The Offseason Reading Series #12: My case for Peyton Manning as the greatest quarterback of all time

[chad72]

13 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

Just to keep the discussion going, I have a few problems with the reasoning of some voters.  Brady is #1 because he's won so many games and Super Bowls, but those are team accomplishments, as we've discussed.  Not only that, but Wade Phillips says the Pats haven't always had a great defense.  That's true, but he's had more talent on that side of the ball, including Belichick > Dungy, than Manning.

 

Another piece that we can discuss is how teams did in their absence.  Brady misses a year with a knee injury and the Pats still win double-digits with Cassel.  Brady misses 4 games with a suspension and the Pats go 3-1.  Manning misses a year due to neck injuries and the Colts go from a championship contender to the worst team in the league.  Thoughts?

 

Some interesting comments in the link above 

 

Dungy: I put Manning and Marino at the top of the nonscramblers because they didn't have the benefit of dominant defenses. People also would talk about Peyton having all these weapons, but he was responsible for a lot of that, especially when the team was so good and not picking high in the draft.

 

Norv Turner:  If Peyton Manning had New England's defenses, he would be at the top of this list and he would be 5-2 or 6-1 in Super Bowls

 

 

[gspdx]

13 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

Another piece that we can discuss is how teams did in their absence.  Brady misses a year with a knee injury and the Pats still win double-digits with Cassel.  Brady misses 4 games with a suspension and the Pats go 3-1.  Manning misses a year due to neck injuries and the Colts go from a championship contender to the worst team in the league.  Thoughts?

 

This is a great point too.  I certainly am not interested in bashing tom Brady - but this really sticks out.  That TEAM can continue to win.  Brady makes them better, but they are very good without him.

 

I have said this before and this is totally subjective.  But let's say Manning had gone to the Pats and Brady had gone to the Colts with all other things begin equal, I think Manning would have had an amazing career there and Brady would have faded into oblivion like so many other young QBs.

 

No evidence - just my opinion.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, GoPats said:

 

It's the offseason so there's no shortage of this stuff out there, but...

 

Interestingly, ESPN just published something on this today. They had a panel of 10 former coaches and executives (including Tony Dungy) and Brady was the "overwhelming" choice for the top spot among "modern era" QBs (defined as 1978 or later).

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20096209/nfl-coaches-execs-rank-best-quarterbacks-modern-era-2017

 

 

 

As you said, modern era QBs. Football was played long before 1978 and omitting those players is ignoring history.

On a personal level I do appreciate having this debate without letting it get personal and keeping a civil debate going. It is refreshing to actually have a debate this passionate without a bunch of nonsense slipping in.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, GoPats said:

 

It's the offseason so there's no shortage of this stuff out there, but...

 

Interestingly, ESPN just published something on this today. They had a panel of 10 former coaches and executives (including Tony Dungy) and Brady was the "overwhelming" choice for the top spot among "modern era" QBs (defined as 1978 or later).

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20096209/nfl-coaches-execs-rank-best-quarterbacks-modern-era-2017

 

How many of them still think you should draft a RB in the first round??

 

Edit: Also, I don't think it's overwhelming at all. Their index had Brady at 86.7%, Manning at 80%, Montana at 78%, and then a big drop off to Elway at 66.7%. For Manning to be in that group with Brady and Montana, despite them both having more rings, Montana having a flawless SB record, Brady having nearly a dozen AFCCG appearances and three more SBs, it really speaks to Manning's greatness.

[GoPats]

34 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

Just to keep the discussion going, I have a few problems with the reasoning of some voters.  Brady is #1 because he's won so many games and Super Bowls, but those are team accomplishments, as we've discussed.  Not only that, but Wade Phillips says the Pats haven't always had a great defense.  That's true, but he's had more talent on that side of the ball, including Belichick > Dungy, than Manning.

 

Another piece that we can discuss is how teams did in their absence.  Brady misses a year with a knee injury and the Pats still win double-digits with Cassel.  Brady misses 4 games with a suspension and the Pats go 3-1.  Manning misses a year due to neck injuries and the Colts go from a championship contender to the worst team in the league.  Thoughts?

 

I don't think it's JUST the team accomplishments though. Brady has the volume stats to earn a place in the discussion. He's currently 4th in career yards and TDs, and has a couple of productive years left in him. 

 

As for the other question about how the teams fared in their absence... 

 

In 2008, it was a combination of an easy schedule (don't forget the same roster, basically, went 16-0 the year before) and the fact that Cassel just flat out played well. He had a Pro Bowl season in KC after the trade. And Curtis Painter was, well... he was just terrible, lol... 

 

In 2016, Garoppolo played well in the first 5 quarters. The defense got a shutout in that Thursday game against Houston to get them to 3-0. Then they got shut out themselves (at home no less) by Buffalo.

 

I'm also still of the belief that once the 2011 season started to spiral downward, Indy did very little to try to stop it. Just seems like they embraced it knowing that they'd have a shot at drafting Luck if they continued down that path. I know it's a controversial topic, but I really don't think the Colts tried all that hard to win. 

 

 

[GoPats]

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

How many of them still think you should draft a RB in the first round??

 

Edit: Also, I don't think it's overwhelming at all. Their index had Brady at 86.7%, Manning at 80%, Montana at 78%, and then a big drop off to Elway at 66.7%. For Manning to be in that group with Brady and Montana, despite them both having more rings, Montana having a flawless SB record, Brady having nearly a dozen AFCCG appearances and three more SBs, it really speaks to Manning's greatness.

 

LOL, I hear you. I just happened to read that article at lunch after responding to this thread. 

 

 

[21isSuperman]

1 hour ago, GoPats said:

 

I don't think it's JUST the team accomplishments though. Brady has the volume stats to earn a place in the discussion. He's currently 4th in career yards and TDs, and has a couple of productive years left in him. 

 

As for the other question about how the teams fared in their absence... 

 

In 2008, it was a combination of an easy schedule (don't forget the same roster, basically, went 16-0 the year before) and the fact that Cassel just flat out played well. He had a Pro Bowl season in KC after the trade. And Curtis Painter was, well... he was just terrible, lol... 

 

In 2016, Garoppolo played well in the first 5 quarters. The defense got a shutout in that Thursday game against Houston to get them to 3-0. Then they got shut out themselves (at home no less) by Buffalo.

Regarding your first point, I certainly understand.  Brady has the team accomplishments, but he has the individual performances and numbers to show that he's been a big reason for those team accomplishments.

 

Regarding the bolded, that's my point.  If the Pats lose Brady, but their backups - and even 3rd stringers in Jacoby Brissett - can come in and play at a high level, what does that tell you about the state of the team around them?  The coaches and talent around the quarterbacks helped elevate their play, so they must have done the same for Brady.  Despite his Pro Bowl nod in 2010 (which he interestingly only got because Brady opted out of the Pro Bowl to have surgery), I don't think anyone would call Matt Cassel a Pro Bowl talent.  If Cassel, Brissett, and Garoppolo can:

1) go a combined 14-6

2) throw for a total of 25 TDs to 11 INTs

3) throw for 4595 yards in 20 games (a respectable 230 ypg)

4) each have completion percentages over 60%

 

then I think it suggests Brady has had a better unit around him, helping elevate his play and performances.  Take Peyton off of the Colts and they go from 1 division title and 10 wins despite tons of injuries to the 1st overall pick.  Take Brady off of the Pats and they go 14-6. 

 

To try again with the car analogy, taking Brady off of the Pats is like filling up a car with regular fuel instead of premium.  It'll so go and get you from point A to point B with the regular fuel, but it performs better with the premium.  But taking Manning off of the Colts is like taking the engine out of the car.

 

Not to minimize Brady's contributions, but I'd say Peyton has had to do more with less overall.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, GoPats said:

I don't think it's JUST the team accomplishments though. Brady has the volume stats to earn a place in the discussion. He's currently 4th in career yards and TDs, and has a couple of productive years left in him. 

 

As for the other question about how the teams fared in their absence... 

 

In 2008, it was a combination of an easy schedule (don't forget the same roster, basically, went 16-0 the year before) and the fact that Cassel just flat out played well. He had a Pro Bowl season in KC after the trade. And Curtis Painter was, well... he was just terrible, lol... 

 

In 2016, Garoppolo played well in the first 5 quarters. The defense got a shutout in that Thursday game against Houston to get them to 3-0. Then they got shut out themselves (at home no less) by Buffalo.

 

I agree with all this. I'd also add that the 2008 Patriots had a better roster and a much better coaching staff than the 2011 Colts, so the 11-5 vs 2-14 comparison isn't so definitive. Still, the 11-5 record for the Pats does open eyes as to how much support Brady gets, and the 2-14 record for the Colts raises eyebrows regarding how little support Manning got at times, especially in 2010.

 

Quote

I'm also still of the belief that once the 2011 season started to spiral downward, Indy did very little to try to stop it. Just seems like they embraced it knowing that they'd have a shot at drafting Luck if they continued down that path. I know it's a controversial topic, but I really don't think the Colts tried all that hard to win. 

 

This, we'll never agree on. You can say it's just your opinion and all that, but a team that 'isn't trying that hard' has no reason to fire their defensive coordinator with five weeks left in the regular season, nor do they switch QBs. If they're content with losing because they hope to secure the top draft pick, they just keep doing what they've been doing, because their plan is working. As it stands, their second win almost cost them the #1 pick.

 

The 2011 Colts were desperate to win games, especially late in the year. They just weren't any good. The coaching staff wasn't good, the roster wasn't good, the QBs were dreadful. 

[footballhero1]

4 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

Just to keep the discussion going, I have a few problems with the reasoning of some voters.  Brady is #1 because he's won so many games and Super Bowls, but those are team accomplishments, as we've discussed.  Not only that, but Wade Phillips says the Pats haven't always had a great defense.  That's true, but he's had more talent on that side of the ball, including Belichick > Dungy, than Manning.

 

Another piece that we can discuss is how teams did in their absence.  Brady misses a year with a knee injury and the Pats still win double-digits with Cassel.  Brady misses 4 games with a suspension and the Pats go 3-1.  Manning misses a year due to neck injuries and the Colts go from a championship contender to the worst team in the league.  Thoughts?

My problem with the last paragraph is this. 

 

1. How good were the individual teams when those QB's went down. Brady's team was 16-0, the best team he ever had, and was an all time great team. The 2010 Colts were 10-6 and one of the worst Colts teams since Peyton Manning really became Peyton Manning circa 2003. The Patriots went 11-5 dropping 5 games over the previous season. The Colts were 2-14 dropping 8 games over the previous season. So you are talking about 5 more losses vs 8 more losses.  

 

2. Who were the QB's that year for each team? Matt Cassell was an acceptable back up QB who won a pro bowl and led another team to a double digit win season a few years later. Curtis Painter never started for another tea again and his best passer rating was 66.6 and his best completion percentage was 54.3. 

 

Then this year the Patriots went went 3-1 without Brady. One of those games was off a missed field goal. But Brady came back and went 11-1 in the regular season, then 3-0 in the playoffs to finish the season 14-1 with Brady as a starter. 

 

Then if you go back to 2000 and 2001. The team had their best QB of the bunch in Bledsoe (if you compare them to Cassell, Painter, and Collins who retired right after 2011). They went 5-11. The next year with Bledsoe they went 0-2. Brady took over and they finished 11-3. 

 

The reality is the Colts team in 2010 shouldn't be compared to the Patriots team in 2007. If it was the 2004-2007 Colts maybe it would be a closer comparison. But you're comparing the best Patriots team of the era vs the worst Colts team since 2003. And then Cassell was 10x the QB when compared to the Colts who QB's who sort of got caught with their pants down like Dallas did a year ago. 

[21isSuperman]

2 hours ago, footballhero1 said:

My problem with the last paragraph is this. 

 

1. How good were the individual teams when those QB's went down. Brady's team was 16-0, the best team he ever had, and was an all time great team. The 2010 Colts were 10-6 and one of the worst Colts teams since Peyton Manning really became Peyton Manning circa 2003. The Patriots went 11-5 dropping 5 games over the previous season. The Colts were 2-14 dropping 8 games over the previous season. So you are talking about 5 more losses vs 8 more losses.  

 

2. Who were the QB's that year for each team? Matt Cassell was an acceptable back up QB who won a pro bowl and led another team to a double digit win season a few years later. Curtis Painter never started for another tea again and his best passer rating was 66.6 and his best completion percentage was 54.3. 

 

Then this year the Patriots went went 3-1 without Brady. One of those games was off a missed field goal. But Brady came back and went 11-1 in the regular season, then 3-0 in the playoffs to finish the season 14-1 with Brady as a starter. 

 

Then if you go back to 2000 and 2001. The team had their best QB of the bunch in Bledsoe (if you compare them to Cassell, Painter, and Collins who retired right after 2011). They went 5-11. The next year with Bledsoe they went 0-2. Brady took over and they finished 11-3. 

 

The reality is the Colts team in 2010 shouldn't be compared to the Patriots team in 2007. If it was the 2004-2007 Colts maybe it would be a closer comparison. But you're comparing the best Patriots team of the era vs the worst Colts team since 2003. And then Cassell was 10x the QB when compared to the Colts who QB's who sort of got caught with their pants down like Dallas did a year ago. 

You make good points.  However, I think you proved my point.  While Cassel did have a 10 win season in 2010 and a Pro Bowl nod (though I did state why the Pro Bowl nod deserves an asterisk), I don't think anyone is going to call Cassel a Pro Bowl talent.  Point being, while Cassel did well for one season in KC, he isn't that good of a QB.  His surrounding units made him better.  He's a product of the system.

 

As you said, the 2007 Pats were an all-time great team, going 16-0.  I've always maintained that the Pats have had more talented/complete teams than the Colts.  My point was that Peyton did more with less

[crazycolt1]

52 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

You make good points.  However, I think you proved my point.  While Cassel did have a 10 win season in 2010 and a Pro Bowl nod (though I did state why the Pro Bowl nod deserves an asterisk), I don't think anyone is going to call Cassel a Pro Bowl talent.  Point being, while Cassel did well for one season in KC, he isn't that good of a QB.  His surrounding units made him better.  He's a product of the system.

 

As you said, the 2007 Pats were an all-time great team, going 16-0.  I've always maintained that the Pats have had more talented/complete teams than the Colts.  My point was that Peyton did more with less

I really don't see anyone doubting Peyton did more with less. There were times he had some of the best offensive team play in history but yet that wasn't enough to overcome poor play in other phases.

[footballhero1]

9 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

You make good points.  However, I think you proved my point.  While Cassel did have a 10 win season in 2010 and a Pro Bowl nod (though I did state why the Pro Bowl nod deserves an asterisk), I don't think anyone is going to call Cassel a Pro Bowl talent.  Point being, while Cassel did well for one season in KC, he isn't that good of a QB.  His surrounding units made him better.  He's a product of the system.

 

As you said, the 2007 Pats were an all-time great team, going 16-0.  I've always maintained that the Pats have had more talented/complete teams than the Colts.  My point was that Peyton did more with less

The thing is you're comparing what is still an anomaly season for the Patriots. If Cassell had to fill in for 2013 Patriots. They could very likely go 2-13. That was horrible team that got dragged to the AFC title game in close game after close game because Brady willed it. That's something I find more comparable to the 2010 Colts.

 

Like if you took the 2004-2007 Colts, and you took Manning out and had a decent back up, they wouldn't fall as far. 

[GoPats]

17 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

Regarding your first point, I certainly understand.  Brady has the team accomplishments, but he has the individual performances and numbers to show that he's been a big reason for those team accomplishments.

 

Regarding the bolded, that's my point.  If the Pats lose Brady, but their backups - and even 3rd stringers in Jacoby Brissett - can come in and play at a high level, what does that tell you about the state of the team around them?  The coaches and talent around the quarterbacks helped elevate their play, so they must have done the same for Brady.  Despite his Pro Bowl nod in 2010 (which he interestingly only got because Brady opted out of the Pro Bowl to have surgery), I don't think anyone would call Matt Cassel a Pro Bowl talent.  If Cassel, Brissett, and Garoppolo can:

1) go a combined 14-6

2) throw for a total of 25 TDs to 11 INTs

3) throw for 4595 yards in 20 games (a respectable 230 ypg)

4) each have completion percentages over 60%

 

then I think it suggests Brady has had a better unit around him, helping elevate his play and performances.  Take Peyton off of the Colts and they go from 1 division title and 10 wins despite tons of injuries to the 1st overall pick.  Take Brady off of the Pats and they go 14-6. 

 

To try again with the car analogy, taking Brady off of the Pats is like filling up a car with regular fuel instead of premium.  It'll so go and get you from point A to point B with the regular fuel, but it performs better with the premium.  But taking Manning off of the Colts is like taking the engine out of the car.

 

Not to minimize Brady's contributions, but I'd say Peyton has had to do more with less overall.

 

Good points... just to reiterate, though... 

 

The quality of the Patriots backups in 2008 and 2016 was light years ahead of Curtis Painter. Cassel is not by any means great, but he's a serviceable NFL player. Garoppolo was a 2nd round pick and was highly rated in that draft. (By the way, in his only start, Brissett and the offense got shut out at home by Buffalo, and he did not play that well in that game.) 

 

Saying flatly that Manning > Brady because of how their teams did in their absence doesn't account for the fact that not all backups are created equal. Some if it is coaching and the team around them, sure. But not all of it. 

 

What would the 2008 Patriots have done with Curtis Painter running the offense? They sure as heck wouldn't have gone 11-5. 

 

What about the first four games of 2016? Think they would have come out of that 3-1 if Painter was our QB? 

 

 

 

 

[GoPats]

17 hours ago, Superman said:

 

This, we'll never agree on. You can say it's just your opinion and all that, but a team that 'isn't trying that hard' has no reason to fire their defensive coordinator with five weeks left in the regular season, nor do they switch QBs. If they're content with losing because they hope to secure the top draft pick, they just keep doing what they've been doing, because their plan is working. As it stands, their second win almost cost them the #1 pick.

 

 

I know this has come up before and we'll always have a divergence of opinion on it... I don't think there was a "plan" for all of it, I just think they way the season played out, it became an obvious opportunity to basically "reboot" the whole franchise. New GM, new coach, etc-etc. 

 

But even ignoring that, all that 2011 really means or proves is that the Colts had really terrible backup QBs. Like, really terrible... 

 

[chad72]

10 minutes ago, GoPats said:

 

I know this has come up before and we'll always have a divergence of opinion on it... I don't think there was a "plan" for all of it, I just think they way the season played out, it became an obvious opportunity to basically "reboot" the whole franchise. New GM, new coach, etc-etc. 

 

But even ignoring that, all that 2011 really means or proves is that the Colts had really terrible backup QBs. Like, really terrible... 

 

 

Rex Ryan did say that guy Brady gets more help from his coaches than Peyton. It is not an indictment against Brady but more a testament to BB's entourage of coaches he keeps. Hence the coaching aspect cannot be denied. Being prepared was what Belichick was all about, and the results on the field showed, even with backups. You give Cassel to the Colts in 2011, they probably win 1 or 2 more games than Painter tops but not that much more because the overall talent on the team was inferior as well, as witnessed by what they did after being cut by the Colts, most of them. So, it was much more than the backup QB.

 

2009, with Marvin gone from the Colts, and Anthony Gonzalez going down in week 1, he brought Garcon (6th rounder) and Collie (4th rounder) up to speed as fast as he could, and despite having the 32nd rushing attack that year, we made the SB, albeit due to some favorable one-dimensional offensive playoff match ups for our D, IMO (Ravens, Jets and thankfully not the Chargers or even Patriots). Peyton carried that team and the talent drop off continued to happen till 2011.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, GoPats said:

 

I know this has come up before and we'll always have a divergence of opinion on it... I don't think there was a "plan" for all of it, I just think they way the season played out, it became an obvious opportunity to basically "reboot" the whole franchise. New GM, new coach, etc-etc. 

 

But even ignoring that, all that 2011 really means or proves is that the Colts had really terrible backup QBs. Like, really terrible... 

 

 

I think it proves a lot more than that the backup QBs were terrible. And they were, absolutely, but the coaching was dreadful on both sides of the ball, and that's beyond question. The roster wasn't good outside of QB -- the OL was patchwork with two rookies on the left side, and this guy at RT; the defense was a joke outside of Mathis, Freeney and Bethea (Gary Brackett missed 15 games). And that was the same roster and coaching staff from the previous year's 10 win team. The only noteworthy difference was Manning.

[Yehoodi]

22 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

Regarding your first point, I certainly understand.  Brady has the team accomplishments, but he has the individual performances and numbers to show that he's been a big reason for those team accomplishments.

 

Regarding the bolded, that's my point.  If the Pats lose Brady, but their backups - and even 3rd stringers in Jacoby Brissett - can come in and play at a high level, what does that tell you about the state of the team around them?  The coaches and talent around the quarterbacks helped elevate their play, so they must have done the same for Brady.  Despite his Pro Bowl nod in 2010 (which he interestingly only got because Brady opted out of the Pro Bowl to have surgery), I don't think anyone would call Matt Cassel a Pro Bowl talent.  If Cassel, Brissett, and Garoppolo can:

1) go a combined 14-6

2) throw for a total of 25 TDs to 11 INTs

3) throw for 4595 yards in 20 games (a respectable 230 ypg)

4) each have completion percentages over 60%

 

then I think it suggests Brady has had a better unit around him, helping elevate his play and performances.  Take Peyton off of the Colts and they go from 1 division title and 10 wins despite tons of injuries to the 1st overall pick.  Take Brady off of the Pats and they go 14-6. 

 

To try again with the car analogy, taking Brady off of the Pats is like filling up a car with regular fuel instead of premium.  It'll so go and get you from point A to point B with the regular fuel, but it performs better with the premium.  But taking Manning off of the Colts is like taking the engine out of the car.

 

Not to minimize Brady's contributions, but I'd say Peyton has had to do more with less overall.

 

First off 21isSuperman, love your OP and am working on a long (and short) response that I hope to post in a few days.  

 

I do want to chime in this thread on a few points.  

 

Regarding back ups and when and when not the starting QB is in the game.  BB and Pats non Brady starters (Bledsoe, Cassell, Garoppolo, and Brissett) are basically a 0.500 team, and the Pats with Brady are north of 0.750 if my memory serves me correct.  Just as with the breath of your OP, we need to look at the entire picture which includes Bledsoe 5-13 with BB shortly followed by Brady 3 SBs in 4 years with a good portion of the same team.

 

As for 2008, we had a good team and also a very weak schedule.  One only needs to look at the perennial 0.500 Phins and see they too went 11-5 that season and actually took the division with essentially the same schedule save for two games.  The Pats under Brady, short of 2002, have always been able to separate themselves from the rest of the AFC east by 2-4 games and win the division with essentially the same schedule.  So in another words, the Pats were not able to do the same thing (outpace their counterparts in the AFCE) in 2008 as they have done so with Brady in 14 of 15 years.

 

As for 2016.  Yes the back-up did well, but we must also look at the quality of the back-up.  It is one thing if your starter goes down and Aaron Rodgers is coming off the bench as opposed to Curtis Painter, the records will be different and we need to take into consideration the back-up when trying to extrapolate the quality of the starter.  

 

Most folks will say Jimmy G. will be a quality starter in the NFL and Jacoby B. is a solid back up.  For the most part the pats have spent draft wealth in the last 8-10 years on back ups.  

 

Although they were 3-1, they nearly lost game 1, had AZ made that FG, the back-ups are 2-2.  In our loss, it was the first shutout loss at home since before Bledsoe was drafted.   So yes they played well, it is a small sample size, and we nearly lost one game.  

 

As for the colts in 2011, there were a lot things going on that might not be totally attributed to the starting QB.  The colts seemed never to put stock in a back up, they started out loosing games and it seem to steamroll.  I will point out that the colts went 11-5 the three following seasons without Manning.  Also, the Broncos before, with and after Manning were not too shabby with Tebow, Brock O (both essentially out of football) and last year with the rookies.   

 

I always view a starter being able to win 1-4 games a season over a good back up.  I really do not see much difference between the respective back-ups and Manning and Brady as starters.  

 

Manning and Brady are both great, I do not really see much different from looking at all the games with and without them as starters and their teams.   Sometimes teams have off years like 2011 colts without their starters, sometimes teams go 5-13 then win 3 SBs in 4 years with a different QB.  

    

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Yehoodi said:

 I will point out that the colts went 11-5 the three following seasons without Manning.  Also, the Broncos before, with and after Manning were not too shabby with Tebow, Brock O (both essentially out of football) and last year with the rookies.   

 

The 2012 Colts turned over 60% of the previous year's roster, and 85% of the coaching staff, starting with the top job.

 

The Broncos are a completely different team, different roster, different coaching staff. It's really not worth it to even compare, but I'll start with the fact that the 2011 Broncos had a special magic, unsustainable to be sure, but they won a lot of games by the skin of their teeth. And I'll end with the fact that the 2015 Broncos were one of the best defenses of the last decade and had a great receiving corps. Again, neither of those teams should be compared in the slightest with the 2011 Colts. 

 

Quote

I do not really see much different from looking at all the games with and without them as starters and their teams.

 

That's rich. 

[21isSuperman]

9 hours ago, footballhero1 said:

The thing is you're comparing what is still an anomaly season for the Patriots. If Cassell had to fill in for 2013 Patriots. They could very likely go 2-13. That was horrible team that got dragged to the AFC title game in close game after close game because Brady willed it. That's something I find more comparable to the 2010 Colts.

 

Like if you took the 2004-2007 Colts, and you took Manning out and had a decent back up, they wouldn't fall as far. 

 

6 hours ago, GoPats said:

Good points... just to reiterate, though... 

 

The quality of the Patriots backups in 2008 and 2016 was light years ahead of Curtis Painter. Cassel is not by any means great, but he's a serviceable NFL player. Garoppolo was a 2nd round pick and was highly rated in that draft. (By the way, in his only start, Brissett and the offense got shut out at home by Buffalo, and he did not play that well in that game.) 

 

Saying flatly that Manning > Brady because of how their teams did in their absence doesn't account for the fact that not all backups are created equal. Some if it is coaching and the team around them, sure. But not all of it. 

 

What would the 2008 Patriots have done with Curtis Painter running the offense? They sure as heck wouldn't have gone 11-5. 

 

What about the first four games of 2016? Think they would have come out of that 3-1 if Painter was our QB?

You make fair points, but I think it's still evidence that the Pats have generally had better teams and more complete rosters than the Colts.  I know the Brady vs. Manning debate is one that will rage on forever, but I don't think many will debate the quality of rosters the two teams put out.  It's certainly not the only or most substantial evidence, but I think it's contributing evidence to the argument that Brady has had more help than Peyton.

 

2 hours ago, Yehoodi said:

 

As for 2016.  Yes the back-up did well, but we must also look at the quality of the back-up.  It is one thing if your starter goes down and Aaron Rodgers is coming off the bench as opposed to Curtis Painter, the records will be different and we need to take into consideration the back-up when trying to extrapolate the quality of the starter.  

 

Most folks will say Jimmy G. will be a quality starter in the NFL and Jacoby B. is a solid back up.  For the most part the pats have spent draft wealth in the last 8-10 years on back ups.  

 

Although they were 3-1, they nearly lost game 1, had AZ made that FG, the back-ups are 2-2.  In our loss, it was the first shutout loss at home since before Bledsoe was drafted.   So yes they played well, it is a small sample size, and we nearly lost one game.  

 

As for the colts in 2011, there were a lot things going on that might not be totally attributed to the starting QB.  The colts seemed never to put stock in a back up, they started out loosing games and it seem to steamroll.  I will point out that the colts went 11-5 the three following seasons without Manning.  Also, the Broncos before, with and after Manning were not too shabby with Tebow, Brock O (both essentially out of football) and last year with the rookies.   

 

I always view a starter being able to win 1-4 games a season over a good back up.  I really do not see much difference between the respective back-ups and Manning and Brady as starters.  

 

Manning and Brady are both great, I do not really see much different from looking at all the games with and without them as starters and their teams.   Sometimes teams have off years like 2011 colts without their starters, sometimes teams go 5-13 then win 3 SBs in 4 years with a different QB.  

    

Looking forward to seeing your response.  However, I must put forth a rebuttal to some of your points.

 

Regarding the bolded, I think it provides evidence to support my argument.  The Pats had better quality backups.  In other words, they had better quality talent on the roster than the Colts.  That better quality talent on the roster allowed them to win, even when their HoF QB was out.  The "ifs" and "buts" of "if Arizona made that field goal..." aren't really relevant.  At the end of the day, the Pats won and went 3-1 without Brady.  Whether they were close wins, comeback wins, or blowouts, they won.  That's what I'm arguing here: the Pats have had better quality talent on their roster, making things easier for Brady.  That doesn't mean Brady hasn't made a huge contribution, but that things have been slightly easier for him than they were for Peyton. 

 

Regarding the underline part, you're ignoring the huge changes involved.  The Colts went 11-5 in the three years after Manning left.  They also changed nearly the entire roster, entire coaching staff, starting QB, etc.  2012 was nearly a completely different team from 2011, let alone 2013 and 2014.

 

Lastly, 2011 wasn't just an off year.  It wasn't like the injury bug just bit the Colts hard and the ball didn't bounce our way.  The entire team was a mess.  The offense couldn't sustain a drive, the coaches couldn't gameplan to the (lacking) talent on the field, the defense was always on the field and getting picked apart at will.  It's no surprise that there were so many changes from 2011 to 2012.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Great points by everyone. IMO the following factors are huge in ranking players = 1. A players Stats as that shows how much a player is producing individually, 2. How important a player is to his team regarding winning (carrying a team), 3. Number of Rings a player wins - this is a team accomplishment but very important as that is what players play for, 4. Number of League MVP's a player wins - if I cant be a Champion this is the next best thing, 5. Number of SB MVP's a players wins, and 6. How Clutch a player is. I think between Peyton and Tom, #1 will be a WASH by the time Tom retires if he plays 3 more years = even, I give Peyton the nod on #2 and #4, Tom gets the nod for #3, #5, and #6. #6 is like an intangible. So take my Post FWIW and just reply to it if you guys want.

[Flying Elvis]

On 7/15/2017 at 2:42 PM, 21isSuperman said:

I'm curious to see what opposing fans, particularly Pats/Brady fans, have to say about this.  Not looking for any sort of flame war or anything.  Just looking for honest opinions and discussion.  Maybe there's something in my analysis that I missed?

 

@Yehoodi @GoPats @Flying Elvis

Very nice job 21isSuperman! Its impossible to argue with the numbers. Peyton was a tremendous quarterback.

 

I'm biased towards Brady the same way I'm biased toward Larry Bird. Watching them game after game doing awesome and amazing things. They were a joy to watch. Its hard for me to imagine calling any player better than them.

 

Its the same as you did I'm sure with Manning. Watching every game, being in awe at his magnificence.

[TheRustonRifle#7]

Johnny U...was the greatest, imvho.  

[Yehoodi]

3 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

 

You make fair points, but I think it's still evidence that the Pats have generally had better teams and more complete rosters than the Colts.  I know the Brady vs. Manning debate is one that will rage on forever, but I don't think many will debate the quality of rosters the two teams put out.  It's certainly not the only or most substantial evidence, but I think it's contributing evidence to the argument that Brady has had more help than Peyton.

 

Looking forward to seeing your response.  However, I must put forth a rebuttal to some of your points.

 

Regarding the bolded, I think it provides evidence to support my argument.  The Pats had better quality backups.  In other words, they had better quality talent on the roster than the Colts.  That better quality talent on the roster allowed them to win, even when their HoF QB was out.  The "ifs" and "buts" of "if Arizona made that field goal..." aren't really relevant.  At the end of the day, the Pats won and went 3-1 without Brady.  Whether they were close wins, comeback wins, or blowouts, they won.  That's what I'm arguing here: the Pats have had better quality talent on their roster, making things easier for Brady.  That doesn't mean Brady hasn't made a huge contribution, but that things have been slightly easier for him than they were for Peyton. 

 

Regarding the underline part, you're ignoring the huge changes involved.  The Colts went 11-5 in the three years after Manning left.  They also changed nearly the entire roster, entire coaching staff, starting QB, etc.  2012 was nearly a completely different team from 2011, let alone 2013 and 2014.

 

Lastly, 2011 wasn't just an off year.  It wasn't like the injury bug just bit the Colts hard and the ball didn't bounce our way.  The entire team was a mess.  The offense couldn't sustain a drive, the coaches couldn't gameplan to the (lacking) talent on the field, the defense was always on the field and getting picked apart at will.  It's no surprise that there were so many changes from 2011 to 2012.

 

I will try to finish my larger response, am actually drafting in on a word document, i may just add it piece by piece.  :-).  Am about 70% done.

 

Regarding your response, i have to respond in a few ways.

 

First, I agree with you to the extent that the Pats put more stock in the back up QB.  And yes Brady was helped in 2001 AFCCG when Bledsoe came in (who was already on the team and not really a backup) and the back ups coming in this year to go 3-1, although I think going 2-2 would of still been enough to garner the #1 seed.  Manning was really never hurt though by not having a good back-up in Indy as he was never injured.  It is not like in say 2010 Manning was out for 4 games and the back up went 1-3 and the colts missed the playoffs.  In 2011 he did not see the field so it did not matter what the back ups did that year. 

 

And actually when we see Manning's stint in Denver we see his back up Brock O. go 5-2. Indeed, his back up even help beat the Pats, thereby making the pats come to Mile High for the AFCCG.  So Manning was helped with back-ups whilst his stay in Denver.  Had Brock lost to Pats, Denver is a WC and having to come to NE, and if he looses two more games, going 3-4, Denver is out of the playoffs.  

 

True Manning was not helped in Indy, but no harm as he was not out, but he was helped in 2015 in a similar way as Brady was helped in '01 and '16.  So Brady was helped twice and Manning once. 
 

Second, to the extent that a team has a good back up is not necessarily an indication that the other 51 players are necessarily better.  i will chair my thoughts on this for later.   My short response is that both players had helped from the other 52 but in different forms.  Indy seemed to lean towards being a tad top heavy, placing a little more importance on the 22 starters and also on offense.  whereas the Pats tended to focus on D more letting Brady deal with the offense, and tend to spread the money across the 53 man rosters, so had better back up but not as strong at some starting positions.  For me it kind of a wash, i do prefer the Pats method as injuries are part of the game. 

 

Yes 2011 was a weird year for the colts.  Good thing though Luck's back up Hasselbeck, was able to go 5-3 back in 2015, so the colts had a good back up with Hasselbeck. 

 

 

 

[21isSuperman]

1 hour ago, Flying Elvis said:

Very nice job 21isSuperman! Its impossible to argue with the numbers. Peyton was a tremendous quarterback.

 

I'm biased towards Brady the same way I'm biased toward Larry Bird. Watching them game after game doing awesome and amazing things. They were a joy to watch. Its hard for me to imagine calling any player better than them.

 

Its the same as you did I'm sure with Manning. Watching every game, being in awe at his magnificence.

I posted this in the NBA thread, but I'll say it here because you brought it up.  I'm of the opinion that if Larry Bird didn't get injured, he would be in the GOAT conversation.  I also consider him the ultimate basketball guy.  He's the only person that I'm aware of in NBA history to win MVP, coach of the year, and executive of the year.  He's not perfect by any means - his stubbornness with the Pacers led to their demise - but the guy simply understands basketball like few people ever.

 

Interesting how Manning/Brady divides Boston and Indy while Larry Bird brings the two together

 

26 minutes ago, Yehoodi said:

And actually when we see Manning's stint in Denver we see his back up Brock O. go 5-2. Indeed, his back up even help beat the Pats, thereby making the pats come to Mile High for the AFCCG.  So Manning was helped with back-ups whilst his stay in Denver.  Had Brock lost to Pats, Denver is a WC and having to come to NE, and if he looses two more games, going 3-4, Denver is out of the playoffs.  

 

True Manning was not helped in Indy, but no harm as he was not out, but he was helped in 2015 in a similar way as Brady was helped in '01 and '16.  So Brady was helped twice and Manning once. 
 

Second, to the extent that a team has a good back up is not necessarily an indication that the other 51 players are necessarily better.  i will chair my thoughts on this for later.   My short response is that both players had helped from the other 52 but in different forms.  Indy seemed to lean towards being a tad top heavy, placing a little more importance on the 22 starters and also on offense.  whereas the Pats tended to focus on D more letting Brady deal with the offense, and tend to spread the money across the 53 man rosters, so had better back up but not as strong at some starting positions.  For me it kind of a wash, i do prefer the Pats method as injuries are part of the game. 

 

Yes 2011 was a weird year for the colts.  Good thing though Luck's back up Hasselbeck, was able to go 5-3 back in 2015, so the colts had a good back up with Hasselbeck. 

 

Regarding your point about Denver, my main comparison between teams was the Colts with Peyton to the Pats with Brady.  Elway built the Broncos very differently than what the Colts did, in the last couple of years at the very least.  He put a huge emphasis on defense, which is what I would have liked to see Polian do with the Colts.

 

Regarding your second point, I think that's how you build a complete team.  When you have a guy like Manning or Brady as your quarterback, you can build a more complete team by investing those early round picks on the defensive side of the ball.  Indy seemed to focus on a high-flying offense and surrounding Peyton with weapons whereas the Pats focused on defense.  I think the Pats did a better job of building complete teams.  No disagreements here.

 

It's an interesting thought experiment.  What if Brady had tons of first round picks surrounding him, but a lackluster defense?  What if Peyton had undrafted receivers, but very strong defensive teams?  Fun to think about

[Yehoodi]

17 hours ago, Superman said:

 

The 2012 Colts turned over 60% of the previous year's roster, and 85% of the coaching staff, starting with the top job.

 

The Broncos are a completely different team, different roster, different coaching staff. It's really not worth it to even compare, but I'll start with the fact that the 2011 Broncos had a special magic, unsustainable to be sure, but they won a lot of games by the skin of their teeth. And I'll end with the fact that the 2015 Broncos were one of the best defenses of the last decade and had a great receiving corps. Again, neither of those teams should be compared in the slightest with the 2011 Colts. 

 

 

That's rich. 

 

Yes the colts did have some turnover from '11 to '12.  They did have Grigson as GM, who perhaps is not a miracle worker and is essentially out of football, its not like he went to Jacksonville and made them a 12 win team overnight.  Who knows may be got lucky that year.  

 

My only point was that a lot of things when south for the 2011 colts that imo are not reflective of the inherent talent on the team (I think they are more of a 6-8 win team).  Indeed, the team over a 16 year span from '99 to '14 won 10 or more games each year save two, 2001 and 2011.  Which upon stepping back look more of off years than a reflection of the talent on the team. 

 

In some respects one can look at the 2000 Pats season in similar ways.  True they went 5-12 and 5-13 before Brady took over, and then went on to have success '01 to '04.  Surely Brady helped that increase but at the same time there were additions to the '01 roster and perhaps too the '00 season was kind of an off season, BB rookie season, etc.   They were 5-13 with Bledsoe and 11-3 with Brady in back to back years.  Colts were 10-6 with Manning then 2-14 with other QBs, who I think were not as good at Bledsoe. So 6 to 8 game differences, kind of close to be honest, and Bledsoe is likely a better QB than the '11 colts QBs so one would think he would win more games.    

 

And i do not get too worried about 2011 as being reflective of the colts or Manning's contribution to the team as I can see it reflected in the several 12 win season with both Indy and Denver.  Manning has taken essentially 0,500 or slight above teams and made them 12-14 win teams, adding 2-4 wins per year.  And as i indicated earlier great QB do this over their back-up.

 

The thing that imo separates Manning and Brady from other greats, is that each do it every year for nearly their entire career (getting 12+ wins), something we can not say for other great QBs of their generation, for example Aaron Rodgers. 

 

And again the Pats are a 0.500 team from 2000 to the present without Brady and are a 0.750 team with him.  We can differ on a few things, fair enough, but I will stand by my point that I do not see that much of a difference between Manning and Brady with their team.  Both players have had supporting cast and each have elevated their teams by 2-4 wings per year for about a dozen seasons each.  

 

And i agree with all of you points regarding the Broncos. 

[Yehoodi]

18 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

I posted this in the NBA thread, but I'll say it here because you brought it up.  I'm of the opinion that if Larry Bird didn't get injured, he would be in the GOAT conversation.  I also consider him the ultimate basketball guy.  He's the only person that I'm aware of in NBA history to win MVP, coach of the year, and executive of the year.  He's not perfect by any means - his stubbornness with the Pacers led to their demise - but the guy simply understands basketball like few people ever.

 

Interesting how Manning/Brady divides Boston and Indy while Larry Bird brings the two together

 

Regarding your point about Denver, my main comparison between teams was the Colts with Peyton to the Pats with Brady.  Elway built the Broncos very differently than what the Colts did, in the last couple of years at the very least.  He put a huge emphasis on defense, which is what I would have liked to see Polian do with the Colts.

 

Regarding your second point, I think that's how you build a complete team.  When you have a guy like Manning or Brady as your quarterback, you can build a more complete team by investing those early round picks on the defensive side of the ball.  Indy seemed to focus on a high-flying offense and surrounding Peyton with weapons whereas the Pats focused on defense.  I think the Pats did a better job of building complete teams.  No disagreements here.

 

It's an interesting thought experiment.  What if Brady had tons of first round picks surrounding him, but a lackluster defense?  What if Peyton had undrafted receivers, but very strong defensive teams?  Fun to think about

 

Okay i hear yah regarding focusing more on Colts versus Pats FO's theory's on how to built a team. 

 

I too prefer the method of the Pats and if I were a Colts' fan would  want the colts to do the same.  I guess in the end there are points to both sides.  On the colts side, err on the side of surrounding your best player with talent so you can maximize his skills and let the other side feast for themselves.  The Pats kind of tell Brady to work with what we can afford to give yah and the rest goes to ST and D. I too like the idea that the pats focus on STs too as they always seem to have a great player or two that is dedicated to ST and even long snappers.

 

In the end we will never truly know what would happen if the philosophies were switch.  Perhaps Manning might have a little less personal stats.  Manning has done well with WRs lower on the depth chart.

 

Hopefully the colts will have things different with Luck and take a page from the Pats book.  
 

[Superman]

14 hours ago, Yehoodi said:

Yes the colts did have some turnover from '11 to '12.  They did have Grigson as GM, who perhaps is not a miracle worker and is essentially out of football, its not like he went to Jacksonville and made them a 12 win team overnight.  Who knows may be got lucky that year.

 

The only point is that it was not the same roster or the same coaching staff, so any comparisons must acknowledge those facts. And essentially, those facts render any comparisons null and void. 

 

Quote

My only point was that a lot of things when south for the 2011 colts that imo are not reflective of the inherent talent on the team (I think they are more of a 6-8 win team).  Indeed, the team over a 16 year span from '99 to '14 won 10 or more games each year save two, 2001 and 2011.  Which upon stepping back look more of off years than a reflection of the talent on the team. 

 

To the first bolded, it's a reflection of poor coaching that the 2011 Colts didn't win 4-6 games. But expecting that roster to do anything more than that would be ridiculous. 

 

And the point being argued is not that Manning is better than Brady because the Colts fell apart without Manning. The point is that Brady's Pats supported him better than Manning's Colts -- both in coaching and roster quality, especially on defense. The way the 2011 Colts completely fell apart while the 2008 Pats exceeded reasonable expectations is a testament to that.

 

To the second bolded, the common denominator was Manning. 

 

Quote

And again the Pats are a 0.500 team from 2000 to the present without Brady and are a 0.750 team with him. 

 

Including 2000 is a purposeful misrepresentation. How about we begin with when Brady actually became a starter? He's missed 19 games since then. The Patriots are 13-6. 

 

Without Manning for 16 games, the Colts went 2-14. The difference in the two scenarios is obvious. The Pats without Brady are considerably better than the Colts without Manning. It's not even close.

 

Again, this doesn't mean Manning was better than Brady. It does clearly indicate, however, that Brady's supporting cast and coaching staff have been better than Manning's. 

[GoPats]

On 7/21/2017 at 3:08 PM, Superman said:

It does clearly indicate, however, that Brady's supporting cast and coaching staff have been better than Manning's. 

 

Or, even more simply, (Cassel + Garoppolo + Brissett) > (Painter + 60-year-old Kerry Collins + whoever)...

 

It might say something about overall team talent and coaching, but it doesn't necessarily "clearly indicate" that because that would assume that all backups are equal. And they are not. 

 

 

 

[21isSuperman]

8 hours ago, GoPats said:

 

Or, even more simply, (Cassel + Garoppolo + Brissett) > (Painter + 60-year-old Kerry Collins + whoever)...

 

It might say something about overall team talent and coaching, but it doesn't necessarily "clearly indicate" that because that would assume that all backups are equal. And they are not.

Are you suggesting that the overall team talent and coaching haven't been that different?  Or that the "record without Brady/Manning" argument is insufficient on its own?

[coltsorioles]

 Manning is hands down better than Brady because,  When peyton missed a year the Colts went 2-14. Brady missed a year the patriots went 11-5.  This past year manning retires and the super bowl winning broncos don't even make the playoffs, the patriots go 3-1 without brady beating 2 playoff teams and win at Arizona without gronk as well. The patriots have always has way better coaching and overall better teams

[southwest1]

On July 17, 2017 at 10:57 AM, GoPats said:

 

I thought you wrote a pretty thorough and compelling summary on everything. I respect your opinion of course! But as you pointed out, it's something so heavily subjective that two people could go back and forth, point-to-point, for days on end. 

 

You mentioned how Brady has had better coaching and, on the whole, defenses (and I agree). But in my opinion, that's a result of how the Colts and Patriots were built, respectively. Manning has usually had the better offensive weapons. The Patriots were usually a bit more balanced and had better depth. 

 

Maybe I missed it but did you cover turnovers at all? Part of the reason I ask is that I strongly believe offensive turnovers have a major correlation to defensive play. If your offense isn't turning the ball over and giving the opposing team a short field, it makes your defense's job easier. Brady's trailing Manning in career TDs by 83, but he's thrown 99 fewer interceptions in his career. They have almost an identical number of fumbles (28 for Manning, 27 for Brady). Overall, Manning had 279 turnovers in his career; Brady's had 100 fewer exactly, at 179. The fact that he rarely turns the ball over is a huge benefit to the Patriots' defense. 

 

There are two other things about Brady that, for me, give him the edge. One is that while he's had the benefit of great coaching, he's the only "constant" from the players side. He's the only one with all five rings. It's not an accident, or luck, that they've been in the mix every single year since 2001. 

 

The second is his overall winning percentage as a QB. I realize that is a "team stat" but no position in any sport has the kind of impact on wins and losses as a QB does in football. They don't keep track of win/loss records for guards, or defensive linemen. The object of the game is to win, right? And no one's done that better at the position than Brady.

 

Since February, it seems like most major outlets are just referring to Brady as the GOAT... you see a lot of players... Aaron Rodgers, Ben Roethlisberger, Reggie Wayne (in case you don't believe me, lol)... saying he's the greatest ever. Media people, current players, past players... even the sport's most iconic video game has gotten in on it with Madden's "GOAT Edition." 

 

Overall, this is a tricky topic in a lot of ways. Brady is certainly not the best athlete to play the position. He doesn't have a cannon for an arm. He doesn't have the physical ability of an Andrew Luck or Rodgers. But he's had what I think can only be described as the "most decorated" career of any NFL player. Does "most decorated" mean he's the GOAT? Just my opinion but I think it has to. It's all about results. 

 

Great write-up though man, truly. I enjoyed reading it. 

 

A well written post as usual GP. I beg to differ with you slightly though on the point that simply because Brady has been in Boston since 2001 & won 5 rings under his reign as the face of the franchise that unequivocally makes Tom the GOAT. He still lost 2 SBs to Big Blue & that's part of his playoff record too that cannot be erased either. Yes, I know the Giants had a top tier pass rush in 2007 & David Tyree made an incredible catch one for the ages, but it still happened regardless. 

 

I will acknowledge publicly that Brady makes excellent decisions about where to throw the ball & his ball placement is amazing always allowing his WR, TE, or RB to catch it in stride or run a comeback route & get down in holes within secondary coverage that Brady knows his guy will beat 90% of the time. Peyton sometimes it pains me to say got Austin Collie hurt going up to get balls that were high accelerating concussion protocols & even Dallas Clark took some unnecessary contact on balls not placed perfectly. That's a fact. 

 

I've said this before too what makes Brady so dangerous is how well he slides & shuffles his feet in the pocket to change his launch point with pinpoint accuracy. Actually, Yehoodi said that yrs ago & I was like that's a keen observation & he's right. Brady doesn't shed LBs or pass rushers he just rolls away from them like a soft shoe dancer to create space & then bang he converts a 1st down. He doesn't need to run just create space & a few extra seconds in the pocket to kill ya on the front end & back end. 

 

The thing that puts a little dust on Brady's invincibility status as the GOAT is how well Matt Cassel played in 2008 when Tom had his knee injury. Look, I get we're focusing on Championships here, but Cassel showed that NE can still produce without #12 running the show. It opened the door to making Tommy human & vulnerable. That's also a fact. 

 

I wish NE fans would consider the fact that playing for a different head coach isn't as easy as it sounds. Football is all about continuity, familiar patterns, familiar voices, familiar routines, & superstitions. You change that & it screws up your comfort level it just does even among HOF QBs. When Montana played for Marty S. in Kansas City there was an adjustment & Marino never won a ring with Jimmy Johnson in Miami either. Peyton never gets enough credit for continuing to win under Mora, Dungy, Caldwell, Fox, & Kubiak he just doesn't I'm sorry & it irritates me. I'm not saying you gloss over this at all. Just that different coaches & personalities as the main sideline man aren't that easy to pull off with flying colors for over a decade almost 2 decades actually. 

 

I do admire the Lombardi trophies Brady has accumulated over the yrs. I place a premium on hardware. I won't lie. 

[southwest1]

On July 17, 2017 at 0:56 PM, chad72 said:

 

Phenomenal write up, @21isSuperman

 

Good points, @GoPats

 

 

To me, two things made the difference in favor of Brady:

 

i) Turnovers due to Brady's better arm resulting in more incompletions than INTs compared to Peyton 

 

ii) QB sneaks in critical times to keep the chains moving on 3rd and 1 or 4th and 1. Those resulted in better time of possession for Brady's offenses, and reduced chances for opposing offenses to have short fields in the case of the Patriots.

 

 

However, in defense of Peyton, here are other points to consider:

 

i) With Peyton (and Luck) going to teams that desperately needed help getting back into the playoff picture, it infused a tendency of having to do more by themselves which result in more turnovers from the QB position. When Brady was not nearly the QB he was now, he could ride a D with many HOF'ers that were great scoring Ds too, and figured out he didn't have to force the issue. Once he became a better QB, those lessons were retained well and he could pick and choose spots to take risks as his career went on. 

 

ii) Special teams - Brady enjoyed outstanding special teams play when compared to Peyton's teams, poorly constructed from the 40th-53rd player, IMO, by Polian, were bottom dwellers in special teams field position. That hurts any offense's ability to put up points consistently, let alone against stellar Ds you face in the playoffs (whether it was a Dante Hall KR TD in KC he had to overcome or Ellis Hobb's returns in the 2006 AFCCG he overcame or Scifres punting show in San Diego or Hester return TD in SB he overcame or onside kick recovery in SB or even Peyton's last game in Indy vs Jets where a 53 yard KR was given up to Cromartie, these are just playoff examples, us Colts fans really suffered more during the regular season). Those things matter in close games to swing momentum and Peyton felt he had to do more consistently because of the lack of a well rounded team.

First off, I don't say this enough. Chad72, you really know your football & you're a hades of a lot smarter than I am when it comes to breaking down games & understanding X's & O's of winning football. 

 

That section of special teams was salient, valid, & next level. Truly, no bull you know what I sincerely mean that. The entire paragraph was right on point.  You also know how to frame an argument to best illustrate your central thesis with situations, games, & numbers to reinforce your main theme or themes. Not everybody can do that well, but you always do just that. 

[southwest1]

On July 20, 2017 at 10:32 PM, 21isSuperman said:

Indy seemed to focus on a high-flying offense and surrounding Peyton with weapons whereas the Pats focused on defense.  I think the Pats did a better job of building complete teams. 

You know what 21? That is a good point. If everybody said that Manning can make anybody a ProBowl WR which 18 pretty much did. Hades, even Redskins QB Cousins thanked Peyton in interviews for making Pierre Garcon such a phenomenal WR. It does make you wonder we neglected to put stout defenses around the Sheriff for December cold weather games doesn't it? 

 

The other thing about BB is he never left NY & tried to become an offensive wizard for the Browns, Jets, or Pats. He always maintained his Giants DC roots. Unlike Brian Billick who left the Vikings as an offensive genius & won in Baltimore with Lewis, Woodson, Rice, & Sharpe. 

[Yehoodi]

On 7/21/2017 at 3:08 PM, Superman said:

 

1 ) The only point is that it was not the same roster or the same coaching staff, so any comparisons must acknowledge those facts. And essentially, those facts render any comparisons null and void. 

 

 

2) To the first bolded, it's a reflection of poor coaching that the 2011 Colts didn't win 4-6 games. But expecting that roster to do anything more than that would be ridiculous. 

 

3) And the point being argued is not that Manning is better than Brady because the Colts fell apart without Manning. The point is that Brady's Pats supported him better than Manning's Colts -- both in coaching and roster quality, especially on defense. The way the 2011 Colts completely fell apart while the 2008 Pats exceeded reasonable expectations is a testament to that.

 

4) To the second bolded, the common denominator was Manning. 

 

 

5) Including 2000 is a purposeful misrepresentation. How about we begin with when Brady actually became a starter? He's missed 19 games since then. The Patriots are 13-6. 

 

Without Manning for 16 games, the Colts went 2-14. The difference in the two scenarios is obvious. The Pats without Brady are considerably better than the Colts without Manning. It's not even close.

 

Again, this doesn't mean Manning was better than Brady. It does clearly indicate, however, that Brady's supporting cast and coaching staff have been better than Manning's. 

 

As to points 1 & 2, we are just going to have to agree to disagree regarding the talent on the 2011 Colts.  Coach Caldwell is still coaching, won a SB with Baltimore and coaches solid in Detroit.  I think to attribute a 9 win increase between years '11 and '12 being solely due to an increase in a portion of the roster and a few coaches is a stretch, otherwise we would see it more often in the NFL, it is was that simple.  It happens sometimes middle of the road teams goes south, especially when they are weak at QB.   All it takes is a few bad bounces in a few games and a 6 win team becomes a 2 win team.  Even a 12 win team can only win 7 or 8. 

 

As for point #3 the two teams just have a different theory of how to build a team, fortunately i prefer the Pats method.  Polian and Dungy are no fools, both of them are in the HOF, and each of which have built winning teams in Buffalo, Carolina and Tampa at their respective position, and so there is no surprise that when Dungy arrived in Indy in 2002, the team started on its 12 winning seasons with Peyton leading the way.  But Polian and Dungy built a team in Indy, and to say their theory is "clearly" behind the pats is a stretch to be honest, especially when each have had success outside of Indy.

 

As for #4, the common denominator is both Manning and Luck with Luck winning 11 wins three times '12-'14, which in the direction of my point, colts have won double digit wins with two QBs and have had two off years..

 

As for #5, when we are trying to get a gauge for how well a team supports its QBs and see how they do without their QBs, we can not cherry pick the timeline of a QBs anymore than when Brady's career "started" or when Manning's career "ended" in Indy with his last snap of the 2010 season.  The fact is that both sat on the bench in '00 and '11, and QBed their team in respective adjoining years '01 and '10.  If we are going to look to '11 as an indication, we must also look to '00.  The fact that the latter demonstrates that over the course of the long haul BB and the Pats are 0.500 without Brady doesn't allow one to use two different standard of review for each team (champion '11 while discounting '00).

 

Surely it s tough to get a 100% answer, but I will say that it is a stretch to say there is a clear difference.  In the end the teams are really only separated by a handful of playoff games, albeit important games, but a handful nonetheless.      

[southwest1]

On July 20, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Flying Elvis said:

Very nice job 21isSuperman! Its impossible to argue with the numbers. Peyton was a tremendous quarterback.

 

I'm biased towards Brady the same way I'm biased toward Larry Bird. Watching them game after game doing awesome and amazing things. They were a joy to watch. Its hard for me to imagine calling any player better than them.

 

Its the same as you did I'm sure with Manning. Watching every game, being in awe at his magnificence.

I like it when fans acknowledge their biases upfront because it makes them more open & transparent to me. Plus, I'm more inclined to listen to constructive criticism from them about INDY too. Even though losing to Brady is never fun for me, I admire the dogfights Manning & Brady had together over the yrs. Honestly, when NE fans praise 18 & even Luck now, it makes me say to myself: Well what ya know, there are some cool people in Boston after all. I'm being sarcastic on purpose for effect to drive home the point that if you can complement my future HOF QB in Manning, then I can say that Brady, BB, & Kraft run a quality franchise in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as well. 

 

Thanks FE. You're a okay to me man. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 hours ago, coltsorioles said:

 Manning is hands down better than Brady because,  When peyton missed a year the Colts went 2-14. Brady missed a year the patriots went 11-5.  This past year manning retires and the super bowl winning broncos don't even make the playoffs, the patriots go 3-1 without brady beating 2 playoff teams and win at Arizona without gronk as well. The patriots have always has way better coaching and overall better teams

Excellent points. I predicted the Broncos wouldn't make the Playoffs before last season with Peyton retiring and a lot of people thought I was nuts. Saying it was their Defense that won them the SB. Yes their Defense was the main reason the Broncos won but without Peyton they didn't make the Playoffs, so no I am not buying any QB could've won it with them. If anyone thinks stinky butt Brock Osweiler would've won it in a true Playoff run you are nuts! Pats would've ate him alive getting INT's and all kinds of goofy stuff. So what should that tell people about Peyton's presence? They had the exact same key players on Defense they had when the won it = Von Miller, Talib, etc. but bad QB's and they missed the Playoffs like I predicted.

[2006Coltsbestever]

I picked Denver to win the SB before the 2015 Season in here on record, was right. I picked them to miss the Playoffs last season, was right. They will miss again with the QB's they have. Oakland and KC both are better.

[Yehoodi]

On 7/11/2017 at 6:29 PM, 21isSuperman said:

 

Statistical rankings each year

 

Lastly, let’s look at overall statistical performance each year.  Instead of looking for which player threw for the most yards or most TDs in a season (which you can’t compare because of how much the game has changed), we’re going to see how they did compared to the rest of the league in each year.  For example, 3700 passing yards would have been top 10 in 1985, but 19th in 2016.  In order to normalize the numbers, I credited the players for how they ranked, not just their final numbers.  Not only that, but I did this analysis in addition to the previous one because while the previous one gave credit to players for leading the league, exceptional play doesn’t always lead the league.  For example, a QB being ranked #2 in pass TDs every year for 6 consecutive seasons is noteworthy, even though he never reached #1.

 

 

 

 

Again, thanks for taking the time to create this thread and thinking of some things from a different angle. 

 

I got a few moments and have some time to give you my thoughts on one of my points and that is statistics. 

 

More often than not the stats are a cumulative quantity, like yards for the year, etc.  And also, are sometimes somewhat independent of contribution to the team.  Meaning, if a team is getting blown out a QB can get some "easy" stats in the 4th qtr when the opponent is in prevent and is exchanging passing yards for time.  

 

Also, bad QB play or defensive play can help too.  SB 51 is a great example of this point.  TB threw a pick six, Pats had a few TOs, did not score much, D gave up some points; all of which, set up a situation where the Pats were down 28-3 thereby allowing (well requiring) the offense to throw, run in 4 down territory for most of a 4th qtr and change.  And is one reason why TB threw for 466 yards.  If on the other hand the Pats had been up say 21-10 then the pats are running more in the 4th trying to end the game as opposed to extend it with more possessions. 

 

So with the above said, it would be nice to try to get one's hands around some of the following.

 

How often was a team behind, and by how much.

How many yards and TDs did the QB throw from being behind, and by given quantities

When were these stats gain, late in the game etc

It would be nice to have the last to related in one stat.

 

It would be nice to try to quantify how often a QB is in a game trailing or leading by a little say 24-21 (or is in a shootout) , and see what percentage of his stats were gain in that matter.  Surely, the QB can be given create for making those stats for his team, but he none the less would have more of an opportunity to put up more stats as opposed to a QB plays in games where he is leading and/or (for any reason) is on a team that wants to shorten the game. 

 

Again, one reason why TB was able to pass for 466 yards was do to his talent, but also the opportunity afforded to him by being behind late in the game and also going into OT.  

[GoPats]

13 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

Are you suggesting that the overall team talent and coaching haven't been that different?  Or that the "record without Brady/Manning" argument is insufficient on its own?

 

The later for sure. Not all backups are created equal. If Manning and Brady are both "A" grades, Cassel and Garoppolo are no worse than C+ or even B-, and Painter was a clear-cut F. The fact that Cassel is still in the league (and Painter is not) is a good indicator of their individual abilities. 

 

The former, partially. I would agree that the Patriots have had better coaching, but there were definitely years where Manning had a far superior set of skill players on offense. I don't think the talent gap is as wide as you guys do, and I'm not dismissing it entirely... I just don't think it's accurate to say Manning "did more with less." At least not on offense. 

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

12 minutes ago, GoPats said:

 

The later for sure. Not all backups are created equal. If Manning and Brady are both "A" grades, Cassel and Garoppolo are no worse than C+ or even B-, and Painter was a clear-cut F. The fact that Cassel is still in the league (and Painter is not) is a good indicator of their individual abilities. 

 

The former, partially. I would agree that the Patriots have had better coaching, but there were definitely years where Manning had a far superior set of skill players on offense. I don't think the talent gap is as wide as you guys do, and I'm not dismissing it entirely... I just don't think it's accurate to say Manning "did more with less." At least not on offense. 

 

 

I think the Colts peaked out after 2009. After losing that SB most of our best players were aging by then. If Matt Cassel was our QB in 2011 we probably would've been something like 5-11 (not 2-14) but still would've stunk. We picked a great year to stink if we had too because Luck was there. Painter was horrible.