ESPN: Manning > Brady?

[Patriot Missile]

It might be just as easy to say, how did the best QB only score 14 points in the SB with the best offense in history?

Fact is, Brady never had to face a team as crafty or good as New Orleans in the SB. He and BB had to beat a clueless Mike Martz, a sick, INT-throwing McNabb and Jake Delhomme w/ a blown kickoff in the last 2 minutes.

Right.....and who was the QB for that stellar Chicago team the colts beat for mannings one and only superbowl.

Never mind that awesome officiated game in the AFC Championship.

 

[condon84]

When you compare all-time great players, you inevitably have to leave out championships won because football is such a team sport. You have to look at the impact the player makes during those successful years and how much of the teams success can be attributed to those players.

You can't narrow down a player's significance on one play or one year. You have to look at the body of work, from start to beginning, what is asked of that player from each system, and how that player executes what is asked of him.

I think the main reason why most that live outside of NE pick Manning is because Manning has a greater burden on whether the Colts succeed or not. He also takes a bit more chances and throws to covered receivers and he's got an uncanny sense of timing and aniticipation. Meanwhile, Brady almost always throws to the open guy, and takes what the defense gives him and rarely forces throws.

The system and how both QBs run their offense is also impossible to compare. Aside from 2007, Brady's offense has always been about sustaining drives, taking what the defense gives you. Lots of safe throws, dumpoffs, screens, etc. Where Brady exploits short/intermediate passes, Manning has always been about throwing the intermediate/deep passes. He takes more chances and especially when Harrison was with him, and now with Wayne and Garcon.

Lastly, and I think this is the biggest factor in how people outside of NE look at Brady and Manning:

Manning is largely attributed to the Colts success. Meanwhile, people outside of NE see Belichick as the central figure in our recent run.

 

[L Bizzle]

When you compare all-time great players, you inevitably have to leave out championships won because football is such a team sport. You have to look at the impact the player makes during those successful years and how much of the teams success can be attributed to those players.

You can't narrow down a player's significance on one play or one year. You have to look at the body of work, from start to beginning, what is asked of that player from each system, and how that player executes what is asked of him.

I think the main reason why most that live outside of NE pick Manning is because Manning has a greater burden on whether the Colts succeed or not. He also takes a bit more chances and throws to covered receivers and he's got an uncanny sense of timing and aniticipation. Meanwhile, Brady almost always throws to the open guy, and takes what the defense gives him and rarely forces throws.

The system and how both QBs run their offense is also impossible to compare. Aside from 2007, Brady's offense has always been about sustaining drives, taking what the defense gives you. Lots of safe throws, dumpoffs, screens, etc. Where Brady exploits short/intermediate passes, Manning has always been about throwing the intermediate/deep passes. He takes more chances and especially when Harrison was with him, and now with Wayne and Garcon.

Lastly, and I think this is the biggest factor in how people outside of NE look at Brady and Manning:

Manning is largely attributed to the Colts success. Meanwhile, people outside of NE see Belichick as the central figure in our recent run.

Ding, Ding. We have a winner!

*pours gasoline on the fire*

*moonwalks out of thread*

 

[Ring 6]

When you compare all-time great players, you inevitably have to leave out championships won because football is such a team sport. You have to look at the impact the player makes during those successful years and how much of the teams success can be attributed to those players.

You can't narrow down a player's significance on one play or one year. You have to look at the body of work, from start to beginning, what is asked of that player from each system, and how that player executes what is asked of him.

I think the main reason why most that live outside of NE pick Manning is because Manning has a greater burden on whether the Colts succeed or not. He also takes a bit more chances and throws to covered receivers and he's got an uncanny sense of timing and aniticipation. Meanwhile, Brady almost always throws to the open guy, and takes what the defense gives him and rarely forces throws.

The system and how both QBs run their offense is also impossible to compare. Aside from 2007, Brady's offense has always been about sustaining drives, taking what the defense gives you. Lots of safe throws, dumpoffs, screens, etc. Where Brady exploits short/intermediate passes, Manning has always been about throwing the intermediate/deep passes. He takes more chances and especially when Harrison was with him, and now with Wayne and Garcon.

Lastly, and I think this is the biggest factor in how people outside of NE look at Brady and Manning:

Manning is largely attributed to the Colts success. Meanwhile, people outside of NE see Belichick as the central figure in our recent run.

You make it sound as if Manning is throwing downfield 30 times a game and Brady 30 times a year. There is not a huge difference in length of throw if you actually look at the numbers. You are saying they play a different type of game based on a throw or 2 a game which is just wrong.
As far as Championships, they are the reason you play. Making the most clutch plays in the most clutch circumstances are absolutely the barometer of greatness. When a team gets a chance at a championship, the way the game is played in the last 20 years, it comes down to the QB needing to make plays in the clutch in order to get to, and win a SB.
You cannot dismiss the fact that Brady is his best when it matters most and Manning his worse by simply saying its a team game.

 

[Ring 6]

Ding, Ding. We have a winner!

*pours gasoline on the fire*

*moonwalks out of thread*

Those comments are actually an indictment of Manning. If he is supposed to be the greatest and he holds the utmost burden, why does he only have 1 win?

 

[Jangles]

Manning winning countless MVP awards and being voted higher than Brady on subjective lists don't really bother me.

As a fan, I enjoy winning, and nobody has done that better than Brady. So Manning can be the best, but I'd rather have all the wins and trophies to look back on. Not headlines and articles about his skill

 

[Halifax_Pats_Fan]

I am one of those pats fans, don't know if I am rare or not, but I happen to like Manning and most definitely respect his play. I wish he would tone down the throwing the arms in the air though.

He is an amazing talent. So is Brady. That is all there really is to it. People can argue all other merits of either being the best but to me, I really don't care. I am not big on debates. Who cares? What difference does it make?

I am certainly glad that Brady is our quarterback, that I am sure of. He has tonnes of fire and talent. He is driven, ultra competitive, prepared, overflowing with talent. He does the right thing. He is all about the team. Likes being just one of ther guys.

As far as these two are concerned, and more specifically this rivalry is concerned, let's just enjoy it.

Let's just enjoy it....for as long as we can.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

It is odd that ESPN counts the questions with equal weight.

By far the important question is which QB you would want to win a playoff game. Nothing else really matters. Win or go home and whom do you chose? Brady, of course.

 

[Jetssuck]

Well, you know there aren't many good arguments of Manning over Brady if your best arguments are how really, really important Manning is to the Colts and how wicked, wicked smart Manning is and how super duper it is that Manning calls his own plays.

It should be really simple. If Joe Montana is the greatest ever, whichever quarterback's career is most like Montana is the second best.

The top eight quarterbacks by passer rating, their playoff records, and their number of Super Bowls won

Philip Rivers 96.9, 3-4, 0 Super Bowls
Steve Young 96.8, 8-6, 1 Super Bowl
Aaron Rodgers 95.8, 0-1, 0 Super Bowls
Tony Romo 95.5, 1-3, 0 Super Bowls
Peyton Manning 95.1, 9-9, 1 Super Bowl
Kurt Warner 93.7, 9-4, 1 Super Bowl
Tom Brady 93.7, 14-4, 3 Super Bowls,
Joe Montana 92.3, 16-7, 4 Super Bowls

One of these guys is just like Montana
Which of these guys is just like Montana?

 

[Patriot Missile]

Well, you know there aren't many good arguments of Manning over Brady if your best arguments are how really, really important Manning is to the Colts and how wicked, wicked smart Manning is and how super duper it is that Manning calls his own plays.

It should be really simple. If Joe Montana is the greatest ever, whichever quarterback's career is most like Montana is the second best.

The top eight quarterbacks by passer rating, their playoff records, and their number of Super Bowls won

Philip Rivers 96.9, 3-4, 0 Super Bowls
Steve Young 96.8, 8-6, 1 Super Bowl
Aaron Rodgers 95.8, 0-1, 0 Super Bowls
Tony Romo 95.5, 1-3, 0 Super Bowls
Peyton Manning 95.1, 9-9, 1 Super Bowl
Kurt Warner 93.7, 9-4, 1 Super Bowl
Tom Brady 93.7, 14-4, 3 Super Bowls,
Joe Montana 92.3, 16-7, 4 Super Bowls

One of these guys is just like Montana
Which of these guys is just like Montana?

Can't believe that Brady could actually pass Montana for most post seaon victories with a perfect postseason.

 

[condon84]

You make it sound as if Manning is throwing downfield 30 times a game and Brady 30 times a year. There is not a huge difference in length of throw if you actually look at the numbers. You are saying they play a different type of game based on a throw or 2 a game which is just wrong.
As far as Championships, they are the reason you play. Making the most clutch plays in the most clutch circumstances are absolutely the barometer of greatness. When a team gets a chance at a championship, the way the game is played in the last 20 years, it comes down to the QB needing to make plays in the clutch in order to get to, and win a SB.
You cannot dismiss the fact that Brady is his best when it matters most and Manning his worse by simply saying its a team game.

I'm not dismissing that at all. Brady is at his best at high pressure games because his playing style always dictates him to make the safer throws which is key when playing against playoff and championship defenses. Meanwhile, Manning's style can be huge detriment when he's playing against playoff and championship teams because he attempts lower percentage throws. This is why I would take Brady over Manning because on playoff and championship games, mistakes are multiplied tenfold.

Lastly, I'm not knocking Brady when I say people outside of NE view Belichick as the main culprit for our success. It's the truth. As great as Belichick is, who will go down as a top 3 coach of all time, he is also the main reason why Brady will have a hard time surpassing Manning in a lot of people's eyes.

 

[Zeus]

The so-called experts consistently forget that Manning plays indoors and has road games on Houston, Tennessee and Jacksonville every year, while Brady is up against the elements in Foxboro, Bufflalo and New York. Huge advantage for Manning.

In the end this is like the age old NBA debate: Russell vs. Chamberlain. Russell has the rings, Wilt has the stats. Take your pick. I like the parade at the end of the year.

 

[Water Boy]

PM will be better than Brady when he gets 3 rings, or 1 more than Brady. Nothing less. Until then hes only equal to Brees.

Is Trent Dilfer a better QB than Dan Marino?

 

[Water Boy]

I'm a Pats fan through and through, but I think Manning is the better passer.

 

[TriplecHamp]

Is Trent Dilfer a better QB than Dan Marino?

has anyone ever compared Trent Dilfer to Dan Marino? When discussing the greatest QB's of all time rings come into it as a deciding factor, Trent Dilfer is no where near the discussion.

 

[tuckeverlasting]

Lastly, and I think this is the biggest factor in how people outside of NE look at Brady and Manning:

Manning is largely attributed to the Colts success. Meanwhile, people outside of NE see Belichick as the central figure in our recent run.

that's what i've been trying to tell everybody. espn would rather credit bb and then drag him thru the mud than credit brady. manning is a very good qb, IN THE REGULAR SEASON. brady is better in the playoffs and in the clutch. it's the misguided ff mentality that's got fans confused. add that to the brainwashing of the masses by espn and ny media and voila ! you have manning as the greatest qb ever.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Is Trent Dilfer a better QB than Dan Marino?

Football is the ultimate team sport, IMO. So, rings do matter.

But, clearly common sense has to enter into the evaluation at some point; Marino's "body of work" puts him well ahead of Trent Dilfer.

17 QB's, including Peyton and Eli Manning, have won one ring. When the history of the first 50 years of the SB era is written by someone objective (i.e., many years from now), some will be considered "very good" or "great" and some will be considered "good enough" and some will be considered "lucky to have been in the right place at the right time."

Six have won two rings: Elway, Griese, Roethlisberger, Starr, Staubach and Theismann. They are all considered at least "very good," with Elway, Starr and Staubach among the "greats," and the jury still out on Roethlisberger.

In the 44 years of the SB era, only four QB's have won more than two rings: Aikman and Brady with three; Bradshaw and Montana with four. I just don't see how these four don't belong in a category by themselves.

That's rarefied company and Tom Brady belongs in it.

Years from now, when personalities and present-day biases and media favoritism are put aside, I don't think that Peyton will be put on the same level as Aikman, Bradshaw, Brady, Elway, Montana and Staubach. Some other hotshot will have broken all or most of his records.

What people will remember from this era are those Conference and League Championship games from years ago that they watch over and over.

It is the great games that have been played by champions, whether they won or lost those games, that is what defines the collective memory of the NFL: Giants/Colts 1958 ushering in the modern era of the NFL, Jets/Colts 1968 changing the AFL/NFL landscape forever, Montana to Clark and "The Catch" in 1982, Patriots/Rams 2002 the upset that began a dynasty, Giants/Patriots 2008 the "magic helmet catch" that tore immortality from the grasp of a great team.

For Brady, that will always be bittersweet with XXXVI and XLII played over and over again by our grandkids. But, they'll be watching him and talking about him.

No one worries about who won the '58 Colts/Giants game; what they care about is that the game was played and it was great and that it changed the course of the NFL. 50 years from now, people will watch SB XLII and see not the depressing moment that we now see but the play of a great team and a legendary QB and Coach, who came up short on that one day in a great battle.

Peyton Manning has yet to play a game that people will watch 50 years from now and, feel, as John Madden put it during that memorable drive in 2002, that "What Tom Brady just did gives me chills all over my body."

 

[Sivy]

man, I really thought 2007 put this sh*t to bed.

There is no argument anymore for Manning..Brady is better hands down..Brady doesnt have hall of famer wr? Ok he wins 3 rings...Brady gets them WR, he has the single greatest season by anyone EVER..what else is there?

Oh, and mannings players get hurt and suddenly he has 3 of his worst passer ratings in a row..

what does Brady have to do? I mean really? Come on, the guy is the best. Give him his damn credit.

 

[Jangles]

Football is the ultimate team sport, IMO. So, rings do matter.

But, clearly common sense has to enter into the evaluation at some point; Marino's "body of work" puts him well ahead of Trent Dilfer.

17 QB's, including Peyton and Eli Manning, have won one ring. When the history of the first 50 years of the SB era is written by someone objective (i.e., many years from now), some will be considered "very good" or "great" and some will be considered "good enough" and some will be considered "lucky to have been in the right place at the right time."

Six have won two rings: Elway, Griese, Roethlisberger, Starr, Staubach and Theismann. They are all considered at least "very good," with Elway, Starr and Staubach among the "greats," and the jury still out on Roethlisberger.

In the 44 years of the SB era, only four QB's have won more than two rings: Aikman and Brady with three; Bradshaw and Montana with four. I just don't see how these four don't belong in a category by themselves.

That's rarefied company and Tom Brady belongs in it.

Years from now, when personalities and present-day biases and media favoritism are put aside, I don't think that Peyton will be put on the same level as Aikman, Bradshaw, Brady, Elway, Montana and Staubach. Some other hotshot will have broken all or most of his records.

What people will remember from this era are those Conference and League Championship games from years ago that they watch over and over.

It is the great games that have been played by champions, whether they won or lost those games, that is what defines the collective memory of the NFL: Giants/Colts 1958 ushering in the modern era of the NFL, Jets/Colts 1968 changing the AFL/NFL landscape forever, Montana to Clark and "The Catch" in 1982, Patriots/Rams 2002 the upset that began a dynasty, Giants/Patriots 2008 the "magic helmet catch" that tore immortality from the grasp of a great team.

For Brady, that will always be bittersweet with XXXVI and XLII played over and over again by our grandkids. But, they'll be watching him and talking about him.

No one worries about who won the '58 Colts/Giants game; what they care about is that the game was played and it was great and that it changed the course of the NFL. 50 years from now, people will watch SB XLII and see not the depressing moment that we now see but the play of a great team and a legendary QB and Coach, who came up short on that one day in a great battle.

Peyton Manning has yet to play a game that people will watch 50 years from now and, feel, as John Madden put it during that memorable drive in 2002, that "What Tom Brady just did gives me chills all over my body."

This could be my favorite post from any forum ever

thank you good sir

In all honesty though, the 2006 AFC championship game could be that game for him

 

[pherein]

Is Trent Dilfer a better QB than Dan Marino?

Good question. Its possible Dilfer is a better leader than Marino. Where as Marino could never motivate his team to to win a SB. I think its pretty obvious that the Ravens defense won the SB, also obvious how bad the Ravens got after Dilfer left.

I mean Montana didn't break a ton of passing records, he just had "IT", he was a winner, like bradshaw.

Life isn't simple so I don't expect football to be either. Dilfer was a QB that slipped threw the cracks and got a SB. That happened a number of times in the NFL. No he's not better than Dan Marino in skill or stats.

But you don't win 2-4 SB if your not damn good and have "IT".
The Post season is unforgiving, you win or you go home. Winning 3-4 games in a row to get a Lombardi is a tough task even in the regular season. It takes a certain leadership quality to pull it off. I think.
Dilfer didn't have the tools but I think he had the leadership, who knows if the Raven would have 2 SB if Dilfer hadn't been fired the next year, and I believe messing up the chemistry of a winning football club, who knows.

Bart Starr didn't set any records either, he just won championships. PM has all the skills/stats but maybe he just does not have the leadership ability it takes.