That's what winning 3 SB does, makes a guy bulletproof. Nevermind that Brady was basically a role player in his first SB win and Bledsoe played the 2nd half of the AFC CG. Teams that scored 13 points on offense against the Rams that season generally lost by 4 TDs. Brady got to do that and get a ring. Nice of his teammates and coach to hook him up like that.
Wilson can play, if anyone doesnt think so, go rewatch the Falcons game last season. The Seahawks are so good though that Wilson doesnt need to do much, and when he actually does, he has come through time after time. When Seattle has to make the transition to a more high powered offense, im confident they will be able to with ease. They could right now but honestly, is it necessary? Of course not. The formula they have is perfect and they will probably continue to play the same way next season.
Exactly. Bradys early 2000s teams were stacked on defense sort of like the Seahawks and Ravens of the past few years. I did see a stat that proved to the contrary but still they were good. I always say if the roles were reversed would Peyton have won with the dominant defenses in 2001, 2003, and 2004? Probably yes.
Yeah, their formula is very good for now. Once Wilson gets his big contract, they will probably have to shift philosophies a little bit, but for now, why mess with something that works so well? They can probably make a run at 16-0 next season although 2 games against the Niners will make that very difficult to do.
Manning does it more often than Brady, the bottom line is manning has had more talent to work with and yet wins less than Brady. That's the excuse we are going to see? This Seattle team is not better than SL 2001 by the way, the rest I can buy and while this Denver team was more talented than any NE team they of course suffered the usual Peyton ending. you know Manning got SHUT OUT by the 2002 Jets, right? you know after losing 24-14 to NE in the '03 playoffs they changed the rules to help his offense and in a return trip to NE in 2004 led his O to 3 pts, right? that is pure myth, the NE D's were never great and have allowed more pts in postseason than Manning's D's.
The Rams were arguably better because of a historically great offense (but in reality, w eknow great D trumps great O so the Seahawks were and are the superior team), but Brady had absolutely nothing to do with slowing down their offense. He doesn't play on D. His presence isn't so inspirational that his players on D try harder. The Rams D was average at best and all Brady could manage was 13 points and 140 passing yards. That is hardly a primetime performance, mediocre if you ask me. Certainly not something to be celebrated by his legion of nut-hugging fans, which remarkably includes the Jet fan I'm replying to. I am aware that Peyton had one of his worst career games against us in 2002. How is this relevant to anything?
The Patriots would not have beaten Seattle last night either. That said, I don't think it would have been so lopsided. It's not likely they would have started off the game with a botched snap (maybe a sack for a safety, lol) and had two INTs, including a pick-six, in the first half.
Apparently Tom Brady shut down the Rams offense. This is junc logic...if I didnt know any better I'd figure he's a Pats fan.
that isn't really the debate. the debate is whether Brady is so significantly better that they shouldn't be compared. the answer is clearly no. based on what was the Rams team better? because they had a better offense? the fact the the Seahawks won the Super Bowl, unlike the Rams, and against an offensive team when the league rules are set up to benefit the offense, automatically makes the Seahawks better. their D is the equivalent of the Rams offense. the Super Bowl victory is the difference between the two.
The Rams D that was average at best was the 3rd ranked D in the league and that was w/ the explosive Rams O scoring every 3 seconds. Brady was in his first year starting and Troy Brown was his top WR(good player, would be the 4th best WR on Den's current team), do you think they are going to stray from their formula? they played good D, didnt' make mistakes on O and he made plays when he had to. They had a 17-3 4th qtr lead when the D blew it before he and the O rescued them w/ an incredible GW drive.
Not more talented, just had a better QB. the answer is yes b/c of the way Manning has continuously performed in postseason despite having more talent to work with. SL had a very good D which people forget and that obviously had a tremendous offense.
You mean the D blew the 17-3 that the D gave them? Did I imagine that pick-6 off of Warner? Brady had a nice drive at the end, but points scored in the first 3.5 quarters count just as much as those scored in the final 2 minutes. Brady was just unable to do much throughout the game, but did manage a decent drive at the end (mostly dumpoffs to the RBs, but it worked). I am not deifying a QB for scoring 13 points and throwing for under 150 yards. But what else do I expect from a huge Sanchez fan? You more than anyone can appreciate the "mastery" of such a performance.
Apparently that didn't happen though. Nor did the Pats get held to about 24 points less than their season average. And by a D that they had scored 38 against a few weeks prior. I guess the Brady "magic formula" was broken that day.
ok, is a game 4 qtrs long or 3? when t was time to close it out where were they? You know Peyton has as many TD passes to opponents in his last 2 SBs as he does to his teammates, right? Wilson played a great game, a Sanchez like postseason game and peyton played a typical big game peyton game but Peyton set a SB record for completions! he's just the greatest!
You know he led his O 80 yds to take a 4 pt lead in the final minutes, right? you know that Giant D was great in postseason, right? in 3 NFC playoff games allowed average of 17 PPG Seattle in 2 NFC playoff games this year allowed averaged of 16 PPG Giants were on the ROAD, Seattle at home NE averaged 37 PPG(approx.) and scored 14: -23 Den averaged 38 PPG(approx.) and scored 8: -30 No matter what way you slice it Brady comes out on top.
exactly. problem is you ignore the first three quarters when you simply recite the final drive for Brady and try to claim, based on it, that he was good that game and deserves applaud for the game (as opposed to deserves applaud for that drive). everyone else already acknowledges that he succeeded on the final drive but overall his performance wasn't good for the entire game. he wasn't any better than he was twice against the Giants. he has three Super Bowl wet beds, just because he won one of them because his D kept the game in striking distance doesn't change that (just like his D kept them within striking distance against the Giants but Brady couldn't muster enough offense to win).
I don't ignore anything, I look at the bottom line and when it's time to win the game who is making plays? Brady: 3 SB wins, 2 SB GW drives to end games 2 SB losses, left field late w/ leads each time Manning: 1 SB win against rex Grossman led Bears where D put game away in 4th. 2 SB losses, one where he threw INT for TD to end any chances, other led team to 8 garbage time pts in blowout loss.
Alright don't have much time, going to keep it quick. I'm going to keep it to Brady/PM since I've never seen Joe Montana play. He's considered some untouchable figure in NFL history like MJ in basketball so I'll leave him out of it. Also the different eras in football really skews numbers. That's why it's easier to compare QBs in the same era like TB vs PM or Big Ben vs Eli and things like that. The thing I am stating, Peyton Manning throughout his career has played the QB position better than Tom Brady throughout his career. 1) Peyton Manning had had the better regular seasons than Tom Brady. He's consistently been a top QB in the NFL longer than Brady and more often. He racks up more awards than his peers compared to Brady and has what 5 MVPs in an 11 year span, in which he played 10 seasons? Crushes Brady here in all pro teams too, Brady made his first, the second all pro team in 2005. If we are being conservative, the regular seasons makes up 80% of their careers. That means for Brady to eclipse Manning right now, the 20% of their career he has to blow him out of the water. 2) Well this isn't the case. Brady has a larger drop off from regular season play against playoff teams vs playoff play against teams than PM. Okay so that doesn't hold, if you just do it for all teams they've played (So including bad opponents) Brady comes up slightly ahead of PM. Most metrics they come out even in their playoff play or PM slightly ahead. That doesn't put Brady ahead let alone far ahead enough to cancel out regular season. 3) Super Bowls and playoff wins. If you equate these stats to a QB, just stop reading, this won't apply. The first 6 years of Brady's career, he has 3 Super Bowls and was consistently a top 15 QB with one top 5 year. The next 6 playing years of Brady's career, he was consistently a top 5 QB with one year outside the top 5. The first 6 years, Brady has 3 SBs, the next 6 years he has 0. The difference being the team around him. Many people always suggest "if his defense just stops Eli twice, he has 5 SBs". That's my point, it's a team game, that same defense that failed him, was consistently ranking top 10 in the early 2000s with the ST and running game. So if you think SB and playoff wins push Brady over the top, using that same logic you also believe Brady's first 6 years in the league are better than his next 6 years. To that, I laugh. It isn't true if you watch how the QB plays the game. If you say his teams were better from 2001-2006 than 2007-present, there's an argument I agree with! So this is one main reason I don't equate playoff success to an individual. Others, the last MVP to win a SB was Kurt Warner in 1999. That includes TB not winning the MVP and SB. Also, the league leader in passing yards has never won a SB that same year (47 years). Also, the highest scoring offenses in NFL history by total points: 2013 DEN, lost SB 2007 NE, lost SB 2011 GB, lost before SB 2012 NE, lost before SB 1998 MIN, lost before SB 2011 NO, lost before SB (GB and NO did not knock each other out in 2011) 1983 WAS, lost SB 2000 STL, lost before SB 1999 STL, won SB 2004 IND, lost before SB 2010 NE, lost before SB 1984 MIA, lost SB 2011 NE, lost SB 1961 HOU, AFL champs 2009 NO, won SB 1994 SF, won SB 2001 STL, lost SB 1998 DEN, won SB 1948 SFO, too lazy to check 2006 SDG, lost before SB. 4/20 of the offenses that have scored the most points in the regular season won the SB. Only 1 out of the top 10. Now some of these offenses, maybe they scored a lot because of their run game, but we know for NE, NO, GB, DEN/IND, STL in the 2000s the main reason was the QB. They didn't win the SB, why not? Because it's more than just the QB. So if you go and say "PM offenses underperform" turn to TB and say the same thing, except you know TB has faced worse pass defenses overall than PM in the playoffs according to DVOA. That clearly makes a difference in the small sample size we have. Since it is a team game, it's why I don't equate SB and playoff wins to individuals. We do see these high scoring teams run through the regular season (even historically for NE) like a hot knife through butter, but come playoff time, they have mostly struggled. So throw that out. 4) What's left to say? #3 is the key. If you equate these things to a QB, you have a case. That doesn't mean QBs don't influence wins and losses, but against tougher teams there is too many factors outside the QB. You can go through every SB run and pick easily pick out 5 plays that the winning QB had no part in that changes the course of NFL history. That's too much variance for me to say QB X deserves the most credit/blame for wins/loss in the playoffs. It's a different game, and again in the 2000s SEA showed us you need a balanced team that shows up in all areas to win. 5) The eye test. This part isn't logical, but I just watch Peyton Manning and see a better QB than Tom Brady. It's definitely a conversation, and conversation I have TB losing slightly. 6) The last ditch hope, maybe TB has some intangible that leads to his offense just being inherently better than PM? IND/DEN Offense 1998 NFL 3692 (4) 1999 NFL 4092 (3) 2000 NFL 4398 (2) 2001 NFL 4056 (2) 2002 NFL 4203 (3) 2003 NFL 4186 (1) 2004 NFL 4494 (2) 2005 NFL 3711 (5) 2006 NFL 4347 (1) 2007 NFL 3911 (6) 2008 NFL 3937 (6) 2009 NFL 4413 (3) 2010 NFL 4627 (1) 2012 NFL 4528 (6) 2013 NFL 5326 (1) NE offense Total Offense 2002 NFL 3684 (8) 2003 NFL 3464 (8) 2004 NFL 3558 (10) 2005 NFL 4011 (1) 2006 NFL 3456 (7) 2007 NFL 4776 (1) 2009 NFL 4356 (5) 2010 NFL 3755 (8) 2011 NFL 5171 (2) 2012 NFL 4677 (4) 2013 NFL 4105 (7) Another interesting note, SB years were Brady's two worst offensive years. Much more to winning SBs than QB or offense in general. Conclusion: Basically, if you think the SB and playoffs put TB over the top of PM, then using that logic you are saying TB first 6 years in the league he played the QB position better than TB has played the QB position from 2007 onwards. The logic doesn't pass the numbers or eye test. For this simple check, this argument doesn't hold to me, and because of that and other reasons I put more value on how the QB plays the QB position than if their team wins or not in the playoffs. So, what would it take for TB to pass PM in my opinion? TB would have to 3-4 dominant years where PM doesn't dominate the QB position also. That would make it a lot closer and probably a toss up. If they both fade away putting together some great, but not MVP years, PM holds the edge. Oh and so nobody gets the wrong idea because a lot of people don't read, QB position is important to the NFL. But it seems to be if the team is built around the QB and the passing offense, the team struggles in the playoffs whether it be TB, PM, Brees, Rodgers, etc. That passing offense can roll you through the regular season, come playoff time, historically no matter the QB it has struggled. QB position is still important, you aren't winning if you can't make the playoffs with a QB. That's why TB and PM are so valuable, they can help you make the playoffs every single year no matter the weaknesses on your team. These guys have routinely covered up a missing run game or missing defense and made them look average, it's why they're in the top 10 and probably top 5 QBs overall. They're that brilliant you can build a decent defense and run game because of their passing skill. But that also brings it back to an interesting point, how important/how much money should a QB be worth? This is the most interesting thing on my mind recently. Ever since that Flacco contract to be honest. Overpaying leads to weakness or lack of depth in other parts of the team, but that's what makes PM and TB so brilliant, those weakness aren't exposed enough in the regular season to keep them from making the playoffs. Where as if we look PITT, BAL, ATL, NYG this year, the weakness were exposed and these QBs couldn't lift the team. So yeah in the end, they definitely belong in the conversation and to my eye test Peyton is better. To the QB numbers test, Peyton is better. To the SB/playoffs test, TB is better and probably a top QB of all time, yes TB as in Terry Bradshaw in this case since not only does he run the playoffs he's one of the few QBs who's play has elevated from the regular season to playoffs.
now posting reg season numbers/rankings. You are better than that displacedfan. Just b/c the post is long doesn't make it effective, #s w/o context tell us nothing. Peyton's #s don't look awful on a stat sheet from last night but it was one of the worst SBs ever played by a QB. Manning wouldn't have caught Brady w/ a win last night, now he is well in his rearview mirror, never has Brady had a stinker like that in any postseason game let alone a Sb that his team was favored in despite having MUCH better talent around him.
