Manning is more skilled than Brady? Please explain.

[Ring 6]

I care.

That's unsportsmanlike. What, did the Patriots feel like the Bills were capable of scoring 36 points in less than a quarter while holding the Pats to nothing when the Bills haven't been able to do much the previous three?

My point is that nobody does this, and that Brady's stats became inflated as a result. You're damn right if you think this bothers me. There was absolutely no need for it. You may as well shove somebody's face in a steaming pile of pig vomit...it would accomplish the same thing. The Patriots deserved to lose the Super Bowl that year for doing that alone. Karma.

So now we find out after 43 pages and hundreds of posts by you, the real reason.
Peyton Manning is better than Tom Brady because Tom Brady was mean to your team and hurt your feelings.
I guess losing 11 times in a row taints your objectivity huh?

 

[Ring 6]

That's the rationale from a homer's point of view. Everyone else sees a total lack of respect. Inflate everyone's stats, try to knock ****s in the dirt, and humiliate a team as much as you can.

Do you agree that the Bills had zero chance of winning the game at that point?

Show me where **** Jauron said it was humiliating, unsportsmanlike or running up the score?
What we have here is that you lack either the knowledge or intellect to understand that in that situation AMONG NFL PEOPLE it is more disrespectful to take the 3 points than to run the ball.
Belichick has CONISTENTLY ever since he has been here refused to rub salt in the wound with FGs when the game is decided. He will run on 4th and 15 from the 20 if thats the case. He punts from the 30 sometimes, as I believe he did against your team.
You just refused to listen. No one can make any point outside of your aluninum lined basement that you will listen to.
You should really retire from message boards, get outside and do something. Interact with people. You will find they are not all out to get you.
Arguments are supposed to evolve through discussion. Yours just reverts back to embracing ignorance.

 

[Ring 6]

Any other team in the history of the game would have kicked the field-goal. I'm still waiting for a legitimate example of another team doing something similar. I'm not talking about a lop-sided score; I'm talking about going for it on fourth down for a TD instead of settling for 4 less points when your team has 0% chance of losing the game.

I'll figure that I'm posting in the Twilight Zone if nobody is going to at least indicate that they understand what I'm talking about, whether they agree or not...at least I'll understand that I'm on the same planet. If you disagree, I'll feel right at home...on the planet Earth populated by homers.

Every single person in this thread comnpletely understand what you are saying and is telling you that kicking the FG is running up the score and running the ball is not. Show me some examples where teams kick a FG in that situation,
Everyone understands what you are saying and everyone sees it differently than you. Why? Because we were paying attention.

 

[MoneyFX]

What's funny is the same Pats homers saying Brady is better than Manning by ignoring stats and talking about rings and intangibles, are the same stats-obsessed fans loving all the offense-related Patriot stats over the past three years thinking Josh McDaniels is one of the best OC ever when he clearly isn't.

I agree that McDaniels SUCKS. He NEVER used any 2 TE formations to counter the Giants' pass rush in Super Bowl 42 which led to 5 Brady sacks, multiple incompletions, and only 14 POINTS.

 

[the taildragger]

I like this thread because I do think you have to isolate skill sets from stats and rings. Performance obviously counts, but we've already discussed how much better Brady is against better defenses with less talent around him to work with. Even performance is tough to differentiate or quantify because you have to factor in all kinds of variables (none of which include who has a better defense, unless Richard Seymour or Dwight Freeney are out there catching deep outs).

Manning's stats are largely the product of all the first round picks supporting him on offense.

It's also hard to separate rings from the overall team accomplishment. In the salary cap era, for better or worse, QBs are easily the most valuable players on their teams. That's really what separates the teams today, much moreso than management or even coaching. but the ring is still a team accomplishment. A great QB on a lousy team isn't going to win a ring in any era. Tom actually got the closest with the 2001 Pats. A team ranked by SI as 31st out of 31 teams before they started 0-2, lost their best player, and started a nobody at QB

I've always thought Tom had a better arm.

Even before he had downfield weapons, it still showed up in the intermediate passes. Tom's more effortless and smoother because his mechanics are flawless and he holds a lot in reserve. Bad weather QBs need reserves of arm strength. Peyton likes to gun the ball to his receivers by default, doesn't hold much back on the short and intermediate passes. A great pure passer has great touch and what makes Tom's arm so unique is the combination of touch and strength.

Tom objectively throws a better ball (i.e. tighter and more consistent spiral). Regardless of the conditions. Wind doesn't make his ball wobble.

Theisman once called it the "heaviest" ball in the game, which means it packs more of a punch when traveling at the same velocity of throws by other QBs.

Peyton looks constipated when he throws the ball. His footwork is not good and his mechanics are unique to him but I wouldn't teach a kid to copy him that's for sure.

Most players and pundits concede better field vision and pocket presence to Brady so I'll leave that alone. I would also add footwork and mechanics into the equation. Are those physical skills or intangibles or both? You could argue either way, but they're essential qualities.

...I'm not going to attach supporting documents here but I can't think of a single physical advantage that Manning has, and yet, as you say, the media tends to overwhelmingly concede the "skill" to Manning without really backing it up.

 

[Deus Irae]

One aspect of the Brady/Manning 'skillsets' question that I have avoided is the difference in the types of passes being made in the systems. Manning throws an enormous amount of timing routes, which is something the Patriots generally avoid. I don't personally consider the different types of passes to be different skillsets, but I wonder what others think, so I thought I'd mention it.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I agree that McDaniels SUCKS. He NEVER used any 2 TE formations to counter the Giants' pass rush in Super Bowl 42 which led to 5 Brady sacks, multiple incompletions, and only 14 POINTS.

See, this is what drives some of us nuts about guys like yourself...

From Mike Reiss post SB mailbag:

What an exciting but frustrating game to watch. Mike, part of the frustration was watching Brady getting hurried and sacked numerous times. It seemed like the coaching staff (which had been stellar in making adjustment in the regular season and playoffs) did not make ANY for the constant blitzing. What happened to the screen pass? It seemed like Brady was taking too much time in a game where the defensive line that was clearly overpowering the Pats O line. Thoughts?


A: The way I see it is that there are really two layers to making adjustments – one is diagnosing the problem and making the correct change, the other is the players being able to execute the change on the fly. The Patriots have been excellent at that all year, but they weren't in Super Bowl XLII. The coaching staff did adjust slightly in the second half, calling on more two-tight-end packages to aid in protection. The Patriots had five two-tight-end packages in the first half and 15 in the second half. Yet the adjustment didn't pay dividends, because the Giants still rushed through the overmatched protection. Whether this was the right adjustment, I can't say with authority. But I can say with certainty there was an adjustment, because the team's personnel usage changed in the second half.

 

[Ring 6]

One aspect of the Brady/Manning 'skillsets' question that I have avoided is the difference in the types of passes being made in the systems. Manning throws an enormous amount of timing routes, which is something the Patriots generally avoid. I don't personally consider the different types of passes to be different skillsets, but I wonder what others think, so I thought I'd mention it.

I think that type of throw can be part of a skillset (i.e Bledsoe or Testaverde struggling in a WCO) but in this debate I dont think its releveant because both would be capable of either style, IMO.

 

[Deus Irae]

See, this is what drives some of us nuts about guys like yourself...

From Mike Reiss post SB mailbag:

What an exciting but frustrating game to watch. Mike, part of the frustration was watching Brady getting hurried and sacked numerous times. It seemed like the coaching staff (which had been stellar in making adjustment in the regular season and playoffs) did not make ANY for the constant blitzing. What happened to the screen pass? It seemed like Brady was taking too much time in a game where the defensive line that was clearly overpowering the Pats O line. Thoughts?


A: The way I see it is that there are really two layers to making adjustments – one is diagnosing the problem and making the correct change, the other is the players being able to execute the change on the fly. The Patriots have been excellent at that all year, but they weren't in Super Bowl XLII. The coaching staff did adjust slightly in the second half, calling on more two-tight-end packages to aid in protection. The Patriots had five two-tight-end packages in the first half and 15 in the second half. Yet the adjustment didn't pay dividends, because the Giants still rushed through the overmatched protection. Whether this was the right adjustment, I can't say with authority. But I can say with certainty there was an adjustment, because the team's personnel usage changed in the second half.

Quit screwing with the template. The Patriots lost a game in 2007, therefore that team, and all involved with it (except Brady and Belichick) sucked ass. The offensive style was terrible, the coaches never made adjustments, and the defense had absolutely no talent whatsoever.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think that type of throw can be part of a skillset (i.e Bledsoe or Testaverde struggling in a WCO) but in this debate I dont think its releveant because both would be capable of either style, IMO.

So you would break down "accuracy" into "Accuracy on timing routes" and "Accuracy on general patterns", correct?

If the answer is 'yes', would it be fair to say that you'd give Manning the advantage on timing routes and Brady the advantage on general patterns?

 

[Ring 6]

See, this is what drives some of us nuts about guys like yourself...

From Mike Reiss post SB mailbag:

What an exciting but frustrating game to watch. Mike, part of the frustration was watching Brady getting hurried and sacked numerous times. It seemed like the coaching staff (which had been stellar in making adjustment in the regular season and playoffs) did not make ANY for the constant blitzing. What happened to the screen pass? It seemed like Brady was taking too much time in a game where the defensive line that was clearly overpowering the Pats O line. Thoughts?


A: The way I see it is that there are really two layers to making adjustments – one is diagnosing the problem and making the correct change, the other is the players being able to execute the change on the fly. The Patriots have been excellent at that all year, but they weren't in Super Bowl XLII. The coaching staff did adjust slightly in the second half, calling on more two-tight-end packages to aid in protection. The Patriots had five two-tight-end packages in the first half and 15 in the second half. Yet the adjustment didn't pay dividends, because the Giants still rushed through the overmatched protection. Whether this was the right adjustment, I can't say with authority. But I can say with certainty there was an adjustment, because the team's personnel usage changed in the second half.

It goes along with the 'we didn't throw any screens' when in reality we threw as many in that game as any, but when the novice thinks the screen pass stops the pass rush and sees pass rush, he must assume there were no screens.

 

[HSanders]

RE: "running up the score" and the Colts' innocence:
The first thing that popped into my mind was that horrendous game in week 9 of 2005 when the clearly overmatched Pats were dominated from minute one of that game by the Colts, yet at the 5:53 to go in the 4th Q, Colts up 19 pts, they go for a two point conversion.

NFL Game Center: Play-by-Play - Indianapolis Colts at New England Patriots - 2005 9

Dungy's reasoning postgame was that in 2003 the Colts came back from a huge deficit to win over TB.

 

[Ring 6]

So you would break down "accuracy" into "Accuracy on timing routes" and "Accuracy on general patterns", correct?

If the answer is 'yes', would it be fair to say that you'd give Manning the advantage on timing routes and Brady the advantage on general patterns?

I said earlier on accuracy, I think Brady is generally more accurate, but makes more 'way off' throws. Hard to determine if they are throw aways, but it seems he is more susceptible to the ball slipping out of his hand, or something like that.
As far as 2 categories of accuracy, I think regarding Brady and Manning, its more what they do often than what they do well. What I was trying to say is some QBs are not adaptable to different systems and routes, but there 2, I think, are. So I probably wouldn't separate because we'd be ranking what they do often vs what the do well. Since both are very good, often can be confused easily with well.
That may have not made sense, if so, respond with how it was confusing and I'll clarify.

 

[Deus Irae]

I said earlier on accuracy, I think Brady is generally more accurate, but makes more 'way off' throws. Hard to determine if they are throw aways, but it seems he is more susceptible to the ball slipping out of his hand, or something like that.
As far as 2 categories of accuracy, I think regarding Brady and Manning, its more what they do often than what they do well. What I was trying to say is some QBs are not adaptable to different systems and routes, but there 2, I think, are. So I probably wouldn't separate because we'd be ranking what they do often vs what the do well. Since both are very good, often can be confused easily with well.
That may have not made sense, if so, respond with how it was confusing and I'll clarify.

It seems to me that:

1.) You're saying that you'd consider them 2 subsets of the accuracy "skillset", so you wouldn't consider them separately in the "skillset" breakdown.

2.) The other part is that you think Brady is generally more accurate, but when he misses, he tends to miss 'big' more than Manning.

 

[Ring 6]

It seems to me that:

1.) You're saying that you'd consider them 2 subsets of the accuracy "skillset", so you wouldn't consider them separately in the "skillset" breakdown.

2.) The other part is that you think Brady is generally more accurate, but when he misses, he tends to miss 'big' more than Manning.

Yeah, sounds about right

 

[MoLewisrocks]

RE: "running up the score" and the Colts' innocence:
The first thing that popped into my mind was that horrendous game in week 9 of 2005 when the clearly overmatched Pats were dominated from minute one of that game by the Colts, yet at the 5:53 to go in the 4th Q, Colts up 19 pts, they go for a two point conversion.

NFL Game Center: Play-by-Play - Indianapolis Colts at New England Patriots - 2005 9

Dungy's reasoning postgame was that in 2003 the Colts came back from a huge deficit to win over TB.

There was also a stretch in 2004, a year the Colts led the league in offense and Manning threw for 49 TD's breaking Marino's record, where the Colts outscored 4 consecutive opponents by a 181-57 margin. Dungy when questioned about running up the score simply was confounded by the line of questioning and stated they were merely doing what they are consistently supposed to try to do on offense, make first downs... But then he probably said it with quiet strength...

 

[feldspar]

No, it's not a rationalization. It's a plain fact that the other team has a better chance of preventing points on the play. If you're the opposing coach would you prefer a chance to play the high percentage play or just give the other team 3 points? It's extremely simple. On one hand you've got a better chance at preventing ANY points, and on the other you've got almost no chance at preventing points.

You may like it but math doesn't just make **** up. Here it's rock solid.

I can totally see that line of reasoning and you are welcome to it. I just happen to disagree with it. The Bills hadn't been able to stop the Patriots all day. I see going to for it as unnecessary and kicking a team while they are down. That's the way I see it. I'm aware of the other side of the coin and the logic there is good enough, but that's the way I see it.

Whoever brought up the Jets vs. Arizona game was right. It happened there too, so I stand corrected about the Patriots being the only team that has done it. I'm talking about going for it on 4th down when the game is in hand, not scoring when you have a lead. I don't agree with it. It's like a big middle finger to me whether you convert or not, but especially if you convert. There's no reason to rub the opponent's face in it.

You can allow me to have my own opinion on it, can't you? Lots of people agree with me about this BTW, just not here. Also, millions of people think Manning is a better QB than Brady, just not here.

 

[feldspar]

What possible good does it do to kick a FG and add on 3 points? So that you can delude yourself into thinking that you saved face? The conversion rate is what it's all about, giving the Bills a chance to stop. That's why the Pats did what they did. Anything beyond that is just complete sour grapes

Oh, I see. Belichick was just being a nice guy and trying to help the team he just pummeled. MMM-Kayyy. That's pushing the point a little too far.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I can totally see that line of reasoning and you are welcome to it. I just happen to disagree with it. The Bills hadn't been able to stop the Patriots all day. I see going to for it as unnecessary and kicking a team while they are down. That's the way I see it. I'm aware of the other side of the coin and the logic there is good enough, but that's the way I see it.

Whoever brought up the Jets vs. Arizona game was right. It happened there too, so I stand corrected about the Patriots being the only team that has done it. I'm talking about going for it on 4th down when the game is in hand, not scoring when you have a lead. I don't agree with it. It's like a big middle finger to me whether you convert or not, but especially if you convert. There's no reason to rub the opponent's face in it.

You can allow me to have my own opinion on it, can't you? Lots of people agree with me about this BTW, just not here. Also, millions of people think Manning is a better QB than Brady, just not here.

Millions of people also think Brady is better, just not in Buffalo and Indy...

Nobody here is disallowing you your opinion. What you want us to do is refrain from refuting it. NOT. GONNA. HAPPEN. So if that poses some sort of serious emotional diffifulty for you, don't post here... Really, it's that simple. We're not the problem. We live here. The problem lies with the visitor who can't tolerate the level of debate here but persists in visiting.

BTW in future you might want to consider just who is giving whom the big middle finger in those situations. Perhaps it's really the $100M+ roster and coaching staff and ownership you support giving it's fan base the middle finger by repeatedly fielding a team that consistently disappoints them and apparently can't muster the effort to stop an opponent from embarassing them. Channel your anger towards the people who are truly victimizing you... We're just trying to make first downs and get to the playoffs, here.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I can totally see that line of reasoning and you are welcome to it. I just happen to disagree with it. The Bills hadn't been able to stop the Patriots all day. I see going to for it as unnecessary and kicking a team while they are down. That's the way I see it. I'm aware of the other side of the coin and the logic there is good enough, but that's the way I see it.

Whoever brought up the Jets vs. Arizona game was right. It happened there too, so I stand corrected about the Patriots being the only team that has done it. I'm talking about going for it on 4th down when the game is in hand, not scoring when you have a lead. I don't agree with it. It's like a big middle finger to me whether you convert or not, but especially if you convert. There's no reason to rub the opponent's face in it.

You can allow me to have my own opinion on it, can't you? Lots of people agree with me about this BTW, just not here. Also, millions of people think Manning is a better QB than Brady, just not here.

And 78% of NFL coaches disagree with your opinion:
NFL coaches prefer Brady over Manning - Hashmarks - ESPN

Nobody can stop you from having your opinion. But your opinion is wrong, and you've been given dozens of supporting arguments for why that's the case. When you can't support your opinion--and you haven't--you're going to get nailed on it.