Brady vs Manning Debate - The Final Nail in the Coffin

[ATippett56]

Now you are comparing apples and oranges. I was pointing out the quality of teams when each QB began playing for them, not how the have done since then or head to head. Those are totally different things.

The Indianapolis Colts qualified for the playoffs during the 1999 and 2000 NFL seasons. Prior to the 2001 NFL season, the New England Patriots last qualified for the playoffs during the 1998 NFL season. Your argument holds no water when comparing the quality of teams. Of course, only a delusional Colts fan would argue the quality of teams prior to the 2001 NFL season when the FACTS STATE OTHERWISE!

 

[workhorse]

Let's compare the quality of offenses in 2001:

Marvin Harrison, WR - 1996 first round draft pick
Tarik Glenn, OT - 1997 first round draft pick
Peyton Manning, QB - 1998 first round draft pick
Edgerrin James, RB - 1999 first round draft pick
Reggie Wayne, WR - 2001 first round draft pick

How many first round draft picks were playing for the New England Patriots offense in 2001?

Why are you looking at 2001, when 1998 is Peyton's first year? As for the Pats....

1996 Terry Glenn 1st
1998 Robert Edwards 1st
1999 Damian Woody 1st
2000 no first - Adrian Klemm was Pats' first draft pick in the 2nd
2002 Daniel Graham 1st

 

[workhorse]

The Indianapolis Colts qualified for the playoffs during the 1999 and 2000 NFL seasons. Prior to the 2001 NFL season, the New England Patriots last qualified for the playoffs during the 1998 NFL season. Your argument holds no water when comparing the quality of teams. Of course, only a delusional Colts fan would argue the quality of teams prior to the 2001 NFL season when the FACTS STATE OTHERWISE!

Peyton came to the Colts in 1998. The Colts were 3-13 the season prior to drafting Peyton and 3-13 in his first season. They reached the playoffs in his second season. The Pats were 8-8 the season prior to drafting Brady and went 5-13 his first season, under Bledsoe. They went to the Super Bowl in Brady's second season, his first as QB. It would be fair to compare both 2001 teams if both QBs came out in the same draft, but they didn't.

 

[ATippett56]

Why are you looking at 2001, when 1998 is Peyton's first year? As for the Pats....

1996 Terry Glenn 1st
1998 Robert Edwards 1st
1999 Damian Woody 1st
2000 no first - Adrian Klemm was Pats' first draft pick in the 2nd
2002 Daniel Graham 1st

Did Terry Glenn and Robert Edwards play in Tom Brady's first start against none other but the Indianapolis Colts? (The answer is neither played for the New England Patriots in the aforementioned game.) Please explain the Peyton Manning meltdown in Tom Brady's first start as a professional when the Colts in their first two games of the 2001 NFL season rolled up 87 points? Did Peyton Manning wilt under pressure against an unknown commodity at quarterback for the New England Patriots?

Please explain the major difference between a 3-13 Indianapolis Colts for Peyton Manning versus a 5-13 New England Patriots for Tom Brady?

 

[workhorse]

Did Terry Glenn and Robert Edwards play in Tom Brady's first start against none other but the Indianapolis Colts? (The answer is neither played for the New England Patriots in the aforementioned game.) Please explain the Peyton Manning meltdown in Tom Brady's first start as a professional when the Colts in their first two games of the 2001 NFL season rolled up 87 points? Did Peyton Manning wilt under pressure against an unknown commodity at quarterback for the New England Patriots?

Please explain the major difference between a 3-13 Indianapolis Colts for Peyton Manning versus a 5-13 New England Patriots for Tom Brady?

Why do you have Brady at 5-13 and Peyton at 3-13? If you are going to include more than one season, do it for both of them. Since Brady wasn't playing on defense that game, I really doubt his 168 yards caused pressure on Manning.

 

[ATippett56]

Why do you have Brady at 5-13 and Peyton at 3-13?.

The New England Patriots were 5-11 during the 2000 NFL season and started the 2001 NFL season 0-2. Tom Brady did not start until the third game of the 2001 NFL season.

The New England Patriots offense caught fire during the 2001 NFL season with Tom Brady at quarterback since the New England Patriots quarterback "statue" was removed from service due a Mo Lewis hit.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

The arguement from Cold Hard Football Facts (a New England favored site) points out only that the two QBs are very close and they say the QB rating edge goes to Brady. You can only say that Brady stats would be better if a majority of his games were in a dome if football were a sterile, scientific game. But since they play the games with players and not with scientific formulas, you would just be guessing. It's odd though that many around here say that it's the Colts' fans that are caught up in stats. CHFF had to break the stats up like that to get Brady ahead on Manning in QB ratings since overall Manning has a career QB rating of 94.3 and Brady is at 88.8.

What a total idiot. Did you forget that Brady has a better indoor passer rating with a constantly changing group of non-pro-bowlers? Often lacking a stand out WR, and always lacking a run game except 2004. You know nothing at all about stats if you want to compare Manning's climate controlled offense loaded with pro-bowlers to Brady's team of gypsies. You just don't get it. Manning would have done FAR LESS with Brady's offense than Brady has done. Brady has turned piss into wine with what he has done with underwhelming offensive talent year after year. Meanwhile, Manning has had the creme de la creme of offensive weapons at his beckoning call and has turned wine into whine.

Try winning a single game of significance before you come on here and try to set us straight, because maybe then you wouldn't sound so stupid.

 

[Bella*chick]

Manning would have done FAR LESS with Brady's offense than Brady has done. Brady has turned piss into wine with what he has done with underwhelming offensive talent year after year. Meanwhile, Manning has had the creme de la creme of offensive weapons at his beckoning call and has turned wine into whine.

You have hit the nail on the head of the argument that is most obnoxious to me. I've seen it on other boards...."Manning would have won three or more SBs if he was on the Pats!" Yes, because that poor guy is surrounded by absolutely NO ONE while Brady is surrounded by an arsenal of weapons. Give me a FREAKIN' BREAK. Our defense is obviously an improvement over theirs but Manning on this offense? Especially the 2001/2003 offense where we had NO running game whatsoever? DREAM. ON.

I also often consider Belichick's quote, "There is simply no quarterback I would rather have than Tom Brady." Um, I think I'll take his word for it. I truly believe the Brady/Belichick sum is greater than the parts. In other words, you just don't throw a Manning on this team and guarantee success....that's like saying the Redskins pricey free agents should have at least been in a Superbowl by now. There is such thing called chemistry and right time/right place.

 

[PYPER]

I was just pointing out that the team was in decent shape already when he was drafted. Sure he gets some of the credit, but I think he was more of a piece in the puzzle at that point than a star like he is today.

You're missing this point though.

The '99 team that went 8-8 actually lost six of their last eight games after starting out 6-2. So Brady essentially took over a team that had gone a woeful 7-19 in its previous 26 games and led them to a 14-3 record (including postseason) in his first season as an NFL starter.

So before Brady came along, it only took the Patriots 26 games to reach 19 losses.

After Brady came along, it took the Patriots 82 games to reach 19 losses.

In other words.

Before Brady...7-19
After Brady....63-19

And let's also not forget that prior to Brady emerging in 2001, the Patriots were considered the very worst team in the league by more than a few prominant sports writers.

In fact, in 2001 Joel Buchsbaum labeled them the NFL team LEAST LIKELY to make the playoffs or go to the Super Bowl within the next five years (Worst prediction of All-Time, BTW).

http://archive.profootballweekly.com/content/archives/features_2000/spin_022001.asp

There's really no way for a Colts fan to spin this. Why can't they just accept that Brady is the premier quarterback in the league. It's really not even debatable anymore.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

You have hit the nail on the head of the argument that is most obnoxious to me. I've seen it on other boards...."Manning would have won three or more SBs if he was on the Pats!" Yes, because that poor guy is surrounded by absolutely NO ONE while Brady is surrounded by an arsenal of weapons. Give me a FREAKIN' BREAK. Our defense is obviously an improvement over theirs but Manning on this offense? Especially the 2001/2003 offense where we had NO running game whatsoever? DREAM. ON.

I also often consider Belichick's quote, "There is simply no quarterback I would rather have than Tom Brady." Um, I think I'll take his word for it. I truly believe the Brady/Belichick sum is greater than the parts. In other words, you just don't throw a Manning on this team and guarantee success....that's like saying the Redskins pricey free agents should have at least been in a Superbowl by now. There is such thing called chemistry and right time/right place.

And you have hit the nail on the head as well! Could you see Manning Chokeboy trying to complete passes to David Patten in 2001? Getting blitz protection from Antwain Smith? And of course, Colts fans say that Manning would have won FIVE superbowls with the Pats defense, which was like dead last in 2002 and 2005, when Brady lead Manning and the rest of the league in touchdowns and then yards. With a bunch of rookies on offense in 2002 and NO RUN GAME both years.

Manning can't win a game with all the weapons in the world.

Yeah, the trolls get old......

 

[PYPER]

Why do you have Brady at 5-13 and Peyton at 3-13? If you are going to include more than one season, do it for both of them. Since Brady wasn't playing on defense that game, I really doubt his 168 yards caused pressure on Manning.

168 yards may not seem impressive on the surface but he did only attempt 23 passes but more importantly, was his success rate on 3rd and 4th down. Because it was his first game, he essentially only passed on 3rd down. And it was on 3rd down that the tone for the game was set. If my memory serves me correct, he was very successful on 3rd and 4th down that game. I believe they were something like 8 of 16 with most of those conversions coming from key Tom Brady completions.

Once again, substance over flash. That's Tom Brady for ya...

 

[workhorse]

And you have hit the nail on the head as well! Could you see Manning Chokeboy trying to complete passes to David Patten in 2001? Getting blitz protection from Antwain Smith? And of course, Colts fans say that Manning would have won FIVE superbowls with the Pats defense, which was like dead last in 2002 and 2005, when Brady lead Manning and the rest of the league in touchdowns and then yards. With a bunch of rookies on offense in 2002 and NO RUN GAME both years.

Manning can't win a game with all the weapons in the world.

Yeah, the trolls get old......

I think that both QBs would have success in the other's system. Both are quality quarterbacks. Some of the success of the the Colts' players has come because of Peyton. I'm not saying that these guys wouldn't be good without Peyton, but Peyton makes them better. Marvin never had double digit TDs or over 1000 yards in a season before Peyton. Both QBs make the players around them better. Brady does have one think decidedly in his favor, defense. The teams he has been a part of have had much better defenses than the Colts' D. Peyton has constantly had to overcome the lack of defense. BTW, I am not a troll. Just because you don't agree with me or like the same team as me doesn't make me a troll.

 

[arrellbee]

I think that both QBs would have success in the other's system. Both are quality quarterbacks. Some of the success of the the Colts' players has come because of Peyton. I'm not saying that these guys wouldn't be good without Peyton, but Peyton makes them better. Marvin never had double digit TDs or over 1000 yards in a season before Peyton. Both QBs make the players around them better. Brady does have one think decidedly in his favor, defense. The teams he has been a part of have had much better defenses than the Colts' D. Peyton has constantly had to overcome the lack of defense. BTW, I am not a troll. Just because you don't agree with me or like the same team as me doesn't make me a troll.

You are not a troll. You have had some very good posts and perspectives and I look forward to reading your posts when I see your name.

In this case, however, I think you are correct in pointing out that Peyton took over a struggling team. But why do you insist on ignoring that the Patriots in a similar number of games before Brady took over showed a very similar - even almost identical - poor showing ? You are picking and chosing, which is kind of almost what you are objecting to. I think you took a position and now don't want to acknowledge that there is a way to look at it that kind of counters your position. Oh well.

One thing I hope you will change your position on, because it is one of the really significant aspects of the way the Colts are put together. The Colts had a poorer defense because they spent more on the offense to give Manning more tools to score. So Peyton has to own the issue of the team's effectiveness with the poorer defense. I don't know what it is right now, but within the last 6 or 8 months, I looked at the cap numbers and the Colts were spending 65% on offense and 35% on defense. So you can't just say that Brady had an advantage. His ability to win was his ability to use less expensive weapons on offense but still do well enough given the defense to win. Your argument is also pretty much backwards in the sense that if Brady has done even as well or slightly better than Manning AS A QB with significantly less spent on his offensive weapons, doesn't that mean he is without question the more effective QB ?? ?? ?? Seems to me that is a sound argument. And you would have to guess, I would think, that Peyton or any QB would be less effective if you spent 23% less on the offensive tools that you gave him. Seems kind of hard to argue against that.

Also, you really do have to consider that Brady has not lost ONE SINGLE GAME in a dome. That's pretty significant, irregardless of the CHFF stats. Granted, he has played far fewer games in domes, but it until he does lose one, you would have to think that he is certainly better than Manning in Manning's own advantageous dome environment. To bolster that argument even more, remember that EVERY SINGLE ONE of Brady's dome games - WERE AWAY GAMES !! !! !!

Piling up gaudy numbers in regular season games is just so meaningless compared to winning playoff games against the best teams of the year and when those teams are playing their most intense football.

JMHO.

 

[patsox23]

You are not a troll. You have had some very good posts and perspectives and I look forward to reading your posts when I see your name.

In this case, however, I think you are correct in pointing out that Peyton took over a struggling team. But why do you insist on ignoring that the Patriots in a similar number of games before Brady took over showed a very similar - even almost identical - poor showing ? You are picking and chosing, which is kind of almost what you are objecting to. I think you took a position and now don't want to acknowledge that there is a way to look at it that kind of counters your position. Oh well.

One thing I hope you will change your position on, because it is one of the really significant aspects of the way the Colts are put together. The Colts had a poorer defense because they spent more on the offense to give Manning more tools to score. So Peyton has to own the issue of the team's effectiveness with the poorer defense. I don't know what it is right now, but within the last 6 or 8 months, I looked at the cap numbers and the Colts were spending 65% on offense and 35% on defense. So you can't just say that Brady had an advantage. His ability to win was his ability to use less expensive weapons on offense but still do well enough given the defense to win. Your argument is also pretty much backwards in the sense that if Brady has done even as well or slightly better than Manning AS A QB with significantly less spent on his offensive weapons, doesn't that mean he is without question the more effective QB ?? ?? ?? Seems to me that is a sound argument. And you would have to guess, I would think, that Peyton or any QB would be less effective if you spent 23% less on the offensive tools that you gave him. Seems kind of hard to argue against that.

Also, you really do have to consider that Brady has not lost ONE SINGLE GAME in a dome. That's pretty significant, irregardless of the CHFF stats. Granted, he has played far fewer games in domes, but it until he does lose one, you would have to think that he is certainly better than Manning in Manning's own advantageous dome environment. To bolster that argument even more, remember that EVERY SINGLE ONE of Brady's dome games - WERE AWAY GAMES !! !! !!

Piling up gaudy numbers in regular season games is just so meaningless compared to winning playoff games against the best teams of the year and when those teams are playing their most intense football.

JMHO.

GREAT post. Very fair.

workhorse is a decent poster here, but his argument is in some places quite sketchy. Peyton's a great QB but the weapons he's been surrounded by are historically good. Brady's weapons have been solid and have changed quite a bit. Citing Pats draft picks didn't help workhorse's cause - Glenn played with Brady only a few times, Robert Edwards never did, Klemm was/is an oft-injured BUST, Daniel Graham is the only #1 worth mentioning.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I think that both QBs would have success in the other's system. Both are quality quarterbacks. Some of the success of the the Colts' players has come because of Peyton. I'm not saying that these guys wouldn't be good without Peyton, but Peyton makes them better. Marvin never had double digit TDs or over 1000 yards in a season before Peyton. Both QBs make the players around them better. Brady does have one think decidedly in his favor, defense. The teams he has been a part of have had much better defenses than the Colts' D. Peyton has constantly had to overcome the lack of defense. BTW, I am not a troll. Just because you don't agree with me or like the same team as me doesn't make me a troll.

If you read again, you will realize that my statement you qoute applies to the general repeated mantra of Colt's trolls everywhere, that Peyton "would have won FIVE superbowls if only he had the Pats defense", never mind that it was the worst in the league in 2002 and 2005. During those years Peyton, like Brady, would have had NO RUN GAME and an O-Line mess and only a #1b WR to throw to. Yet Brady led the league in touchdowns and yards those years, including over Manning. In the same situation, Manning would have thrown picks all year, because he doesn't do well without protection or a running game or his cast of pro-bowlers. Or Napolian changing the rules. Or Napolian bullying the refs. Or his cozy climate controlled dome. Or his division devoid of defense, except the occasional Jaguars effort.

This mantra that the Pats would have won 5 Superbowl with Manning is repeated relentlessly by Colts trolls everywhere. It is their calling card.

You exhibit a complete failure to come to reality with what Brady has achieved on a far lesser offense than Manning. Manning is an overrated QB. There is a big difference. Take away Manning's weapons and he will be another happy foot guy who chokes and throws picks off of his back foot. He's not Mann enough to stand in the pocket and complete passes under pressure, never has been, never will be. Wants to keep his uniform clean, you know, for all those nauseating commercials. If he ever takes a hit, the refs will throw a flag, rather than have to face the wrath of the competition committee and the bully that runs it.

Hard to argue with the reality that Brady plays better indoors and outdoors according to passer ratings when Brady has always had a different line-up on offense each year of less than pro-bowl talent.

 

[PatsSteve1]

The Colts and thier fans are happy with thier QB and the Patriots and thier fans are happy with thier own QB. Why isn't anyone discussing who's ORG or RCB is better? - IMO, it only matters which team is better and wins the SB.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

The Colts and thier fans are happy with thier QB and the Patriots and thier fans are happy with thier own QB. Why isn't anyone discussing who's ORG or RCB is better? - IMO, it only matters which team is better and wins the SB.

Brady would have led the Colts to a superbowl victory last season with the D that the Colts had.

 

[PatsSteve1]

Brady would have led the Colts to a superbowl victory last season with the D that the Colts had.

* There's no way to know that and frankly, who cares? -

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

Peyton is a great qb, no doubt.

The only possible way to argue that Peyton could have won 3 titles in Brady's shoes is if you assume that the Patriots are Peyton's kryptonite, and by being on the Pats he wouldn't have to face them. Of course, there's no way Peyton gets past the Steelers in '04 and maybe the Panthers in '03. Come playoffs time tough defenses aren't all that hard to find.

I had never before looked at their postseason stats side-by-side. Forget wins, a team stat. Look at completion%, yards per attempt, TD-to-int. The two don't even come close. Especially focus on interceptions: that may be the biggest reason why the Pats have had so much playoff success.

All it takes is one playoff loss. With peyton at the helm and coming up small the Pats probably don't win any. remember, this is the team that was 0-2 and had no hope in '01. in '03 they "hated their coach" and an even older Antwoin Smith was still running the ball. Maybe in '04 with dillon running Peyton could finally have gotten them all the way if not for a 15-1 Steelers team with a d that could stop Peyton.

I guess what I'm saying is that Brady is simply much better. Oh, and once the playoffs roll around Peyton no longer qualifies as great.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

* There's no way to know that and frankly, who cares? -

Bull. Brady would have won the superbowl last year with the Colts. Every year he has had a good defense, he has beat all other teams in the league and won the superbowl. EVERY TIME. And he would have done it last year with Peyton's embarassment of offense weapons.