

2003
Offense 3
Defense 11

2002
Offense 9
Defense 8

2001
Offense 2
Defense 29

2000
Offense 3
Defense 21

1999
Offense 4
Defense 15

1998
Offense 12
Defense 29

I've always had a problem with the way offenses and defenses are ranked. They are officially ranked by yards gained and yards allowed, but I think a more revealing ranking would be how many points were scored or how many points were allowed. That would be more of a bottom line in my way of thinking.

 

[feldspar]

Too bad I already addressed that in post #339: I specifically went back to each postseason game they lost, and it has been true maybe one time that they lost because of defensive failings, in spite of Manning's superior play.

The stat sheet told you that?

 

[BradyFTW!]

The stat sheet told you that?

Watching the games told me that, and the stat sheet supported my point. Unless you want to argue that the multiple games that they lost where he threw 3+ INTs and/or had a QB-rating under 40 were good performances by Manning. If that's the case, then you're just an idiot.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I've always had a problem with the way offenses and defenses are ranked. They are officially ranked by yards gained and yards allowed, but I think a more revealing ranking would be how many points were scored or how many points were allowed. That would be more of a bottom line in my way of thinking.

So a defense giving up a TD after the QB threw an INT on the 20 yard line is just as bad as getting marched down the field on for a 99-yard decimation drive? I agree that yards aren't ideal, but neither are points. If you really want to evaluate how good a defense is, you go for situational stats; most notably, turnovers forced, third-down conversion rate against, and red zone touchdown allowed %.

Either way, the point still stands that the Colts' defenses have historically been underrated, since that was the easiest way to explain away the team's repeated playoff failures without laying any blame at all at Manning's feet.

 

[TriplecHamp]

Wow over 30 pages of meaningless stats and BS. Who the F cares who's better, why cant both be good and leave it at that. Its like whoever gets the last post in is the winner and the QB they support is obviously better. Grow Up, everybody has an opinion.