Its actually more full of crap to avoid the question and call them the same.
They are very different. I think that physically, they end up pretty equal, the differences are not vast, and seem to equal out. I think both are very good with the cerebral aspects of being a QB, although I tend to favor Brady, based on comments made by BB (i.e. every time he comes off the field and tells him what he sees, he is seeing it exactly right) vs the impression that Manning is out-thinking people because of his machinations at the line of scrimmage. Where it separates to me is attitude. Brady is the consumate team player. Everything he does, says, and apparaently thinks is team first, all that matters is winning, while Manning consistently shows that what people think of him personally is part of his agenda. Not earthshattering, but to me there will be instances where, all things equal, you win because of Bradys attitude, and do not because of Mannings.
I dont think its a difficult question. Brady has won more. He came to a team every bit as bad as the one Manning came to. While people want to credit BB, lets not forget that Dungy pre-Manning was much more successful than BB per-Brady, and the opposite is true since. There has always been the argument of defenses, but an equal argument of offensive talent surrounding them. This year that has turned a bit. Brady has had more weapons, and the Colts have played better defense, and Brady is DESTRYOING Manning in all statistics as well as winning. If Brady wins Championships when he has fewer weapons and more D, then also wins Championships when he has more weapons, but the Colt D has caught up, where is the argument?
Doesn't 2007 also eradicate the stats argument?
