Peyton Manning And The Beat Goes On.

[Gramz]

Yes. You are correct. That would also mean another AFCCG game appearance as well. So 2 SBs and 2 AFCCG apperances.

it's okay, we're all trying to forget the last one ;)

[Shane Bond]

Oh man. You are right. Guess it takes TWO Mannings to have a winning record vs Brady.

OMG, you have a sense of humor.

[amfootball]

OMG, you have a sense of humor.

Depends who the poster is that I am responding to. ;)

[jvan1973]

Oh man. You are right. Guess it takes TWO Mannings to have a winning record vs Brady.

no, just Eli

[amfootball]

no, just Eli

Eli!         

[Gramz]

Eli!         

Facts are Facts...  ;)

[dw49]

He meant Mannings

 

 

Good catch

[GoPats]

Are you referring to the year that Michigan won a share of the national championship in 1998 ? The game that Brian Griese was MVP and Brady was no stats for ? You guys  (Pat fans) really are a special breed.

 

By the same token...

 

I've seen PLENTY of Colts fans (and fans of other teams) who actually don't know much about Brady's college career, but don't bother letting that get in the way of having an opinion about it.  ;)

 

He played a lot more than most people think. And he earned every snap he played. Probably twice over. 

 

 

 

If you just look at their careers from the viewpoint of SBs and rings, then Brady does look better.  Being in 5 SBs and having 3 rings trumps being in 3 SBs and having 1 ring.

However, that is reducing football to an individual sport when it is the ultimate team sport.  And, that is what annoys me so often.  Brady won 3, but the Patriots lost 2.  And, it is always the fault of the Patriot's defense for the losses.

But, if anyone tries to analyze the playoff losses under Peyton to point out that many were not his fault; then those same Patriot fans will say that one is making excuses . . . such as Vanderjat (sp?) missing that FG vs. the Steelers or Peyton being forced to sit on the sidelines when the Chargers won the OT coin toss, scored a FG, and won the game.

 

You're right Gramz, football is a team sport. But it's the same for all QBs - they either get too much credit when they win, or too much blame when they lose. I've seen the same Indy fans rip Brady after forgetting that they gave Manning a pass based on his team's overall play, so what you're mentioning here... well it works both ways. 

 

I look at the body of work I guess. Brady's been a constant, the heart and soul for the league's most consistent team, in the past 15 years. That's why I think he's the best. He's been in Super Bowls that were 10 years apart where he was the only player on the roster for both (2001 and 2011). No matter who else is around him, no matter who is on the team, he finds ways to win lots of games.

 

Honest question - how many Patriots from the championship teams will end up in the Hall of Fame? The answer is probably one. Willie McGinest, Tedy Bruschi, Ty Law, Mike Vrabel, Troy Brown, Matt Light... good players, but are they Hall of Fame players? Not a chance. The only one who will go to Canton is Brady. 

 

Brady holds the record for postseason wins by a QB and his regular season winning percentage is so much higher than anyone else's that the Patriots could have gone 0-16 this season and he'd still have a sizable lead. The common retort, as you pointed out, is that wins are a team accomplishment. That's true. But at what point does logic override stubbornness? If the guy's been winning this much for this long... can we really say, "Well it's his coach." Or, "Well they always have good teams." Does that make sense? Not really, when you think about it. 

 

Here ya go with your "winning" thing. How do you explain it other than maybe it's a "team thing." I had no idea that Brady is now 2-4 vs Manning in post season. That no doubt has to be a 4 game losing streak ? No.. ?

 

 

 

Next year will be the 10th season since the Patriots’ run of three Super Bowl wins in four seasons. Their last Super Bowl-winning campaign came in 2004. 

What loss means for Tom Brady 

Tom Brady Playoff Career   1st 10 Games Since W-L 10-0 8-8 Super Bowl W-L 3-0 0-2 TD-Int ratio 4.7 1.5 Multiple Int 0 6

Tom Brady is .500 (8-8) in postseason games since New England's loss in the 2005 divisional playoffs at Denver. Before that game, Brady was a perfect 10-0, which included winning three Super Bowls. 

In his postseason career, Tom Brady has a 2-4 record when facing a Manning as the opposing QB and a 16-4 record against all other starting quarterbacks. 

 

All due respect but this argument, which has surfaced fairly recently, is ridiculous to me. 

 

"If you take away that 10-0 start in the playoffs, Brady's only .500 in the post season!" 

 

LOL... but how do you take it away when it happened? It's like saying, "Well if Manning didn't have those first 400 TDs, he'd only be at 100 now instead of 500." 

[dw49]

By the same token...

 

I've seen PLENTY of Colts fans (and fans of other teams) who actually don't know much about Brady's college career, but don't bother letting that get in the way of having an opinion about it.  ;)

 

He played a lot more than most people think. And he earned every snap he played. Probably twice over. 

 

 

 

You're right Gramz, football is a team sport. But it's the same for all QBs - they either get too much credit when they win, or too much blame when they lose. I've seen the same Indy fans rip Brady after forgetting that they gave Manning a pass based on his team's overall play, so what you're mentioning here... well it works both ways. 

 

I look at the body of work I guess. Brady's been a constant, the heart and soul for the league's most consistent team, in the past 15 years. That's why I think he's the best. He's been in Super Bowls that were 10 years apart where he was the only player on the roster for both (2001 and 2011). No matter who else is around him, no matter who is on the team, he finds ways to win lots of games.

 

Honest question - how many Patriots from the championship teams will end up in the Hall of Fame? The answer is probably one. Willie McGinest, Tedy Bruschi, Ty Law, Mike Vrabel, Troy Brown, Matt Light... good players, but are they Hall of Fame players? Not a chance. The only one who will go to Canton is Brady. 

 

Brady holds the record for postseason wins by a QB and his regular season winning percentage is so much higher than anyone else's that the Patriots could have gone 0-16 this season and he'd still have a sizable lead. The common retort, as you pointed out, is that wins are a team accomplishment. That's true. But at what point does logic override stubbornness? If the guy's been winning this much for this long... can we really say, "Well it's his coach." Or, "Well they always have good teams." Does that make sense? Not really, when you think about it. 

 

 

All due respect but this argument, which has surfaced fairly recently, is ridiculous to me. 

 

"If you take away that 10-0 start in the playoffs, Brady's only .500 in the post season!" 

 

LOL... but how do you take it away when it happened? It's like saying, "Well if Manning didn't have those first 400 TDs, he'd only be at 100 now instead of 500." 

 

 

I think I have two things you might want a response to. 

 

1) The Pat fan called Manning out as he didn't win any championships in college. It appeared that he was citing the Michigan team that Brady was part of and throwing that in our faces. That is incredible as Brady never saw the field in that game and didn't even contribute anything other than what might have taken place in practice to Michigan even getting to that game. Tom Brady threw all of 15 passes that year.

 

2) What I brought up about Tom Brady's last 16 playoff appearances was not to discredit the 10-0 start . It was to prove a point that it is necessary for even the great QB's to have a complete team around them to win january games. If a less experienced Brady goes 10-0 and then goes 8-8 smack dap in the middle of his prime , some would think that maybe there's more to a post season QB record than just being "clutch."  So IMO , it's a legit point in the discussion. I'm not saying 3 rings to 1 should not be part of the discussion , I just differ on how much to weigh it.

 

Bottom line is Brady did play for 3 teams that won SB's.Manning has played for 1 such team. Can't argue that and I won't. I only bring up the facts that point to the facts that this is a stat that is heavily weighted by the overall strength of the teams these QB's played for.

 

Also bottom one is you have a QB that is 38 years old that has thrown for 503 TD's. You have another guy that is one year younger and has thrown for 365. That is a tremendous difference . 143 TDs or 39% more. If they both play until 40 and everything stays equal , that # will probably be around 115-to 120. Huge amount of difference. I took objection to Pats fans dancing around this and somehow coming up with Brady being screwed out of 3 years and if you put those back in the formula , the difference isn't that much.

 

That's RIDICULOUS !!!! 

 

That's ABSURD !!!!!!

 

That's SILLY !!!!!!

 

What else can I say ? Look , if when comparing careers you want to be fair to the point of ... call it .."equal opportunity " ? I would think the following things should be put in the equation.

 

1) The eras that the players played in. Simple here... the same.

2) Games missed due to injury.           Simple again... the same.

3) Games missed due to military service.  Again... the same.

 

Now some of you are going to say that Manning had a clear path to the starting job and Brady had Bledsoe in front of him. I say to that it's just part of being great at an earlier stage in your career. If Brady had maybe hit the weights earlier , he might not have gone around pick 200 and thus could have improved on his position entering his NFL career. When you are pick 1.1 , you are viewed as ready to start in the NFL. Guys taken in the 6th round are not seen in the same light and I doubt that it would have been safe to even put a 210 LB Tom Brady on the field his rookie year. He really did hit the weight room and added like 15 pounds of muscle going into his second year.

[JerodMayo51]

Maybe I can help you to understand....  when it comes to comparing these two, at least with their Pro careers...

 

If you just look at their careers from the viewpoint of SBs and rings, then Brady does look better.  Being in 5 SBs and having 3 rings trumps being in 3 SBs and having 1 ring.

However, that is reducing football to an individual sport when it is the ultimate team sport.  And, that is what annoys me so often.  Brady won 3, but the Patriots lost 2.  And, it is always the fault of the Patriot's defense for the losses.

But, if anyone tries to analyze the playoff losses under Peyton to point out that many were not his fault; then those same Patriot fans will say that one is making excuses . . . such as Vanderjat (sp?) missing that FG vs. the Steelers or Peyton being forced to sit on the sidelines when the Chargers won the OT coin toss, scored a FG, and won the game.

 

 

This is true of all aspects of the game though... Even stats can be contributed to the team that you have.  If you're surrounded by hall of fame talent and a great offensive line, and your front office builds around the offensive side of the ball and you plan in a dome stadium with astro turf... you're going to have naturally higher stats.

 

football is a team sport and the team contributes to everything.. Championships, Stats, etc.

[JerodMayo51]

It's fine to say Brady is a better QB in big games than Manning. You can make a case for it. Not saying I agree , just that  a reasonable argument can be made of that. But when they try to do this ridiculous convolution of stats to say Brady has been as prolific stat wise as Manning , you have to put them in their place.  Fact is Peyton Manning is 38 years old and has thrown 138 more TD passes than a 37 year old Tom Brady. Spin it anyway you like thats almost 40% more TD passes .

 

Having played 3 more seasons than Brady certainly contributes to that.  If you took Brady's average TDs per year and multiplied it by 3, it wouldn't be a very big gap.  No doubt Manning has all the stats to back him up, but you can't ignore the teams they played on..  Colts front office focused mainly on the offensive side of the ball, Manning had 1st round pick after 1st round pick injected into his offense to keep it going strong and had the privilege of playing with 4 Hall of Famers..  Not to mention he played in a Dome 9+ times a year (8 at home, 1 in Houston at a minimum) every single year for the majority of his career.  He also played in the same offensive system under Tom Moore and Howard Mudd's tutelage for the majority of his career as well, with no turnover.

 

Manning has all of those stats because hes one of the most elite to ever play the game, but when you start nitpicking stats and some gaps here or there, there are other contributing factors as well.. like the TEAM he played on, the talent he had around him and the climate he played in.

[JerodMayo51]

I don't disagree here but I would say that Brady has been prolific stat-wise which is why I brought up the three years that Manning has on Brady. If Brady does recoup those his stats won't be that far behind. I am not saying that he will necessarily catch or surpass Manning as so much depends on how long each plays and the team around them but for all the talk about how Brady was a game manager early on and did win the big games but was not a prolific passer was put to rest as his career has matured. He is at 50,000 now and if he plays as long he says he wants to then he can hit 60 and beyond as well. He is on many exclusive lists for stats as well as for his winning. This is why IMO, I consider him the greatest of his generation. He has no holes in his resume. And I would be saying that even if I was not a Pats fan as I am an addict when it comes to QBs. I follow and study them the most which is why I really don't want Brady's tenure in NE to end just yet. And one more thing. Brady has been a huge beneficiary of the Pats org staying together all these years. As all the stories about Jim Harbaugh begin to swirl, I have realized even more how special it has been that Kraft and Bill have stayed together all these years. It is rare especially with so much success.

 

Jets fans despise the Patriots and their fans.. but just go to their board and you'll see that they respect Tom Brady 10,000x more than any Colt fan.  Colt fans cannot look at Brady objectively because of their incredible bias of Manning.  They feel that any credit or praise that they or anyone else gives Brady somehow diminishes what Manning has accomplished in the NFL, so quite a big chunk of them go out of their way to diminish what Brady has done and put him down constantly just to try and put Manning higher on a pedestal. 

[JerodMayo51]

Here ya go with your "winning" thing. How do you explain it other than maybe it's a "team thing."

 

 

lol.. funny.. Winning is a "team" thing but having a high scoring offense is all 100% Manning, right?  It has nothing to do with all of those hall of famers and 1st round picks that he got to play with right?

 

He would have put up 60 Touchdowns with Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney as his #1 and #2 WRs... no problem! 

 

You can't say "football is a team sport" when it comes to one stat, but act like its all 1 guy when trying to present your argument for another stat.

[Gramz]

I regret getting involved in this thread.

 

Such nonsense, really.    

[Yehoodi]

I think I have two things you might want a response to. 

 

1) The Pat fan called Manning out as he didn't win any championships in college. It appeared that he was citing the Michigan team that Brady was part of and throwing that in our faces. That is incredible as Brady never saw the field in that game and didn't even contribute anything other than what might have taken place in practice to Michigan even getting to that game. Tom Brady threw all of 15 passes that year.

 

2) What I brought up about Tom Brady's last 16 playoff appearances was not to discredit the 10-0 start . It was to prove a point that it is necessary for even the great QB's to have a complete team around them to win january games. If a less experienced Brady goes 10-0 and then goes 8-8 smack dap in the middle of his prime , some would think that maybe there's more to a post season QB record than just being "clutch."  So IMO , it's a legit point in the discussion. I'm not saying 3 rings to 1 should not be part of the discussion , I just differ on how much to weigh it.

 

Bottom line is Brady did play for 3 teams that won SB's.Manning has played for 1 such team. Can't argue that and I won't. I only bring up the facts that point to the facts that this is a stat that is heavily weighted by the overall strength of the teams these QB's played for.

 

Also bottom one is you have a QB that is 38 years old that has thrown for 503 TD's. You have another guy that is one year younger and has thrown for 365. That is a tremendous difference . 143 TDs or 39% more. If they both play until 40 and everything stays equal , that # will probably be around 115-to 120. Huge amount of difference. I took objection to Pats fans dancing around this and somehow coming up with Brady being screwed out of 3 years and if you put those back in the formula , the difference isn't that much.

 

That's RIDICULOUS !!!! 

 

That's ABSURD !!!!!!

 

That's SILLY !!!!!!

 

 

A few things . . .

 

First, when we are looking at stats we really need to look at them as a per year basis and not really a career total when trying to compare production . . . so I don't agree with your comparison regarding the TDs and the point made of who's production is greater than who's . .. otherwise, following your logic we will have to look at interceptions and we find that Manning has thrown 222 INTs to Brady's 136 INTs, which is a 64% increase in interceptions . . . which means that Manning turns the ball over at a rate 1.6 times that Brady does . . . which we all know is not true and we must not view things in this manner . . . ;)

 

Second, as for the college thing . . . Peyton played for a solid Tennessee Volunteers team of the 90s and was in a bowl each year he was at Tennessee I believe . . .and he started the last three years of his college career I believe . . . he was a top prospect that had a strong pedigree, so he was looked on as a great QB . . . but never won the National Championship . . . however the year after Manning left Tennessee they went 13-0 and won the National Championship . . . so it kind of does not look good when you leave a team and when you are not there your team goes undefeated without you . . . which would not mean too much for a middle of the road guy, but for a top prospect at QB of all places it does not help out the image . . . i.e. when you are out of the way your team wins . . .

 

. . . gees . . . actually that kind of got me to thinking a little . . . in the arena of major competitive sports we have one team go on to be undefeated and win a championship in their sport after losing manning but then another team losing manning and ending up drafting Luck . . . funny how that worked out   . . . perhaps the morning dew burns off grass quicker in Tennessee then it does in Indiana . . .

 

Third, as for Brady's playoff career record and wins . . . it is sometimes how lady luck shines on a team . . . I do believe that there is not anything that I can think of that would of changed the fate of the 2004 team winning the ring . . . but I can think of a few things to change the fate of the 2001, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2011 teams the could of resulted in a SB win or loss . . . so the pats could of won as little as 1 or as many as 6 . . . and of those 5 lady luck had a hand it in and it is not a surprise that we won two when 50/50 coin flip would be 2.5, well 2 or 3 . . . but I think you get the point . . . the pats and Brady put themselves in position to win a ring and waited for lady luck to shine or not shine on them . . . Brady record is what it is and all of the pro and cons to it . . . however, had lady luck not shined on 01 and 03 but 07 and 11, then Brady history might be different perhaps not so much as a FG kicker and the team around him as him leading a offense and winning SBs in his MVP years . . . a different image even though lady luck is really responsible for that slight change in image . . . for me I do not look at it as a change but more of a mix between the two and that Brady's accomplished are a blend of the two . . . bottom we can not discount what happened after 2004 . . .  

 

my two cents . . .

[Yehoodi]

As for Peyton and the beat going on and on . . . I do not see Peyton slowing down any time soon . . . perhaps not have a year like last year but there is nothing to say he can not come close to his first year in Denver . . . Denver does have a tough schedule so perhaps they may not go 13-3 . ..

 

The way Peyton is playing it is not out of the question that he should be near this same level next year too . . .

 

Peyton just keeps on keeping on . . .  

[dw49]

Having played 3 more seasons than Brady certainly contributes to that.  If you took Brady's average TDs per year and multiplied it by 3, it wouldn't be a very big gap.  No doubt Manning has all the stats to back him up, but you can't ignore the teams they played on..  Colts front office focused mainly on the offensive side of the ball, Manning had 1st round pick after 1st round pick injected into his offense to keep it going strong and had the privilege of playing with 4 Hall of Famers..  Not to mention he played in a Dome 9+ times a year (8 at home, 1 in Houston at a minimum) every single year for the majority of his career.  He also played in the same offensive system under Tom Moore and Howard Mudd's tutelage for the majority of his career as well, with no turnover.

 

Manning has all of those stats because hes one of the most elite to ever play the game, but when you start nitpicking stats and some gaps here or there, there are other contributing factors as well.. like the TEAM he played on, the talent he had around him and the climate he played in.

 

 

What I'm saying is that Brady would not be 3 seasons "behind" Manning if he were as talented as Manning was. He's only a year younger , so the # should be one and not 3. Like I've already said , I can think of the injury excuse and years defending your country excuse . The "I'm too scrawny" or the "I couldn't win the starting QB job at Michigan " excuse to me is not an excuse. I never say in this thread that Brady is not or was not a great QB. What I dispute is that his total TD # really is close to Peyton's # due to the fact that he's played 3 less seasons.

 

Heres one for you Pat fans. Who was the greatest HR hitter ever in the national league ? I'll bet every one of you answered either Aaron , Bonds or Mays.

 

Why didn't any of you even think of saying Ralph Kiner ? He played in an absolute nightmare park for a right hand hitter. See the link I have for a layout of the park . He came up as a 23 year old rookie and led the national league for 7 straight seasons in home runs. He ended up hitting 369 home runs . None before the age of 24 and forty after the age of 30. I have never ever heard of Ralph Kiner mentioned in the same breath of Hank Aaron regarding career home runs. Same argument...

 

 

 

 

http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/ForbesField.html

[dw49]

lol.. funny.. Winning is a "team" thing but having a high scoring offense is all 100% Manning, right?  It has nothing to do with all of those hall of famers and 1st round picks that he got to play with right?

 

He would have put up 60 Touchdowns with Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney as his #1 and #2 WRs... no problem! 

 

You can't say "football is a team sport" when it comes to one stat, but act like its all 1 guy when trying to present your argument for another stat.

 

lol.. funny.. Winning is a "team" thing but having a high scoring offense is all 100% Manning, right?  It has nothing to do with all of those hall of famers and 1st round picks that he got to play with right?

 

He would have put up 60 Touchdowns with Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney as his #1 and #2 WRs... no problem! 

 

You can't say "football is a team sport" when it comes to one stat, but act like its all 1 guy when trying to present your argument for another stat.

 

 

You can also say that Manning played a number of years with a horrible O line and ZERO running game. . Guys like C Johnson playing LT . When he left Indy , he barley held a starting spot for Minn.at guard. Ryan Diem was atrocious his last 2-3 years at RT. We've seen Brady operate this year behind a not so great O line and ......

 

Brady no doubt has had a few years where his targets were not great but fact remains he's thrown 40% less TD's than Manning and he's a year younger. You Pat fans want to twist and squirm and say the 140 less TD's are really not 140 because Tom has played less. He still averages around 5 per year less which would be a very wide margin of 75 if they both played 15 years. I'm too tired to look up the exact # .. I think 5 is close though... 

 

Last but not least. For your "You can't say "football is a team sport" when it comes to one stat, but act like its all 1 guy when trying to present your argument for another stat.'

 

​Sorry but you really can make that argument. Do you see any guys like Trent Dilfer in career leaders for yardage or TD passes ? No.. ? I didn't think so. Now can you find average QB's that have SB rings ? Yep... Terry Bradshaw would be an example of a good QB with Multiple rings. Trednt Dilfer would be a bad QB with the same amount of rings as Manning and more than Marino.

[dw49]

A few things . . .

 

First, when we are looking at stats we really need to look at them as a per year basis and not really a career total when trying to compare production . . . so I don't agree with your comparison regarding the TDs and the point made of who's production is greater than who's . .. otherwise, following your logic we will have to look at interceptions and we find that Manning has thrown 222 INTs to Brady's 136 INTs, which is a 64% increase in interceptions . . . which means that Manning turns the ball over at a rate 1.6 times that Brady does . . . which we all know is not true and we must not view things in this manner . . . ;)

 

Second, as for the college thing . . . Peyton played for a solid Tennessee Volunteers team of the 90s and was in a bowl each year he was at Tennessee I believe . . .and he started the last three years of his college career I believe . . . he was a top prospect that had a strong pedigree, so he was looked on as a great QB . . . but never won the National Championship . . . however the year after Manning left Tennessee they went 13-0 and won the National Championship . . . so it kind of does not look good when you leave a team and when you are not there your team goes undefeated without you . . . which would not mean too much for a middle of the road guy, but for a top prospect at QB of all places it does not help out the image . . . i.e. when you are out of the way your team wins . . .

 

. . . gees . . . actually that kind of got me to thinking a little . . . in the arena of major competitive sports we have one team go on to be undefeated and win a championship in their sport after losing manning but then another team losing manning and ending up drafting Luck . . . funny how that worked out   . . . perhaps the morning dew burns off grass quicker in Tennessee then it does in Indiana . . .

 

Third, as for Brady's playoff career record and wins . . . it is sometimes how lady luck shines on a team . . . I do believe that there is not anything that I can think of that would of changed the fate of the 2004 team winning the ring . . . but I can think of a few things to change the fate of the 2001, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2011 teams the could of resulted in a SB win or loss . . . so the pats could of won as little as 1 or as many as 6 . . . and of those 5 lady luck had a hand it in and it is not a surprise that we won two when 50/50 coin flip would be 2.5, well 2 or 3 . . . but I think you get the point . . . the pats and Brady put themselves in position to win a ring and waited for lady luck to shine or not shine on them . . . Brady record is what it is and all of the pro and cons to it . . . however, had lady luck not shined on 01 and 03 but 07 and 11, then Brady history might be different perhaps not so much as a FG kicker and the team around him as him leading a offense and winning SBs in his MVP years . . . a different image even though lady luck is really responsible for that slight change in image . . . for me I do not look at it as a change but more of a mix between the two and that Brady's accomplished are a blend of the two . . . bottom we can not discount what happened after 2004 . . .  

 

my two cents . . .

 

 

Your first argument is really silly. It's saying that a players longevity has nothing to do with how prolific he was at his sport. The INT thing you have is like saying Pete Rose was prone to striking out. RIDICULOUS  !!!

 

Your Tennesee argument is really as bad as the above.. maybe worse if possible. Are you really saying that because Tenn went undefeated the year after Manning left , that's a reflection on him. That is so ignorant . Do you really want to say that Tee Martin was better than Peyton Manning ?

[amfootball]

Your first argument is really silly. It's saying that a players longevity has nothing to do with how prolific he was at his sport. The INT thing you have is like saying Pete Rose was prone to striking out. RIDICULOUS  !!!

 

Your Tennesee argument is really as bad as the above.. maybe worse if possible. Are you really saying that because Tenn went undefeated the year after Manning left , that's a reflection on him. That is so ignorant . Do you really want to say that Tee Martin was better than Peyton Manning ?

 

 

Your first argument is really silly. It's saying that a players longevity has nothing to do with how prolific he was at his sport. The INT thing you have is like saying Pete Rose was prone to striking out. RIDICULOUS  !!!

 

Your Tennesee argument is really as bad as the above.. maybe worse if possible. Are you really saying that because Tenn went undefeated the year after Manning left , that's a reflection on him. That is so ignorant . Do you really want to say that Tee Martin was better than Peyton Manning ?

I think the TN point was that a QB like Tee Martin led them to the championship/undefeated season as soon as Manning left and Manning with his pedigree and football talent was the one who was supposed to lead TN to rings.

 

Nice stat BTW on the baseball HRs. Never heard of that guy. I think it is funny in sports how guys who have great careers are forgotten because bigger personalities over shadow them. Reminds me of Robert Horry who has 7 rings with three different teams and widely considered to be one of the best clutch performers ever but all you hear is about Michael and his 6 rings, Kobe and his 5, Duncan and his 5 and will Lebron ever catch them.

[Yehoodi]

Your first argument is really silly. It's saying that a players longevity has nothing to do with how prolific he was at his sport. The INT thing you have is like saying Pete Rose was prone to striking out. RIDICULOUS  !!!

 

Your Tennesee argument is really as bad as the above.. maybe worse if possible. Are you really saying that because Tenn went undefeated the year after Manning left , that's a reflection on him. That is so ignorant . Do you really want to say that Tee Martin was better than Peyton Manning ?

 

Could you please tell me what your point is about the difference in TD production between Brady and Manning?   It appeared to me that you were trying to say that since Manning has more TDs he is more productive in that area and at a tune of 39% . . . and I do not see what the relevance is in siting overall career totals as it relates to a person productivity to the team . . . please advise

 

I just brought in the Tennessee point as some pat fans here earlier may not have convey the two colleges careers in the manner in which many critics look at Manning and Brady . . . it was not whether or not Brady necessarily did or did not win a championship or bowl but that the perception of Manning by some critics is effected by the fact that when he left the team it won a national championship . . . that is to say "they" say why could not Manning have won one as he was likely their best QB in many years yet was not able to capture a championship when it was capable one after he left . . . 

[Yehoodi]

Brady no doubt has had a few years where his targets were not great but fact remains he's thrown 40% less TD's than Manning and he's a year younger. You Pat fans want to twist and squirm and say the 140 less TD's are really not 140 because Tom has played less. He still averages around 5 per year less which would be a very wide margin of 75 if they both played 15 years. I'm too tired to look up the exact # .. I think 5 is close though... 

 

Brady averages about 30 TDs per year (well 29.916, one career TD shy of an even 30 average) and Manning averages 32.73 TD per year . . . so if Manning were to retire today and Brady were to play the rest of this year and two more years plus four games into the following season . . . each QB will have played 15 years, 4 games (I am not included games at the end of seasons and the first few games in 2001) . . . and Manning will have 503 and Brady some where around 460 . . . if Brady lights it up again like he and Manning did in 2004 and 07 and 13 then that number will go up . . . regardless if he averages the same as the two have it is 460 

 

If we remove the three great years (04, 07, 13) and look at their production outside of those years and what is their run of the mill averages we see that Manning is 29.76 and Brady 28.63 . . . so over the bulk of their careers, that is the collectively 24 of their 27 years manning averages about one TD per year more . . . so is not like year in and year out Manning is throwing 32-34 TDs and Brady is throwing 26-28 TDs which would be a different point entirely . . . overall Manning averages about one TD per year production and Manning has had two great years to Bradys one . . . for about 90% of their careers Manning has average about 1 TD more than Brady . . .

 

And if really wanted to split hairs we should be really looking at how the two teams acted in the redzone and on downs and goal, does one team pass the ball a lot in lieu of a run and vice versa . . . if on first and goal from the 3 one team hands the ball off and the other does a play action pass, a QB might loose the opportunity to get a passing TD as the running back ran the ball in while the other has an opportunity to get a passing TD and look great . . .

 

There is very good reason why many say stats are for losers . . . stats revolve around your teammates, opportunity, play calling, the opponents (with a 16 game season and divisions you don't play each team every year like other sports and you play 6 games against three teams in your division each year that others don't always play), and way the game plays out - are you behind late, did your defense give up points so you are playing to catch up and playing against a prevent D, or your D gives up points so you can stay in the game in need to score as opposed to running out the clock and not trying to score, and on and on and on and on . . .

 

I think that since over the coarse of their respective careers Brady only trails Manning by less than a TD per year for the bulk of their careers (90%) and that Manning has two great years to Brady's one, the gap between the two is not as great as you make it out to be . . .

[GoPats]

I think I have two things you might want a response to. 

 

1) The Pat fan called Manning out as he didn't win any championships in college. It appeared that he was citing the Michigan team that Brady was part of and throwing that in our faces. That is incredible as Brady never saw the field in that game and didn't even contribute anything other than what might have taken place in practice to Michigan even getting to that game. Tom Brady threw all of 15 passes that year.

 

2) What I brought up about Tom Brady's last 16 playoff appearances was not to discredit the 10-0 start . It was to prove a point that it is necessary for even the great QB's to have a complete team around them to win january games. If a less experienced Brady goes 10-0 and then goes 8-8 smack dap in the middle of his prime , some would think that maybe there's more to a post season QB record than just being "clutch."  So IMO , it's a legit point in the discussion. I'm not saying 3 rings to 1 should not be part of the discussion , I just differ on how much to weigh it.

 

Bottom line is Brady did play for 3 teams that won SB's.Manning has played for 1 such team. Can't argue that and I won't. I only bring up the facts that point to the facts that this is a stat that is heavily weighted by the overall strength of the teams these QB's played for.

 

Also bottom one is you have a QB that is 38 years old that has thrown for 503 TD's. You have another guy that is one year younger and has thrown for 365. That is a tremendous difference . 143 TDs or 39% more. If they both play until 40 and everything stays equal , that # will probably be around 115-to 120. Huge amount of difference. I took objection to Pats fans dancing around this and somehow coming up with Brady being screwed out of 3 years and if you put those back in the formula , the difference isn't that much.

 

That's RIDICULOUS !!!! 

 

That's ABSURD !!!!!!

 

That's SILLY !!!!!!

 

What else can I say ? Look , if when comparing careers you want to be fair to the point of ... call it .."equal opportunity " ? I would think the following things should be put in the equation.

 

1) The eras that the players played in. Simple here... the same.

2) Games missed due to injury.           Simple again... the same.

3) Games missed due to military service.  Again... the same.

 

Now some of you are going to say that Manning had a clear path to the starting job and Brady had Bledsoe in front of him. I say to that it's just part of being great at an earlier stage in your career. If Brady had maybe hit the weights earlier , he might not have gone around pick 200 and thus could have improved on his position entering his NFL career. When you are pick 1.1 , you are viewed as ready to start in the NFL. Guys taken in the 6th round are not seen in the same light and I doubt that it would have been safe to even put a 210 LB Tom Brady on the field his rookie year. He really did hit the weight room and added like 15 pounds of muscle going into his second year.

 

I don't know, I think this thread is a bit silly and didn't mean to get caught up in it.

 

I don't think Brady got "screwed" in terms of the number of full seasons he's had as a starter. He stayed in college for an extra year and was carried as the Patriots' 4th QB as a rookie. 

 

However... you're tying all of this to age, not the number of seasons played (which I feel is the more important factor). It's irrelevant anyway, because on a per-game basis with production (passing yards, TDs), Manning has few equals, and when you combine that with his longevity and durability, there is no way Brady will even come close to most of his volume stats.

 

That doesn't really matter to me when I take in the factors for my personal decision... I mean, Joe Montana is generally regarded as the GOAT at this particular moment in time, and he never had a 4,000-yard season and only eclipsed 30 TDs once. There are a lot of factors and each player's legacy is unique. 

 

If the question came down to pure productivity and numbers, Manning will always come out ahead. If it comes down to winning, which I feel it does, then you have to give the advantage to Brady. I think that's why a lot of Indy fans despise him so much, even if they don't realize it. In a lot of ways, he had the career (or at least parts of it) that you guys think Manning should have had. 

[sweetsurrender]

I don't know, I think this thread is a bit silly and didn't mean to get caught up in it.

 

I don't think Brady got "screwed" in terms of the number of full seasons he's had as a starter. He stayed in college for an extra year and was carried as the Patriots' 4th QB as a rookie. 

 

However... you're tying all of this to age, not the number of seasons played (which I feel is the more important factor). It's irrelevant anyway, because on a per-game basis with production (passing yards, TDs), Manning has few equals, and when you combine that with his longevity and durability, there is no way Brady will even come close to most of his volume stats.

 

That doesn't really matter to me when I take in the factors for my personal decision... I mean, Joe Montana is generally regarded as the GOAT at this particular moment in time, and he never had a 4,000-yard season and only eclipsed 30 TDs once. There are a lot of factors and each player's legacy is unique. 

 

If the question came down to pure productivity and numbers, Manning will always come out ahead. If it comes down to winning, which I feel it does, then you have to give the advantage to Brady. I think that's why a lot of Indy fans despise him so much, even if they don't realize it. In a lot of ways, he had the career (or at least parts of it) that you guys think Manning should have had. 

Really all of this can be summed up into one simple question - whose career would you rather have? Stats are great, records and all but it always comes down to the wins and the hardware. Brady is the winningest QB of his generation in the regular AND post-season. That is why the envy and hate is so great ... and also because his coach is Belichick who must make it hard at times for his own mother to like him.  ;)

 

And if you listen close to enough you will notice that the Colts fanbase sounds an awful lot like the Pats did when it talks about Luck. He is a winner. He knows how to win. He is a clutch. And he is all those things and this year he may have the stats too but funny how the tune changes from the Manning days.

[GoPats]

Really all of this can be summed up into one simple question - whose career would you rather have? Stats are great, records and all but it always comes down to the wins and the hardware. Brady is the winningest QB of his generation in the regular AND post-season. That is why the envy and hate is so great ... and also because his coach is Belichick who must make it hard at times for his own mother to like him.  ;)

 

And if you listen close to enough you will notice that the Colts fanbase sounds an awful lot like the Pats did when it talks about Luck. He is a winner. He knows how to win. He is a clutch. And he is all those things and this year he may have the stats too but funny how the tune changes from the Manning days.

 

That's a great way to boil it down. You can't go wrong with either guy's career really.

[dgambill]

Wow....this thread is like two car guys arguing between their Ford Mustang Cobras and their BMW M-Series. Both have valid arguements...both are discussing beautiful and amazing machines. Both are right (their car is better at this or that) but never could say overall one car is better than the other. Point here is both Peyton and Tom are AMAZING special QBs...no matter how you measure them they are successful. Championship qbs, amazing statistical qbs, amazing winners etc...but arguing over semantics and statistics is just so meaningless....just enjoy your cars people....or watching your favorite qb. /thread lol 

[JerodMayo51]

What I'm saying is that Brady would not be 3 seasons "behind" Manning if he were as talented as Manning was.

 

You can't just remove context and the situations that people went into and paint it black and white.  Just because someone didn't start right away doesn't mean they weren't as talented as someone else who did.

 

Jamarcus Russel was the #1 overall pick and started right away.. Was he more talented?

 

Aaron Rodgers came into a situation where a hall of fame QB was ahead of him and he had to ride the bench for 3-4 years before he got a chance.. That isn't because Aaron Rodgers wasn't talented, its because he went into a completely different situation than Manning did.  Once he finally got his chance to play, it didn't take him long to win a Superbowl and an NFL MVP award.

 

Teams that draft 1st overall are typically in total shambles and are desperate.. they will start the QB that they draft with that pick because they have no other choice. 

[JerodMayo51]

. . overall Manning averages about one TD per year production and Manning has had two great years to Bradys one . . . for about 90% of their careers Manning has average about 1 TD more than Brady . . .

 

 

 

Brady has had 2 amazing years.  In 2011 he won the NFL MVP unanimously and they had the 2nd highest scoring offense in NFL history (2nd to the 07 Patriots). 

 

Thats the other part of the "stat" argument... A QBs job is to command his offense and put them into position to win games, and Brady had an absurd year with like 35 TDs and only 4 interceptions, but he could have had that TD total go up a heck of a lot more down near the goal line if he threw the ball instead of put them in an effective run play.

[Fx Stryker]

Brady has had 2 amazing years.  In 2011 he won the NFL MVP unanimously and they had the 2nd highest scoring offense in NFL history (2nd to the 07 Patriots). 

 

Thats the other part of the "stat" argument... A QBs job is to command his offense and put them into position to win games, and Brady had an absurd year with like 35 TDs and only 4 interceptions, but he could have had that TD total go up a heck of a lot more down near the goal line if he threw the ball instead of put them in an effective run play.

 

I'm going to say if this is you trying to dig at Manning saying he throws a lot of TDs in running situations to rack up his stats well Brady has thrown 17.8% of his TDs 3 yards or fewer in compared to Peyton's 16.3% in 3 yards or fewer.

 

And Brady has 47.9% of his TDs in goal to go situations compared to Peyton's 39.9%.

[dw49]

You can't just remove context and the situations that people went into and paint it black and white.  Just because someone didn't start right away doesn't mean they weren't as talented as someone else who did.

 

Jamarcus Russel was the #1 overall pick and started right away.. Was he more talented?

 

Aaron Rodgers came into a situation where a hall of fame QB was ahead of him and he had to ride the bench for 3-4 years before he got a chance.. That isn't because Aaron Rodgers wasn't talented, its because he went into a completely different situation than Manning did.  Once he finally got his chance to play, it didn't take him long to win a Superbowl and an NFL MVP award.

 

Teams that draft 1st overall are typically in total shambles and are desperate.. they will start the QB that they draft with that pick because they have no other choice. 

 

 

What I had said is that If Brady was better in college and had hit the weights a bit , he may have been drafted a lot higher. Thus be in a better position to start his rookie year.  But he only sat 1 year and with that Pat team , it would be really hard to figure Brady for more than around 16-18 TD passes anyway.

 

Yes Aaron Rodgers did catch a bad break by sitting pretty much 3 years. Anyway I do get a kick out of how you Pat fans can somehow take a guy 38 who has 503 TD passes and say it's really not many more than their 37 year old guy that has 365. I mean it is what it is, Brady is way behind in career TD passes and he's one year younger.  I hope we don't get an MVP thread anytime soon.

[Gramz]

Two Great Guys.  Period.   Enjoy them while you can.

 

[amfootball]

Two Great Guys.  Period.   Enjoy them while you can.

 

They sure look young in the restaurant pic Gramz. When was that from?

[GoPats]

Two Great Guys.  Period.   Enjoy them while you can.

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KLkGmrYaBk

[dgambill]

I'm going to say if this is you trying to dig at Manning saying he throws a lot of TDs in running situations to rack up his stats well Brady has thrown 17.8% of his TDs 3 yards or fewer in compared to Peyton's 16.3% in 3 yards or fewer.

 

And Brady has 47.9% of his TDs in goal to go situations compared to Peyton's 39.9%.

Thats an interesting stat...did not realize that. I think overall Peyton has led a more pass orientated offense for most of his career while Brady has had that for a stretch from like 06-12. Certainly both will switch and check down to the run if the defense calls for it or adjust to a short pass if the defense is stacking the box. Both are incredible against the blitz and checking to the right play. After all we saw Peyton do it to the tune of like 200yds against the Pats last season when he was breaking records...and we saw it in 06 in that SB run where he checked to run plays to Addai at the end of the AFC championship game and in the SB when throwing in the rain wasn't a great option Peyton checked to short passes to his RBs and running the ball to win that game against a STOUT Chicago defense that had a great front 7 that we shouldn't have been able to run against in theory. Same thing at the end of the game against Baltimore that year in the playoffs...Peyton will run the ball when the defense dictates it...but lets be honest...who amoung us WOULDN'T prefer/trust either of these two qbs to throw the ball in the redzone to get the score as opposed to trying to pound it in with the running game when teams are in goal line defenses. Sorry but putting the ball in the hands of two HOFers hands is preferable than trying to go against your teams identity and force it in against a stacked box. The whole throwing CHEAP TDs is a bad arguement no matter who is using it. Cheap TDs in my mind would be when the game is well over and you run play action agaist a team expecting you to run the clock out...but lets give both these chaps our admiration for what they do on the field....their records will INDEED fall but the way they played the game and at the level they did it...may never been matched.

[JerodMayo51]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KLkGmrYaBk

 

Hopefully the Patriots successor is a good one so we can continue to argue on these forums over who the better QB is for the next 15 years lol

[JerodMayo51]

I'm going to say if this is you trying to dig at Manning saying he throws a lot of TDs in running situations to rack up his stats well Brady has thrown 17.8% of his TDs 3 yards or fewer in compared to Peyton's 16.3% in 3 yards or fewer.

 

And Brady has 47.9% of his TDs in goal to go situations compared to Peyton's 39.9%.

 

I never said that he was padding his stats, my point was why should those rushing touchdowns be overlooked if its the QBs job to put them into positions to be successful? In 2011, they have the second highest scoring offense in NFL history.  Brady threw only 4 interceptions the entire year (which is incredible), breaking the record for TD to Int ratio and had that offense humming like a well oiled machine all year long.  That efficiency is what allowed their offense to be so dynamic and unpredictable, which in turn lead to more touchdowns in the redzone... Whether that was from passing or running the ball, it was all a byproduct of the offense's efficiency.

 

Its arguable that it was an even better year than in 2007, but because as fans we're so obsessed with 1 or 2 stats, we just look at passing touchdowns and ignore everything else.

 

If you ask me, Favre's career wasn't all that impressive with his 500+ touchdowns, because it completely ignores his other NFL record... the most INTERCEPTIONS of all time.

 

Whats better:

- Throwing 30 touchdowns and 5 interceptions

- Throwing 50 touchdowns and 25 interceptions

 

I'd bet if you asked a lot of fans, they would immediately look at the 50 TDs and proclaim that it was the better year, when in reality it was not.

 

Turnover differential is the number one correlation to wins in the NFL, so TD:INT ratio is a very important stat.  Throwing lots and lots of touchdowns doesn't necessarily mean you had a great year if you threw lots and lots of interceptions as well.  It just means you took more chances, some of which paid off but some of which didn't as well.  Its the QB's job to lead the offense, manage the game, protect the ball and put it into the endzone,regardless of how its done.

[dgambill]

I never said that he was padding his stats, my point was why should those rushing touchdowns be overlooked if its the QBs job to put them into positions to be successful? In 2011, they have the second highest scoring offense in NFL history.  Brady threw only 4 interceptions the entire year (which is incredible), breaking the record for TD to Int ratio and had that offense humming like a well oiled machine all year long.  That efficiency is what allowed their offense to be so dynamic and unpredictable, which in turn lead to more touchdowns in the redzone... Whether that was from passing or running the ball, it was all a byproduct of the offense's efficiency.

 

Its arguable that it was an even better year than in 2007, but because as fans we're so obsessed with 1 or 2 stats, we just look at passing touchdowns and ignore everything else.

 

If you ask me, Favre's career wasn't all that impressive with his 500+ touchdowns, because it completely ignores his other NFL record... the most INTERCEPTIONS of all time.

 

Whats better:

- Throwing 30 touchdowns and 5 interceptions

- Throwing 50 touchdowns and 25 interceptions

 

I'd bet if you asked a lot of fans, they would immediately look at the 50 TDs and proclaim that it was the better year, when in reality it was not.

 

Turnover differential is the number one correlation to wins in the NFL, so TD:INT ratio is a very important stat.  Throwing lots and lots of touchdowns doesn't necessarily mean you had a great year if you threw lots and lots of interceptions as well.  It just means you took more chances, some of which paid off but some of which didn't as well.  Its the QB's job to lead the offense, manage the game, protect the ball and put it into the endzone,regardless of how its done.

Indeed Tom's TD/INT ratio is off the charts. Just look at  Nick Foles last year to this year...you see what not turning the ball over and being efficient with the ball do for an offense. That said just not turning the ball over isn't enough to win all the time...ask Alex Smith sometimes you have to make plays for your offense depending on your teams capabilities....but no doubt Brady is very very efficient....amazing really...but Peyton considering how many balls he throws is no slouch.....his ints/throw aren't too bad at all.

[BOTT]

Wow....this thread is like two car guys arguing between their Ford Mustang Cobras and their BMW M-Series. Both have valid arguements...both are discussing beautiful and amazing machines. Both are right (their car is better at this or that) but never could say overall one car is better than the other. Point here is both Peyton and Tom are AMAZING special QBs...no matter how you measure them they are successful. Championship qbs, amazing statistical qbs, amazing winners etc...but arguing over semantics and statistics is just so meaningless....just enjoy your cars people....or watching your favorite qb. /thread lol

I think it's called the cake or ice cream argument

[braveheartcolt]

Brady is a fantastic QB. And it has absolutely zero to do with his rings. He is just a quality football player. But he is simply not close to being better than Peyton Manning. And just about every neutral fan will say the same thing. Most of these 'neutrals' also find Peyton more annoying and the like Brady more, but they do not think he is a better player.

And for the record, when all is said and done, Mr Luck will be better than both of them.

[amfootball]

Brady is a fantastic QB. And it has absolutely zero to do with his rings. He is just a quality football player. But he is simply not close to being better than Peyton Manning. And just about every neutral fan will say the same thing. Most of these 'neutrals' also find Peyton more annoying and the like Brady more, but they do not think he is a better player.

And for the record, when all is said and done, Mr Luck will be better than both of them.

 

Pssst. If they like Brady more it is because of Gisele because after all Gisele =