Talk amongst yourselves
Click here to buy PDF version.
Click here to buy PDF version
22 Nov 2013
Memories, like the corners of our lives. Distant watercolored memories, of the way we were.
And now, let us begin Official Irrational Brady-Manning Thread V:
Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 22 Nov 2013
63 replies , Last at
13 Jan 2014, 11:02am by
Now if you could just bring back Catholic Match Girl...
I thought I'd summed this up successfully back in one of the earlier versions, but for those of you who weren't paying attention:
Except for those aspects of the game in which Brady is better than Manning, Manning is superior to Brady.
How dare you say that! It's obvious that except those aspects of the game in which Manning is better than Brady, Brady is superior to Manning.
Hmmm...you make a compelling point!
You cretin! I assert there are many areas in which Manning and Brady are equal!
I prefer Brady because one of his legs is both the same.
Doesn't that imply he weighs the same as a duck?
In which case he will float, and therefore is a witch, and must be burnt!
If he weighs the same as a duck, does that mean his vocal chords are constructed in the same way, and his audibles won't echo?
I have a hard time getting into this, since Manning is so clearly superior.
The man with no sig
Please note that the correct lyrics are "Misty water colored memories".
[Actually had to learn the song in 4th grade]
Excuse me while I kiss this guy.
No problem... there's a bathroom on the right
What!?! You mean the Earl o' Moray is dead!?!
The greatest QB of all time was Jim Kelly. Tough as hell, called his own plays, always knew where his helmet was.
By the laws of clutchitude and winnerosity, Adam Vinatieri is superior to both.
I at least smiled, and more often than not actually laughed a bit at each of the first 8 comments. I love this site.
No game thread for this week, Aaron?
Football Outsiders is clearly ranked too high because Aaron actually has a life, and real football fans know that nothing is more important than arguing about gridiron legacy. The ESPN comments section is way better than this. Go Broncs! Show dem Pats whose da boss!
In all seriousness, (a) I get the irony and am only adding your chops to the collective chop-busting (and getting another round in on Aaron in the process. Really: take care of your business, you're a national treasure). Also, (b) I think Peyton is the best quarterback ever — by the slimmest of margins over Brady. And I thought that when he was consistently whipping our orange-and-blue hindquarters, so it's not just homerism. (Give Manning that kind of defense & coaching, and several more SB appearances would've been likely.) Though Brady is about as close to tied as possible, I think he gets too much credit for being on overall better teams.
More importantly: Re-elect Rob Ford!
NO way, worst mayor ever, he makes us look like total idiots. Wait a second, we are idiots since we voted for him
Only one of these QBs adds to his team on more than offense- Brady is head and shoulders the better punter
But you can't buy a Papa John's Pizza from Brady.
That is a clear advantage for Brady.
Both these guys are great and probably Brees deserves honorable mention at least and there are others playing who have flashed bright and faded somewhat (Roethlisberger and Rivers some immediately to mind). I wonder if this is not the golden age of quarterbacking and the sun may be setting. If guys like RGIII and Wilson are the future quarterbacks are going to have much shorter careers. Perhaps Luck might be as good as these two someday if his offensive line doesn't get him killed and he can be as durable. We seem to be headed for a different type of NFL (there have already been several) and we may not see guys this good ever again so the best thing to do is enjoy what we have as there are not too many of these matchups left.
Don't forget Rodgers. If he can stay healthy, he should also end up pretty high on the QB totem pole.
If you're making a qb totem pole then you'd need Jared Lorenzen for a good solid base.
I see what you did there.
For my 2 cents on the discussion: I will always pick Manning. I'm obviously biased because I hate Tom Brady.
I've always believed Manning has more often been in an "unbeatable" zone where, no matter what the defense throws at him, they can't beat him.
In addition - Tom Brady has 14 Rushing TDs to Manning's 18. So Manning is superior there.
Why doesn't Brady have more rushing TD's? Do QB sneaks not work on the goal line? He is ridiculous on a sneak.
Belichick tries to keep Tom from getting touchdowns so he won't hurt his throwing shoulder. After all, he has been listed as "questionable - right shoulder" ever since the spike following his TD run against the Raiders in that perfectly officiated 2002 playoff game.
In all this talk of great QBs why isn't Gabbert not being mentioned? :-)
You may be correct, although I think of it more in terms of 'ebb and flow.' There have been periods in the past when there were many really outstanding QB's playing at the same time; if, as you suggest, we are now entering a period where there are fewer, I honestly think that, some years hence (and no one can say how many), there will come another time when there are many.
I love it that Aaron included all the irrational thread links in once place. These are fun (and funny) times.
Manning, I'll put Brady in the top ten but Manning's in my top two.
I'm curious about a couple things, Karl:
(1) At this point I've basically convinced myself that Manning has no peers, I'm curious who the other half of your top two is.
(2) As a 49er fan, do you think Montana or Young was the better quarterback?
To a Niner fan, I'd imagine that's the same question twice.
I'll ask a nastier question.
In having Manning and Unitas, do Baltimore fans consider the Colts the luckiest franchise ever for QBs?
A listing of great Colts QBs always looks best when it includes the name John Elway and a large asterisk.
I think Starr, Favre, Rodgers puts the Packers ahead.
I'd put both the Colts and the Niners ahead of the Packers, and I'd give serious consideration to the Cowboys being ahead of them too.
Disclaimer: I'm a fan of neither Baltimore nor of the Colts.
I have Montana and Manning at the top, Young makes it into my top six or seven though if you were only ranking peak performance he might be higher.
If alien-controlled Kurt Warner could have played for 15 years, where would he rank?
The physics of the universe required Bag Boy Kurt Warner to get the same number of snaps.
It's all about symmetry.
Luckily for his teams, Bag Boy never played in the Super Bowl.
I think "Bag Boy" Warner's play in those regular seasons was the main reason the teams he played for didn't have a chance to make it to the Super Bowl.
I think Manning is probably the best QB ever, while Brady is the most successful QB ever. But if I had to win one single game, and I knew I could get Alien-possessed Kurt Warner, I would take him every single time.
It really was the Greatest Show on Turf. I don't know how much of it was Faulk, Holt, Bruce and the offensive line, but damn, I've seen Warner throw no-look passes, he was ridiculously accurate, even deep, and in his three year peak he was the best passer I've ever seen.
All I am going to say is Manning put up his mumbers playing in a nice cozy, perfect football environment under that dome or playing in Houston under the dome - most of his games have been played in perfect weather conditions while Brady plays in REAL football weather.
Peyton Manning was on SNL and was actually very funny. I don't know if Brady ever was, and please don't tell me, cause I don't want to know. Advantage, Manning.
Brady was, in 2005. Admittedly, that was a far leaner part of the show's run than when Manning was on (2007), but Manning was way, way better. Manning actually seems like a really competent comedic actor. Brady seemed like, well, an athlete on SNL
In Peyton Manning's rookie year, he led the NFL in attempts. With 575.
Can you folks all imagine what that was like? Someone has thrown for close to 700 four years running after this year.
My favorite part of Brady-Manning was Polian and his rule changes. I don't get the transparent conflict of interest in having an active GM on the competition committee.
I thought they were just a chance in emphasis, or something like that. Anyway, I think they benefited Brady as much as Manning (if not, perhaps, the Patriots as a team).
The rules already existed, but were being blatantly ignored by defenders and officials. After the Patriots mauled the Colts receivers for 60 minutes in an AFC playoff game, the referees were reminded of the existence of the rule by the competition committee.
My criticism of Manning in the earlier years was a tendency to be too greedy/aggressive in critical situations leading to more interceptions than Brady would throw. This has born out over the long haul of his career. Brady and Manning throw comparable touchdowns, Manning throws more picks. On the other hand, Manning has more production over the course of his career, which suggests that his team has leaned on him more heavily to win games for them than the Patriots have leaned on Brady. Manning has always had a better deep ball. Brady has a faster release and excels at the quick wide-receiver screen and a lot of the fast, short stuff. Manning has slightly better pocket presence, though it's close. Brady is much better at the QB sneak. Brady has arguably had the more talented teams, though Manning has often had a better supporting offensive cast (Wayne, Harrison, Clark, more marquee o-line)--Obviously, this shifted back and forth a lot over the years, including some very weak Colt years and now an exceedingly bloated Bronco one. Brady has played in more diverse offenses than Manning, including screen heavy, run heavy, reverse and trick play, two tight-end, empty backfield, etc.
I think it's just too complex to make a call. It would be more fair to argue that Manning has been the better quarterback based on raw number accomplishments, but the strengths and demands on the players have been so different that it's not a very good comparison.
Wait... I'm sorry... was that not irrational enough?
I am sorry but I don't think there is a debate. I think if a P Manning clone were coming in the draft and T Brady clone were coming in the draft that anyone who tells you they would take T Brady clone is an idiot. Brady is excellent. Manning is likely the best ever. It is a world of difference.
I also feel like this debate is undersells Belichick a little bit.
"anyone who tells you they would take T Brady clone is an idiot"
Or, alternately, they are an intelligent team that happens to have the second pick.
Can we throw in a Ryan Leaf clone just for the heck of it?
Glad to see this game settled that once and for all. Of course every New Englander knows that if you're looking for a real irrational argument it's gotta be Welker v Edelman.
You can look at the fancy numbers all you want, but only one QB led a game-winning drive in overtime last night.
On NFL Total Access, before the most recent Brady-Manning bowl, Marshall Faulk made an interesting point: what about another quarterback who never seems to be mentioned with these two greats, even though he won "all those Super Bowls in Pittsburgh"? No one talks about him with Brady and Manning, even though he has proven himself to be one of the best of all time due to all those Super Bowls he won.
I think the problem lies with anti-Steeler bias in the media. Or maybe the anti-rape culture that is force-fed to us by the media. Or the media's obsession with consistent results.
Or it could be his numbers that keep him out of the conversation:
Only twice has he eclipsed 4000 yards. Life time 1.8:1.0 TD to interception ratio.
He doesn't deserve to be in the same conversation as Brady, Manning, and Brees.
Brady: 5 seasons over 4000 yards, 3.69:1.0 TD:int.
Manning: 13 seasons over 4000 yards, 2.19 TD:int.
Brees: 7 seasons over 4000 yards, 2.04 TD:int.
© Football Outsiders, Inc. // Site powered by Stein-Wein // Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties