That may be harsh, but its actually a complement, because how great Brady is is most heavily weighted by winning, winning in big games and winning it all.
Andy, I respect your opinion, but I am going to have to completely disagree with you on this one.
Tom Brady is not, nor has he ever been, better than Peyton Manning
because of the rings. Tom Brady has been better than Peyton Manning because he has been a better leader, better manager, better in the playoffs, is (and always has been) capable of making every throw with great effectiveness and, on top of all that, through comparable points in their careers as starters,
Brady's statistics were/are just as good as Manning's* (<-
).
Judging their careers based on the four games Brady won to get those rings is a ridiculous endeavor, in my humble opinion. To throw out how they played in hundreds of other games so you can only focus on five games is foolhardy and does not begin to give any relevance to the fact that games are won by the team as a whole, not an individual.
You can lose a game despite playing perfectly if the other 53+ people don't do their jobs (that is if you're lucky enough to even have the opportunity to play effectively). Because of this, Super Bowls are merely an added measure by which you can evaluate players. The lack of a Super Bowl victory can even be a detriment to that player's legacy if there is a tangible case to be made that they cost them a certain playoff game, but it is not the sole way to judge.
You cannot say that Eli Manning is one of the thirty-five best quarterbacks of all time.
*Manning's stats through 2004: 2,437/3,836 (63.53%) for 29,059 yards,214 TDs 119 INTs, a 5.58 TD%, 3.1 INT% and 7.58 Y/A. They're very close in most all categories, but the difference in INT% is a big one. For the same reason that you do not only look at won/loss record (in the Super Bowl or otherwise), one cannot disregard the offensive skill players around both, either. Football is a team game and the rest of the team is very much a factor in individual success.
