This season will show Brady vs Manning with no receivers

[khayos]

I was thinking, how many Pats receivers from last year have over 20 catches from anywhere in the league.

Here is 2006

Receiving Statistics
NAME REC YDS AVG LNG TD FUM LST
Reche Caldwell 61 760 12.5 62 4 1 1
Benjamin Watson 49 643 13.1 40 3 3 1
Troy Brown 43 384 8.9 23 4 0 0
Kevin Faulk 43 356 8.3 43 2 0 0
Chad Jackson 13 152 11.7 35 3 0 0
Jabar Gaffney 12 98 8.2 21 1 0 0

Here is 2007

Receiving Statistics
NAME REC YDS AVG LNG TD FUM LST
Kevin Faulk 25 210 8.4 23 1 0 0
Benjamin Watson 20 232 11.6 35 5 0 0
Jabar Gaffney 11 142 12.9 33 1 0 0
Caldwell, Brown and Jackson have caught nothing this year

So, then only two pieces of consistency have been Kevin Faulk and Ben Watson. Compare that to the Colts having Addai and Clark, but the Colts also have Wayne and the injured Harrison.

If Manning can't pull off a run to the AFC Championship game, I'd say that is the definitive proof to end the #1 vs #2 debate.

 

[Ootball]

"If Manning can't pull off a run to the AFC Championship game, I'd say that is the definitive proof to end the #1 vs #2 debate."

Is that a fact?

How come no one ever talks about how many Superbowls Manning would have won by now if he had had the same defense that Brady had, or the same coach?

 

[EnglishPatriot]

In my mind, the fact that Brady & Gaffney linked up better than 18 & 88 in the play-offs ended this debate.

Manning didn't win that superbowl, his defence won it. Manning can win when he's carried by Rex Grossman, his D and his superstar wr's. Otherwise, it's six picks.

 

[bradmahn]

"If Manning can't pull off a run to the AFC Championship game, I'd say that is the definitive proof to end the #1 vs #2 debate."

Is that a fact?

How come no one ever talks about how many Superbowls Manning would have won by now if he had had the same defense that Brady had, or the same coach?

This year Manning has a really good defense and only three Pro Bowl calibre players at the skill positions (Addai, Clark, Wayne). An early round loss would say a lot about the differences in Brady and Manning.

 

[chrisfx811]

"If Manning can't pull off a run to the AFC Championship game, I'd say that is the definitive proof to end the #1 vs #2 debate."

Is that a fact?

How come no one ever talks about how many Superbowls Manning would have won by now if he had had the same defense that Brady had, or the same coach?

Ah the old 'defense' card.
Go read cold hard football facts, and educate yourself.

Manning would have none, because you see he has proven many times before that he cannot perform on the biggest stage. Was it his defense that put up a whopping 17 points in 2 playoff games in Foxboro?
No, I belive that was good ol Peyton laying those eggs.

Luckily he squared off against the anti-qb in Rex Grossman last year, or he might still be ring-less.

Is Dungheap not good enough for Manning? He's had the same offensive coordinator for some time too.

Compare that with the changing coaches in the NE's title machine.

 

[Ootball]

In my mind, the fact that Brady & Gaffney linked up better than 18 & 88 in the play-offs ended this debate.

Manning didn't win that superbowl, his defence won it. Manning can win when he's carried by Rex Grossman, his D and his superstar wr's. Otherwise, it's six picks.

That's just a teensy bit biased. I wonder how long you guys will use that 6 INT game for?

It's too bad you have such a hard time giving Manning credit. Brady's place in history benefits from having a real rival during this time. Your attempts to diminish Manning's accomplishments only lessens what Brady has done.

 

[QuiGon]

"If Manning can't pull off a run to the AFC Championship game, I'd say that is the definitive proof to end the #1 vs #2 debate."

Is that a fact?

No it is not a fact. To intelligent observers, we already have the definitive proof.

How come no one ever talks about how many Superbowls Manning would have won by now if he had had the same defense that Brady had, or the same coach?

Because the defense was never the problem in those playoff games Manning has lost over the past several years. When they lost 24-14 in January, 2004, you couldn't blame the defense. When they lost 20-3 in 2005, you couldn't blame the defense. And when they lost 21-18 in 2006, you couldn't really blame the defense. But you can blame the guy who threw 2 TD's against 5 INT's in those games.

 

[chrisfx811]

That's just a teensy bit biased. I wonder how long you guys will use that 6 INT game for?

It's too bad you have such a hard time giving Manning credit. Brady's place in history benefits from having a real rival during this time. Your attempts to diminish Manning's accomplishments only lessens what Brady has done.

Well he went up against the greatest show on turf, Donovan McNabb, and Jake Delhomme for the superbowl.

Manning overcame Rex, barely.

 

[Ootball]

Well he went up against the greatest show on turf, Donovan McNabb, and Jake Delhomme for the superbowl.

Manning overcame Rex, barely.

Manning overcame what was at the time considered one of the most dominant D's to be in a Superbowl in some time.

And he won by a margin that was considerably more than any of the Patriots wins, as lons as you want to bring in the "barely."

 

[bradmahn]

That's just a teensy bit biased. I wonder how long you guys will use that 6 INT game for?

It's too bad you have such a hard time giving Manning credit. Brady's place in history benefits from having a real rival during this time. Your attempts to diminish Manning's accomplishments only lessens what Brady has done.

Saying Brady is better than Manning (which he is) does not make Brady's accomplishments any less impressive.

Faced with similar circumstances (and Manning's offensive players were still better than anything Brady had in '03 and '06, and much more balanced than anything in '05) Manning sucked. It's one game, but one game in which Manning was absolutely horrendous. The rest of the season is yet to be played, but it will go a long way in ending this debate.

 

[Ootball]

Saying Brady is better than Manning (which he is) does not make Brady's accomplishments any less impressive.

Faced with similar circumstances (and Manning's offensive players were still better than anything Brady had in '03 and '06, and much more balanced than anything in '05) Manning sucked. It's one game, but one game in which Manning was absolutely horrendous. The rest of the season is yet to be played, but it will go a long way in ending this debate.

One game? In the annals of history, you really think ONE GAME is going to matter?

There really isn't much debate, outside of New England & Indianapolis. It's a weird obsession you guys have. History will definitely sort it out. I actually think that Brady will go down as slightly better than Manning when all is said & done, mainly because he'll have more championships.

Montana has more than just about anyone, and Marino has none, but it doesn't stop me from thinking back on that era & just seeing 2 great QB's...

 

[bradmahn]

Manning overcame what was at the time considered one of the most dominant D's to be in a Superbowl in some time.

And he won by a margin that was considerably more than any of the Patriots wins, as lons as you want to bring in the "barely."

Nobody was saying the Bears D was dominant by the time the Super Bowl was played. The Bears D was absolute **** down the stretch. That's bias.

 

[He Ban Me]

The Brady having no receivers thing is just an old and tired debate. Who did PM have besides Harrison before Wayne arrived? Was Wayne an HOF'er from day 1? How long has Clark been a real threat at TE? You folks talk as if PM has had 3 ProBowlers to throw to for 10 straight years. Brady has had plenty of receivers in his tenure, and of course, never had a bottom of the barrel defense. Manning was expected to do more with more and Brady less with less. Anyone have stats on all the jump balls Brady has thrown to Moss? Or the Yards after Catch averages for Stallworth and Welker? When PM hits a big one, it's in stride, where the ball has to pretty much be on target. Brady has the luxury of throwing it up for grabs, knowing Moss has a great shot at coming down with it. Wayne is a decent YAC guy, but Harrison? Not really. Stop the friggin' whining and the now chest thumping. It's not very becoming, and will only inspire other hack writers to pen the truth about the nature of the Pats fan.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Brady having no receivers thing is just an old and tired debate. Who did PM have besides Harrison before Wayne arrived? Was Wayne an HOF'er from day 1? How long has Clark been a real threat at TE? You folks talk as if PM has had 3 ProBowlers to throw to for 10 straight years. Brady has had plenty of receivers in his tenure, and of course, never had a bottom of the barrel defense. Manning was expected to do more with more and Brady less with less. Anyone have stats on all the jump balls Brady has thrown to Moss? Or the Yards after Catch averages for Stallworth and Welker? When PM hits a big one, it's in stride, where the ball has to pretty much be on target. Brady has the luxury of throwing it up for grabs, knowing Moss has a great shot at coming down with it. Wayne is a decent YAC guy, but Harrison? Not really. Stop the friggin' whining and the now chest thumping. It's not very becoming, and will only inspire other hack writers to pen the truth about the nature of the Pats fan.

I'm confused..... When did Harrison, Pathon, Wilkins, Dilger, Pollard and Edgerrin James become a group of stiffs? That was Manning's group in year 2. The differences between his year 1 and year 2? Marshall Faulk for James, and Torrance Small for Wilkins.

In other words, Manning has had an elite back for almost his entire career, quality tight end play and at least one Hall of Fame wide receiver the entire time he's been a Colt. As we've seen proven beyond a doubt with the 6 pick game of Manning, the media is too busy ballwashing Manning to ever have an honest opinion on this.

Simply face the reality that Brady is the better quarterback. All your trolling on a Patriots forum won't change that.


P.S. Regarding the "tired debate" thing..... I'm pretty sure that Brady is destroying that argument this season. Clearly it wasn't a 'tired debate' and was simply a truth now being proven.

 

[oldrover]

The real difference is this:

The Colts invested long-term in Manning's targets, giving him great WR's, and continuity with them.

The Pats shuttled receivers in and out... Troy Brown being the only quasi-constant. And until this year, the Pats did not invest in the position. The Pats preferred to rely on Brady elevating his WRs' play, while investing more into defense and depth.

This year's events may have opened some eyes, most notably Brady and Belichick. It really shows how TB can get even more out of top-notch wideouts, despite not having 3-4 years with them to connect.

I don't really care about the Manning/Brady debate. Both sides can make cases. But one thing is true, that we didn't really know before: give Brady great receivers, and he'll deliver great performances.

 

[Lansdowne]

BTW for the guys playing the "if only Manning had a defense" card, don't forget Manning has had the benefit of playing most of his games indoors instead of outside in the elements. Oh, and Manning had a defense last year (the reason he won the SB despite some subpar efforts offensively) and this year (the only reason they were able to walk away from San Diego with that moral victory the media likes to talk about). You give Manning the supporting case on offense that Brady has had most of his career, he'll make his team competitive but he won't shatter passing records and probably wouldn't be good enough to win the SB. Brady for the most part has got the job done no matter who is around him (2003 may have been the most impressive as far as having to juggle personnel and overcome key injuries, something the Colts haven't been able to do lately). This year Brady is on pace to have the best year ever for a QB, and that's to be expected from a QB that has been great even with mediocre-to-above average targets in the past. There is no debate at this point.

 

[Ootball]

The debate is not "over". It's not "over" until both guys finish their careers.

If Manning leads the Colts past the Pats in the playoffs & wins the Superbowl, most of what has been written on this thread is rendered basically meaningless.

Oh, I know, I know - "not gonna happen," but it's certainly not an impossibility, and I'm sure it lurks in the dark recesses of most Patriots fans' worst fears.

 

[He Ban Me]

I'm confused..... When did Harrison, Pathon, Wilkins, Dilger, Pollard and Edgerrin James become a group of stiffs? That was Manning's group in year 2. The differences between his year 1 and year 2? Marshall Faulk for James, and Torrance Small for Wilkins.

In other words, Manning has had an elite back for almost his entire career, quality tight end play and at least one Hall of Fame wide receiver the entire time he's been a Colt. As we've seen proven beyond a doubt with the 6 pick game of Manning, the media is too busy ballwashing Manning to ever have an honest opinion on this.

Simply face the reality that Brady is the better quarterback. All your trolling on a Patriots forum won't change that.


P.S. Regarding the "tired debate" thing..... I'm pretty sure that Brady is destroying that argument this season. Clearly it wasn't a 'tired debate' and was simply a truth now being proven.

Terrence Wilkins?? Kidding, right?

Pathon??

Pollard and Dilger??-Not stiffs, but these TE's better than any TE Brady ever had??

Brown, Givens, Branch, Patten, Wiggins, Fauria, Graham, Faulk, Dillon


PLENTY of SKILL GUYS. Certainly not scabs.

 

[Sivy]

The debate is not "over". It's not "over" until both guys finish their careers.

If Manning leads the Colts past the Pats in the playoffs & wins the Superbowl, most of what has been written on this thread is rendered basically meaningless.

Oh, I know, I know - "not gonna happen," but it's certainly not an impossibility, and I'm sure it lurks in the dark recesses of most Patriots fans' worst fears.

The colts will lose their first game of the playoffs....if they make it there.

 

[eom]

The debate is not "over". It's not "over" until both guys finish their careers.

If Manning leads the Colts past the Pats in the playoffs & wins the Superbowl, most of what has been written on this thread is rendered basically meaningless.

Oh, I know, I know - "not gonna happen," but it's certainly not an impossibility, and I'm sure it lurks in the dark recesses of most Patriots fans' worst fears.

last year I thought the pats would spank the colts in the regular season.
when the playoffs rolled around, I was confident of the same thing.
when they just met recently, I expected a 20 point win.
when they meet in the playoffs I'll expect a 20 point win.

of course, unlike yourself, I can't read the minds of most pats fans, and can only speak for myself.

give it up w/the colts bull****.