You always use this argument with Manning v Brady, but it's simply untrue to say numbers alone are used in that determination by posters here. I've seen people several times bring up the argument that Manning's presence as a coach on the field, calling his own plays, gives him an edge as well. Manning v Brady is one of the most difficult calls to make because they're two entirely different QBs in different systems with different measures of success. It all comes down to what you value and how you view the argument. People who value winning championships above all else would naturally side with Brady, but football's a team sport with more moving parts, and in which the coach is more intimately involved than in any other. I have a tough time judging based on that. I judge with my eyes, and doing so causes me to give Manning a very slight edge. I would have given it to Brady even as long ago as last year, but his failure to replicate the success of 2007 in the system utilized that year, and the necessity of reverting to the Patriots' old style of football that de-emphasizes the role of the QB leads me to drop him down a step as far as his overall career is concerned. It's more of a 1a/1b than anything else. Again, though, there's a reason why most people hem and haw when asked to select a simple best QB ever. The variations in the game from team to team and system to system mean that at best, you can identify certain QBs who rise above the rest. Suggesting one is factually better than the other is silly. These arguments tend to be circular and go nowhere because people argue from different value systems. I'm guessing this one will be no exception.
No I don't judge based on #'s alone. I don't value dinking and dunking. I think Brady is perfect for that system, but that's not what I look for when I evaluate when one QB is better than another. Actually IJR's response above is perfect.
Manning gets an edge calling plays unless of course they don't work then he gets a pass. The bottom line is QBs are judged on results and peyton has come up small too many times in big spots- that is what seperates him from Brady. So you would have given it to Brady recently but his failure to replicate 2007 takes him down? when had peyton replicated 2004? Brady had a Manning-like season this year w/ incredible #s and coming up small in the biggest game. if Manning would have had an old Brady-like season w/ lesser #s and coming up big when it matters I might see your point but he had a chance to end that WC game w/ one 1st down but instead he settled for a 50 yd FG and gave us plenty of time to win. These arguments are fun, we all judge QBs and all players/teams/coaches differently. You would rather have a QB put up great reg season #s and struggle when it matters most than have a QB w/ lesser #s who makes plays to win the biggest games. What did you think of ben's game against us?
You don't have to directly say it, you say it w/ your posts. To have Manning #1 says it all. Manning dinked and dunked against us to set up the go ahead FG, he also failed to geta 1st down which would have ended the game and he settled for a 50 yd FG but he's the greatest!
This season alone for me was: 1) Brady 2) Vick 3) Rivers 4) Rodgers 5) P. Manning I still think Matt Ryan's overrated and hasn't done anything yet. 11th in the league in passer rating and still no playoff wins. At this point even Donovan McFag is better than him. If McFag was the Falcons QB they have a better chance of beating the Packers.
You have your opinion and I have mine. That 50 yard FG put the Colts in the lead and the defense / ST's blew it. What was the score in our Divisional round with less than 2 minutes left? I forgot what it was.
It's funny how you criticize Brady for setting up a 48 yd FG on one of the greatest drives in the history of the SB yet you prise Manning for settling for a 50 yd FG when he had much more time and only needed one first down to end the game. The D and STs didn't help on that last drive buit the ball was in the hands of Indy's bst player needing to make one play and, as usual, he couldn't make it. Brady has done enough throughout his career that if he never comes through again he'll still have credibility, Peyton doesn't have that built up based on his history of poor play in the biggest spots.
It's okay to use that argument when it benefits you so I decided to use. The fact is he left the field with the lead and the ST's / Defense blew it. The 48 yarder that Brady "set up" was actually set up on the feet of JR Redmond and Troy Brown. Brady dumped the ball off and those players picked up the yards and saved the drive by getting out of bounds while the STL defense was playing a shell cover defense and rushing 4. How am I supposed to be impressed with his play on that drive. I'm impressed by the efforts of JR Redmond and Adam Vinatieri
The fact is he had a chance to end the game and FAILED. ben needing TWO 1st downs succeeded and he never gave the Jets offense a chance to win. That's why we won in the WC rd and lost in the title game. He led his team from their 17 w/ 1:21 to play and NO timeouts w/ the Super Bowl on the line knowing that if they failed and SL wins the toss in OT they aren't winning the SB. He led them to the 30 for a 48 yd FG in that short amount of time and the FG was the last play of the game. Compare that w/ getting the ball w/ 2:36 to play at your own 20 w/ one timeout, "dinking and dunking" to get to the 32 setting up a 50 yd FG leaving almost a minute for the opponent to score and win the game. Who cares what defense SL was playing? He got the job done under the most difficult of circumstances and won the SB. The excuses never end. You blame the SL D for the coverage they were playing and you take away credit from Brady and give it to the receivers yer you blame the D/STs of Indy for peyton. Do you credit his receivers for getting into FG range?
I'll take Manning over Brady. If Manning played in New England we would have won 3 or 4 SB if Brady was in Indy probably none!
NE has won 3 SBs...with Brady. I think if you switch them you switch the results. Manning on NE and they MIGHT have one SB, Brady on Indy and they have 3-4 SBs.
The fact is he put his team in the lead w/ less than 2 minutes left. The defense and STs blew the game. What excuse? I provide you with facts and you call them excuses. The facts are that STL was playing a cushy zone and rushing only 4. Brady dumped the ball off to Redmond who picked up huge yardage. It was Redmond who got them down the field. It was Redmond who saved the drive by getting out of bounds (which I'm still not exactly sure that he actually did get out of bounds) and it was Vinatieri who kicked the 48 yard FG. Was there pressure on that drive? Yes. Did Brady manage it well? Yes. But was Brady the reason they got into FG range? Slightly. I give credit where it's due and Brady deserves very little of it.
Brady would never have survived on the Colts. The Colts system is based on the QB making tough throws not dinking and dunking.
Again, you prasie manning for dinking and dunking setting up a 50 yd FG w/ a minute left and bash Brady for leading one of the greatest drives of all time that ended w/ a kick to win the game. How come you aren't giving credit to the Colts receivers? and how come you prasie manning and bash Brady even though peyton had a chance to end the game? Maybe those dinks and dunks help them win instead of forcing passes downfield? The biggest reason NE became a dynasty was the QB, the biggest reason Indy didn't become a dynasty was the QB.
I'll re-watch the last drive and give an honest assesment. I never said Peyton had a great game. But w/ less than two minutes the Colts had the lead and lost the game because the defense / ST's blew it. Which I'm thankful for. The dinking and dunking system does work great. I don't necessarily think Manning would do as well in that system as he does in the one he's currently in. He beats defenses down the field. Saying he "forces" the ball down the field is disingenuous. For a QB who goes down the field he has an incredibly low INT%. There are so many things that can go wrong. He can make a bad read. The WR can run a different route than Manning is expecting. The OL has to block longer. The pass has to be extremely accurate to avoid being intercepted and to be caught by the receiver. The timing has to be on. Despite all of that he succeeds in that system. I put a much higher premium on a QB that can do well in that type of system than I do on a QB who dumps the ball off to a RB throws a quick screen or dump off pass then watch the receiver run down the field. That's how I view it. Teams win games and championships. I don't put a value on how many championships teams a player is on. You obviously view it differently.
I never said he had a bad game, he had an ok game and he led them to the lead BUT he did have a chance to make sure we never got the ball back. If he convert one more first down Vinatieir hits a shorter FG w/ no time left and we lose. The thing is Brady can dink and dunk but he can also throw the ball down the field. He can play any style depending upon the talent around him. I put a higher premium on a QB that doesn't get flustered in big spots(though to be fair we had Brady completely confused a few weeks ago but that is rare). I have seen too many poor performances by Peyton in big spots. That is why I have him ranked much lower than you.
Exactly! Wins and losses and rings are TEAM statistics. At best, QBs are only responsible for half the game. While rings do have some value when evaluating QBs, they far from the end-all-be-all answer to the question of "who is better?" If rings are the primary metric for ranking QBs, then Jeff Hostetler is better than Dan Marino because he has a ring.
