Manning Over Brady For All Decade Team?

[everlong]

There's no question Brady would be #1 and in fact Roethlisberger might be #2.

 

[eagle eye]

There's no question Brady would be #1 and in fact Roethlisberger might be #2.

No just no.

Brady is definitely no.1 and its because of his clutch play. That is what sets him apart from Manning.

But to be fair Brady and Manning are on a different planet to the rest of them.
Big Ben has the clutch game but he is not near the standard of Brady or Manning.

 

[maverick4]

If they're going to use TD's and yards for all decade team, then for all time team Marino or Favre would be all time, which silly

 

[BigtimeColtsfans]

BigtimeColtsfan.. how you can say Manning has had a better decade than Brady is paramount to the failure of your postings. Manning has had a statistically superior decade to Brady in some passing statistics, but Brady has had a better decade as a football player.

Manning has better stats in almost every passing statistic. I know Brady has a slightly better INT percentage but that's because Manning through so many INT's during his rookie season. Brady sat during his rookie season.

This is my last post, because as others on this thread have pointed out this topic has been beaten to death.

Brady's numbers went way up because of 2007. His career rating of 92.9 is higher than any of his single years except for 2007. He only has 7 seasons played, and that one season, 2007 skewed his numbers. Compare that to Manning's 7 seasons over 94 rating.

It just kills me that people say Manning's skills are diminishing around here, but his numbers last year, 95 rating, 27 TD's, 4000 yards, 7.2 YA etc, are better than most of Bradys seasons. Brady has only had one season with over a 95 rating, 2007. 27TD's is a pretty good season for Brady TD wise, he's only thrown for more than 27 in 3 of his 7 seasons.

Bottom line is the only thing Brady has over Manning is number of SB's, which is a team stat. But you can't have it both ways, if only championships matter, if that is the only thing you judge a QB by, then Terry Bradshaw is a better QB than Brady. Montana is better than Brady. Troy Aikman is as good as Brady. Otto Graham is as good as Brady. Steve Young is as good as Brady. Bart Starr is better than Brady etc etc etc etc.

But you don't judge a player solely on championships and we all know that. Manning has a SB but he also has 20,000 more passing yards than Brady. He has 136 more TD's than Brady. He has a higher YA than Brady. Despite coming into the league only two years before Brady he has played in 64 more games. He has a higher rating than Brady etc etc etc etc.

Other than teams stats, there is nothing Brady has done better than Manning, and Manning has done more of it, for longer.

Bottom line is this is a Pats board, you're all Pats fans, and you are all going to say to your dying breath that it's no contest, Brady is better, because you are Pats fans. I get that. But obviously others, including myself, don't agree. If you had been raised as Colts fans instead of Pats fans you would be saying Manning is better too.

 

[Deus Irae]

Bottom line is this is a Pats board, you're all Pats fans, and you are all going to say to your dying breath that it's no contest, Brady is better, because you are Pats fans. I get that. But obviously others, including myself, don't agree. If you had been raised as Colts fans instead of Pats fans you would be saying Manning is better too.

No, I wouldn't, because I use logic and reasoning as intellectual tools.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

No, I wouldn't, because I use logic and reasoning as intellectual tools.

in principle, i agree with you, but in reality one man's "logic and reasoning" are another's "opinion and bias." you assume, perhaps correctly, that the framework of your own logic and reasoning maps to the structure of reality, but this is, of course, a debate as old as the hills and probably not to be resolved on this board.

 

[Deus Irae]

in principle, i agree with you, but in reality one man's "logic and reasoning" are another's "opinion and bias." you assume, perhaps correctly, that the framework of your own logic and reasoning maps to the structure of reality, but this is, of course, a debate as old as the hills and probably not to be resolved on this board.

Well, all thought is subjective at some level. The best we can do to offset that inherent 'flaw' is to use external parameters and structured arguments/reasoning as often as possible.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Well, all thought is subjective at some level. The best we can do to offset that inherent 'flaw' is to use external parameters and structured arguments/reasoning as often as possible.

Way, way, way OT for those who want to stop here......

Ah, interesting...the "subjective" as a "flaw." Taking a walk into the weeds of Epistemology, are we? It's a very old walk....Can we ever perceive Kant's "Ding an Sich?" Or, must we use his Categories of Pure Reason to structure what is an essentially inaccessible reality? Or, is reality inherently "knowable" but only in a traditional Aristotelian/Thomistic sense, in which the "subjective" and the "objective" are actually mingled in the process of understanding in a way that would not be foreign to Heisenberg--what is known does "exist out there," but is only "known" as the result of an interaction between the human mind and the external reality that the mind seeks to understand? In which, case what does it mean to say that we know anything at all because to know anything we must interact with it and thereby change it? Or is reality defined by what we can articulate linguistically as 20th century philosophers argued? Or....

The above and $5 will get us a latte at Starbucks, of course, and years of parsing arguments like that led me to the conclusion I'd better get that fancy MBA I hang on my wall.

Still, interesting nonetheless to recall. Thanks for raising the question.

Now, back to football...and i've already posted above on Smith's absurd comments.

 

[Deus Irae]

Way, way, way OT for those who want to stop here......

Ah, interesting...the "subjective" as a "flaw." Taking a walk into the weeds of Epistemology, are we? It's a very old walk....Can we ever perceive Kant's "Ding an Sich?" Or, must we use his Categories of Pure Reason to structure what is an essentially inaccessible reality? Or, is reality inherently "knowable" but only in a traditional Aristotelian/Thomistic sense, in which the "subjective" and the "objective" are actually mingled in the process of understanding in a way that would not be foreign to Heisenberg--what is known does "exist out there," but is only "known" as the result of an interaction between the human mind and the external reality that the mind seeks to understand? In which, case what does it mean to say that we know anything at all because to know anything we must interact with it and thereby change it? Or is reality defined by what we can articulate linguistically as 20th century philosophers argued? Or....

The above and $5 will get us a latte at Starbucks, of course, and years of parsing arguments like that led me to the conclusion I'd better get that fancy MBA I hang on my wall.

Still, interesting nonetheless to recall. Thanks for raising the question.

Now, back to football...and i've already posted above on Smith's absurd comments.

Well, "flaw" is only meant in the context of the claims of others. If we were to take the comparatively extreme position that everything is a product of our individual thoughts and actions, and that there are no external truths distinct from our experiences, there would be no flaw at all. Hell, taken far enough, it could be that there are no 'others', but I don't ascribe to that philosophy.

 

[BigtimeColtsfans]

Way, way, way OT for those who want to stop here......

Ah, interesting...the "subjective" as a "flaw." Taking a walk into the weeds of Epistemology, are we? It's a very old walk....Can we ever perceive Kant's "Ding an Sich?" Or, must we use his Categories of Pure Reason to structure what is an essentially inaccessible reality? Or, is reality inherently "knowable" but only in a traditional Aristotelian/Thomistic sense, in which the "subjective" and the "objective" are actually mingled in the process of understanding in a way that would not be foreign to Heisenberg--what is known does "exist out there," but is only "known" as the result of an interaction between the human mind and the external reality that the mind seeks to understand? In which, case what does it mean to say that we know anything at all because to know anything we must interact with it and thereby change it? Or is reality defined by what we can articulate linguistically as 20th century philosophers argued? Or....

The above and $5 will get us a latte at Starbucks, of course, and years of parsing arguments like that led me to the conclusion I'd better get that fancy MBA I hang on my wall.

Still, interesting nonetheless to recall. Thanks for raising the question.

Now, back to football...and i've already posted above on Smith's absurd comments.

What's with all the wannabe intellectualism around here?

 

[BradyFixesEverything]

Manning has better stats in almost every passing statistic. I know Brady has a slightly better INT percentage but that's because Manning through so many INT's during his rookie season. Brady sat during his rookie season.

This is my last post, because as others on this thread have pointed out this topic has been beaten to death.

Brady's numbers went way up because of 2007. His career rating of 92.9 is higher than any of his single years except for 2007. He only has 7 seasons played, and that one season, 2007 skewed his numbers. Compare that to Manning's 7 seasons over 94 rating.

It just kills me that people say Manning's skills are diminishing around here, but his numbers last year, 95 rating, 27 TD's, 4000 yards, 7.2 YA etc, are better than most of Bradys seasons. Brady has only had one season with over a 95 rating, 2007. 27TD's is a pretty good season for Brady TD wise, he's only thrown for more than 27 in 3 of his 7 seasons.

Bottom line is the only thing Brady has over Manning is number of SB's, which is a team stat. But you can't have it both ways, if only championships matter, if that is the only thing you judge a QB by, then Terry Bradshaw is a better QB than Brady. Montana is better than Brady. Troy Aikman is as good as Brady. Otto Graham is as good as Brady. Steve Young is as good as Brady. Bart Starr is better than Brady etc etc etc etc.

But you don't judge a player solely on championships and we all know that. Manning has a SB but he also has 20,000 more passing yards than Brady. He has 136 more TD's than Brady. He has a higher YA than Brady. Despite coming into the league only two years before Brady he has played in 64 more games. He has a higher rating than Brady etc etc etc etc.

Other than teams stats, there is nothing Brady has done better than Manning, and Manning has done more of it, for longer.

Bottom line is this is a Pats board, you're all Pats fans, and you are all going to say to your dying breath that it's no contest, Brady is better, because you are Pats fans. I get that. But obviously others, including myself, don't agree. If you had been raised as Colts fans instead of Pats fans you would be saying Manning is better too.

Please post some post-season stats.

 

[Double G]

What's with all the wannabe intellectualism around here?

I think John Deere makes a superb piece of farm equipment, the best on the market today.

Is that more up your alley?

And listen, if you want to believe Manning is a better quarterback than Brady and base that logic on the fact that you are a Colts fan, then knock yourself out.

Makes no sense to me or anyone else, but go with it if it works for you.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Manning has better stats in almost every passing statistic. I know Brady has a slightly better INT percentage but that's because Manning through so many INT's during his rookie season. Brady sat during his rookie season.

Actually, last I looked Tom Brady had better career stats in 2 relevant categories:

- QB rating on grass
- QB rating on turf

Gives one pause to think.

 

[Deus Irae]

Actually, last I looked Tom Brady had better career stats in 2 relevant categories:

- QB rating on grass
- QB rating on turf

Gives one pause to think.

Colts fans don't break down the stats to even out the discrepancies. If Brady had played every home game in blizzard conditions, that would still somehow not enter into their thinking.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Well, "flaw" is only meant in the context of the claims of others. If we were to take the comparatively extreme position that everything is a product of our individual thoughts and actions, and that there are no external truths distinct from our experiences, there would be no flaw at all. Hell, taken far enough, it could be that there are no 'others', but I don't ascribe to that philosophy.

again, way, way, way, way OT for those who just want to skip this.

ah, subject matter for a beer and not this board. and, yes, there are those who hold one version or another of the hybrid views you describe, but way too much to parse here: "thoughts" or "actions" is a whole topic in itself. "external truths" is another (is there an "external truth" or are there just inaccessible external objects, the perception and categorization of which are a function of our rational or moral selves?--Kant spent his life on that one, trying to reconcile rationalism and empiricism and advance the discussion beyond what Plato posited millenia before him). and, what are "our experiences" after all?

anyway, Brady rocks. Manning is at best number two and a great year from Big Ben could make him number three this decade....

 

[MoneyFX]

OMG Michael Smith. Brady was a 6TH ROUND DRAFT PICK!!!!!!!!!!!! He OVERCAME adversity to become a DOMINANT QB today. Peyton is more gifted and has the better skillset, but Brady is the master of handling pressure and execution. He does these things to a perfection. If New England's defense didn't blow themselves up in the last drive of SB42, then Brady would have become the BEST EVER. But still, Peyton can't even beat the Chargers!!!!!! 3 MVP's don't mean **** unless you take your team to the championship. Brady got one and took his team to an ALMOST perfect season.

 

[alvinnf]

Ian's Daily Blog - Former Boston Globe columnist and one of my favorite guys Michael Smith puts Peyton Manning over Tom Brady for the “All Decade” team for quarterbacks.* No offense Michael…but I think you’re out of your mind. Three Super Bowl rings, an undefeated regular season, and breaking Manning’s touchdown record should say enough to end this [...]

Click Here To Read This Blog Entry​

Come again?

 

[TriplecHamp]

You cant go wrong with either one. If I would take Brady over Manning just because I know him better. (Ive obviously seen more Pats games than Colts games). Peyton is a great QB as is Tom. We need to stop making the case as for which one is better and put both of them in the "elite" QB society.

 

[ausbacker]

Colts fans don't break down the stats to even out the discrepancies. If Brady had played every home game in blizzard conditions, that would still somehow not enter into their thinking.

No no no. Colts fans don't entertain stats that don't prove Peyton Christ is the second coming.

Peyton is a very very good player.. nobody will deny that. The topical discussion here is that Tom Brady is better.

 

[maverick4]

Why obsess over TD's and passing yards for all decade team, when all-time QB lists aren't compiled based on who had the most TD's or passing yards?