Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning
Did you forget what Manning did before '01? I didn't. Let's line them up:
PM | TB | +QB Rating TB=red, PM=blue
71.2 - 86.5
90.7 - 86.5
94.7 - 85.7
84.1 - 85.9
88.8 - 92.6
99.0 - 87.9
121.1 - 117.2
104.1 - 96.2
101.0 - 111.0
98.0
95.0
99.9
91.9
PM has 5 head to head "wins", Brady has 4. That's w/o adjustment for superior skill players in the first 6 years of TB's career. That's w/o any adjustment for weather (you do know that TB has the highest W-L% of any QB all time in both the regular season and the playoffs - right?)
So you decided to look at Manning's numers pre '01 just for the sole reason it benefits Brady's side of the argument. This is not even worthy of a response, get Brady's d*ck out of your tonsils so you no longer have to pick and choose statistics in your favor when your making comparisons.
Secondly, you fail to acknowledge the fact that Manning was drafted to the worst team in football in 1998 and was asked to drag them for the gutter into playoff contention.
Brady, in the meantime, scratched his ass all rookie year, didn't have any of the pressure that comes with being the #1 overall pick out of the draft, didn't have a garbage head coach in Jim Mora, didn't have a garbage defense, nor did he step into a 3-13 team. This isn't even a comparison.
Manning's peak was 2004, and he's been in decline ever since (per QB Rating):
-17.0
-20.1
-23.1
-26.1
-21.2
-29.2
No, he hasn't been on the decline ever since 2004. That's a moronic statement, are you illiterate? Manning posted a 99.9 passer rating 2009, a few points higher then his '08 mark. How has he declined since 2004 if his 2009 season was better then his 2008 season? Make sense next time.
Meanwhile since Manning's last 100+ QB Rating season (2006), TB has:
117.2
96.2
111.0
That's 108.1 average over 3 years - better then Manning's 104.8 3 year peak. Hmmm, cool.
Guess Brady is still in his broad peak, and with a really good looking team, we can expect more big years from TB, but not so much from PM.
Actually, Manning's 3 year peak when he had a 99.0, 121.1, and 104.1 rating equates to a 108 rating, .1 less then Brady.
What was also heavily flawed and unfair in your comparison is that you included Brady's three best seasons of his career in terms of passer rating. If you take Manning's three best years and actually make the comparison, this is what it comes out to:
Manning (3 year average): 108.7 passer rating
Brady (3 year average): 108.1 passer rating
That ends that. Try again.
Did you ever count up how many Dome games Manning had that year? Also do you want to review the playoff results of that year? Indy lost 20-3 against the Pats, and Manning didn't even manage a TD pass for his team, 27 for 42 w/ 1 Int and 238 yards. Pretty poor.
Dome games? What did Brady play in that year, two to three bad weather games? The weather was perfect for him nearly the entire year.
Also, Manning was more efficient (better YPA and passer rating). In 16 games from Manning in 2004, this is what his stats come out to:
5004 yards, 53 TDs, 11 interceptions, 123.1 passer rating
Look at that. When you actually make the comparison even (Manning only played 15 games in 2004, Brady played 16 in 2007) Manning wins YET AGAIN. The only way you Patriots fans can prove a point statistically is when you make the comparison uneven, or leaning towards Brady's favor.
And that 16th game I added on for Manning was the Denver Wild Card playoff (where he's supposed to choke, mind you) game where he threw for 456 yards and 4 TDs. He was supposed to play Denver in week 17 but the Colts rested their starters after the first drive.
Baloney, the Pats had a #1 D one time, not three.
Yeah, but I just did the math, and over the course of those three Super Bowl runs (2001, 2003, & 2004), the Patriots let up 15 PPG. That means going against the best offenses and teams in the league week in and week out, over the course of THREE playoff runs, the Patriots let up 15 PPG. That is LEGENDARY. The grounds you stoop to give Brady more credit then he deserves is amazing.
So? Moss was ineffective/gone last year, and Brady had a season better then any Manning season except 2004.
This is true, but I don't what point you're trying to make.
Do'h, you think it's a team game - good that's basic you don't have to learn. The Cassel year was explained 16-0 > 11-5 with an easy schedule, and oh by the way he's doing fine for KC.
It doesn't matter if he's doing fine for KC, that's nearly irrelevant. What is relevant is that Brady got hurt and some high school bum came straight into the Patriots system and threw for 400+ yards in back to back games and led them to 11 wins.
But it can't be the system, right?
Learn more history:
2001:
Pats 11-5
Fins 11-5
Jets 10-6
Colts 6-10 (ah hah!)
2002:
Jets/Fins/Pats 9-7
Bills 8-8
2004:
Pats 14-2
Jets 10-6
Bills 9-7
2008:
Fins 11-5
Pats 11-5
Jets 9-7
Colts:
2009:
Colts 14-2
Texans 9-7
Titans 8-8
2006:
Colts 12-4
Jags 8-8
Titans 8-8
2004:
Colts 12-4
Jags 9-7
Texans 7-9
You are going to have to get your information together otherwise everything you write is going to get trashed. Have a nice day.
You left out certain years when the Jaguars went 10-6, or the year the Titans got the #1 seed after going 13-3. The way you pick and choose your arguments is preposterous beyond belief, you literally gave Manning no chance in this post and only posted statistics that benefited Brady and completely ignore the stats that benefit Manning.
There are fools upon fools around here, that post was pathetically easy to dispute. Not used to blabbing off at the mouth with nobody to challenge your uninformative and incorrect garbage, huh?
