Yeah, yet Manning still has over 130 more TD's, 20,000 more yards. 64 more games started
In four more years than Brady.
a better TD percentage and a better YA percentage. He averages more yards per season and more TD's per season than Brady.
When the majority of his career, Brady was throwing to the likes of Deion Branch, David Patten, and David Givens, instead of Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayn, and Dallas Clarke.
Brady's numbers are skewed, because of one season, 2007.
By your logic, Peyton's numbers are skewed by the 2004 season.
He's got 7 seasons of data vs Manning's 11.
And what relevance does this have?
Manning also started his rookie season, which Brady did not.
And again, what relevance does this have?
Manning also had to do more his first few seasons than Brady.
Like throw it to Marvin Harrison and hand the ball off to Edgerrin James?
Brady had a D which was one of the best in the league,
2001 - 24
2002 - 23
2003 - 7
2004 - 9
2005 - 26
Those are Brady's first five years.
How many years were they elite?
he didn't have to put up 30 points to win.
Look at the rankings above.
Oh, and Peyton had the talent around him to help him do it.
Oh, and Brady has a better rating on grass and turf?
Manning still has the better overall rating. He also had a better rating than Brady did in their record breaking years. Brady threw 80 more passes to get one more TD.
Brady was also playing outside during the winter and not in a dome.
Gives one pause to think huh?
Well, it should for you.
Brady is great, if I was a Pats fan I'm sure I'd agree with you about him being better.
Most people do.
But I'm a Colts fan. IMO Manning is better.
No one really cares.
Just like 49er fans think Joe Mo was the best.
Don't most people think so?
Dolphins fans believe Marino was the best.
They're Dolphins fans, they can't help themselves.
Baltimore Colts fans think Unitas was the best etc etc etc etc.
Aren't most of them are dead?
And You want to talk about PS stats and Manning not being able to beat the Chargers? As I've posted earlier take a look at Brady's stats VS Mannings for the last two times they played the Chargers in the PO's.
Also, take a look at the stat where the Pats beat them both times, the first being underdogs, and how the Colts lost twice, the first time with Billy Volek as the QB.
Brady played like crap, both games. throwing 2 TD's and 3 INTs both games.
Manning played pretty well both games.
But the important thing was, Brady didn't seem to choke and lose the games like someone we all know did.
The Colts lost both games. The Patriots won both games. It's a team sport. There are 22 guys on the field at a time.
But when you throw interceptions at critical times and lose the gae, it doesn't really matter about your stats.
I've heard people on here saying that the league MVP should do more. Brady was MVP in 2007. His team was 18-0 and on the cusp of history. He had the greatest offense in the history of the game yet was shut down in the SB. Remember when he laughed when Plax said they'd only score 17 points? Off by 3.
And in 2004 when Peyton had his great season with 49 TD passes, he lost in the first game of the playoffs to the Patriots. He didn't even score a point.
And remember 2006 when Brady faded the second half and Manning destroyed the Pats on the way to the SB?
So in what world is a score of 38 - 34 getting destroyed?
Manning has beaten the Pats 4 out of the last 5.
And Manning is also 4 - 7 against Brady all time.
Want to talk about underachieving? The Pats have the best record over the last decade right? According to a lot of you here, they have the greatest ever QB (Manning, Montana, Marino, Unitas, Elway, and a few others would disagree), the greatest ever coach (although he's nowhere near Shula IMO)
I want quotes about the coaches.
and the greatest receiver (guess you guys never heard of Jerry Rice)
And quotes about Moss too.
Yet they haven't won since 2004.
The Patriots have won 3 SB since 2001, the Colts have won 2 since 1970.
Both Manning and Brady are great QB's and the topic has been beaten to death and this is a Pats board so the chances of actually having an intelligent conversation on the subject are just about zero, but you're fooling yourselves if you really think it's no contest.
If you hate the Pats board so much, then why don't you leave?
Playoff wise Manning has an 85 rating, Brady has an 88. Manning has a 7.5 YA, Brady has a 6.6. Brady has a slightly better completion percentage. Manning has 4208 yards Brady has 3954 in two more games. Brady has 4 more TDs Manning has 5 more INTS.
You forgot the whole Brady has double the playoff wins that Manning has.
The only real advantage Brady has over Manning in the PO's is number of INTs and Manning threw 7 of his INTs in two games.
And the whole winning thing.
Like I keep saying, like others have said, they both are great. Who you consider better is down to which team you root for and despite all the guys here saying "it's no contest", yeah, it kind of is.
Again, if you think there is a contest, you clearly have something against sense and logic.
Yeah, and as shown by last year, when his team went 11-5 without him,
And the year before, Brady went 16 - 0. That's a five games lost.
That's the same as going from 11 - 5 to 6 - 10.
the Patriots are not Tom Brady and Tom Brady isn't the Patriots.
Did someone help you figure that out?
Just like the 49ers continued to be great when Joe Montana left.
Are you comparing Matt Cassell to Steve Young?
This stuff about Brady not having talent is nonsense. The guy has always been surrounded by great talent, great coaches, and a great organization.
I wouldn't go as far to say his talent was great, but they were good.
But Peyton's talent was better.
I'm not trying to belittle Tom Brady, he's a great great QB, but the Patriots are more than Brady.
Just like the Colts are more then Peyton.
And the 49ers were more than Montana and Young.
And the Broncos were more then Elway.
etc.
Winning in the NFL doesn't just come down to the better QB.
No, but it plays a huge part.
Are you going to tell me Jeff Hostetller was better than Jim Kelly? Or Mark Rypien was better than Jim Kelly? Or (and I guess you could make an argument that he was, but I don't agree) Troy Aikman?
Kelly lost to all those guys in the SB, but were they better QB's?
Elway lost 3 SB's in blowouts in the 80s and was for those of us who remember the late 80s early 90's, a punchline and considered a huge loser. Remember the jokes about Elway after the 90 SB when the 9ers destroyed the Broncos? He wins two SB's now many consider him the greatest ever. But Elway lost to Doug Williams, and Phil Simms. Are either of those guys better QB's than Elway?
I'm rambling but my point is, while the QB is the most important player on a football team he isn't the only one. You put Tom Brady or Peyton Manning or Joe Montana on the 2008 Lions and they still aren't going to make the POs.
The thing all of those QB's have in common is that they are chokers.
And when the greater QB discussion is at hand, choking does come into play.
The ultimate proof of wins not being an indicator of one players ability or skill is the Patriots last year. Brady was replaced by a guy who as you all are so fond of saying, was a 7th round pick and hadn't started a game since HS. He led the Pats to a 11-5 record and had the offense rolling.
And just imagine what would have happened if Brady wasn't injured.
Brady has 3 SB rings, Manning has 1 but saying that makes Brady a better QB is ridiculous. Otherwise you all are saying Terry Bradshaw is better than Tom Brady. Does anyone here believe that? I mean, Bradshaw as a winner, he has 4 SB rings. He must be better than Brady right?
Some could make that argument.
