FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning...

[Deus Irae]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

I have absolutely zero inclination towards the Colts or Manning

Here's a 2007 post of yours about "If you had to win one game, which quarterback - in his prime - would you choose to lead your team?" Note your rankings:

1. Montana
2a/2b. Brady/Favre
3. Elway
4. Manning

Another of your posts:

Are you a Patriots fan? You'd drop Brady for Manning before dropping Wilson for Reed. That is beyond illogical. You can make a case for LT, but Manning? Not a chance.

Somehow, you've seemingly flipped on that, SINCE the early part of 2007, which means that you've flipped on that in the time where Brady's put up 2 of the greatest seasons on NFL history, and Manning has failed to keep pace.

Of course, even in 2007, you were claiming that the Colts offense was better than that 2007 Patriots offense:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/62985-doyel-pats-colts-everybody-else.html#post553348

You've also claimed that Favre in his prime was probably better than both Brady AND Manning:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/63324-favre-bashing-whats-up.html#post559728

Toss this in with the inability to read basic data charts about Faulk and Harrison, and I'd say you should have stayed out of the thread to avoid looking like a clown.

 

[Off The Grid]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

I'm not even pro-Manning, but you yahoos are so biased you can't even accept that I'm just trying to argue that there's a discussion and it's not a slam dunk for Brady.

1 ~ Actually, it IS a slam dunk for Brady, IF you are objective, as you, demonstrably, are NOT.

2 ~ You're full of crap!! You're not "just trying to argue that there's a discussion"...If that HAD been your original stated position, then you wouldn't've spent the last 25 pages getting your face shoved in your own excrement!! You're just trying to sleazily slip and slide out of your orginal statement, and you are BUSTED!! THESE are from your first two quotes, where you established your hilariously asinine position:

Unless Brady has at least another MVP and/or Super Bowl run, Manning will be remembered as the better QB.

That's just the way it is.

If they both retired today, Manning had a better career.

BUSTED!!!

THOSE were your original asinine words, and THOSE are what you've been in a foaming, snot-bubbling RAGE about, for the last week, desperately trying to defend that gunk for 25 pages of hilarious humiliation!!

But THIS is my favorite line, from your opening statement, Post #44:

Honestly, who gives a crap?

Arguing which one is better is a waste of time.

1 Week and about 60 fuming, frothing POSTS ago!!

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

Tom Brady is the better QB and most folk know it.

 

[bagwell368]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

Seasons of Top 10 in TD%/INT %

Manning 6
Brady 5
Rivers 2
Rodgers 2
Brees 2

Seasons if Top 5 in TD%/INT%

Manning 3
Brady 2
Rivers 1
Rodgers 1
Brees 1

Nice try, but Rivers, Rodgers and Brees all have a lot less time in than Manning. Also TD% gets totally skewed if the QB in question has a team with a good running game in goal to go situations. Another fail I am afraid.

Meanwhile, Montana and Young, two QB's you tried to link Manning too had him in years in the top 10 Int% (Montana), and QB Rating #1's (Young: 6 in 7 years, something no QB will ever match again). So how come you dropped that comp like a hot potato? Harghhhahhggh.

 

[JJDChE]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

Here's a 2007 post of yours about "If you had to win one game, which quarterback - in his prime - would you choose to lead your team?" Note your rankings:

I'd move Manning ahead of Elway, now.

Another of your posts:

Somehow, you've seemingly flipped on that, SINCE the early part of 2007, which means that you've flipped on that in the time where Brady's put up 2 of the greatest seasons on NFL history, and Manning has failed to keep pace.

What's the context there? It looks like Someone was claiming they trade Brady for Manning before they'd trade Eugene Wilson for Ed Reed. I still think that's freaking crazy. Reed is a HoF lock. Is Wilson even in the league anymore?

Also, I haven't said they've flipped. I've said multiple times that I'd take Brady. Still, Manning has won two MVPs and lost a Super Bowl since that post. Just like Brady.

My claim is that they are virtually equal, but my personal preference is for Brady.

Of course, even in 2007, you were claiming that the Colts offense was better than that 2007 Patriots offense:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...yel-pats-colts-everybody-else.html#post553348

The Colts were putting up pretty similar numbers at the time, they were coming off a Super Bowl win, Manning was the SB MVP, and they had the same core offense players in place for a few years.

It certainly wasn't a outlandish opinion.

You've also claimed that Favre in his prime was probably better than both Brady AND Manning:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england.../63324-favre-bashing-whats-up.html#post559728

Yeah? Favre was dominating in his prime. I still don't think it's unreasonable to make that argument. He won 3 straight MVPs, led the leage in TDs three straight years, a SB win and two Conf. Champ appearances.

Career-wise he hasn't played with the consistency of Brady or Manning, but in his prime he was right there with them.

Toss this in with the inability to read basic data charts about Faulk and Harrison, and I'd say you should have stayed out of the thread to avoid looking like a clown.

Faulk had his best year in YFS by over 20% the year Manning came in and had 700 yds more in YFS than the previous year. I don't care what he did in St.Louis. It was a different offense and a different team (They were WAY better, they won the freaking Super Bowl that year). From 1997 to 1998 he was on virtually the same team, except Manning became the QB (they even had the same record in '97 and '98, 3-13, and scored essentially the same number of points, 313 vs 310, and were withing 250 yds of total offense between the two years, 4870 v. 5110). He had his best season to date in yds per attempt, rushing yds, receptions, yards per reception, receiving yards and he led the league in yds from scrimmage.

Are you telling me that you can't make the argument that Manning elevated Faulk's game?

Harrison's last full season without Manning

73 rec, 866 yds, 6 TDs

First full season with Manning

115 rec, 1663 yds, 12 TDs

If you want to make the argument that Harrison was going to be that guys regardless, go ahead. It's valid. It's also valid to say that numbers show that Manning was the difference between Harrison being and average receiver and a HoF caliber receiver.

 

[JJDChE]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

1 ~ Actually, it IS a slam dunk for Brady, IF you are objective, as you, demonstrably, are NOT.

2 ~ You're full of crap!! You're not "just trying to argue that there's a discussion"...If that HAD been your original stated position, then you wouldn't've spent the last 25 pages getting your face shoved in your own excrement!! You're just trying to sleazily slip and slide out of your orginal statement, and you are BUSTED!! THESE are from your first two quotes, where you established your hilariously asinine position:

BUSTED!!!

THOSE were your original asinine words, and THOSE are what you've been in a foaming, snot-bubbling RAGE about, for the last week, desperately trying to defend that gunk for 25 pages of hilarious humiliation!!

But THIS is my favorite line, from your opening statement, Post #44:

1 Week and about 60 fuming, frothing POSTS ago!!

I'm as cool as the other side of the pillow. You, on the other hand...

 

[bagwell368]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

That's the messed up thing. I'm not even pro-Manning, but you yahoos are so biased you can't even accept that I'm just trying to argue that there's a discussion and it's not a slam dunk for Brady.

That's why I stopped posting here. It's too full of idiotic yahoos. The quality posters are drowned out by morons.

Oh, I see you are trying to help. Well I ask for the third time in this thread, let's see your entire argument (hopefully in hierarchical order) for Manning = Brady or Manning > Brady. Basically so far your "arguments" consist of insults, and occasional one topic presentations, that like your TD% & Int% are highly flawed.

Go ahead and show that you have a right to insult this board, or move on.

 

[bagwell368]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

Yeah, no kidding. Insightful.

Geez you couldn't even draw the line between two points.

Brady .222 chance in every season of being top 5 Int% & top 5 TD%.

Manning .230 chance in every season played of being top 5 Int% & Top 5 TD%

What honestly are Mannings chances of a repeat? What about Brady?

So you present a total number w/o considering the amount of years played or left? What sort of argument technique is that from someone who labels this group?

A: Biased/useless and bereft of insight.

 

[JJDChE]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

Nice try, but Rivers, Rodgers and Brees all have a lot less time in than Manning. Also TD% gets totally skewed if the QB in question has a team with a good running game in goal to go situations. Another fail I am afraid.

It doesn't mean they'll pass him, it means they have a chance. Brees is 32, Rivers is 29 and Rogers is 27. Brees is probably out of the discussion. Rivers has a marginal shot. Rodgers has a decent shot at it. Assuming Manning doesn't pull it off again.

Meanwhile, Montana and Young, two QB's you tried to link Manning too had him in years in the top 10 Int% (Montana), and QB Rating #1's (Young: 6 in 7 years, something no QB will ever match again). So how come you dropped that comp like a hot potato? Harghhhahhggh.

Young and Montana are all-time greats. I don't think it's it's unreasonable to put both above Manning or Brady in any case.

 

[JJDChE]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

Geez you couldn't even draw the line between two points.

Brady .222 chance in every season of being top 5 Int% & top 5 TD%.

Manning .230 chance in every season played of being top 5 Int% & Top 5 TD%

What honestly are Mannings chances of a repeat? What about Brady?

So you present a total number w/o considering the amount of years played or left? What sort of argument technique is that from someone who labels this group?

A: Biased/useless and bereft of insight.

It's not an accumulated number. You either do it or you don't. Just because someone has a 50% rate at doing it doesn't guarantee it will ever happen again.

Manning has won 4 MVPs in 13 seasons. That doesn't mean he has a 31% chance of winning it this year.

 

[bagwell368]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

It's not an accumulated number. You either do it or you don't. Just because someone has a 50% rate at doing it doesn't guarantee it will ever happen again.

Of course it is an accumulated number, and it can also be looked at as an average which I did, which gives more insight into the current status of these stats then just a simple total.

Obviously past success is no promise of future performance.

Obviously saying a guy has 2 and another guy has 3 w/o discussing the ages, years in, and projected future is just a tad misleading...

 

[IndyColtfans]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

You guys kill me. Brady's PO numbers have been dropping like a stone for years while Manning's have been rising. For being the GOAT Brady sure hasn't done much in the postseason lately.

Brady had the better year in 2010. Manning was better in 2009. Brady was better in 2007, Manning was better in 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 and 2001.

What's more is Manning's 2004 was better than Brady's 2007. Manning sat basically two games that year while Brady was frantically trying to break the record in every game. Manning could have easily tacked on another 5 TDs that year. Brady threw basically 2 more games worth of passes to come up with one more TD. Manning's rating was better than Brady's too.

Also, I love the double standard. "Brady is better because he has 3 rings". Yet you gloss over the fact that he had a HOF head coach and one of the best if not the best D in the league when he was winning those titles.

In 2007 Brady also had Moss, one of the greatest receivers ever. Moss made Dante Culpepper look great.

Then you all talk about how if the Colts didn't have Manning they'd be lucky to win 8 games. Well.....the Pats lost Brady and won 11 games with a guy who hadn't started since HS. But the point is Brady has 3 rings because he played on a great team with a great coach. He didn't win those SB's by himself.

And what is this talk about these amazing defenses the Pats are playing against? Who? The Bills? The Dolphins? Are you kidding me? And the Jets were mediocre at best until recently.

So who are these great defenses that Brady is facing that Manning isn't? The AFC East until the rise of the Jets was one of the worst divisions in football, the Pats were the only good team in the division for years.

 

[Keyser Söze]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

You guys kill me. Brady's PO numbers have been dropping like a stone for years while Manning's have been rising. For being the GOAT Brady sure hasn't done much in the postseason lately.

Brady had the better year in 2010. Manning was better in 2009. Brady was better in 2007, Manning was better in 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 and 2001.

What's more is Manning's 2004 was better than Brady's 2007. Manning sat basically two games that year while Brady was frantically trying to break the record in every game. Manning could have easily tacked on another 5 TDs that year. Brady threw basically 2 more games worth of passes to come up with one more TD. Manning's rating was better than Brady's too.

Also, I love the double standard. "Brady is better because he has 3 rings". Yet you gloss over the fact that he had a HOF head coach and one of the best if not the best D in the league when he was winning those titles.

In 2007 Brady also had Moss, one of the greatest receivers ever. Moss made Dante Culpepper look great.

Then you all talk about how if the Colts didn't have Manning they'd be lucky to win 8 games. Well.....the Pats lost Brady and won 11 games with a guy who hadn't started since HS. But the point is Brady has 3 rings because he played on a great team with a great coach. He didn't win those SB's by himself.

And what is this talk about these amazing defenses the Pats are playing against? Who? The Bills? The Dolphins? Are you kidding me? And the Jets were mediocre at best until recently.

So who are these great defenses that Brady is facing that Manning isn't? The AFC East until the rise of the Jets was one of the worst divisions in football, the Pats were the only good team in the division for years.

Oh good you're back, I guess you didn't get the message earlier in this thread when you got destroyed and stopped posting.

 

[Sparetire]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

Indycoltsfan, did you look at BB's record with and without brady? i guess you didnt.

 

[bagwell368]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

You guys kill me. Brady's PO numbers have been dropping like a stone for years while Manning's have been rising. For being the GOAT Brady sure hasn't done much in the postseason lately.

Brady had the better year in 2010. Manning was better in 2009. Brady was better in 2007, Manning was better in 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 and 2001.

Did you forget what Manning did before '01? I didn't. Let's line them up:

PM | TB | +QB Rating TB=red, PM=blue

71.2 - 86.5
90.7 - 86.5
94.7 - 85.7
84.1 - 85.9
88.8 - 92.6
99.0 - 87.9
121.1 - 117.2
104.1 - 96.2
101.0 - 111.0
98.0
95.0
99.9
91.9

PM has 5 head to head "wins", Brady has 4. That's w/o adjustment for superior skill players in the first 6 years of TB's career. That's w/o any adjustment for weather (you do know that TB has the highest W-L% of any QB all time in both the regular season and the playoffs - right?)

Manning's peak was 2004, and he's been in decline ever since (per QB Rating):

-17.0
-20.1
-23.1
-26.1
-21.2
-29.2


Meanwhile since Manning's last 100+ QB Rating season (2006), TB has:

117.2
96.2
111.0

That's 108.1 average over 3 years - better then Manning's 104.8 3 year peak. Hmmm, cool.

Guess Brady is still in his broad peak, and with a really good looking team, we can expect more big years from TB, but not so much from PM.

What's more is Manning's 2004 was better than Brady's 2007.

Did you ever count up how many Dome games Manning had that year? Also do you want to review the playoff results of that year? Indy lost 20-3 against the Pats, and Manning didn't even manage a TD pass for his team, 27 for 42 w/ 1 Int and 238 yards. Pretty poor.

Also, I love the double standard. "Brady is better because he has 3 rings". Yet you gloss over the fact that he had a HOF head coach and one of the best if not the best D in the league when he was winning those titles.

Baloney, the Pats had a #1 D one time, not three.

In 2007 Brady also had Moss, one of the greatest receivers ever. Moss made Dante Culpepper look great.

So? Moss was ineffective/gone last year, and Brady had a season better then any Manning season except 2004. Meanwhile you are happy to claim Manning made do with Harrison, Wayne, and Faulk... What rubbish.

Then you all talk about how if the Colts didn't have Manning they'd be lucky to win 8 games. Well.....the Pats lost Brady and won 11 games with a guy who hadn't started since HS. But the point is Brady has 3 rings because he played on a great team with a great coach. He didn't win those SB's by himself.

Do'h, you think it's a team game - good that's basic you don't have to learn. The Cassel year was explained 16-0 > 11-5 with an easy schedule, and oh by the way he's doing fine for KC.

And what is this talk about these amazing defenses the Pats are playing against? Who? The Bills? The Dolphins? Are you kidding me? And the Jets were mediocre at best until recently. In fact with a weaker team, Cassel had a better QB Rating then Manning last year...

So who are these great defenses that Brady is facing that Manning isn't? The AFC East until the rise of the Jets was one of the worst divisions in football, the Pats were the only good team in the division for years.

Learn more history:

2001:

Pats 11-5
Fins 11-5
Jets 10-6
Colts 6-10 (ah hah!)

2002:

Jets/Fins/Pats 9-7
Bills 8-8

2004:

Pats 14-2
Jets 10-6
Bills 9-7

2008:

Fins 11-5
Pats 11-5
Jets 9-7

Colts:

2009:

Colts 14-2
Texans 9-7
Titans 8-8

2006:

Colts 12-4
Jags 8-8
Titans 8-8

2004:

Colts 12-4
Jags 9-7
Texans 7-9

You are going to have to get your information together otherwise everything you write is going to get trashed. Have a nice day.

 

[JJDChE]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

Of course it is an accumulated number, and it can also be looked at as an average which I did, which gives more insight into the current status of these stats then just a simple total.

Obviously past success is no promise of future performance.

Obviously saying a guy has 2 and another guy has 3 w/o discussing the ages, years in, and projected future is just a tad misleading...

I figured people are smart enough to make that conclusion themselves. As far as Brady and Manning. They are 1 year apart. So the numbers aren't going to change dramatically for them.

Frankly the other guys don't even matter in this conversation. It was a rebuttal to your assertion that Manning's FATAL FLAW is his propensity to throw INTs. Yet he's been at the top of league just as many times as Brady.

Brady is better at avoiding INTs, but it's incorrect to call it Manning's 'fatal flaw'. Especially considering the type of passing attack Manning is in, which is more vertical than the Patriots offense. Manning throws about 4% more balls greater than 10 yds than Brady. Brady has a much higher propensity of throwing INTs over 10 yds than Manning (since '07, 92% for Brady, 75% for Manning). If you normalized the two, it may wash out their difference in INT%. I haven't done the numbers, but it would be interesting to see the difference it makes.

 

[bagwell368]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

As far as Brady and Manning. They are 1 year apart. So the numbers aren't going to change dramatically for them.

Well, the calendar is pretty close, but what about years/games played in college and the pros and wear and tear, I'd say that factors in for more peak years for TB left, while Mannings neck, age, wear and tear, and the lesser team will add up to TB doing more and better. But of course it's just speculation.

Surely you are correct about some things like the 9-10 post season record vs. the 14-5, Manning will never outstrip that.

Frankly the other guys don't even matter in this conversation. It was a rebuttal to your assertion that Manning's FATAL FLAW is his propensity to throw INTs. Yet he's been at the top of league just as many times as Brady.

Quantity vs percentage yet again.

Brady in 9 full years placed in the top 10 with these rankings:

8, 5, 8, 3, 8, 1 - 2nd active and 3rd all time
2, 4, 7, 4, 9, 9 - 16th active and 25th all time

It look Manning 13 years to have the same count of top 10's, and his average rank when in the top 10 is lower then Brady's never mind when he wasn't. 3 years for Brady out of the top 10, 7 for Manning

but it's incorrect to call it Manning's 'fatal flaw'. Especially considering the type of passing attack Manning is in, which is more vertical than the Patriots offense. Manning throws about 4% more balls greater than 10 yds than Brady. Brady has a much higher propensity of throwing INTs over 10 yds than Manning (since '07, 92% for Brady, 75% for Manning). If you normalized the two, it may wash out their difference in INT%. I haven't done the numbers, but it would be interesting to see the difference it makes.

Reach. Manning has many great traits, when we find one that isn't, we can't just excuse it away. Facts are facts. If he threw shorts and less picks, then he'd have less TD's, less yards, and less MVP votes. Cannot have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Keyser Söze]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

You guys kill me. Brady's PO numbers have been dropping like a stone for years while Manning's have been rising. For being the GOAT Brady sure hasn't done much in the postseason lately.

Brady had the better year in 2010. Manning was better in 2009. Brady was better in 2007, Manning was better in 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 and 2001.

What's more is Manning's 2004 was better than Brady's 2007. Manning sat basically two games that year while Brady was frantically trying to break the record in every game. Manning could have easily tacked on another 5 TDs that year. Brady threw basically 2 more games worth of passes to come up with one more TD. Manning's rating was better than Brady's too.

Also, I love the double standard. "Brady is better because he has 3 rings". Yet you gloss over the fact that he had a HOF head coach and one of the best if not the best D in the league when he was winning those titles.

In 2007 Brady also had Moss, one of the greatest receivers ever. Moss made Dante Culpepper look great.

Then you all talk about how if the Colts didn't have Manning they'd be lucky to win 8 games. Well.....the Pats lost Brady and won 11 games with a guy who hadn't started since HS. But the point is Brady has 3 rings because he played on a great team with a great coach. He didn't win those SB's by himself.

And what is this talk about these amazing defenses the Pats are playing against? Who? The Bills? The Dolphins? Are you kidding me? And the Jets were mediocre at best until recently.

So who are these great defenses that Brady is facing that Manning isn't? The AFC East until the rise of the Jets was one of the worst divisions in football, the Pats were the only good team in the division for years.

And he goes in hiding once again after looking like an ass.

 

[ausbacker]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

And he goes in hiding once again after looking like an ass.

I find it amusing that Colts fans start talking down Brady's accomplishments the moment he is surrounded with offensive firepower yet Manning's had scrubs around him his entire NFL career and made them superstars.

Evidently, that's non-biased commentary.

 

[Off The Grid]

Re: FINALLY someone national brings up playing conditions regarding Brady and Manning

His opening post:

Honestly, who gives a crap?

Arguing which one is better is a waste of time.

Dche, Ladies and Gentlemen!!