I asked you if you could come up with a fundamental difference between breaking the rules to gain a competitive advantage in one instance and breaking the rules to gain a competitive advantage in a separate instance. Quite obviously, you could not. The important point here is that the magnitude and impact a given indiscretion has on the competitive balance of a game has no bearing on whether or not a rule was broken with the intention of gaining a competitive advantage. Listen, I'm not someone who will tell you that Brady isn't still an all-time great quarterback because of deflated footballs, or even Spygate, for that matter. (He'd probably be number 2 on my personal all-time list - he's a wonderful player). However, your insistence on defending the intentional subjugation of rules by highlighting the minimal scope, impact, and ultimate practical significance of that subjugation, is simply laughable.
Yeah, hard to disagree with that. My question was just about Brady and Manning though. It is so tough to debate QB's from different eras. Heck, it is tough to debate QB's from the same era. Haha.
It really is hard. You are so right. And let's be honest, it is SO subjective. When we talk about Manning and Brady, we are talking about two all-time great players. I always think people sound silly when they go out of their to prop one guy up by bashing the other. They both are great. Overall, I'd still take Brady over Manning because I think Tom has been a better big game quarterback, and generally speaking, handles pressure better than Peyton does. Peyton is more physically gifted, but both are plenty talented enough. And regardless, what makes these guys great isn't their physical tools, it's their consistently superb decision making.
Montana's Superbowl performances are off the chart. It's hard to argue with that point of view. Still, I wonder what Brady's record would look like with Jerry Rice to throw to, and no free agency or salary cap.
Good point, but I wonder what Montana's numbers would look like if he played in this era of embarrassingly-pussified pass defense.
I think this answer is dependent on the era. In this era, It's Brady if you use rings instead of stats. In Montana's era? same answer.
Manning is the better QB, Brady has played on the consistently better teams. That said both are the best of their generation so you really can't go wrong, but if all other team factors are equal I'll take Manning.
Manning and Brady are very close. In a lot of ways, they have very similar skillsets and play very similarly. You have to get past the team successes to compare them fairly, and many fans cannot. I have a Brady-Rodgers thread going too, which seems to be the more topical argument these days as Manning has clearly declined and is physically diminished.
Well Montana did win what 2 SB's without Rice and he did take the Chiefs to the AFC Championship game throwing to JJ Birden, Todd McNair and Willie Davis so we can't act like it was him and Rice for 15 years like Manning had Harrison. For me the separation comes in Montana's 1988 and 1989 playoff numbers. 19 TD's , 1 INT throwing over 300 yards multiple times and his historic performance in the SB. I still believe he could have thrown 2 more TD's that night against the Broncos. Montana also won a SB under 2 different head coaches which should not be overlooked. Could Brady win a SB if McDaniels took over coaching the team? Possibly but we'll never really know.
I really dislike the Superbowl ring as a QB comparison point. By that measure Bradshaw was the best QB of his era with 4 rings...and almost as many picks in the playoffs as TD's. Can you really say he was a great QB?. He just happened to be an average QB that played for a team with a great running game and fantastic defense.
Even then so much is based on the team as a whole. I mean there are a good number of very good QB's who never even got to the Superbowl, Dan Fouts, Sonny Jurgenson (to name two). as well as QB's who never won a superbowl, Dan Marino for example. Was late in his career John Elway a better QB late in his career when his body was wearing down and won a couple super bowls than all his younger years? or was he just on a better team in the twilight years? There are some QB's who can lose you a game single handedly, but none who can win a game single handedly.
