I don't know. I think Brady is better, but I think anyone who thinks Manning is better can made a really valid argument why. Manning is the Colts. They build their team around the guy. Without him, the Colts would be 6-8 win team many of the years they had 12 or more wins. Manning is going to hold every major QB record by the time he retires barring injury and unlike Favre he won't even come close to the INT record or have to play into his 40s to break them. I don't think it is a swipe or stupid media biases to say Manning is better.
I look at these guys as neck and neck in terms of quality. It is not an insult to claim that Manning is better.
Unfortunately fantasy sports have created this type of flawed thinking.
Statistics especially the compiling of statistics are as much about situation as ability. There is just so much wrong with this.
First, Manning is compiling because of a home field dome.
Brady has better career numbers both indoors and outdoors than Manning, but has the high majority of his games outdoors while Manning has the indoor advantage in more than half of his games.
You say "Manning is the Colts" Really? If he IS the Colts then why have they spent almost all of their high draft picks on his supporting cast? Running back? The drafted James in the top 5. When he left he was replaced with a #1 (Addai) who was SUPPLEMENTED with another #1 (Brown). WRs? Harrison was a #1 who was then joined by Wayne, a #1 who was then joined by Gonzalez, a #1. On top of that they used another #1 on Clark, a WR disguised as a TE. They also used a #1 on Tarik Glenn at LT, and when he retired, they traded a #1 to pick Ugoh.
The Patriots have used a #1 on Maroney, a #1 on a G (Mankins) and 2 TEs who were far from receiving only TEs. It cold be argued easily that every #1 pick on offense the Patriot have made in the Brady era has been to diminish the necessity to pass the football and help the running game, or at least the balance of the offense.
This idea of what the Colts would be without Manning is ridiculous. It is a made up concept treated as a fact in order to try to argue in Mannings favor. No one has any idea what the Colts would be without Manning. Some use the fact that the Patriots went from 16-0 to 11-5 with Cassel as a slight of Brady. 5 wins seems like a pretty big impact to me. Most of the 'what would the Colts be without Manning' bs started because they had a non-descript backup who never played. Perhaps the Colts would win 6 games with Jim Sorgi, but how many do you think the Patriots would win with him? Putting an average QB in the offense that Manning has had would make that average QB a pro-bowl QB. Especially if he had 12 years in it with the same coordinator. People act like if the Colts didnt have Manning they would have to use Spurgeon Wynn as their QB.
Especially when you factor in the length of time in the same system, no QB in NFL has been given more tools to succeed with than Peyton Manning. He walked into a 2nd year HOF WR, and a HOF RB who was traded so a top 5 RB could be picked, and has seen more high picks used on weapons for him tha any QB in NFL history.
If you could pick an random QB and pick a point for his 12+ year career to begin in order to give him the best opportunity to succeed and compile numbers, you would hand him Peyton Mannings shoes.
Additionally, many people like to cite the defense he has had to 'cover for'. Well, as the draft pick detail shows above, it is a consequence of the advantages he has received. However, since compiling statistics is the basis for the arument in Mannings favor, he actually benefits by having a bad defense, because it makes him keep compiling more stats while a QB winning with a better D is handing off in the 4th quarter.
None of this even begins to address the most important point, that the reason you play is to win, and the reason you win is to win Championships. Manning is 9-9, thoroughly average in the playoffs. MANY of those losses were a result of him not playing up to his regular season level in the games they were eliminated in. How do you praise him and say he IS the Colts, and not acknowledege that when the Colts handed their fate in a SB directly to him, he responded with a pick 6?
The only Championship the Colts have won came when Manning was marginalized for most of the playoffs, and posted the worst post season QB rating of any SB winning QB. How can Manning BE the Colts, and bethe best, if the only way the Colts can win a Championship is to overcome the worst QB play to ever win a Championship?
No Rob, they are not neck and neck, you cannot make a
really valid argument that Manning is better. You can only make one that requires using compiled stats and ignoring conditions, and that uses rhetoric as fact (couldnt win without him, defense was bad, and now the ever popular lack of supporting cast fallacy) in order to make a case, which upon examination fails on many levels.
Yes, it is insulting to claim Manning is a better QB than Brady.
