Manning is more skilled than Brady? Please explain.

[BradyFTW!]

Can you possibly understand that when we are discussing WHO IS THE BEST QB, POSSIBLY OF ALLTIME the fact that Manning was TOTALLY PATHETIC in the AFC Championship Game eliminates the positive of the other 2 playoff games?
If you are comparing him to Donovan McNab, that argument may hold.
But this discussion isn't about which QB would beat a bad team by 30 and which would beat a bad team by 35. This discussion is about being the best there is, at the most critical position in the game.
Carrying your team to the AFCC Game by playing great, and THEN BEING THE REASON YOU LOSE THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME is a total 100% negative in this discussion and you address it like its a positive.
Can you understand that?

You do realize that the ALLCAPS really aren't helping your case, don't you?

 

[Ring 6]

You do realize that the ALLCAPS really aren't helping your case, don't you?

what are you talking about?

 

[BradyFTW!]

what are you talking about?

You don't need to :scream: to prove your case. Just makes you seem like a blustery, irrational fan, which is a shame because if you can get past the histrionics you do usually make some really good points.

 

[feldspar]

Can you possibly understand that when we are discussing WHO IS THE BEST QB, POSSIBLY OF ALLTIME the fact that Manning was TOTALLY PATHETIC in the AFC Championship Game eliminates the positive of the other 2 playoff games?

Well, Manning's stats, were pathetic...not the worst ever, but pretty bad. Did it ever occur to you that a Patriots defender might have had a great game? Ty Law intercepted passes 3 times that game. Give credit to the win to him more than Brady...Brady didn't "win" this game, Ty Law did way more so. Brady threw for the exact same amount of yards as Manning and threw 3 less picks...same amount of TDs. Manning has a average game, the Colts win.

First and 10 Indy at the Pats 41 yard line...Law INT at NE 35 yard line.
Second and 17 at Indy's 26 yard line...Law INT at Indy 31 yard line...
Fourth and 13 at Pat's 30 yard line...Law INT at Pat's 11 yard line

The other INT was by Harrsion when the Colts were at New England's 5 yard line.

As you can see, at least one of these INTs is completely meaningless since it was 4th and 13 anyway. They should have tried for the field-goal IMO, since they still had a chance with plenty of time left.

A botched snap on a punt led to a safety and 2 points for the Pats, too, somehow, even though Indy was at their own 35 at the time.

Marvin Harrison also fumbled at New England's 16 yard line on a play that would have been a first down. That hurt as well.

All this, and the Colts still only lose by 10 points.

The Colt's were playing from behind the entire game. The Colt's were in scoring position 3 times, all ruined by INTs. Would you agree that every INT isn't always the QB's fault? I'm not saying this was the case here, because I honestly don't remember. I bet at least one wasn't Manning's fault, maybe more. There are deflections off receivers, batted balls at the line, receivers out of position...these things happen is my point, then they are reflected badly on the QB's stats.

Again, Brady's defense saved him from a loss in the game and helped him to fight another day. HE certainly didn't do enough on his own to win the game. Also, I don't think that Manning's performance in this game was enough to wipe out the previous two totally. That would be like saying that Brady's losing the Super Bowl in 2007 was enough to wipe out two of his Super Bowl wins, leaving him with only one...that would be ridiculous, and it doesn't work that way. Two good games are two good games and are not to be erased because of a bad one.

If you are comparing him to Donovan McNab, that argument may hold.
But this discussion isn't about which QB would beat a bad team by 30 and which would beat a bad team by 35. This discussion is about being the best there is, at the most critical position in the game.
Carrying your team to the AFCC Game by playing great, and THEN BEING THE REASON YOU LOSE THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME is a total 100% negative in this discussion and you address it like its a positive.
Can you understand that?

Was Manning the reason the Colts lost, or is Ty Law the reason the Patriots won? If you could break down each INT, then we could talk about how much each one was Manning's fault.

The two games before the bad ones were great games by Manning. End of sentence.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Well, Manning's stats, were pathetic...not the worst ever, but pretty bad. Did it ever occur to you that a Patriots defender might have had a great game? Ty Law intercepted passes 3 times that game. Give credit to the win to him more than Brady...Brady didn't "win" this game, Ty Law did way more so. Brady threw for the exact same amount of yards as Manning and threw 3 less picks...same amount of TDs. Manning has a average game, the Colts win.

But he didn't have an average game. He had a terrible game, and cost his team the game, and that's exactly my point. You can't afford to have even one game like that in the postseason, or your team's year is almost certainly over.

That's why people who marginalize Brady's talents because he isn't throwing for 3 TDs per game in the playoffs are completely missing the point. The best playoff QB is one who doesn't take stupid risks, doesn't throw a lot of INTs, and picks his shots well. Brady is the definition of that.

In the regular season, if you follow up multiple 3+ TD, 0 INT games with 2 TD, 4 INT game, your stats still come out looking pretty good: 8 TDs, 4 INTs, 2/1 ratio, all of that. If you do that in the playoffs, that third game ends your season. End of story.

 

[Ring 6]

You don't need to :scream: to prove your case. Just makes you seem like a blustery, irrational fan, which is a shame because if you can get past the histrionics you do usually make some really good points.

Its called emphasis. I remember to ask your opinion on how to communicate the next time I care to hear it.

 

[BradyFTW!]

The Colt's were playing from behind the entire game. The Colt's were in scoring position 3 times, all ruined by INTs. Would you agree that every INT isn't always the QB's fault? I'm not saying this was the case here, because I honestly don't remember. I bet at least one wasn't Manning's fault, maybe more. There are deflections off receivers, batted balls at the line, receivers out of position...these things happen is my point, then they are reflected badly on the QB's stats.

Sure, but if a QB throws 3 INTs in scoring position, he's far from blameless.

Again, Brady's defense saved him from a loss in the game and helped him to fight another day. HE certainly didn't do enough on his own to win the game. Also, I don't think that Manning's performance in this game was enough to wipe out the previous two totally.

Not totally, but mostly. There's still something to be said for the fact that he helped get them there (a lot to be said for that, actually), but every accomplishment gets diminished when you lose in the playoffs. Fans of the 2007 Pats probably know that better than anyone.

That would be like saying that Brady's losing the Super Bowl in 2007 was enough to wipe out two of his Super Bowl wins, leaving him with only one...

...how? It would actually be like saying that Brady's losing the SB in 2007 was enough to wipe out the two games that they had previously won in the 2007 playoffs, which is about right. But no matter what happened in 2007, they still had the other 3 SBs. That's not even close to comparable, and you know that. Besides, if you look at the stats Brady didn't even have a bad game in the 2007 SB in the first place, so the entire point is irrelevant anyways.

Was Manning the reason the Colts lost, or is Ty Law the reason the Patriots won?

It's not an either/or. It's both.

The two games before the bad ones were great games by Manning. End of sentence.

Yeah, but what did they ultimately get them? Any coach in the NFL would rather have a QB who doesn't turn it over than a QB who racks up TDs on the Broncos in the wildcard round then goes and chucks 3 INTs a game or two later. Why? Because you can throw for 4 TDs as many times as you want- if the goal is to win the SB, then you will fail every time when your QB plays as badly as Manning has on several occasions.

That's not to say that he's a bad QB, or that he can't win another SB, or anything like that. It's just saying that, to this point in his career, Manning has probably cost the Colts at least 1 SB because he turned the ball over too much in the postseason. Brady's had subpar playoff games, but he the Pats have never lost a playoff game because of him, because he very, very rarely makes bad decisions with the ball.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Its called emphasis. I remember to ask your opinion on how to communicate the next time I care to hear it.

Fair enough, just a friendly suggestion. I don't really care whether or not you choose to listen to it- not my problem if you undermine your own credibility

 

[Metaphors]

You're changing your definition of 'pinnacle' to fit whatever side of the coin you happen to be arguing for. Look, Brady's a better QB than Manning, and that can be argued objectively and with hard statistics and reasonable, easy-to-follow arguments. Making up stuff about Manning doesn't help the case, and probably only hurts it.

"Pinnacle" was your word, not mine. I was describing the point at which a player could reasonably say that they have achieved all they can given their potential...the highest point they can climb. Manning certainly didn't do this until at least 2006 (I would say he still hasn't).

If the pinnacle is winning SBs, then by your rationale Brady peaked in 2004, in his mid-20s, and has been declining ever since. That's ridiculous, of course, but it's the other side of the case that you make when you say that Manning's 'resting on his laurels' because he hasn't won a SB since 2006.

Again, you are completely missing the point. I'm explicitly saying that Brady DIDN'T reach the summit in 2004, even after achieving what only a handful of other QBs have done. He continued to develop his game until he turned in an amazing 2007 season...not the wins and statistics, but by playing at a level I'm not sure we have ever seen before. Everything about his game was nearly picture-perfect. Repeatable arm motion, footwork, arm strength, scanning the field, etc. All improved significantly from 2004. That doesn't happen by accident.

As for Manning, his physical decline was evident IN 2006. He led the Colts to the title anyway because he is a great QB and he adapted to what defenses were giving to him instead of forcing things downfield (Clark was huge in those playoffs IIRC).

And your speculation about Manning's work ethic is pointless. You don't know one way or the other, and what evidence there is suggests that you're wrong. Peyton's a notoriously hard worker, and he and Brady respect each other very much precisely because they both pretty much live for football. As for Manning being physically on the decline, what are you talking about, specifically? That he's aging? So is everyone. That he had to have knee surgery last year? So did Brady. That the team around him may be deteriorating? How is that his fault?

Specifically, I'm talking about his strength. He was never Elway, but he could fire the ball into tight spots when needed. Almost everything he throws downfield now is a timing pattern. I'm sure he can still throw it 60 yards, but you could time it with a calendar. His footwork and release in the pocket have also slowed. To his credit, he has adapted his game to compensate...but my point is that he isn't an old man looking to hang on. He should still have his fastball and he still should be able to refine and improve the other aspects of his game.

Also, Manning has the rep for being a "notoriously hard worker" in the film room. I've never heard of anyone making that claim about the weight room.

There's a very strong case to be made that says that Brady's better than Manning. When you start to claim that Manning has these major deficiencies as a QB, though, then you have about as much credibility as the people who still claim that Brady's a system QB who could only win because he knew all of the defensive signals ahead of time (ie: none).

"Major deficiencies" are your words, not mine. "Resting on laurels" are my words. When you are a 30 yo QB and the physical aspects of your game are showing signs of stagnation or even decline, that is how I would describe it. Maybe there is another reason and if so I would take back those words. Manning is a great QB with few flaws in his game, but he is not getting better and hasn't been for a couple of years.

If Brady shows up with reduced arm strength or slower mechanics in the next couple of years, I'll have no problem making the same points about him. Brady will never reproduce the results of 2007, but I expect him to improve on his problem areas (blitz recognition, quicker decisions under pressure, etc.). His last full game was not a shining moment for him. I expect he carried that into the weight room with him for the last 16 months.

 

[Liverpool_Patriot]

Yeah, you are right.

Sorry about that.

Actually, I think you're right. I was looking through lots of articles to find passer ratings and other stats and I must have read something wrong Then efin told me that Manning did throw for a 158.3 rating against Denver so I searched it on Google and there it was. Sorry, I was wrong

 

[eagle eye]

Its called emphasis. I remember to ask your opinion on how to communicate the next time I care to hear it.

Hey Andy, I like reading your posts but I have to agree the caps take away from it. It puts me off anyways and doesn't succeed imo.

Fwiw I personally think if you really want to emphasise something maybe used bold instead.

 

[feldspar]

But he didn't have an average game. He had a terrible game, and cost his team the game, and that's exactly my point. You can't afford to have even one game like that in the postseason, or your team's year is almost certainly over.

Yeah, but if Marvin Harrison doesn't fumble deep in Pats territory, the Colts still have a chance to win. One of Manning's four picks was completely meaningless since it happened on a 4th and 13 play. Like I said, the Colts were at the Pats 30 yard line and should have tried the fieldgoal.

so really, we got the difference between Manning and Brady in that game knocked down to a difference of 2 INTs. That's the ONLY real difference in their stats. Again, if you want to talk about Manning's 3 meaningful INTs and break each one down, I'd be happy to oblige. Other than that, I don't know what to say other than repeat that Ty Law and Rodney Harrison had great game and were the difference. Rodney Harrison was the one that caused Marvin Harrison to fumble on the Patriot's 16 yard-line BTW.

That's why people who marginalize Brady's talents because he isn't throwing for 3 TDs per game in the playoffs are completely missing the point. The best playoff QB is one who doesn't take stupid risks, doesn't throw a lot of INTs, and picks his shots well. Brady is the definition of that.

Brady didn't win that game, he just didn't lose...another spoke in the wheel, really. He's had the benefit of a better defense and better coaching. That's what won the game for the Patriots, not Brady.

In the regular season, if you follow up multiple 3+ TD, 0 INT games with 2 TD, 4 INT game, your stats still come out looking pretty good: 8 TDs, 4 INTs, 2/1 ratio, all of that. If you do that in the playoffs, that third game ends your season. End of story.

Manning is the person that sent the Colts to the playoffs consistently over the years in the first place. Don't underestimate performance during the regular season. The Colts team lives and dies by Manning. That's why I say he is more valuable to his team than Brady is to his. The Patriots went 11-5 without Brady last year...how do you think that the Colts would do without Manning? Of course, that's speculation, but it's something to think about.

 

[capetide]

Yeah, but if Marvin Harrison doesn't fumble deep in Pats territory, the Colts still have a chance to win. One of Manning's four picks was completely meaningless since it happened on a 4th and 13 play. Like I said, the Colts were at the Pats 30 yard line and should have tried the fieldgoal.

so really, we got the difference between Manning and Brady in that game knocked down to a difference of 2 INTs. That's the ONLY real difference in their stats. Again, if you want to talk about Manning's 3 meaningful INTs and break each one down, I'd be happy to oblige. Other than that, I don't know what to say other than repeat that Ty Law and Rodney Harrison had great game and were the difference. Rodney Harrison was the one that caused Marvin Harrison to fumble on the Patriot's 16 yard-line BTW.



Brady didn't win that game, he just didn't lose...another spoke in the wheel, really. He's had the benefit of a better defense and better coaching. That's what won the game for the Patriots, not Brady.



Manning is the person that sent the Colts to the playoffs consistently over the years in the first place. Don't underestimate performance during the regular season. The Colts team lives and dies by Manning. That's why I say he is more valuable to his team than Brady is to his. The Patriots went 11-5 without Brady last year...how do you think that the Colts would do without Manning? Of course, that's speculation, but it's something to think about.

I get it now. The Colts win because of the Superhuman Greatest of All time Peyton Manning, advertising dream boy (Hi, this is Peyton Manning. Ladies you got protection problems..Well golly gee I know about protection problems. You should try Maxi pads with wings!...) and the Patriots win because they have an adequate cog-in-the-wheel Tom Brady who can be replaced by any average high school QB. Thanks for your insight.

 

[eagle eye]

I get it now. The Colts win because of the Superhuman Greatest of All time Peyton Manning, advertising dream boy (Hi, this is Peyton Manning. Ladies you got protection problems..Well golly gee I know about protection problems. You should try Maxi pads with wings!...) and the Patriots win because they have an adequate cog-in-the-wheel Tom Brady who can be replaced by any average high school QB. Thanks for your insight.

You forget to add that when the Patriots lose its definitely Brady's fault, but when the Colts lose its definitely not Manning's fault.

And

If the stats are pro-Brady they are irrelevant but if they are pro-Manning they are important.


ROFL

 

[Ring 6]

Well, Manning's stats, were pathetic...not the worst ever, but pretty bad. Did it ever occur to you that a Patriots defender might have had a great game? Ty Law intercepted passes 3 times that game. Give credit to the win to him more than Brady...Brady didn't "win" this game, Ty Law did way more so. Brady threw for the exact same amount of yards as Manning and threw 3 less picks...same amount of TDs. Manning has a average game, the Colts win.

First and 10 Indy at the Pats 41 yard line...Law INT at NE 35 yard line.
Second and 17 at Indy's 26 yard line...Law INT at Indy 31 yard line...
Fourth and 13 at Pat's 30 yard line...Law INT at Pat's 11 yard line

The other INT was by Harrsion when the Colts were at New England's 5 yard line.

As you can see, at least one of these INTs is completely meaningless since it was 4th and 13 anyway. They should have tried for the field-goal IMO, since they still had a chance with plenty of time left.

A botched snap on a punt led to a safety and 2 points for the Pats, too, somehow, even though Indy was at their own 35 at the time.

Marvin Harrison also fumbled at New England's 16 yard line on a play that would have been a first down. That hurt as well.

All this, and the Colts still only lose by 10 points.

The Colt's were playing from behind the entire game. The Colt's were in scoring position 3 times, all ruined by INTs. Would you agree that every INT isn't always the QB's fault? I'm not saying this was the case here, because I honestly don't remember. I bet at least one wasn't Manning's fault, maybe more. There are deflections off receivers, batted balls at the line, receivers out of position...these things happen is my point, then they are reflected badly on the QB's stats.

Again, Brady's defense saved him from a loss in the game and helped him to fight another day. HE certainly didn't do enough on his own to win the game. Also, I don't think that Manning's performance in this game was enough to wipe out the previous two totally. That would be like saying that Brady's losing the Super Bowl in 2007 was enough to wipe out two of his Super Bowl wins, leaving him with only one...that would be ridiculous, and it doesn't work that way. Two good games are two good games and are not to be erased because of a bad one.



Was Manning the reason the Colts lost, or is Ty Law the reason the Patriots won? If you could break down each INT, then we could talk about how much each one was Manning's fault.

The two games before the bad ones were great games by Manning. End of sentence.

You just dont get it, and it appears you never will.
Peyton Manning thorws 4 Ints, and you consider him the best QB in the NFL because the defensive guys had a good game. Do you have no shame in yur argument?
Apparently not because you go on to say maybe the Ints weren't his fault because sometimes they are tipped, and you don't remember the game. I do. He was horrible.

If you are trying to compare Manning to Carson Palmer those 2 wins matter. But you are trying to compare him the QB many consider the best of all time.
One more time, then I don't think I can do this anymore because you seem incapable of understanding.

When the question is best in the NFL winning 2 playoff games is ABSOULTELY negated by being the reason you lose the AFCC. He accomplished absolutely nothing by getting there, unless you judge the best by moral victories.
Your argument that its the same as taking away 2 of Bradys rings is moronic, because the reason the loss negates 2 playoff wins is he did not finish the job. Brady did. 3 times.

Of course again, you are devaluing Brady winning, in fact now trying to make it sound like Dilfer-esque winning in spite of him, because winning isn't done singlehandledly but giving Manning 100% credit for his stats being singlehanded, however you have now added the twist that Manning playing badly doesn't affect his greatness because it must mean the defense played well.

Please answer how Mannings defense was top 7 in the NFL 4 times and thise 4 teams were 0-4 in the playoffs. What, they had bad days, so doesnt count.

I quite honestly do not remember anyone making a worse argument than you are making here, and abandoning any integrity to make it.
You have now said:
Peyton Manning is the best QB in the NFL and as proof he won 2 playoff games before playing terribly to get his team knocked out (his second best playoff season ever, btw) but you can't count that against him, because his stats are so good other times, that he is the only reason they win, so his stats being bad mean its the rest of the teams fault, and after all, that defense played good, how could you expect the best QB in the NFL to do well??????????????????????????????

 

[Ring 6]

Yeah, but if Marvin Harrison doesn't fumble deep in Pats territory, the Colts still have a chance to win. One of Manning's four picks was completely meaningless since it happened on a 4th and 13 play. Like I said, the Colts were at the Pats 30 yard line and should have tried the fieldgoal.

so really, we got the difference between Manning and Brady in that game knocked down to a difference of 2 INTs. That's the ONLY real difference in their stats. Again, if you want to talk about Manning's 3 meaningful INTs and break each one down, I'd be happy to oblige. Other than that, I don't know what to say other than repeat that Ty Law and Rodney Harrison had great game and were the difference. Rodney Harrison was the one that caused Marvin Harrison to fumble on the Patriot's 16 yard-line BTW.



Brady didn't win that game, he just didn't lose...another spoke in the wheel, really. He's had the benefit of a better defense and better coaching. That's what won the game for the Patriots, not Brady.



Manning is the person that sent the Colts to the playoffs consistently over the years in the first place. Don't underestimate performance during the regular season. The Colts team lives and dies by Manning. That's why I say he is more valuable to his team than Brady is to his. The Patriots went 11-5 without Brady last year...how do you think that the Colts would do without Manning? Of course, that's speculation, but it's something to think about.

I officially conclude you know absolutely nothing about football.
Please go on to post the Peyton Manning would have won 11 SBs if the Pats drafted, that he is the best ever, has never had an imperfect play, and Tom Brady is Ryan Leaf with luck.
That would be no worse than what you have posted so far.
I am through with you. You win the least knowledgable fan in patsfans.com history award.

I seriously think that you should stop posting here, because you lack the intellect.

 

[BradyFTW!]

so really, we got the difference between Manning and Brady in that game knocked down to a difference of 2 INTs. That's the ONLY real difference in their stats.

And that's a pretty ******* huge difference. 2 INTs is the difference between winning and losing playoff games. This game proved it, and that's why Brady's a better QB, especially in the playoffs. He takes better care of the ball. This isn't rocket science.

Again, if you want to talk about Manning's 3 meaningful INTs and break each one down, I'd be happy to oblige.

Sure, go for it. At the end of the day, he threw three picks either way. I'll even discount the fourth one. 3 is still way too many.

Brady didn't win that game, he just didn't lose...

Whereas Manning did lose the game. Once again, you're making my point for me. You don't have to have thrown 3 TDs to have done well in the playoffs. You have to take care of the ball, make sure that you don't leave a tired D on a short field, and dominate time of possession as best as you can. Mostly, you need to get into the red zone with some consistency, so that one way or another you can put points on the board. Brady does that in the playoffs, and Manning can't consistently say the same.

another spoke in the wheel, really. He's had the benefit of a better defense and better coaching. That's what won the game for the Patriots, not Brady.

As has been pointed out more than a few times on this thread, the Colts' defenses have by no means been bad. On average, they rank comparably with the Pats' over their careers, so that's bull. And Dungy is a hell of a coach himself (so I'm told), so that's crap too.

Manning is the person that sent the Colts to the playoffs consistently over the years in the first place. Don't underestimate performance during the regular season. The Colts team lives and dies by Manning. That's why I say he is more valuable to his team than Brady is to his. The Patriots went 11-5 without Brady last year...how do you think that the Colts would do without Manning? Of course, that's speculation, but it's something to think about.

It depends on how good the backups turned out to be. If the backup was as good as Cassel, then I think it's totally reasonable that they might muster 8-8 (the same 5-game dropoff that the Pats experienced in 2008).

And I don't underestimate regular season play. It's where the huge sample sizes are, and has some of the most telling data. But the playoffs are a different beast, and you can't evaluate a player, especially a QB, without evaluating playoff performance. Unless a team's goal is to make the playoffs every year then get a beatdown at the hands of a team that's actually built to win in the postseason.

Manning is a great QB. One of the best of all time. And I say that even in spite of the fact that he has been an average/above average at best playoff QB thus far in his career. Brady, meanwhile, has never once been the reason why the Pats lost a playoff game. He's won his share, done enough to win in his share, and has never laid an egg that cost the team their season. Once again, Manning can't say the same.

FWIW, I don't think that you're a troll. You seem interested in having real discussions, which I appreciate, especially since some people here make it hard to keep that approach. At the beginning, I actually agreed with a lot of the points you were making, though I think you crossed the line into absurdity a couple pages back. So I don't want to come off as hostile at all: I just think that it's kinda funny how you set completely different standards for the two QBs in a transparent attempt to rationalize every screwup that Manning has made while marginalizing everything that Brady has achieved.

You want to claim that Brady's just another spoke in the wheel? Poof, there goes your credibility. That's the same 'system quarterback' crap that we've heard from everyone else that just didn't like the fact that Brady's the most successful QB of the decade. The simple fact is that it's not true, and everyone who knows anything at all about football understands that. Brady's a historically good QB, and attempting to explain away his accomplishments as being just another cog in some grand, amazing machine just makes you look bitter and kind of ignorant.

You're not the first person to construct this whole ridiculous narrative about how Brady is lucky enough to play in an unbelievable system while Manning's been cursed with having crap for teammates all throughout, but it just isn't true. Tony Dungy is a HOF head coach. He will probably make it in first-ballot. Bill Polian is universally regarded as one of the best GMs and judges of talent out there. Manning's spent his entire career throwing to all-pro/HOF wide receivers, all-pro tight ends, being blocked for by multiple all-pro offensive linemen. Kelvin Hayden just signed a $43M contract, so he must be pretty good, and Dwight Freeney is paid franchise money because everyone insists that he's one of the best pass rushers alive (I disagree, but whatever). Mathis is a hell of a DE, and Marlin Jackson is a pretty good CB in his own right. Bob Sanders won DPOY in 2007.

If the Patriots' defense has historically been better, it's because the offense has historically been worse. The two teams have valued different things in the pursuit of winning. As a result, Manning's spent his entire career handing off to the Marshall Faulks, Edgerrin James', and Joseph Addai's of the world, while throwing to the likes of Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Marcus Pollard, and Dallas Clark. Playing most of his games in a dome, no less.

Everything about Manning's career has been tailored to maximizing his offensive statistics, while Brady spent most of his career dealing with Deion Branch, at best, at WR, and a year of Corey Dillon at RB. Everyone talks about how good the OL is, but what anyone who watches the team knows is that Brady makes them good. It's not a coincidence that Cassel was sacked 47 times last year. So if you're going to discount all of Brady's achievements because the team and circumstances around him were too good, then you'd better be prepared to do the exact same thing for Manning. Weight down his accomplishments to account for the fact that he's played his entire career surrounded by HOF talent in a dome. Do that, and the statistical advantage vanishes.

 

[Joker]

why is an admitted Burpalo troll constantly harping on Peyton Manning and how he's the "gweatest bestest goo gee gaa gaa quarteeback ever!!!!" on a Patriots board and NEVER, not once ,discussing what obviously has to be a lifechanging, gnashing of the teeth, bashing of one's brains on the pavement FOUR STRAIGHT LOSSES in the Super Bowl?? Is this Pay-Me-Tons idol worship by an adversarial fan(last time I checked Buffalo was NOT in Indy) his way of psychologically dealing with the obviously devastating mental damage suffered throughout that horrific period in Jills history?

I would guess, if I hadn't now read these dozens of posts by Buffalo Bullbleep, that he'd be touting the exploits of JIM KELLY, who actually played in FOUR Super Bowls rather than gushing like a 12 year old school girl with her first training bra over the classic underachieving Pay-Me-Billions.

 

[BradyFTW!]

why is an admitted Burpalo troll constantly harping on Peyton Manning and how he's the "gweatest bestest goo gee gaa gaa quarteeback ever!!!!" on a Patriots board and NEVER, not once ,discussing what obviously has to be a lifechanging, gnashing of the teeth, bashing of one's brains on the pavement FOUR STRAIGHT LOSSES in the Super Bowl?? Is this Pay-Me-Tons idol worship by an adversarial fan(last time I checked Buffalo was NOT in Indy) his way of psychologically dealing with the obviously devastating mental damage suffered throughout that horrific period in Jills history?

I would guess, if I hadn't now read these dozens of posts by Buffalo Bullbleep, that he'd be touting the exploits of JIM KELLY, who actually played in FOUR Super Bowls rather than gushing like a 12 year old school girl with her first training bra over the classic underachieving Pay-Me-Billions.

We get it, the Bills lost four Super Bowls. That was over a decade ago. And if I had to guess, by who's posting what, who has 'devastating mental damage', it wouldn't be feldspar...

 

[Joker]

yeah...I get it...you have morphed into the all knowing, all righteous board moral compass...congrats on your new found pomposity.Use the ignore feature and spare me your sanctimonius platitudes.