Manning is more skilled than Brady? Please explain.

[Deus Irae]

Fair enough, trying to point out that in trying to eliminate the other teammates from the statistics as the fact that one had better teammates than the other is ignored by one side of the argument...

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you. It's just that if you get to the point where you want to completely eliminate things like who the receiver is and the like, you have to break it down one throw at a time. I'm not saying that it's a bad way to do, I just don't know of anyone with quite that tenacity.

 

[Keegs]

or they were fans of his team, had a grudge against Brady or the Patriots, believed stats are the only thing that matters, etc.

hahh true.

(or unless they were 3-toothed morons)

 

[efin98]

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you. It's just that if you get to the point where you want to completely eliminate things like who the receiver is and the like, you have to break it down one throw at a time. I'm not saying that it's a bad way to do, I just don't know of anyone with quite that tenacity.

I think there are some who would actually do that and compile the data...just haven't found any out there who have posted their work online.

If there is a passion, there is a person living it out...those stats have gotta be compiled somewhere out there by someone with a true passion for stats and the time on their hands to nitpick through every play of the careers.

 

[maverick4]

But you amass more stats.
Your argument is that Manning is better because of stats, and you cant count wins because maybe possibly it was due to the defense.
If you accept that Brady won because his defense was better you must accpet Manning amassed more stats because his defense was worse.

But again, the point is to win, not amass stats. Brady has won, Manning, largely, hasn't.

Your last statement is a twisting of truth. Manning is one of the winningest QB's since he's been in the league. If you're talking about simply comparing rings, then it's fair to say 1 player out of 53 shouldn't get a disproportionate amount of credit for each championship.

If you denounce stats and overall # wins (but no rings) so much, how can you argue for Brady over Manning but simultaneously argue about how great the 06-08 Josh McDaniels offenses were? You can't without contradicting yourself over how to view stats, rings, and wins in the equation.

 

[feldspar]

that's against the rules. The Rules are as follows...

1) The Patriots are the best at everything they do and are perfect in every way.
2) Anybody who starts for the Patriots is the best at their respective position.
3) If a poster offers an opinion they must have "facts"* to support their argument....I mean opinion.
4) If perfect grammar is not used than the posters argument...I mean opinion are invalid and will be dismissed.
5) If a Pro-Patriots poster offers an opinion,that opinion shall be rehashed until new "facts" are invented...I mean presented
6) The last poster standing until thread is closed wins...unless that poster is not a Patriots homer...I mean fan.
*= facts can be changed from original only if it benefits a Pro-Patriots argument...I mean opinion

LOL. Good one.

 

[RichSeymour]

Nobody would take Peyton over Tom, unless they were related to Peyton, threatened, or paid off.

Wow. Brady's great but you're being ridiculous here.

 

[maverick4]

Look, I'll agree that Manning has had the benefit of better receivers. I think that's obvious. I also think it's obvious that Brady has had the benefit of a superior defense as well as the best coaching in the league.

How you weigh these completely different things against each other is up to you and is the center of the debate as I see it.

I agree with this as the crux of the debate. Brady had a better defense and head coach, Manning had way better offensive talent around him. This is the difference for why Brady has the rings and Manning has the stats.

For myself personally, I put less emphasis on stats, you likely feel differently. I'll always say Montana was better than Marino, and Brady was better than Manning, because to me it's all about who has the rings. Similarly, it's the reason why I don't care about our high-flying spread offense of recent years, which has put up lots of sexy stats with nothing to show for it.

The people calling you a troll for posts like yours above are Pats homers who get pissy when anyone (not just Colts fans) disagree with their homer, biased views.

 

[feldspar]

Your argument is that Manning is better because of stats, and you cant count wins because maybe possibly it was due to the defense.
If you accept that Brady won because his defense was better you must accpet Manning amassed more stats because his defense was worse.

But again, the point is to win, not amass stats. Brady has won, Manning, largely, hasn't.

My argument is that Manning is better because he is better. Quite a profound statement, I know. I think I mentioned stats and defense somewhere in there.

 

[feldspar]

I agree with this as the crux of the debate. Brady had a better defense and head coach, Manning had way better offensive talent around him. This is the difference for why Brady has the rings and Manning has the stats.

For myself personally, I put less emphasis on stats, you likely feel differently. I'll always say Montana was better than Marino, and Brady was better than Manning, because to me it's all about who has the rings. Similarly, it's the reason why I don't care about our high-flying spread offense of recent years, which has put up lots of sexy stats with nothing to show for it.

The people calling you a troll for posts like yours above are Pats homers who get pissy when anyone (not just Colts fans) disagree with their homer, biased views.

So what you are basically saying is that the Patriots have built a better, more effective team than the Colts. If you create an unbalanced team by focusing on one aspect of the game at the expense of the others, the big picture suffers.

Who is the more skilled QB is a different debate altogether.

 

[ausbacker]

My argument is that Manning is better because he is better. Quite a profound statement, I know. I think I mentioned stats and defense somewhere in there.

That's fair enough. You believe Manning better is a personal opinion. Most posters have been able to de construct and pick apart your argument quite easily.

I'm a Patriots fan and I realise how good Peyton Manning is. You'd be stupid not to admit that. I generally appreciate good players for what they are, as the NFL is better off for having them all play. People want to see the Patriots play the Colts. I know I do.

The point of the matter is this topic was about the technical and mental ability of Manning and Brady, not the surrounding support staff and roster talent around them.

That's why you won't and can't win anything in this thread.

 

[maverick4]

So what you are basically saying is that the Patriots have built a better, more effective team than the Colts. If you create an unbalanced team by focusing on one aspect of the game at the expense of the others, the big picture suffers.

Who is the more skilled QB is a different debate altogether.

Feldspar if you put so much emphasis on statistics for this QB debate, then do you think the 2007 Pats offense was better than any Manning offense because of stats?

 

[apple strudel]

Feldspar if you put so much emphasis on statistics for this QB debate, then do you think the 2007 Pats offense was better than any Manning offense because of stats?

Doesn't count because they had a good defense and coach. /convenient

Seriously, 2007 should have put to rest all of the questions about who the best QB is.

 

[maverick4]

The point of the matter is this topic was about the technical and mental ability of Manning and Brady, not the surrounding support staff and roster talent around them.
That's why you won't and can't win anything in this thread.

I don't know about Brady winning hands down over subjective terms like technical or mental ability. Manning literally pulled 3 wins out of his a*s this past regular season. The Colts had no business making the playoffs last year. It was as impressive as Brady's 06 season with castoff WR's.

Manning may have been less of a leader and less mentally strong or clutch early on in his career in the early 2000 years, but since the year he won a ring, he's changed and improved a lot as a QB, imo.

The biggest difference is going to be the next 5 years. Manning's teams are in decline, he's lost his HC and OC and Harrison, whereas Brady has even more weapons and a better defense.

Brady is going to have better stats AND wins AND maybe rings over the next 5 years.

 

[feldspar]

Feldspar if you put so much emphasis on statistics for this QB debate, then do you think the 2007 Pats offense was better than any Manning offense because of stats?

No, I don't. Since you asked, I think the 2007 Patriots were butt-holes for needlessly running up the score the whole time. Meanwhile, Manning would be the one holding everyone of Brady's 2007 regular season records for the way he performed in 2004. There is no doubt about that. They sat Manning down late in the game several times that year, and he sat out the last game almost entirely. The Colts didn't go for it on fourth down when they were up by 3 TDs or more late in the fourth quarter, either, like the Patriots did.

 

[ausbacker]

I don't know about Brady winning hands down over subjective terms like technical or mental ability.

You've clearly missed that I was making reference to the initial point of the thread, not debating the merits of Brady vs Manning.

 

[ausbacker]

No, I don't. Since you asked, I think the 2007 Patriots were butt-holes for needlessly running up the score the whole time. Meanwhile, Manning would be the one holding everyone of Brady's 2007 regular season records for the way he performed in 2004. There is no doubt about that. They sat Manning down late in the game several times that year, and he sat out the last game almost entirely. The Colts didn't go for it on fourth down when they were up by 3 TDs or more late in the fourth quarter, either, like the Patriots did.

So now you have a problem with the mentality of paid professionals playing 60 minutes of football? Easy, the defense makes the stop. You're comment is shot down there and then.

The Patriots lost the championship because they didn't play 60 minutes of football. Do I have an issue with that? Yes. The defense SHOULD and COULD have made that stop, but they didn't.

You're digging yourself quite a hole.

 

[maverick4]

No, I don't. Since you asked, I think the 2007 Patriots were butt-holes for needlessly running up the score the whole time. Meanwhile, Manning would be the one holding everyone of Brady's 2007 regular season records for the way he performed in 2004. There is no doubt about that. They sat Manning down late in the game several times that year, and he sat out the last game almost entirely. The Colts didn't go for it on fourth down when they were up by 3 TDs or more late in the fourth quarter, either, like the Patriots did.

Then you're just a hypocritical/biased as the Pats homers here, but in reverse. You emphasize the stats in the Manning v Brady debate, but de-emphasize them when comparing overall best offensive years? It's the opposite of the hypocrisy of homers here who de-emphasize stats in the Brady debate and then become stats-obsessed over discussions of best offense. If you're going to bring up external circumstances to de-emphasize the 07 Pats stats, then why not apply the same standard when looking at Manning's passing stats?

I don't think the 2007 Pats ran up the score any more than the 04 Colts did, they simply got more false media press about it. I believe someone here in 2007 compared the 04 Colts to the 07 Pats in running up the score, and found that the 04 Colts had just as many examples of needlessly scoring when the game was out of hand.

 

[maverick4]

The defense SHOULD and COULD have made that stop, but they didn't.

Don't blame it on the defense. The 01-04 championship teams also gave up late scores in the Superbowl and the offense won it. Blame the fact that we had the highest scoring offense ever, need to drive 40 yards for a FG, have all 3 timeouts, and end the game with 4 straight hail mary bombs.

 

[ausbacker]

Don't blame it on the defense. The 01-04 championship teams also gave up late scores in the Superbowl and the offense won it. Blame the fact that we had the highest scoring offense ever, need to drive 40 yards for a FG, have all 3 timeouts, and end the game with 4 straight hail mary bombs.

I'm not blaming that game soley on the defense. The offense had more than ample opportunity to put points on the board and they flopped.

I was drawing reference to the point that running up the score doesn't sit well with me. Feldspar claimed the Pats ran up the score. I then said paid professional sports teams, namely defenses are paid to stop that. I then said the Patriots didn't play 60 minutes of football and the defense could have prevented the "game winning" play as it turned out.

That shoots down the running the score up mentality in my opinion.

Comprehension levels are flying today.

 

[Deus Irae]

Somewhere in the afterlife, Rod Serling is reading this thread and thinking that he could have used if for a Twilight Zone episode.