FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning...

[bagwell368]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

More wins??

Brady 111-32 + 14-5 = 125-37

Manning 141-67 + 9-10 = 150-77

So to get 25 more wins, Manning has also lost 40 more games. Does it make me a homer to point out that this is a ridiculous way to view this? But as long as we are, Brady has won at a much better percentage then Manning.

As for Int's. 2.7% Int for Manning, and since we are talking totals Manning has 198 + 19 (playoffs) = 217 picks. Brady is 103 + 16 = 119 Int's. So in keeping with the totals uber alles leanings, then Brady is >>>>>>>>>>> then Manning in Int's. Yes it's ridiculous, but since 4710 + 682 Brady ATT's is a lot more then half way to Manning's 7210 + 718 ATT's, then it's clear as the Int% tells us that Manning is a riskier and/or less accurate QB then Brady.

 

[JJDChE]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

Actually, playing longer means nothing statistically, except in regards to volume stats. Volume stats mean little. You've got no argument. Brady's the better Qb, and his numbers back that up even though he's played in far fewer "good weather" venues, percentage-wise.

Volume stats mean little? You must live in a different world than me. The volume stats are absolutely the most celebrated in sports.

If you don't think so, ask a sports fan the meaning of the number 714, then the meaning of the number 2.2%.

They'll know Babe Ruth's homerun total, they won't know Brady's INT%.

We're talking about all-time greatness here. Playing at a high level for a long time is meaningful.

On a side note, I love that you try using more wins as if it means something,

Now THAT is funny.

And, please, keep calling me a homer. I want to see how many people here you cause to stroke out with that, either with fury or laughter.

Anyone that claims Brady is 'obviously' the better QB is a homer, maybe you just have a little slice of homer in you.

 

[JJDChE]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

More wins??

Brady 111-32 + 14-5 = 125-37

Manning 141-67 + 9-10 = 150-77

So to get 25 more wins, Manning has also lost 40 more games. Does it make me a homer to point out that this is ridiculous?

As for Int's. 2.7% Int for Manning, and since we are talking totals Manning has 198 + 19 (playoffs) = 217 picks. Brady is 103 + 16 = 119 Int's. So in keeping with the totals uber alles leanings, then Brady is >>>>>>>>>>> then Manning in Int's

Manning 399 TD - 1.92/game
Brady 261 TD - 1.83/game

 

[The Brandon Five]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

Deus a homer?

Now THAT is funny.

 

[JJDChE]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

More wins??

tells us that Manning is a riskier and/or less accurate QB then Brady.

What does Manning's 9 consective seasons over 65% completion tell us when you compare it to Brady's 3 career seasons over 65%?

 

[bagwell368]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

If you want to use QB rating as your metric for 'tailing off', go ahead. Doesn't mean it makes sense. He was voted the best player in the NFL in 2008 and 2009. That some pretty impressive tailing off.

Even looking at his passer rating. The objective observer would say he was very consistent from 2003-2009, with one historic year in the middle. 7 straight years with a rating between 95 and 104, with a big bump to 121 in '04. 2010 was the year that sticks out as a big drop off from past years.

So sorry, but QB Rating makes a lot more sense to use to demonstrate Manning's erosion - then Awards with biased subjective voters behind them.

Yes 2010 was a big drop off year as has been pointed out by quite a few. But the fact is, the trends were down on Manning since '04, so another 110+ QB Rating year out of Manning seems all but impossible at this point.

 

[Mogamedogz]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

What's a troll? Someone who disagrees with the common wisdom that everything Patriots is right?

Are we only supposed to discuss things like who we can trade Wilhite for?

You will never win bro. Homers rule the roost here. Unfortunately.

 

[JJDChE]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

So sorry, but QB Rating makes a lot more sense to use to demonstrate Manning's erosion - then Awards with biased subjective voters behind them.

He was the best player in the NFL in 2008/9. IME, the NFL MVP voting has been pretty spot on in the last decade. Manning deserved it as much as anyone. He had a QB rating of 100 in 2009. C'mon, you have to see how ridiculous this assertion is.

 

[JJDChE]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

I'm pretty sure we couldn't even trade Wilhite for a 6-pack of Coke.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

Unless Brady has at least another MVP and/or Super Bowl run, Manning will be remembered as the better QB. That's just the way it is. That's the public perception. Sure, lots of people would still pick Brady over Manning, but Manning will win the publicity battle. You can argue against it if you want but you might as well just bang you head against the wall.

Honestly, who gives a crap? They're both first ballot locks, top 10 all time QBs. Arguing which one is better is a waste of time.

NFL players who voted the top 100 disagree with you.
So does every oither unbiased objective analysis.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

Volume stats mean little? You must live in a different world than me. The volume stats are absolutely the most celebrated in sports.

If you don't think so, ask a sports fan the meaning of the number 714, then the meaning of the number 2.2%.

They'll know Babe Ruth's homerun total, they won't know Brady's INT%.

We're talking about all-time greatness here. Playing at a high level for a long time is meaningful.


Now THAT is funny.




Anyone that claims Brady is 'obviously' the better QB is a homer, maybe you just have a little slice of homer in you.

Do you think that Kerry Collins is a top-10 all-time quarterback? No? Wait... what were you talking about again?

Volume stats measure your ability to play for a long time. They're worth something, but anything that has Brett Favre ranked #1 of all time is inherently not worth much. While we're at it, let's go ahead and crown Morten Andersen as the best football player ever, since he personally scored over 2,500 points.

Someone should also break the news to Joe Montana that Vinny Testaverde was a better quarterback than he was. He *did* throw for more yards and touchdowns, after all.

On a side note, Kerry Collins is going to pass Joe Montana for career passing yards in week 1, if he does actually get the start. Collins is currently #2 among active QBs in passing yardage, and #5 in TDs, so these statistics that apparently mean so much have him as one of the absolute elite QBs of the last 10-15 years. Can you honestly say with a straight face that he is one of the top 10 quarterbacks of this time period? Because you would be wrong, plain and simple, if you claimed that.

Finally, please keep calling Deus a homer. He's been getting a steady dose of that today, it's pretty funny really.

 

[bagwell368]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

Volume stats mean little? You must live in a different world than me. The volume stats are absolutely the most celebrated in sports.

But that's a problem in getting to the truth. In the NFL Favre has the most TD's, he also has the most Int's. In baseball Nolan Ryan has the most strikeouts and the most walks, and has a bigger lead over #2 in walks, then in strikeouts.

I don't care what some kid thinks, or some guy in the barber shop that watches 5 football games a year, two of them while he's dozing off on the couch on Thanksgiving. I do believe the crew here is past that, isn't it?

If you don't think so, ask a sports fan the meaning of the number 714, then the meaning of the number 2.2%.

So lack of knowledge by an average sports fan proves your point? Wow, that's the most outlandish thing you have written in this thread yet.

By the way Pete Rose has the most hits, maybe he's the best? Actually no, he's not even in the top 40 - just take a look at how many PA's he had to get it.

We're talking about all-time greatness here. Playing at a high level for a long time is meaningful.

Yes it is. As I pointed out earlier, Brady is ahead (in games played) of two of the other top 9 QB's of all time (IMO), and tied today with a 3rd. Hasn't Brady reached the threshold where he has played enough not to be beaten up for not playing more - and of course he has a great shot at a few more great years - so maybe we just have to wait. But in the end if Manning has 20 more games played, and 25 more TD's (and 40 more Int's) then longevity will be off of the table - clearly.

Now what about the conduct of the players during the years they play, and the results? Does Manning have any case against Brady right now? Will Manning ever get 3 SB rings (or more), or 2?

Anyone that claims Brady is 'obviously' the better QB is a homer, maybe you just have a little slice of homer in you.

You do understand that this statement of yours is an opinion and not a fact? Let's have your comprehensive argument for Manning over Brady - so far we have bits and orts - some of them deeply flawed or simply ridiculous. You care so much, set it all down right here - or we will hold your opinion cheap - very cheap.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

I think even the Colts fans realize that Brady is a better QB. This is why you often see them using the both are great argument, and why they call comments that Brady is 'clearly better' stupid, because they take that as 'much better'.
If the argument was Brady is better by all measures but Manning is still close, they would probably just accept that one and move on. (Al but the ones in denial)

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

Volume stats mean little? You must live in a different world than me. The volume stats are absolutely the most celebrated in sports.

If you don't think so, ask a sports fan the meaning of the number 714, then the meaning of the number 2.2%.

They'll know Babe Ruth's homerun total, they won't know Brady's INT%.

We're talking about all-time greatness here. Playing at a high level for a long time is meaningful.





Now THAT is funny.

When you're talking about top level players who've played for long enough to establish their basic baseline, which is what we're discussing here, the volume stats mean almost nothing. Favre and Marino have more TDs, yards and wins than Brady, but that doesn't mean that people think they are better Qbs than Brady.

Anyone that claims Brady is 'obviously' the better QB is a homer, maybe you just have a little slice of homer in you.

Nonsense. Elite QBs are judged by winning, especially in the postseason. Brady's got Manning crushed where it counts. You're just arguing the silly stats. "Manning has more total yards!"

Yards

1. Brett Favre 71,838 1991-2010 4TM
2. Dan Marino+ 61,361 1983-1999 mia
3. Peyton Manning 54,828 1998-2010 clt
4. John Elway+ 51,475 1983-1998 den
5. Warren Moon+ 49,325 1984-2000 4TM
6. Fran Tarkenton+ 47,003 1961-1978 2TM
7. Vinny Testaverde 46,233 1987-2007 7TM
8. Drew Bledsoe 44,611 1993-2006 3TM
9. Dan Fouts+ 43,040 1973-1987 sdg
10. Joe Montana+ 40,551 1979-1994 2TM
11. Kerry Collins (38) 40,441 1995-2010 5TM
12. Johnny Unitas+ 40,239 1956-1973 2TM
13. Dave Krieg 38,147 1980-1998 6TM
14. Boomer Esiason 37,920 1984-1997 3TM
15. Donovan McNabb 36,250 1999-2010 2TM
16. Jim Kelly+ 35,467 1986-1996 buf
17. Drew Brees 35,266 2001-2010 2TM
18. Jim Everett 34,837 1986-1997 3TM
19. Tom Brady 34,744 2000-2010 nwe

TDs

1. Brett Favre (41) 508 1991-2010 4TM
2. Dan Marino+ 420 1983-1999 mia
3. Peyton Manning 399 1998-2010 clt
4. Fran Tarkenton+ 342 1961-1978 2TM
5. John Elway+ 300 1983-1998 den
6. Warren Moon+ 291 1984-2000 4TM
7. Johnny Unitas+ 290 1956-1973 2TM
8. Vinny Testaverde 275 1987-2007 7TM
9. Joe Montana+ 273 1979-1994 2TM
10. Tom Brady (33) 261 2000-2010 nwe

Using your arguments, Bledsoe, Collins, Krieg, Everett, Testaverde, ... are all arguably better than Brady.

And trying to crossover with baseball, after tossing out the teams stats v. individual stats argument before, is extremely lame, especially because Ruth's greatness is noted due to a lot more than just home runs. Ruth is #10 in all time batting average, for example. That's right, all those home runs, and he still batted .342 lifetime. He was also an all-star pitcher. He's 2nd all time in RBI (Volume stat), but he's also 2nd all time in OBP. In other words, Ruth's greatness is about more than just volume stats.

 

[JJDChE]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

NFL players who voted the top 100 disagree with you.
So does every oither unbiased objective analysis.

If it ended today, history would remember Manning as the better QB. The higher career numbers tend to skew people's view the farther it gets from the time the players were actually on the field. Winning can trump the numbers, but Manning got his, so he avoided the Marino curse.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

Deus a homer?

Now THAT is funny.

The best part is that I've been called a homer by more than one person tonight. AJ, Mo and a few of the other extreme homers are probably reading the board tonight and looking for kittens to kill.

 

[JJDChE]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

You care so much, set it all down right here - or we will hold your opinion cheap - very cheap.

If you read my first post in this thread you would know that I don't care. I'm not going to prove Manning is better than Brady, because it's too close to call either way. In their career there have been times where Manning has played better than Brady and vice versa. On a whole, neither has clearly been a better player. The difference in the stats is 'in the noise'.

Career-wise, Manning only wins out because he's done it at just as high a level for a longer time. If Brady overlaps him by a few years, it will all probably even out.

 

[JJDChE]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

When you're talking about top level players who've played for long enough to establish their basic baseline, which is what we're discussing here, the volume stats mean almost nothing. Favre and Marino have more TDs, yards and wins than Brady, but that doesn't mean that people think they are better Qbs than Brady.




Nonsense. Elite QBs are judged by winning, especially in the postseason. Brady's got Manning crushed where it counts. You're just arguing the silly stats. "Manning has more total yards!"

Yards


TDs




Using your arguments, Bledsoe, Collins, Krieg, Everett, Testaverde, ... are all arguably better than Brady.

And trying to crossover with baseball, after tossing out the teams stats v. individual stats argument before, is extremely lame, especially because Ruth's greatness is noted due to a lot more than just home runs. Ruth is #10 in all time batting average, for example. That's right, all those home runs, and he still batted .342 lifetime. He was also an all-star pitcher. He's 2nd all time in RBI (Volume stat), but he's also 2nd all time in OBP. In other words, Ruth's greatness is about more than just volume stats.

There's a difference between racking up 30TDs a year for 10 years and 15 TDs a year for 20 years. I didn't think I had to explicitly state that because it's so obvious, but here I am stating it.

Brady and Manning are roughly on the same pace. All things being equal, wouldn't you rate higher the one who did it at the same level longer?

 

[Ring 6]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

If it ended today, history would remember Manning as the better QB. The higher career numbers tend to skew people's view the farther it gets from the time the players were actually on the field. Winning can trump the numbers, but Manning got his, so he avoided the Marino curse.

That is incorrect. Brady is better in every regard except # of years in the league and the resulting excess volume stats, which are not comparable in efficiency. Not only is 'Brady better indoors and outdoors but he is better combined, even though Manning plays so many more indoor or good weather games.
We haven't even discussed winning yet, and Brady has the highest win %in NFL history.
Manning 'getting his' still leaves him 2 behind Brady. Somehow you think avoiuding the slight 'never won the big one' is the same thing as winning 3 apparently.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

Brady and Manning are roughly on the same pace. All things being equal, wouldn't you rate higher the one who did it at the same level longer?

No. Why on Earth would I be fool enough to do that, so long as some sufficient time had passed for both? Gayle Sayers isn't less of a running back for having a shorter career than some other greats.

IF everything else was equal, I could see arguing it as a tie breaker. As a stand alone reason, though? No.