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

[Fball]

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

Brady has a higher winning percentage by a large margin, and I posted last year something like if Manning won his next 75 games and lost 0, Brady would still have a better pct. or if Brady lost his last 36 games and won 0, etc.

So, let's stop comparing the team success by the argument that the Patriots/Brady have been only slightly more successful than the Colts/Manning; Brady's ability to win games trumps any quarterback in NFL history, and the burden would be on Manning's defenders to predict that Manning would have a better win % than Brady playing with the Pats. Seeing their general skill sets, I think the argument could be that Manning is Brady's equal, and that is a stretch, but there's no way you could make a rational argument beyond that. Brady is the bar.

Manning has always been asked to do more, though. He's practically the OC on that team. And it's pretty much universally agreed upon that the Colts are sub-.500 without him, while the Pats went 11-5 without Brady.

BB is a genius; it's hard for me to imagine that he wouldn't have had a few titles by now, with or without Brady.

 

[BradyFTW!]

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

History does remember volume stats. I never said that was the only thing it remembers. It's a spectrum. It's a gray area. Just like the Manning/Brady debate.

Someone mentioned Gale Sayers earlier. He's a great example. He's always talked about among the best ever, but he's also always ultimately discounted because of his short career. How many lists include him in the top 3 or 5 all-time? Yet, there's a strong contingent who say he's the best who's ever played. When you even out everything, longevity is a deciding when great players are talked about.


Oh, and he's absolutely right about the stats. He (and many others) are just wrong in the amount of weight they put on 'weather'. It's an argument that's being built up by Pat's homers for years and at this point the 'weather' contingent is so convinced that it's the smoking gun, it's a waste of time arguing it. It's a great example of groupthink.

NFL fans at large recognize there is a difference in playing conditions between the two, but they put a more reasonable value on it. It's just one among many factors comparing the two players.

To point out that Brady is a better QB in perfect conditions, in domes, in rain, in snow, at night, and in the daytime has nothing to do with groupthink. It has everything to do with a common-sense evolution of how the game is understood. Much like MLB pitchers' stats are understood in the context of AL vs. NL, the stats of NFL QBs, in particular, must be understood in the context of conditions and opponents.

Of course, by the time their careers are over, Brady's volume stats will likely be in the all-time top 5 as well, so this entire debate will be completely moot. Manning will be remembered much like Brett Favre is today: a guy who played for a long time, amassed a lot of stats, won one Super Bowl, and ultimately caused his teams to lose in the playoffs more often than he caused them to win. He'll go to the Hall of Fame, but intelligent football historians will recognize Brady as the better player. In fact, they already do. Whether Jimbob down the street agrees with them really doesn't matter to me.

 

[BradyFTW!]

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

Manning has always been asked to do more, though. He's practically the OC on that team. And it's pretty much universally agreed upon that the Colts are sub-.500 without him, while the Pats went 11-5 without Brady.

BB is a genius; it's hard for me to imagine that he wouldn't have had a few titles by now, with or without Brady.

The Pats won 5 less games against a historically easy schedule without Brady than they won the previous season against a difficult schedule with him. The Patriots go 14-2, at least, with Brady in 2008. Given how easy the schedule was, 16-0 again would have been a distinct possibility (it would have required a ton of luck, obviously, just as it did in 2007)

As for how the Colts can do without Manning, it looks like we'll be finding out soon enough. I do like that the Manning apologists are reduced to arguing "but he's surrounded by complete garbage!" to defend their QB. Are you sure you're Colts fans? The Colts no longer have elite talent around Manning, which you've seen reflected in their record, but there's still quite a bit of talent on that team. If they're screwed, it's because they waited until 2 weeks before the start of the season to bring in a competent backup, whereas the Patriots spent years cultivating one then refused to panic-sign Chris Simms when Brady went down.

 

[Snake Eyes]

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

Manning has always been asked to do more, though. He's practically the OC on that team. And it's pretty much universally agreed upon that the Colts are sub-.500 without him, while the Pats went 11-5 without Brady.

BB is a genius; it's hard for me to imagine that he wouldn't have had a few titles by now, with or without Brady.

1 - Manning might be asked to do more but he's also had a lot more. TFB never got grade A receivers until 2007 and when he finally did he went on a tear. Peyton lovers always cite the Patriot defenses of the Superbowl years, which is legitimate, BUT if Manning were in Brady's shoes he would have had much lower caliber guys to throw to, which would have resulted in his stats being less Manning-like. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

2 -The Pats went 11-5 against mostly weak teams, that's a big stop down from 16-0 that TFB led them to with a much tougher schedule. Also, did you ever stop to consider that Matt Cassel is actually a pretty good QB?

 

[Fball]

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

The Pats won 5 less games against a historically easy schedule without Brady than they won the previous season against a difficult schedule with him. The Patriots go 14-2, at least, with Brady in 2008. Given how easy the schedule was, 16-0 again would have been a distinct possibility (it would have required a ton of luck, obviously, just as it did in 2007)

As for how the Colts can do without Manning, it looks like we'll be finding out soon enough. I do like that the Manning apologists are reduced to arguing "but he's surrounded by complete garbage!" to defend their QB. Are you sure you're Colts fans? The Colts no longer have elite talent around Manning, which you've seen reflected in their record, but there's still quite a bit of talent on that team. If they're screwed, it's because they waited until 2 weeks before the start of the season to bring in a competent backup, whereas the Patriots spent years cultivating one then refused to panic-sign Chris Simms when Brady went down.

Not really apologizing for anyone - just saying how wins/losses can be a misleading stat. Everyone heaps praise on BB for the way he builds contenders, amassing draft picks & getting amazing trades for excellent talent, as well as for the way he prepares his teams & coaches them in the playoffs. And that praise is well-deserved; he will surely go down as one of the best coaches in history.

But, when it comes to the Brady/Manning comparison, it sounds more like Brady willed those teams to wins on his own.

 

[PatsWSB47]

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

Manning has always been asked to do more, though. He's practically the OC on that team. And it's pretty much universally agreed upon that the Colts are sub-.500 without him, while the Pats went 11-5 without Brady.

BB is a genius; it's hard for me to imagine that he wouldn't have had a few titles by now, with or without Brady.

The Pats went from 16-0 with Brady to 11-5 without Brady with essentially the same team the very following year (with a much easier schedule). Manning was 10-6 last year....Even if he were 13-3 and the Colts Had a 5 game drop off without Manning they are a 500 team. You simply cannot make the case that because the Pats were 11-5 without Brady makes him less of a quarterback.

Note. Brady technically got the first win in that 11-5 season.

Edit. Hey Snake Eyes, weird we had the same observation at roughly the same time. didn't mean to steal your thunder ;-)

 

[BradyFTW!]

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

Not really apologizing for anyone - just saying how wins/losses can be a misleading stat. Everyone heaps praise on BB for the way he builds contenders, amassing draft picks & getting amazing trades for excellent talent, as well as for the way he prepares his teams & coaches them in the playoffs. And that praise is well-deserved; he will surely go down as one of the best coaches in history.

But, when it comes to the Brady/Manning comparison, it sounds more like Brady willed those teams to wins on his own.

I don't think anyone will teams to wins on their own. Over the last 10 years or so, Polian has received just as many accolades and just as much praise for his roster-building prowess as Belichick has. What will truly shape their legacies, IMO, is that Belichick is setting the Patriots up for sustained success post-Brady, whereas Polian will probably leave either before or at the same time as Manning does, because he has done literally nothing to promote post-Manning success.

Belichick and Polian have both given their quarterbacks a lot to work with, and the quarterbacks have duly responded by winning a ton of football games with the teams around them. Granted, the Pats win more (and more important) games, but the general point is there in both cases.

Anyone who wants to argue that Peyton has had to do it all himself is just ignoring the facts. As much as I effin hate Bill Polian, he's one of the best roster architects in recent NFL history, even acknowledging his awful drafting the past couple of years.

 

[Snake Eyes]

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

The Pats went from 16-0 with Brady to 11-5 without Brady with essentially the same team the very following year (with a much easier schedule). Manning was 10-6 last year....Even if he were 13-3 and the Colts Had a 5 game drop off without Manning they are a 500 team. You simply cannot make the case that because the Pats were 11-5 without Brady makes him less of a quarterback.

Note. Brady technically got the first win in that 11-5 season.

Edit. Hey Snake Eyes, weird we had the same observation at roughly the same time. didn't mean to steal your thunder ;-)

No worries my friend, great minds...

 

[ctpatsfan77]

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

useful link for you:

Sample size determination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are discussing the totality of their games played, because in a 10+ year career, even a home-dome QB has a sufficient body of work to evaluate in a outdoor bad weather environment, and an outdoor/cold weather- based QB has a sufficient body of work to evaluate in an indoor environment.

When n=1 what you have is an anecdote, not data

 

[RodThePat]

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

Manning has always been asked to do more, though. He's practically the OC on that team. And it's pretty much universally agreed upon that the Colts are sub-.500 without him, while the Pats went 11-5 without Brady.

BB is a genius; it's hard for me to imagine that he wouldn't have had a few titles by now, with or without Brady.

The Pats went 11-5 coming off a 16-0 season. That team was absolutely loaded and they played the most pathetic schedule in the league (yeah, they got the AFC and NFC west teams that season). Oh, they also had a top 15 QB under center.

If Manning goes down in those same exact conditions, I'd be surprised if the Colts don't end up with a similar record.

It's "universally agreed upon" that the Colts are a sub .500 team without Manning because their backup QB situation is the worst in the league. A lot of things had to go right for the 2008 Patriots to win 11 games, and it all came together. That team was a SERIOUS threat to go undefeated again with Brady under center. Go look up that schedule. It was ridiculously easy, and yet, they lost pretty much every game against a quality opponent. The "but they went 11-5 without Brady" argument is so pathetic and half-assed it hurts my brain.

 

[Deus Irae]

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

Not really apologizing for anyone - just saying how wins/losses can be a misleading stat.

Every stat can be misleading.

Everyone heaps praise on BB for the way he builds contenders, amassing draft picks & getting amazing trades for excellent talent, as well as for the way he prepares his teams & coaches them in the playoffs. And that praise is well-deserved; he will surely go down as one of the best coaches in history.

Everyone heaps praise on Polian for the way he builds contenders, gets successful coaches like Dungy (successful in multiple cities), builds offenses around top round picks and racks up great win totals. And that praise is well deserved, as he's done it at multiple locations.

But, when it comes to the Brady/Manning comparison, it sounds more like Brady willed those teams to wins on his own.

But when it comes to the Brady/Manning comparison, it sounds more like Manning willed those teams to wins on his own.

 

[strngplyr]

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

Manning has always been asked to do more, though. He's practically the OC on that team. And it's pretty much universally agreed upon that the Colts are sub-.500 without him, while the Pats went 11-5 without Brady.

BB is a genius; it's hard for me to imagine that he wouldn't have had a few titles by now, with or without Brady.

Cassel argument is ******ed

NE won 5 less games after going from a schedule facing the NFCE and AFCN to facing the AFCW and NFCW.

You are going to tell me that you think Cassel would have gone 11-5 during the 2007 season's schedule? 8-8, maybe 7-9 if he had to play the games Brady did. NE also missed the playoffs a year after playing in the Super Bowl.

I don't understand how 11-5 is considered good, considering the team won 16 games a year prior and faced two of the weakest divisions in the NFL.


Edit: I look like a broken record but i didn't bother reading the thread after seeing this post.

 

[Deus Irae]

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

Manning has always been asked to do more, though. He's practically the OC on that team. And it's pretty much universally agreed upon that the Colts are sub-.500 without him, while the Pats went 11-5 without Brady.

BB is a genius; it's hard for me to imagine that he wouldn't have had a few titles by now, with or without Brady.

This is a myth. First, Brady is also called upon to change the calls if he thinks it's needed, the same as Manning and a lot of other veteran QBs. Second, the Patriots run a much more sophisticated offense than the Colts do. The Colts system is based upon simple route trees and timing patterns. The Patriots system is based upon complex patterns and both pre and post snap adjustments by both the QB and the receivers.

 

[BradysBunch12]

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

Manning is about to have two Favre like milestones in his first or second game of the season (if he plays this season)...400 TD and 200 INT. 2/1 TD INT ratio you say not bad right? Well Brady is at nearly 2.5 to 1...at 261 and 103. If you extrapolated Brady's stats...and took his career averages (28 TD, 11 INT a season)...and added 4 years to his career (the 3 years Manning played before Brady was a starter, and 2008 when he was out for the year) his bulk stats would be 373 and 145...looks quite similar to Manning's TDs, and about 55 less costly throws.

The person who said Manning is this generations Favre is right. And I bet he won't go away like Favre didn't either. He'll break all the records (including the INT record), and have one SB win to show for it.

When Brady's career is over, he'll be in the top 5 in bulk stats and at least have 3 SBs to his name, most likely at least 1 more with the way he's been playing the past couple seasons and the team he has around him.

Btw, no one's saying Brady wins all on his own. No QB does. But this whole "Manning IS the team" bs gets old...especially when he gets no blame from Colts fans when he loses or throws a game clinching pick 6 in the most important game of his life.

 

[BradyFTW!]

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

Cassel argument is ******ed

NE won 5 less games after going from a schedule facing the NFCE and AFCN to facing the AFCW and NFCW.

You are going to tell me that you think Cassel would have gone 11-5 during the 2007 season's schedule? 8-8, maybe 7-9 if he had to play the games Brady did. NE also missed the playoffs a year after playing in the Super Bowl.

I don't understand how 11-5 is considered good, considering the team won 16 games a year prior and faced two of the weakest divisions in the NFL.


Edit: I look like a broken record but i didn't bother reading the thread after seeing this post.

Not to mention that Cassel has since proven to be a highly capable quarterback in his own right (27 TD, 7 INT, 3116 yards and a 93.0 rating last year in KC). If the Colts had bothered to groom a backup quarterback at any point over the past 5 years, they might be able to weather the loss of Manning in similar fashion.

 

[JJDChE]

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

Close the gap? Please. Their age difference really isn't all that great, so Brady's extra seasons will be played as an older man rather than the younger man Peyton was when he played his extra seasons. Besides, Brady could throw 40 TDs to 5 INTs for the next five seasons and you'd still say Manning is better. You call all of us homers, but it's pretty clear that you're a hater.

I don't think Manning is better. Try reading the thread.

You already tried with the volume stats and got shot down.

Got shot down by people who have an invested interest in volume stats not making a difference.

Kinda like being shot down that 'pro-choice' is right by a bunch of 'pro-lifers'.

Please post one of them (or more than one) and I'm sure it would give us something to discuss. You've yet to post any stats so far, so this would be a great starting point for conversation, rather than us presenting facts and stats only to have you call us "homers" while offering no real argument in return.

I think the real problem here is that you bought into the stereotype that Pats fans are dumb or whatever you guys think out there in Indy. You came in here unprepared to make a fact-based argument, and got justifiably blown out of the water.

Stats:

Manning: 11 ProBowls-6 All Pros-4 MVPs
Brady: 6 ProBowls-2 All-Pros-2 MVPs

These aren't my opinions. They are the opinions of the football watching public and media. My opinion is that I'd rather have Brady, but I'd be a moron to think that the general populace thinks the same way as me when the evidence is contrary.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

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

I don't think Manning is better. Try reading the thread.



Got shot down by people who have an invested interest in volume stats not making a difference.

Kinda like being shot down that 'pro-choice' is right by a bunch of 'pro-lifers'.





Stats:

Manning: 11 ProBowls-6 All Pros-4 MVPs
Brady: 6 ProBowls-2 All-Pros-2 MVPs

These aren't my opinions. They are the opinions of the football watching public and media. My opinion is that I'd rather have Brady, but I'd be a moron to think that the general populace thinks the same way as me when the evidence is contrary.

Yep, Manning won more popularity contests.

 

[JJDChE]

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

High level? Not to nit pick, but 1998 his rookie year wasn't any great shakes, he wasn't in the top 10 in QB Rating, probably not the top 20. Brady has been in the top 10 every year he's played when he had more then 11 attempts.

Wasn't he ORoY? NFL Rookie Records for attemtps, completions, yds, TDs (and INTs). Pretty good for a rookie QB on a crap team.

BTW, have you dealt with the argument that Manning has been paid far more then Brady for less tangible accomplishment?

How is this relevant? $/TD? Seriously? I'm sure that will be engraved on Brady's HoF bust.

We don't know when Manning's decline will get steep, but recent evidence, ages, and number of years played (pro and college and wear and tear associated with that), and current team quality (much harder to bear for Manning it seems) all seem to show a better performance on tap for Brady v Manning is in store. Time will tell.

Yup.

Cherry pick what? I asked you to choose the manner in which you want to compare Manning and Brady to do away will this specious counting stat argument you are making. Do try and read what you are responding too, it doesn't make you look very informed when you do not.

What stats, what people, point them out. Have you read the SI piece that was listed here also? If so, would you please discuss each and every point that you do not agree with - in detail. Let's roll up those sleeves.

The national accolades are plenty to prove my point, which is just that there's not a clear cut argument for one of the other. Saying Brady is 'obviously better' than Manning, or vice versa, is ridiculous.

 

[JJDChE]

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

Yep, Manning won more popularity contests.

Call it what you want. That's what shapes a player's legacy.

You don't think the HoF is a popularity contest? Look who votes for the HoF, then compare it to who votes for those other 'popularity contests'.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

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

Call it what you want. That's what shapes a player's legacy.

You don't think the HoF is a popularity contest? Look who votes for the HoF, then compare it to who votes for those other 'popularity contests'.

Brandon Merriweather has gone to multiple pro bowls.