- Joined
- Mar 21, 2006
- Messages
- 7,939
- Reaction score
- 16,946
I saw this in a Football Outsiders comment thread from a Manning fan and I thought it intriguing enough to pass along. I may not agree with everything in it, but I think there are a bunch of interesting and thoughtful points:
Dave said:Anyone who thinks that Manning is objectively more talented and better (whereas Brady is more successful, and has a fair amount better luck) ends up being called [a Brady-hater], though, so we just go ahead and self-label.
I will say that right now, Brady is better than Manning. I'd take him over Manning in ANY offense if it was for a game tomorrow. And this is the first year of either of their careers (injuries excepted) that I'd say that.
I like the rational-ness above [referring to previous comments in the thread]. A lot of what I'd say has already been said, and I like that it's well received by both sides and there isn't a huge amount of defensiveness involved. I could write enough to fill a book about this. (Speaking of books - DO NOT waste your money on the new Brady-Manning book by Myers. I did. Trust me, it is not worth a dime. It's written at the level of a 5th grade C student. Allow me to impersonate any random paragraph in this disjointed non-masterpiece: Here is a thing about Peyton. Here is a thing about Tom. Tom and Peyton are good at football. Tom and Peyton are friends. Tom and Gisele had Peyton and Ashley for dinner once. Tom and Peyton have been to nine Super Bowls. They are rivals on the field and friends off of it. Tom has won four Super Bowls and Peyton has won one, but Tom has had a better coach and Peyton has had more individual success. Because they are rivals, they try to outdo each other with the touchdown record. But because they are friends, they still root for each other to do well. Tom went to Michigan and Peyton went to Tennessee.
I wish I could say I'm exaggerating but I'm not. It really is that bad.)
Brady-Belichick is perfect synergy. Everything broke right for him with where he was drafted (except the financials)... he got a genius coach, he got a situation where he wasn't exposed to starting too early and risk of being overwhelmed, he got a good chip on his shoulder, he was forced to work to prove himself (not that I'd question his work ethic had this not been the case), he had a great team around him, and even as he became a starter, he had very little asked of him for several years and got to ease into things.
I won't say that it's easy to grow into greatness with all that help, because it's not. He is truly great, and it's that greatness that leads to a legitimate real chance to hoist a trophy every single season. But he's also set up to succeed like noone else. No other team has a brain trust as strong as New England. No other team covers every base in preparation (including the borderline illegal and actually illegal) the way they do. No coach and QB have quite that same synergy (and hell yes Brady has input into game planning), the same cool rational approach to being the best and winning every single week and every single play.
I see the same thing happening with Luck and Wilson, though the only people that I actually see arguing irrationally with them are Freeman and Prisco in their twitter ****** slap fights... The job descriptions are just different. One is more talented, the other is very talented and extremely strong of mind. One is asked to do more than the other. One places more pressure on himself (and has it placed on him by others). One is saddled with a weaker roster and coaching staff. One is more risk averse, but he's also never really required to take giant risks. Both are very, very smart, both work hard, both elevate teammates, and both are among that group of ten QBs on this earth that you can truly trust to give you a chance to win every game on your schedule even if the teammates don't necessarily play well. (But one's team tends to not play well far less frequently.)
I used to say Manning would've won more than 4 titles if he had been with Belichick, and maybe that's true (at least in part because if nothing else, it would mean he didn't have to face him on the way there every year), but I think Belichick-Brady works so well together that it's a more than the sum of the parts situation (someone said this above too). Their personalities fit really well, and there's something about the way Brady attacks things that is just indescribably different from Peyton... who is just as competitive and angry and motivated as Brady, regardless of what biographers would have you believe. But I question whether Peyton's control freak nature would have benefited as much from having Belichick.
I do think they'd have gotten along great as well and obviously respected each others' minds and recall and talent... but I think Peyton might've been a bit more stubborn about certain things. I mean, in SB48 he lacked arm strength and had to throw short, but you didn't see them running the same elementary slant/flat combos over and over and over. It's almost like there's still a part of him that feels the need to show he's the best too, whereas Brady is more likely to shrug and just say "whatever wins." Take the Pittsburgh game, for instance. 20 other NFL QBs have the talent and accuracy to have completed all those passes (even the 19-20 in a row)... but of those 20, 5 would probably have gotten greedy and tried for something more than a short pass a time or three, 5 more would've lost discipline and done something risky, and 5 others would have made a wrong read or three. Brady isn't ever going to carry you (even in 2007 he didn't). But he's better than anyone else at being fine with not needing to. And there's huge value in that. Peyton has always had to - and seems also to want to - carry teams when they're pitted against the truly good opponents.
But even that's an exaggeration. It's not like Peyton hasn't been more than willing to audible a dozen plays a game out of passes and into runs when the defense dictates it. It's not like he also hasn't won a game here and there without his best effort because of some luck or a great D. And it's not like Brady hasn't gotten selfish.
I think Brady's job has always been a little bit easier than Manning's, and I think he has certainly been luckier... but both do their jobs so much better than anyone else that I can't even root against Brady even though I want so badly for Manning to enjoy more success. (And even though I don't for a second believe he wasn't involved in the deflating stuff.) We're lucky to have both to watch. I'm always going to pull for the people who succeed because of their mind, so I have this huge soft spot for the Patriots even though I tend to always hope they'll get beat.
In the earlier days of the irrational debate I thought this wasn't even a discussion worth having. If you ever go back and watch the 11/2003 game at the RCA Dome (The McGinest fake injury game... NFLN tends to air it leading up to their annual showdown) it strikes me as patently ridiculous that anyone was even comparing Brady the QB to Manning the QB at that point. That was the absolute height of QBWINZ idiocy. It's clear that Brady simply wasn't being asked to do nearly as much as Manning, was only asked to execute safe throws, had better field position, had better teammates, etc etc etc... and then as the game progressed and the Colts started scoring, Brady WAS asked to do more. And did poorly. He just flat out wasn't as good at that point. That argument was preposterous. The entire Choke artst/rings/Bill Simmons debate was nonsense. (Especially since Peyton was allegedly "choking" on the road... which in the playoffs means you're playing against a BETTER TEAM.) But that's OK. Brady still avoided mistakes, made the right reads, and delivered the ball. You can only do what's asked of you, and he did that. That's not a knock on him at all. And he grew. By the following year playoffs, he was making throws that seriously impressed me. By 2006, he was actually one of the best QBs in the game (as opposed to just having that reputation due to the rings), and from 2007-present he has been awesome.
But Manning has been awesome since about 2002. Often without as much support (I consider the "more 1st rounder = more talent" argument nonsense, if for no other reason than that he never had a chuck it up even if it's covered guy like Moss or Gronk). Until this season, he has ultimately been better. Only slightly so since 07, but still better. Slightly more awesome. And I can sit here and say over and over that Tom Brady is awesome and really it's just the narrative that I don't like, but people will still say I hate Tom Brady... which is a real shame. (Ha! I brought it full circle from the first sentence and the post I replied to!)
(Now - it really does look to me like Brady can probably keep this up til 42-43, at which point he'll have five years on the end of his career to trump the five years of Manning at the start... plus probably some more super bowl appearances. That will certainly change history a lot, and rightfully so.)
I'm interested in seeing how Rodgers ages and changes. Adapts as his physical gifts decline but his mind gets better. In his current prime he's approaching Manning's mind, but with better-than-peak Manning's arm, peak Brady's risk avoidance (though part of that is arm confidence), and Steve Young mobility on top of it all. He's fascinating, and fully deserving of being in the best of the era conversation. I am always proud of myself for being the guy in 2007 that saw it coming, but ****, I didn't see THIS coming... just that he'd be better than Favre.
Anyway, that's my "I don't feel like working" missive toward a dwindling audience for today... Hope the three of you that read it found it entertaining and well-reasoned.
plz?
