Manning is more skilled than Brady? Please explain.

[Patjew]

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

Thank you.

I wish people here would keep in mind that my intent isn't to put down Tom Brady. That would be hard to do. Any disparaging things I've said about him is only in relation to Peyton Manning, who is no slouch.

There was a joke in there.

 

[Rob0729]

Obviously, you choose to adopt a certain stereotype about Manning.

If you want to talk about technical expertise, look no further than the fact that Manning is God on the field in the sense that he dictates what happens totally... more than Brady does for sure. So, mentally, he has more to deal with. Who has somebody knowledgeable whispering into his helmet about which defense to look out for? Physically, it's a different story. Both of these guys aren't scramblers, and both of these guys are accurate passers that can make all the throws. I don't think that the physical aspect is a question.

Who has somebody knowledgeable whispering in their helmet on which defense to look for? Both, QBs. Seriously, are you going to use the overblown Spygate crap. Let's say for argument sake that the Pats were able to go back to the tapes and discipher the signals. If a DC is using the same signals game after game, I am guessing their defense isn't too hard to figure out. Besides, according to Jimmy Johnson, Howard Mudd was the best at stealing signals in the game. So, Manning could be more likely to be getting the defense whispered to him than Brady.

As for the physical, Brady wins that one. Scrambling ability isn't the only measure of physical ability. Brady has the stronger arm and that gives him the edge in that category.

In my mind, Brady and Manning are very close to one another in ability and most categories that QB are judged. I think Brady is slightly better and if he had Moss his entire career like Manning had Harrison, this debate might not be even close. That said, I can see how someone would put Manning over Brady.

 

[Rob0729]

I see that you're still at it...and adopting your own stereotype about Brady, who btw doesn't have anybody "whispering into his helmet about which defense to look out for" any more than Manning does. Coach to QB communication cuts out 15 seconds before the snap. So actually since Manning doesn't huddle and goes to the line to do his melodramatic gyrations while he supposedly diagnoses the defense that is being presented, maybe he's the guy with someone cueing him...maybe someone who was long considered an all pro at defensive signal stealing, like Howard Mudd. And if Manning were really a God on the field it would stand to reason his team would have had more success beating good defenses...like the ones QB's face in the playoffs.

Sorry feldspar, you're just a run of the mill troll despite your delusions regarding your unbiased and superior football expertise. And you don't come here to talk football, you come here to teach us homer blinded fans of success that there is more to this than winning championships. Probably because coming from Buffalo you have to believe that.

And at this point I hope those of you who have felt compelled to engage this fellow in reasoned debate, not to mention those who chose to defend this visitors right to spew opinions he is unable to back up, are ready to concede he is what he is and he came here looking for opportunities to present himself as something else.

His musings on this topic are as worthless as some of the commentary he's elicited from resident knuckleheads like maverick. Engaging them is an exercise in futility, best handled in the visitors locker room or the practice squad forums Ian created for just such mindless, timekilling endeavors

I do agree that Manning's no huddle helps him to diagnose the defense. It also makes it easier for him to read defenses since the defense cannot make substitutions. That limits the plays that a DC can call in a lot of situations and makes it far easier for Manning to guess what defense is called since he knows the personnel on the field.

 

[BSR]

Obviously, you choose to adopt a certain stereotype about Manning.

If you want to talk about technical expertise, look no further than the fact that Manning is God on the field in the sense that he dictates what happens totally... more than Brady does for sure. So, mentally, he has more to deal with. Who has somebody knowledgeable whispering into his helmet about which defense to look out for? Physically, it's a different story. Both of these guys aren't scramblers, and both of these guys are accurate passers that can make all the throws. I don't think that the physical aspect is a question.

What evidence do you have to support any of the above? Stats? Expert opinion? Anything?

Maybe you need to step back and take another look at the careers of both of these quarterbacks, particularly the post season careers. Take a look at the production of both, the players around each, and the performance of each when the game is on the line.

 

[maverick4]

Sorry feldspar, you're just a run of the mill troll despite your delusions regarding your unbiased and superior football expertise. And you don't come here to talk football, you come here to teach us homer blinded fans of success that there is more to this than winning championships. Probably because coming from Buffalo you have to believe that.

Pats fans like Mo use convenient self deception and hypocrisy in their arguments. When it comes to Brady vs. Manning they'll bring up rings, intangibles, playoff performance, and subjective qualities while diminishing any yardage or TD stats, but when it comes to talking about all time offenses, out come all the obsessive use of stats to argue why the 2007 offense was supposedly the best or why McDaniels is so great, ignoring the repeated choke jobs in the playoffs.

These homers are only consistent in their blind bias toward any argument.

 

[Sivy]

WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT!!!!

I was jsut making it simple for everyone. A couple seasons ago, I saw one of them highlight intro things before a pats colts game, and they were going over all of mannings stats and showing some highlights, then they got to brady and said something like, "brady does one thing better than any other quarterback, he wins games" that pretty much says it all right there.

 

[ausbacker]

Obviously, you choose to adopt a certain stereotype about Manning.

If you want to talk about technical expertise, look no further than the fact that Manning is God on the field in the sense that he dictates what happens totally... more than Brady does for sure. So, mentally, he has more to deal with. Who has somebody knowledgeable whispering into his helmet about which defense to look out for? Physically, it's a different story. Both of these guys aren't scramblers, and both of these guys are accurate passers that can make all the throws. I don't think that the physical aspect is a question.

Seeing as though you cant transpose yourself on the field, nor into either players helmets, I will make a broad statement. I choose to adopt the stereotype of you being a d!ckhead. There's no escaping that stereotype.

I tried to give you an opportunity to be reasonable. You won't take it.

 

[Rob0729]

Pats fans like Mo use convenient self deception and hypocrisy in their arguments. When it comes to Brady vs. Manning they'll bring up rings, intangibles, playoff performance, and subjective qualities while diminishing any yardage or TD stats, but when it comes to talking about all time offenses, out come all the obsessive use of stats to argue why the 2007 offense was supposedly the best or why McDaniels is so great, ignoring the repeated choke jobs in the playoffs.

These homers are only consistent in their blind bias toward any argument.

Ahhh! Nothing like bringing up McDaniels yet again in an unrelated thread.

I propose a board wide moratorium in mentioning McDaniels until the Pats play Denver or something significant happens in Denver that is directly related to McDaniels. The guy is gone. Good or bad. Our offense is not being schemed, called, gameplanned, etc from him this upcoming year. People didn't discuss Mangini this much during the offseason after he left and he was a turncoat going to the Pats' hated enemy.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Pats fans like Mo use convenient self deception and hypocrisy in their arguments. When it comes to Brady vs. Manning they'll bring up rings, intangibles, playoff performance, and subjective qualities while diminishing any yardage or TD stats, but when it comes to talking about all time offenses, out come all the obsessive use of stats to argue why the 2007 offense was supposedly the best or why McDaniels is so great, ignoring the repeated choke jobs in the playoffs.

These homers are only consistent in their blind bias toward any argument.

Pats fans like maverick are just agenda driven one trick pony's, like NEM, who seldom weigh in on a discussion except to inject their mindless myopic drivel. I haven't even weighed in on the all time offenses (and it was actually team I believe) discussion. I appreciate there is a difference in evaluating individual or cumulative skillsets or talent vs. building what succeeds as a team. And I also appreciate there are lots of variables can impact team success positively as well as negatively beyond the playcalling of the OC... like unrelenting cumulative injuries, occasional player personnel mis steps, and the other team showing up...

Only a contrarian nitwit would conclude that a team with 3 rings and 4 superbowl appearances and 6 of 8 dominant division winning seasons, and an undefeated regular season and 11 wins with a QB who hadn't stated a game since HS on it's approaching decade long resume ever had a problem at the coordinator position...

Given the performance of our defense of late, not to mention the late game meltdown history in 4 Superbowls, RAC and then Dean Pease should be the object of the naysayers wrath, but they don't have the guts to take that tack given it would be perceived as an attack on the defensive minded HC with the first full of rings and a game plan enshrined in Canton to counter their criticism. Too bad they can't grasp it's his offense, too. Coaches scheme. Players execute. When they can't or don't you generally lose. Doesn't happen too often here but when it does the same mentality that claims there are no excuses still requires a scapegoat...and preferably on the coaching staff...

This thread was supposed to be a discussion of comparative skillset between two QB's, until as usual it was hijacked by all manner of posters who can't stay on point in part because they just don't have the intellectual capacity to when the discussion has nothing to do with their biased agenda or proves something contrary to their half assed assumptions. As I pointed out earlier the actual NFL experts who were asked to analyze the two focused on their skillsets and called it a wash. They gave Brady the nod on Arm strength, poise and manuverability. They proclaimed them equally accurate. Where I disagreed with them was in considering durability necessarily a skillset and in assessing pre snap impact based on theatrics. Therefore I choose Brady without even considering rings vs. yards.

 

[Ring 6]

Pats fans like Mo use convenient self deception and hypocrisy in their arguments. When it comes to Brady vs. Manning they'll bring up rings, intangibles, playoff performance, and subjective qualities while diminishing any yardage or TD stats, but when it comes to talking about all time offenses, out come all the obsessive use of stats to argue why the 2007 offense was supposedly the best or why McDaniels is so great, ignoring the repeated choke jobs in the playoffs.

These homers are only consistent in their blind bias toward any argument.

So, in your opinion, Manning is better because he has better stats and SBs dont matter, but the PAtriots 2007 offense is not the best because it has stats but SBs DO matter?

Just want to understand what you are arguing.

 

[Metaphors]

I think you're using a pretty misleading definition of "resting on laurels", then, hence the confusion. Does natural aging qualify as "resting on your laurels"? Because in the next couple of years Brady will show up with reduced arm strength and slower mechanics. It's going to happen, and there isn't a damn thing that he'll be able to do about it, because that's how aging works. He can work harder than anyone's ever worked before, and the best he'll be able to hope for is to slow the decline. That's the problem with being the best at what you do: it becomes that much harder to get better and that much easier to get worse.

I'll clarify. Manning or Brady or any other professional QB should able to preserve and possibly improve their arm and overall strength through their mid-30's (probably longer). Obviously it takes work. Seeing Manning's strength/quickness decline over the last few years, I'm inclined to attribute that to lacking the gym work needed to get him to the next level. His doughboy physique would tend to support that. I believe Manning has a next level...maybe he doesn't believe that.

He just turned 33. I agree with your assessment above on aging for him in the next couple of years. Not sure what his problem was for the last couple.

Anyways, the fact that you identified blitz recognition and decisionmaking under pressure as 'problem areas' for Brady tells me everything I need to know about your ability to evaluate a QB.

"Problem areas" was what I said but not what I meant, so you are right to call me on that. I meant "areas of improvement". Of course that is relative since he is excellent in both areas. If you look at the SB and a handful of other games (Ravens comes to mind), Brady was slow to get to his checkdown receivers in reaction to unorthodox blitzes. So that means he was with either slow in recognition or slow in delivery. While the OL didn't do him any favors, he is the one with the ball in his hands so success/failure ultimately falls to him. That is definitely something to work on before the playoffs this year.

I mentioned these areas because for most of the others (throwing motion, footwork, pocket movement, etc.), I'm not sure what Brady could do to improve on 2007.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I'll clarify. Manning or Brady or any other professional QB should able to preserve and possibly improve their arm and overall strength through their mid-30's (probably longer). Obviously it takes work. Seeing Manning's strength/quickness decline over the last few years, I'm inclined to attribute that to lacking the gym work needed to get him to the next level. His doughboy physique would tend to support that. I believe Manning has a next level...maybe he doesn't believe that.

He just turned 33. I agree with your assessment above on aging for him in the next couple of years. Not sure what his problem was for the last couple.

Well, last year there was the knee surgery. Prior to that, I just didn't see the decline that you're claiming, at least to the extent that you're claiming it. I think it's important to remember that, while Brady didn't start until 2001 in the NFL, and was splitting time for a lot of his college career, Manning was taking a beating. He may only be a year and a half older than Brady, but in football years, he's much, much older. He has a lot more mileage on him than your average 33 year old. Maybe that's why I think that what decline there has been has been reasonable and explainable given his history, and I think it's a little unfair to blame it on a 'doughboy physique', when the guy's pretty clearly in good shape.

One thing that I think is im

 

[feldspar]

Who has somebody knowledgeable whispering into his helmet about which defense to look out for?

This is a pure fabrication. A lie. YOU are nothing more than a common liar.You obviously know zero about what Brady does at the line of scrimmage.

LOL, I'm a liar now.

Brady had better coaching, that's all I meant by that. I just chose to put it in a colorful way.

 

[feldspar]

There was a joke in there.

Were you referring to to Seinfeld's "not that there is anything wrong with that?" Wouldn't be the first time somebody called me gay in this thread.

 

[Wildo7]

There was a joke in there.

Don't sell yourself short, Peyton, you're a tremendous slouch.

?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Pats fans like maverick are just agenda driven one trick pony's, like NEM, who seldom weigh in on a discussion except to inject their mindless myopic drivel. I haven't even weighed in on the all time offenses (and it was actually team I believe) discussion. I appreciate there is a difference in evaluating individual or cumulative skillsets or talent vs. building what succeeds as a team. And I also appreciate there are lots of variables can impact team success positively as well as negatively beyond the playcalling of the OC... like unrelenting cumulative injuries, occasional player personnel mis steps, and the other team showing up...

Only a contrarian nitwit would conclude that a team with 3 rings and 4 superbowl appearances and 6 of 8 dominant division winning seasons, and an undefeated regular season and 11 wins with a QB who hadn't stated a game since HS on it's approaching decade long resume ever had a problem at the coordinator position...

Given the performance of our defense of late, not to mention the late game meltdown history in 4 Superbowls, RAC and then Dean Pease should be the object of the naysayers wrath, but they don't have the guts to take that tack given it would be perceived as an attack on the defensive minded HC with the first full of rings and a game plan enshrined in Canton to counter their criticism. Too bad they can't grasp it's his offense, too. Coaches scheme. Players execute. When they can't or don't you generally lose. Doesn't happen too often here but when it does the same mentality that claims there are no excuses still requires a scapegoat...and preferably on the coaching staff...

This thread was supposed to be a discussion of comparative skillset between two QB's, until as usual it was hijacked by all manner of posters who can't stay on point in part because they just don't have the intellectual capacity to when the discussion has nothing to do with their biased agenda or proves something contrary to their half assed assumptions. As I pointed out earlier the actual NFL experts who were asked to analyze the two focused on their skillsets and called it a wash. They gave Brady the nod on Arm strength, poise and manuverability. They proclaimed them equally accurate. Where I disagreed with them was in considering durability necessarily a skillset and in assessing pre snap impact based on theatrics. Therefore I choose Brady without even considering rings vs. yards.

In all honesty, this forum became about 10% better after I put maverick on ignore.

 

[feldspar]

I think it's a little unfair to blame it on a 'doughboy physique', when the guy's pretty clearly in good shape.

At least it was funny. "Doughboy physique" gave me a chuckle.

 

[feldspar]

And at this point I hope those of you who have felt compelled to engage this fellow in reasoned debate, not to mention those who chose to defend this visitors right to spew opinions he is unable to back up, are ready to concede he is what he is and he came here looking for opportunities to present himself as something else.

His musings on this topic are as worthless as some of the commentary he's elicited from resident knuckleheads like maverick. Engaging them is an exercise in futility, best handled in the visitors locker room or the practice squad forums Ian created for just such mindless, timekilling endeavors

You can kiss my ball-sack as well.

 

[efin98]

Were you referring to to Seinfeld's "not that there is anything wrong with that?" Wouldn't be the first time somebody called me gay in this thread.

He wasn't calling you gay, he was pointing out the big target you accidentally put on yourself there. It was a Freudian slip, a funny one but not one that will get you bashed for and he certainly is not the kind of guy to do that to anyone on the board

 

[efin98]

You can kiss my ball-sack as well.

And you wonder why people are equating you to a troll...