So, what you're saying is that only the offense helps to win football games and that Belichick's Browns and Belichick's Patriots had equivalent talent aside from the QB position. Also, that Belichick learned nothing from his additional stints as a coordinator between HC jobs. Got it. Thank you for clearing that up. Again, not sure who you're trying to convince by addressing me with these. I voted Brady. I simply said that the argument could be made for Manning, thus making there no reason to belittle the people who chose him. Way to throw stats out there and pretend you have an answer for the original complaint.
I love how you call real statistics "fantasy numbers". I haven't seen anyone throw out "Peyton Manning scored 314 fantasy points in my league last year and Brady had -3" as an argument yet.
I don't know about GOAT, but he'll certainly be remembered as the best QB of his generation. While there's an argument to be made for raw talent and for Brady succeeding in a system that emphasizes and augments his abilities, history remembers the results. Manning doesn't hold a candle in that regard.
Tom Brady was a better quarterback than Peyton Manning. Whether he is after his injury is a completely different question. But before, you have to give the edge to Brady. Don't let the NE hate cloud your mind. He played great throwing to nobody. Then when he finally got a stud (like Manning has had his entire career), he lit the NFL on fire.
Asking, on a jets fan site, if our most hated rival is better than another opposing QB out of our division and not expecting a landslide is asinine.
Neither answer is right. You can make LEGITIMATE arguments for both players. I tend to think the answer does not lie in how many Championships one QB has vs. the other or how many playoff games their team won. There's too many contributing factors that determine whether a team wins or not. Brady would not have won SB XXXVI without Vinateri kicking 2 extermely tough FGs in the Snow Game against the Raiders. Or he might not have even gotten to the SB without Troy Brown returning a Punt for a TD in the AFC Championship Game. Brady might not have won without Law intercepting a Warner pass and taking it for a touchdown in Super Bowl XXXVI. Or he might not have won without JR Redmond making big play after big play in that final drive. And he might not have won without Vinateri kicking a 48 yard GW FG. Or how about the same two leading the Patriots to victory in the 2003 AFC Championship Game. Law had 3 INTs and Vinateri had 5 FGs in the win against the Colts. The list goes on and on. My point is the Championship argument is not a good one in determining the best individual player.
I'll take Brady any day because his success overcomes Manning's stats IMO, but your dismissal and rationalization of Manning's accomplishments are simply asinine. you know it is possible to prefer Brady and not dishonestly reduce Manning's accomplishments. for the man who loves logic, you fail in the most basic principal of it -- logic entails that which can't be denied without self contradiction. by your logic, just because Manning hasn't won more Super Bowls, his stats are thus fantasy. the implication is clear, unless a QB has won multiple titles, his stats are fantasy. are you saying you agree with that accurate application of your position, thus dismissing some of the great QB's of all time, like Marino and Favre, as just fantasy QB's, or will you admit your self contradiction and failure at logic? because it can only be one or the other.
It has to give you pause when Matt Cassell comes off the bench and basically plays lights out after he got his feet under him. It could be the system and Brady with all his titles was the QB of the biggest choke team in SB history. And than there's the cheating element... Both great QB's Manning hasn't had as good a team hasn't had the other teams defensive signals and hasn't lost in the biggest game with the greatest team in football history.
Brady has been consistently great through reg seasons and post seasons and looks automatic when he's making throws.. Manning doesn't always but he has been a top QB for a much longer time. Manning has also had more talent on offense.. Brady has more talent on the sidelines. I wish I could say Manning, but I think Brady gets the edge here and history will remember him as the greatest of his time.
Manning has never had the defensive personnel that Brady had on his team. If Peyton did, he may have won multiple super bowls by now.That said, it's a very close call. On sheer physical skills and natural QB abilities, I'd give Manning the nod. On sheer will and desire to win, I'd say it's really close with Brady possibly getting the slight nod.
It's also worth mentioning that while Manning has certainly had the advantage in offensive personnel throughout his career, a very different approach has been taken in building the two offenses. In the case of New England, players were brought in based on a system designed for Brady's success. Like I said earlier, his abilities have been utilized perfectly and augmented. Everything goes into that offense is part of a larger plan by the coaching staff in NE. They emphasize the team effort like no one else in the NFL. On the other hand, Manning has been given tools for him to create his own success. He's been given some of the best talent in the NFL, but in large part control of that offense has been handed over to him. As we all know, he's as much of a playcaller as his own offensive coordinator, which comes with both advantages and disadvantages. He's not afforded the same perspective that places so many OCs up in the booth during gametime. And yet, control of the gameplan more often than not is placed in his hands. Again, I opt for Brady. Coaches can help make QBs great, and I firmly believe that's a big part of what's happening in New England. However, ultimately history will view the results and see Tom's rings and his record and view him as the better QB. It's close, however. They're entirely different QBs in different systems, which makes it awfully tough to definitively call.
I argue this with people sometimes. It all comes down to this: Tom Brady is a system quarterback. Peyton Manning IS the system. Manning easy. Patriots even went 11-5 without Brady. Manning goes down, Colts are 2-14. I highly doubt Cassell will succeed in KC. Trust me.
I believe that Brady is the better QB in the argument. But to say Manning isn't even close is idiotic.
How many titles would the best kicker to ever put on a kicking shoe have won if Brady hadn't led his team into position in the final minute?
Brady won the SB with alot less talent on offense around him. Manning has always had an all-star team of skill players around him. Cassel had an all-star team around him last year. You can make arguments either way all day... the bottom line is they are both great. Manning has more natural talent, but Brady has that Montana-like ability to will his team to victory.
Let's ask the question: If Manning were a patriot, how many SB would the patriots have won? It is a tough question to respond to: Manning always had a great line, #1 receiver and a great running back. Faulk, James and Addai. Brady always had a great line and a great defense. What's sad is Brady won more SB with less talent on offense. And Manning only won his championship with a decent defense. Brady broke records when he had an offense, but didn't win the SB, but he still made it there. It's all confusing. I picked Brady because since starting, he has won more games, won more SBs, won more post season games than all his peers by a large margin, regardless of surrounding talent or coaching. There is no way that Belichick is responsible for THAT much.
