Brady vs Rodgers vs Manning

[lurker1965]

Who mentioned Brady throwing people under-the bus? ...

I may be wrong, but the group was Brady and Manning when mentioning throwing people under the bus Yes, FDR and Ghandi drove the British out of India.

why isnt Brees in this discussion? lol Beats Manning and Rogers on most stats. Just saying, and same SB count.
...

Good point.

If QB success/greatness were measured by Championships, then you'd have to conclude that Trent Dilfer was a better QB than the likes of Dan Marino, Jim Kelley, Warren Moon, and Dan Fouts. Also, that he would be on par with guys like Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Brett Favre. Something seems kind of off kilter about that assessment

Actually, Trent Dilfer was better in one respect. He knew his limits. When Ray Lewis was known as the REASON that team had success, he got out of the way. I can't see Marino sublimating his ego to be "carried" to a SB win. (I can't speak about Kelley, Moon, or Fouts.)

I'm probably going to get "smacked" now ... :rocker: lol, but here goes ...

I'm not a Manning fan, however, in the comparison of the above mentioned, I would say Manning above Brady above Rodgers ...;

I've always thought Brady "owes" alot of his succes to Belichick, mostly evident by the season Brady got injured, Cassel was still able to lead the Patriots to an 11-5 record (but look at Cassel now ... ) I'm not saying Brady isn't a great QB, because he is, just that without Belichick, he probably wouldn't be in consideration for GoaT ...

Rodgers; (being a Packer fan I may be considered biased ...) But Rodgers isn't anywhere near the level of Brady, let alone Manning (yet). IF Rodgers can continue his performance on a level ón paar with the 2011 season, for several more years, then he might be considered, but so far Rodgers has had the benefit of having (probably) the most talented and deepest (talentwise) receiver core, up till now in the NFL ... Even Flynn was able to break a single game record of 5-6 Tds in a game ...

Rodgers is an extremely gifted QB, and We have been very lucky, in having QBs in succession with such talents, but lets wait to compare Rodgers to Brady and Manning just yet, because I doubt Rodgers would have had the same success elsewhere, which I also believe about Brady ..., but unlike Brady, "Mc'Lardy" isn't ón BBs level, however, the Packers receivers and TEs make Rodgers look better than he is ...

Manning has been able to lead his teams in both Indy and now also in Denver, despite not having as much succes in the post season, I would still give Manning the edge above Brady, mostly because Manning in spite of having different coaches, was still able to lead his teams ...

Just a few thoughts from Denmark ... ;-)

First off, I don't blame you for being a Manning apologist. You are from Denmark and 98% of NFL news drills the cult of Peyton into you. It is still wrong.
To counter your assertion: "Cassel was 11-5, so Brady is not that important." Mostly the same team and Brady was 16-0. Against the NFC East and AFC North while Cassel had the AFC and NFC West.

 

[Demosthenes]

Moved goalposts.
GOAT is debatable
I'm talking Brady vs Rogers vs Manning. You know, the thread topic before moving the goalposts because you lost that debate.
It isn't close.
I listed the criteria previously.
You don't need to wade thru tones of blathering verbiage to find it either.

More a difference of opinion than moving the goalposts. When comparing Brady, Rodgers and Manning, I'd say that you pretty much are talking about the GOAT.

Yes, you did list your "criteria" along with some nebulous rankings. From your post:

Let's get analytical.
3 factors: (1) QB stats, (2) post season play (3) Quality of WR supporting cast
+, 0, -

Note that a - for (3) is the opposite indicating a less than stellar supporting cast

Brady: (1) +.......(2) +......(3) - (except 2007...)

Rogers: (1) +.......(2) 0......(3) +

Manning: (1) +.......(2) - ......(3) +

Long story short, there's still a lot of subjectivity here, from the simplified weighting of the stats, the evaluation of playoff performance, and definitely with determining the quality of the surrounding cast.

BTW, let me clarify something here. I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion or saying that you are wrong. In many ways, I too think Brady is the best ever. BUT, I realize that this is a subjective opinion. Strong and valid arguments can be made to support Peyton's case, or that of Rodgers (to a lesser extent at this point).

Also, I'll go ahead and admit to heresy in saying that I'm not sure that Joe Montana would be in my top 5. I think he definitely benefited from piloting a revolutionary offense that defenses hadn't figured out yet, and he benefited from it. IF he were starting out today, I don't think he would be nearly as successful.

 

[Deus Irae]

Strong and valid arguments can be made to support Peyton's case

That is simply not true, and the lack of such arguments on this thread is a perfect demonstration of that fact.

 

[Demosthenes]

That is simply not true, and the lack of such arguments on this thread is a perfect demonstration of that fact.

Absence of strong and valid arguments for Peyton in this thread is not evidence that it isn't true. I've read enough of your posts here to know that you are more than intelligent enough to know this.

 

[Deus Irae]

Absence of strong and valid arguments for Peyton in this thread is not evidence that it isn't true. I've read enough of your posts here to know that you are more than intelligent enough to know this.

The word "demonstration" is not the same as the word "evidence", and I'm sure you're intelligent enough to know that, so your response is really just you trying to knock down a straw man.

The reality here is that someone came up with some inane/troll arguments, and you decided to back them without bothering to add any viable supporting arguments to his side. We've done the Brady/Manning stuff here time and time again, so we know the arguments. We also know when someone is making a serious argument, and when they are just trolling or clueless.

 

[Archeryaddict12]

Absence of strong and valid arguments for Peyton in this thread is not evidence that it isn't true. I've read enough of your posts here to know that you are more than intelligent enough to know this.

Everything you point to say manning is better isn't better than Brady. Only things manning has on Brady is his rookie stats.

I can't believe this isn't over yet. Tom still produces the talent that he has had. He still has a great arm, accurate, can read defenses, drags his team deep into the playoffs and he is a great leader. Manning is good, but he is nowhere near the conversation of the best of these guys OR GOAT.

 

[Demosthenes]

The word "demonstration" is not the same as the word "evidence", and I'm sure you're intelligent enough to know that, so your response is really just you trying to knock down a straw man.

The reality here is that someone came up with some inane/troll arguments, and you decided to back them without bothering to add any viable supporting arguments to his side. We've done the Brady/Manning stuff here time and time again, so we know the arguments. We also know when someone is making a serious argument, and when they are just trolling or clueless.

Actually Deus, what I did was took issue with the accusation some made that arguments in favor of Peyton were inane/troll arguments.

I also took issue with the notion that there is an objective answer to this question, pointing out that it is subjective in that it's a matter of opinion. That there isn't a concrete formula that you can use to make the determination.

 

[Deus Irae]

Actually Deus, what I did was took issue with the accusation some made that arguments in favor of Peyton were inane/troll arguments.

I made that claim. I stand by it. You supported the opposite position, yet offered no viable supporting evidence. How is my above post about what happened incorrect in any way?

I also took issue with the notion that there is an objective answer to this question, pointing out that it is subjective in that it's a matter of opinion. That there isn't a concrete formula that you can use to make the determination.

Some "subjective" opinions are so clear as to be essentially objective fact. For example, you may consider the writings of your 4 year old child to be superior to the works of William Shakespeare, in your subjective opinion. Despite such a preference, the world will understand that the "objective" fact is that your position is incorrect, despite the fact that both positions are theoretically subjective.

That is where the Brady/Manning debate has gone. It's just not close enough for "subjective" to really have anything to do with it at this point. Brady is simply the better QB.

 

[dannydyn]

Just wondering where do you live/work? Location can skew results.

 

[Se7eN]

Saw the rebuttal made earlier that Cassell took over basically the same team that went 16-0 the year before and could only manage 10-5. True. But didn't Brady largely have the same team the next year after coming back and went 10-6 with them ?

You come back from an injury and see if you are 100%


Tried comparing Peyton to Brady but got lost in Peyton's forehead

 

[Joker]

yeah..and one more thing...if you are bound and determined to insert the former Miami QB intoi any discussion...GET HIS NAME RIGHT!!!!

DONE NORINGO

 

[Demosthenes]

You come back from an injury and see if you are 100%


Tried comparing Peyton to Brady but got lost in Peyton's forehead

True, Brady was returning from an injury. But in Cassell's case, he was the #2, and it's not like he got a ton of reps in TC. He stepped in when Brady went down and went 10-5. Can't you see that this would lead many people to conclude that maybe, just maybe, it was the team, coaching staff, and/or system ? Most teams in the NFL don't go 10-5 with their starting QBs. When the #2 comes in and does it, it raises eyebrows.

Since the Cassell argument was made, it's been pointed out that the Pats had an easier non divisional schedule that year, and that upon Brady's return, the Pats faced the toughest schedule in the last 30 years wrt to passing defense. That definitely casts things in a different light.

 

[Shed83]

Also, I'll go ahead and admit to heresy in saying that I'm not sure that Joe Montana would be in my top 5. I think he definitely benefited from piloting a revolutionary offense that defenses hadn't figured out yet, and he benefited from it. IF he were starting out today, I don't think he would be nearly as successful.

Wow thats a pretty subjective post there.

 

[Shed83]

Some "subjective" opinions are so clear as to be essentially objective fact. For example, you may consider the writings of your 4 year old child to be superior to the works of William Shakespeare, in your subjective opinion. Despite such a preference, the world will understand that the "objective" fact is that your position is incorrect, despite the fact that both positions are theoretically subjective.

That is where the Brady/Manning debate has gone. It's just not close enough for "subjective" to really have anything to do with it at this point. Brady is simply the better QB.

Ding Ding we have a winner.

If you dont mind im going to steal that illustration when having these discussions with friends.

It really isnt even close anymore between Brady and Manning.

 

[chasa]

Ding Ding we have a winner.

If you dont mind im going to steal that illustration when having these discussions with friends.

It really isnt even close anymore between Brady and Manning.

but but but, manning makes more money, and has more commericials.

 

[Demosthenes]

Wow thats a pretty subjective post there.

Yeah, it sure is. Think people might have taken my position the wrong way. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with being subjective. It's an opinion that could be right or wrong.

It's the same with "Greatest of All Time" rankings, or "Top 10 Lists". If you poll 100 rational, intelligent and knowledgeable people, you are going to get a variety of results.

 

[Sivy]

Brady's better than Manning and Rodgers? Yea, and Grizzly Adams had a beard....

 

[Joker]

Bin Laden had a right eye once too...and then...Seal Team 6

moral?..walk softly and carry a big bag of fresh smelts....them seals are ornery critters...

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Yeah, it sure is. Think people might have taken my position the wrong way. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with being subjective. It's an opinion that could be right or wrong.

It's the same with "Greatest of All Time" rankings, or "Top 10 Lists". If you poll 100 rational, intelligent and knowledgeable people, you are going to get a variety of results.

Subjective opinions that are deaf to facts are useless. Stop wasting our time.

 

[captain stone]

Rodgers >>>>>>>Brady/Brees >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Goober.