this may be unpopular, but here goes...
If you judged Peyton Manning's legacy / career as higher than Tom Brady's a year ago, 6 months ago, or even a week ago, it seems logical to think that any supposed gap between them has only widened, in Peyton's favor.
If (as I do) you had Peyton Manning's legacy /career as lower than Tom Brady's a year ago, 6 months ago, or even a week ago, it seems logical to think that any supposed gap between them has narrowed (at least a little bit) in Peyton's favor.
Peyton had a better season and yes a better postseason than Tom Brady, who went 1-1 instead of 2-1, and had a subpar game in the Patriots loss to Manning's team, with Manning playing exceptionally well.
Peyton was better yesterday, since Brady was not proficient enough to even be permitted to play. 0-1 is in fact better than 0-0.
Yes, that flies in the face of the stupid tendency to put EVERYTHING on the outcome of one game, the SUPER BOWL, the loser of which is THE NFL'S BIGGEST LOSER, supposedly.
You know, the stupid logic that, for example, ridicules the 2007 Patriots for "choking" in the Super Bowl as a big favorite, something that, after all, nobody else did. Nobody else lost in the Super Bowl that day! San Diego, losers of the AFCCG to NE two weeks before, were better than New England that year, or at least had a more successful postseason, being 0-0 in the Super Bowl. As were the Colts, losers of in the division round to San Diego, who also went 0-0 in the Super Bowl. Everyone knows it is of utmost importance to "never have lost in the Super Bowl" (even though you avoided that fate by losing sooner.)
Does anyone else see how silly this popularly applied knee-jerk Super Bowl loser "logic" is?