Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

Official Thread for Irrational Brady-Manning Arguments Part II

The original version of this thread first appeared back in July 2004 as a way to move all the Tom Brady vs. Peyton Manning debate out of other discussions and into one place. We don't know why people have a tendency to lose their minds over this issue, but it really does take over every discussion thread if we let it. At one point, a discussion of the San Francisco 49ers' salary cap problems turned into a debate over Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. Every time the Colts play the Patriots, we are in danger of this site becoming all Brady-Manning all the time. Therefore, Football Outsiders has two hard and fast rules:

1) Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are tied for the title of best quarterback in football.
2) Any discussion of whether one is better than the other must go in this thread, and will be deleted from all other discussion threads.

If you want to read the first 850+ comments in this thread, and a longer discussion of the whole Tom Brady vs. Peyton Manning problem, click here.

Disclaimer: This discussion is far, far sillier than the other discussion threads on this site, and it is meant to be. The rest of the website is not like this.

Comments

1
by andrew apold (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 2:57am

Peyton leads in passer rating at the moment, 103.2 to 86.9.

But anyway. If you put either of them on... oh, I dunno. what's our current "worst team in football?" Not sure you can say its the Raiders anymore. The Dolphins. Put them there, and who do you think has greater success?

2
by Nathan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:00am

Did we need this? I thought the other thread was operating fine.

Oh, and the issue has been resolved.

"Remember when (Michael) Jordan was playing and he came into town and people stood outside the arena just to see him? That's him," Broncos defensive lineman Ebenezer Ekuban said. "He's a phenomenal quarterback. The best quarterback I've faced in my eight years in the league."

You can go about your biz now.

3
by admin :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:02am

I needed an excuse to turn Part I into a static page and clean 850+ comments out of our overloaded database -- and this needed to be on the front page for this week or else the Brady-Manning nonsense would show up in every other thread.

4
by Nathan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:05am

Wow, you're right. That thread sure takes it's sweet time loading.

I just like the fun of the old thread. I have many comments there, and am sure was one of the many catalysts for it's existance :)

5
by Nathan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:13am

Okay, last one before sleep. This was one of my favorite things from the old thread.

# 275
Put Brady on the Colts.
Are they better or worse?
(Hint, Worse.)
Put Manning on the Patriots
Are they better or worse?
(Hint, Better.)
What does that mean? I don’t know.
:: Nathan — 7/23/2004 @ 7:36 pm

# 789
RE: 275
Right on.
:: Nathan — 11/1/2005 @ 7:45 pm

# 841
#

RE: 789

Please tell me you didn’t just reference your own post from 16 months ago. You might as well just post it again. It’s not like anyone would know the difference (unless someone took it upon themselves to read this meaningless thread in one shot).

This whole thread is kind of a joke to me. I seriously can’t believe there are morons out there who think Steve Young wasn’t anything special. I know there are all kinds of morons, but that really is a special breed…

:: Sid — 11/9/2005 @ 1:01 pm

And yet, someone did!

6
by Bill Barnwell :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:18am

There should really be a Sorgi-Cassel thread.

7
by Bobman (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:25am

Sweet! It's so good you came back to me, baby, I missed you all this time. Don't go away on me again, okay, I promise to be faithful and never post to another thread again. I swear.

Okay, wait, wait, wait, let's see if I can bring back the old magic: Put Manning on the Pats and they win those SBs plus maybe a couple more regular season games; put Brady on the Colts, and they don't do as well. Yeah, yeah, that feels so good.

Oh, and Andrew #1, if you put either of them on the Cards, say, I would guess that both WRs make the pro bowl and they win 8 games despite a shit OL. I think Manning is a little more mobile than TB (neither is a statue, but both work better in the pocket), especially this year early it was clear he'd been practicing the rollout passes against Jax and NYG I think. But I think Manning has to go with Tom Moore and his audible system--if he runs a "dumb" offense he's a lot less effective. Just another Brady, really. Put either of them in Chicago and the Bears would be 7-0, if you can believe that. Wha? never mind.

Okay, I haven't seen Paulette on this site in a few years; where is she to come back and wallop me over the head with a couple Lombardi Trophies?

8
by Yaguar (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:30am

Here's my irrational M-B argument.

When the Colts come into town to play your team, you're afraid that Manning is going to pick your secondary apart mercilessly.

When the Patriots come into town, you're just as scared of the team as a whole as you are of the Colts. But are you thinking for one second "Oh, damn, Brady's going to light our secondary up for 350 yards?"

9
by Basilicus (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:36am

!!!!REX GROSSMAN!!!!!!

10
by Tally (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:42am

ESPN.com's Scouts Inc. gives Brady a 98 out of 100 overall and Manning a 96 out of 100 overall. What are their Madden ratings? The more fuel on this fire, the better!

11
by Yaguar (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:46am

Their Madden ratings are 99 for Manning and 98 for Brady. My arbitrary quantification of playing ability is better than yours.

12
by NF (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:52am

Both quarterbacks would be pretty average if you switched them between teams. Tom Brady works in an offense that Belichick prefers to have the passing game heavily supported by the rushing game, while the Colts have a pass-oriented offense in which the running game is setup by forcing defenses to play against the pass. Tom Brady is very good at play-fakes because of this, and Peyton Manning is very good at making long passes to stretch the defense. Take away the power running game and Tom Brady's playfaking isn't so useful, take away the elite receiver duo of Harrison and Wayne and Peyton will not be able to complete as many deep passes.

Also, the no-huddle offense is very time-consuming for an offense to prepare. They must devote a significant amount of time in training camp practicing the recognition of the calls and their roles in each play, and during the season must make alterations every week to prevent teams from recognizing the audibles. Time is finite, so no-huddle teams are giving up practice time that would otherwise be used to help other parts of the offense. In Belichick's case, he works a lot of interesting twists into the offense every week, and the execution of these depends on the team being well-prepared.

Brady and Manning are in different offenses that depend on different strengths in the quarterback. As far as raw statistics, do you think that Peyton Manning wouldn't have handed the ball off more often in 2004 in key situations if he had a running back (Corey Dillon) who had twice as much DVOA as his actual running back (Edgerrin James), but had zero receiving ability while Edge was one of the best receivers in the league out of the backfield in 2004.

13
by ChrisFromNJ (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:52am

*genuflect*

14
by ChrisFromNJ (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:52am

Dammit! I missed!

15
by randomn00b (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:52am

Brady, this year, has been good. Manning is the MVP of the league after 8 weeks.

16
by Dan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:56am

#9, indeed.

Sure, Manning strikes fear into the hearts of opposing defenses, but when Rexy comes into town, guns a-slingin', the opposing offense, special teams, and coach also fall apart in horror. After seeing what he did to the Cardinals, there can be little doubt that it's time to crown a new king of the irrational QB thread.

17
by The Ninjalectual (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:57am

Brady is on the steroids.

18
by PMD (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:03am

What's the reference in Moving the Chains, if you don't mind me asking?

19
by Bronco Jeff (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:05am

All I can say is, I was at the Denver-Indy game today, and Manning was the best quarterback that I've seen play live since John Elway. He was absolutely spectacular today, and Tom Brady looked average when he faced the same Broncos defense (with admittedly fewer offensive weapons).

So here's a vote for Manning.

20
by Derek (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:14am

Hey, I know we're on a website that is all about better statistical analysis (and I'm all for it, being a long-time devotee of the baseball equivalent), but I'm still relatively new here. And I'm sure the arguments go back and forth all day long, and you'd be hard pressed to place an argument for Tom Brady putting up the numbers that Peyton does. But much like arguing ARod is the best player in all of baseball... and he is by a lot of measures... would you really take ARod first for a playoff series above all other players? And would you really take Peyton before Brady for the playoffs? And I'm open to hearing "yes, Peyton has just been unlucky/been given bad gameplan/etc."

21
by Yaguar (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:20am

Oh, and is it legal for me to use actuall FO stats in an irrational debate? I think it's worth pointing out that Manning's DPAR blows Brady's out of the water. It's not like Brady has the 2nd best DPAR every year, or even the third. In his 2001 Cinderella season, he ranked 15th in DPAR, less than a point above Buffalo Bills quarterback Alex Van Pelt. No, I am not kidding. Manning ranked sixth.

In 2002, Brady ranked 14th in passing DPAR behind the illustrious company of Michael Vick, Aaron Brooks, and Tommy Maddox. Manning ranked fourth.

From 2003-2006, Brady has ranked tenth, third, third, and eighth in DPAR. Manning? First, first, first, and first.

22
by Michael Zannettis (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:20am

We hate A-Rod because he's soft. We love Eckstein because he's hard-nosed, team player.

So, therefore, we hate Peyton because he's soft. We love Brady because he's a team player.

Except, and this is what really gets me, Peyton is so much more relatable to the average American than Brady is.

Peyton is goofy, neurotic, and average looking. He's not obnoxious at all. He's actually rather down to Earth.

Brady is classy, calm, and handsome. He dates actresses and supermodels very publicly. Looks good in a suit.

If Brady and Manning both went to high school with me, it's Brady, by far, that I would have hated.

And yet, this doesn't translate on the national stage. What did Peyton ever do to make so many people hate him so much?

I don't get it.

23
by Dan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:44am

I was surprised by all the Sorgi love in the other thread. Haven't you seen what his teams do in the playoffs, year after year? They lose. You can try to make excuses for him or to shift the blame over to his teammates, but the fact is that he's the quarterback and he failed to lead his team to victory when it counted.

Plus, no matter who his running mate is, he has no chance until 2016 (unless we get the Constitution changed before then). So unless you want to petition for the Sorgi Amendment, calm down for a few years or his campaign is going to peak way too soon.

24
by Basilicus (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:53am

Are we involving salary cap issues, because Peyton's gargantua-contract (also titled "No Real Defense Ever") versus Tom Brady restructuring his contract to ease the Pats' burden (also titled "I'm So Great") is really the kicker that evens the playing field in my mind.

Oh, wait, gotta be irrational. Um...hey, #22, it's because on the national level we're always looking for someone whose place we'd want to take rather than someone we can relate to, unless we're electing presidents, in which case we like guys who can't form complete sentences or ever.

I know I'd rather. Take Tom Brady's place with Bridget than Peyton's place with Archie and Eli. Or is it Peyton place with a young Mia Farrow? I'd still opt for Miss Moynahan myself.

25
by Jake (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:59am

Who's better against the 3-4?

Maybe it won't matter this year, with the Steelers tanking and the Chargers shedding linebackers, but Manning still looks like an average quarterback against some defenses.

26
by Jake (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:07am

Wait, this is supposed to be silly?

In that case, I'm going with the "Brady is a winnah." argment.

He clearly wins games.

Oh yeah, and his team can't lose confidence in him, which as all pundits know is a death sentence for any player.

27
by Mike (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:07am

Tom Brady is clearly underrated because he went to MICHIGAN. Using African Juju to determine his fate is way better than this! GO BLUE!

28
by Count (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:11am

22- Peyton Manning's in approximately 100,000 more commercials than Brady. He's the son of a pro quarterback, the brother of another one. Brady's loved by his teammates and OLine. Manning kills puppies in his spare time. Brady's more likeable.

29
by Count (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:15am

Anyway, I don't see why we have to choose one as better than the other. As a Pats fan I like Brady much more (obviously), though Manning's often very impressive. I prefer Brady, i'm sure Colts fans prefer Manning, and they're both great. Brady's won three superbowls, and Manning has appeared in three hundred commercials. Everybody wins.

As a sidenote, it really really sucked to see Vinatieri kick the winning field goal against the Broncos.

30
by Craigers (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:32am

As a sidenote, it really really sucked to see Vinatieri kick the winning field goal against the Broncos.

"We understand that Robert Kraft and Bill Belichick must be embarrassed, frustrated and disappointed by their failure in this transaction. Unlike the Colts, they chose not to go the extra distance for their fans in Boston. It is understandable, but wrong for fans try to deflect the accountability for their mistakes on to others and onto a system for which they voted in favor. It is time to get on with life and forget the sour grapes."

31
by Bobman (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:40am

Hey, enough of this bi-partisan sanity! (generally good analysis, BTW).

I am pretty sure Basilicus is mistaken in #24 about that old canard of salary cap--I'd bet a buck that Tom "Andrew Carnegie" Brady is higher than Payton "Daddy Warbucks" Manning this year and last year too. I think next year is one of those goofy roster bonus years that pops Manning's cap hit from about $9M to about $16M (just going from memory). And like McNair, it was intended to cause a restructuring or they'll cut him.

bwa-ha-ha, I kill me. Okay, a restructuring, then.

Michael Zannettis, VERY interesting logic. I suspect Manning's acting has won him some fans--the Sports Center spot in particular, though maybe Eli steals the show looking like everybody's sullen, picked-on little brother (who, cough, happens to be 6-5, 225 lbs and a multimillionaire--who doesn't love picking on those little punks!). In HS, I'd have hated whichever one of them would have ranked ahead of me academically (maybe Manning). Actually, we'd have been pals as it was tough to find other 3.95 GPA jocks.

Derek, here's a parallel that drives NE fans nuts (and it's pretty accurate, IMHO): Tom Brady = Derek Jeter. Stats? Pshaw! It'a all about the rings. Selfless, irreplacable, multi-function player, comes up biggest in the biggest games, well-spoken, easy on the eyes (for gals and non-traditional males, as TMQ likes to say), suave man-about-town who dates A-list celebrities.

Yeah, that 3-4 defense thing... I fall back on the "beats the shit outta me" defense since Manning beat Pitt and NE in the regular season last year, as well as losing to SD and then Pitt in the playoffs. Historically, he's had his worst games against 3-4's, but claims it's not the schemes but the personnel. Um, yeah, okay....

32
by Craigers (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:41am

Oh, obligatory irrational Brady/Manning argument: while "Tom Brady" anagrams to TARDY MOB, "Peyton Manning" anagrams to GIN NON-PAYMENT. I think this clearly shows the superiority of Brady - you don't aruge with a mob, no matter how late it is.

33
by Becephalus (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:47am

I cannot imagine not taking Manning over brady if I hd the chance, although I think the differences in situation and system make it a little different than it seems. You also have to factor in that while Manning has better offensive pieces, he is also usually starting from worse field position (at least in years other than last year).

34
by The Leon Express (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:49am

#22:

Tagliabue: "With the first pick of the 1998 NFL Draft, the Indianapolis Colts select Peyton Manning, Quarterback, Tennessee"

Kiper: "As we go over a few of the latest picks in the 2000 NFL Draft, Tennessee takes a guy with good potential in Robaire Smith, St. Louis takes Matt Bowen who will do excellent on special teams for the. New England makes an intriguing pick at #199 with Michigan QB Tom Brady. This is a guy who doesn't have the best tools but he was winner, could develop into a solid backup blah blah blah..."

People love the underdog story...

35
by The Leon Express (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:53am

Best QB in the NFL????

This should be an argument between PHIL RIVERS AND KELLEN CLEMENS...RRRRRAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!

36
by Truman (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 6:14am

And would you really take Peyton before Brady for the playoffs? And I’m open to hearing “yes, Peyton has just been unlucky/been given bad gameplan/etc.�
-The teams which have beaten the Colts in the playoffs the last 3 years have gone on to win the Superbowl.

-Take a look at what happened in Manning's playoff games.
From memory, because I really should be studying:
Vanderjagt misses a 30(?) yard field goal against Miami which would have forced OT.

The Colts defense gets lit up by the Jets, leaving Manning with no choice but to play catch up by the time he finally gets a chance to put a drive together.

The Colts receivers get mugged in New England, instigating an investigation into the officiating and subsequent 're-interpretation' of the rule.

The snow game where Manning played horribly and he had no help from his receivers or his pro bowl RB.

The 'protection problems' game where Vanderjagt misses a FG as time expires which would have forced OT. Now Manning has some responsibility here because he calls the protections for the Indy offense, but its pretty clear the o-line did struggle badly against the Steelers.
It should also be noted the Colts benefited from the Polamalu non-INT call in this game.

What has Marvin Harrison ever done in the playoffs? Why is it that Edgerrin James goes missing every January?

Are we involving salary cap issues, because Peyton’s gargantua-contract (also titled “No Real Defense Ever�) versus Tom Brady restructuring his contract to ease the Pats’ burden (also titled “I’m So Great�) is really the kicker that evens the playing field in my mind.

Brady gets way too much credit for this. (Thanks PK!)
He signed a massive deal worth $13 million a year over the first 3 years (after which it is inevitably torn up). Manning's deal is worth $15 million a year for the first 3 years.
Not sure why no one ever mentions Manning restructuring his contract last offseason so the Colts could sign guys like Mathis and Vinatieri.

37
by MET (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 7:13am

As a Bills fan I have to say Manning is better but its mainly down to getting beat by NE twice a year and Indy only once every three years.

Re 37

They don't mention Manning Restructuring because then they would lose one part of the argument for Brady being better.

38
by Theo (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 7:15am

Everyone knows Manning is better.
The only argument to think Brady is better is that he plays right defensive end sometimes.

39
by Kevin Nowell (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:53am

This argument was only fun when there were still people out there who actually clung to the delusion that Brady is better.

40
by Rick (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 9:18am

I'm kind of surprised that people think that Brady has a much stronger supporting cast than Manning does.

Put Brady on the Colts and they've already won the Super Bowl instead of choking in the playoffs. Put Manning on the Pats and they don't beat the Raiders in the Snow Bowl, much less beat the Rams in the first Super Bowl.

Chamberlain always had better stats than Russell. Russell had the rings.

41
by Rick (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 9:25am

"What did Peyton ever do to make so many people hate him so much?"

A lot of things. He's been annointed as a golden boy from his frosh year at Tennessee, and has yet to win a championship at any level. But for me the incident with Vanderjagt is telling: he called Vanderjagt "liquored up" which was a complete lie, and that smear has gone on to follow Vanderjagt around to the point where people joke about it as if it were true. Smearing one's own teammate is pretty weak.

Brady has never done anything like that. There's been ample oppurtunity for him to throw teammates under the bus, ranging from Bledsoe to Branch, and he's never done it.

42
by Not saying (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 9:44am

"Chamberlain always had better stats than Russell. Russell had the rings."

“What did Peyton ever do to make so many people hate him so much?�

Damn, this is really sounding more and more like A-Rod versus Jeter. That's so depressing.

Of course, baseball is different, what with the more individual nature of the battles there. But this still depresses me, being a Sox and Pats fan.

43
by Not saying (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 9:47am

Re: 39

"This argument was only fun when there were still people out there who actually clung to the delusion that Brady is better."

Delusion? Please. Brady has had a shoulder injury for every game he has played in the NFL. Just check the injury reports. I'd like to seeing Manning throw to Doug Gabriel game after game with his shoulder falling off.

44
by vanya_6724 (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 10:02am

Manning has more skills, but he is soft and his team-mates don't really respect him as a leader. This is why the Colts as a team roll over and die whenever the pressure gets too high. Brady is a true leader of men, his teammates know he's willing to give everything he's got, and his teammates will move mountains for him. Basically Manning is King Darius of Persia and Brady is Alexander the Great.

45
by Truman (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 10:41am

re #40
You know Chamberlain has a couple of rings himself, despite not playing with 6 hall of famers his entire career.
Also, Brady fumbled.

46
by David (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 10:41am

Clearly, you all are forgetting the best commercial ever made. The sainted Tom Brady (*genuflect*) allows his offensive line to star in his Visa Protect commercial, while he dates an actress. Do you ever see Manning's offensive line in his humorous advertisements? Nooooo....

This advertisement give Brady a decisive humility advantage over the Devil, who now walks this earth in the guise of an unbearably goofy Indy QB. It takes CHARACTER, not OBSERVATION, and FAITH, not STATS, to discern the Devil and all his works.

Can I get an AMEN, brothers?

47
by Paulette (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:01am

re 7

I just lurk around here. Not really into the stats. I think we're lucky to have both Manning and Brady.
I guess three Lombardis take away the defensiveness. Sorry, couldn't resist

48
by Ben (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:19am

re:16 He's exactly who we thought he was. If you want to go ahead and crown... err, never mind.

49
by joel in providence (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:41am

brady just rules when it comes to the intangibles. his intangibles are so obvious, you could reach out and touch them. did i mention the intangibles. forget swagger, great players are measured by the intangibles.

50
by joel in providence (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:48am

#40:
wilt won two NBA championships (and nearly won an ncaa title at kansas)... and i believe overbrook won at least one or two city championships when he was in h.s.... yes it's schoolboy hoops, but you've got to be REALLY good to win the championship in philly.

51
by Flava Flav (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:50am

Digging deeper into Manning -v- Brady, if we go back to elementary school and cross out all the common letters between PEYTON MANNING and TOM BRADY, you get:

PENNNING BRD

which clearly indicates why the Jets QB is on and off this season. Peyton & Tom are trying to tell Jets fans something.

I think Peyton & Tom & a Ouija Board should get together in a room and see what happens...

Welcome to Mystic NFL, just in time for Halloween!!!

52
by Adam Gretz (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:54am

I'm sorry but that Aaron Schultz (remember that?) guy is crazy in this case. Clearly the best thread in the history of FO. Is the football talk irrational? Sure. But the irrationality of the absurdity is so absurd and irrational that the unintentional comedy is off the unintentionaly funny scale.

This is the stuff that legend is made of my friends.

Please. Continue.

53
by Independent George (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:55am

This discussion is far, far sillier than the other discussion threads on this site, and it is meant to be. The rest of the website is not like this.

I'm offended by this statement.

*cough* catholicmatchgirl *cough* robopunter

I think you underestimate our capacity for silliness.

54
by Starshatterer (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 12:06pm

The salary cap difference is not so much in the cap numbers of the Peytom Branning nimself, but in what they pay for on the rest of the team.

The Colts pay for two of the best wide receivers in the the game, O- and D-lines, and enough defense and running game to get by. (James and Brackett? Gone. Enjoy the money elsewhere.)

The Patriots pay for linebackers (Colvin and Vrabel are getting paid quite nicely), O- and D-lines, and enough receivers and running game to get by. (Branch and Givens? Enjoy the money &c).

Just that distinctiion alone means Manning should put up better stats (better receivers make the passing game better -- except maybe for J.P. Losman). Either method can win you games: witness both teams' records since 2001.

Better defense, of course, tends to make winning championships easier. But the credit and/or blame for that can hardly be laid at the feet or Peytom Branning -- unless you think that they run the front office like they run their respective offenses.

55
by calig23 (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 12:13pm

There needs to be a TV show where Catholic Match Girl has to choose between Brady and Manning. Only then can we find out who is really better.

56
by andrew (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 12:13pm

I'd take Robo-punter over either Brady or Manning at the same salary.

57
by Sophandros (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 12:24pm

53: Where did she go, BTW?

I have to add my comment that football is a team sport, so rings don't necessarily measure who a better PLAYER is. And the Chicago/Arizona game this season is anecdotal evidence that the best at a position doesn't always win the game. Also, by allowing for the "Rings Argument" to be valid, we'd have to crown Trent Dilfer as one of the best QBs ever. I'm not willing to do that, just as I'm not willing to say that Tony Parker is a better point guard than John Stockton.

58
by Malene, cph (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 12:34pm

55: Manning all the way. Brady's out. I don't think Catholic Match Girl would ever pick a guy with dreamier eyes than her own.

59
by Nathan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 12:38pm

It is funny how many people call Manning soft when he hasn't missed a game. That hit last week against Manning where he was split into two really makes a soft quarterback.

What is anyone even trying to say with the "soft quarterback" thing? Exactly what part of him is soft?

60
by Mike (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 12:42pm

This is probably way too rational for this thread but I guess I kind of wonder how everyone can't get together on the notion that Brady is an extremely capable and well rounded QB who will be in the Hall of Fame and that Manning is a surreally talented offensive weapon who will also be in the Hall of Fame.

The systemic differences in NE and Indy don't to me seem to be based on anything more than wise assessment of their players - the Pats are an all-around rounded team as is their QB, whereas the Colts spend a premium on offensive talent in order to give Manning the pieces to make best use of his talents.

61
by Brian (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 12:46pm

Too many "experts" gloss over the tremendous advantage that Manning has by playing at least half of his games indoors. In Major League Baseball, offensive statistics accumulated at Coors' Field were discounted until the baseballs were placed in cold storage. The same factor has to be affixed to Manning's stats. Does anyone know what his numbers are in, say 40 degrees and below, in comparison with his environmentally controlled performances?
Manning could take his exact same team to NE and not be anywhere near as effective.

Brady's ability to throw in the cold and wet and wind is special. Manning has shown no such ability (see: Playoffs).

62
by Malene, cph (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 12:56pm

re 59: not his heart, as he spends his freetime killing puppies and o-linemen who've missed blocks.

63
by Michael LaRocca` (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 1:04pm

If I had to go through life with a first name like "Peyton," I'd wear that ugly expression all the time too.

64
by stan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 1:05pm

54,

I've always loved the people who are so desperate to run down Manning for their guy that they throw all the other players on their team under the bus. In 2003, McNair got a share of the MVP because people argued that he was doing it all on his own. Of course, he had one pro bowl receiver ( just like Peyton), a deep and talented receiver group (while young), the best pass protection in the league, a solid defense and an outstanding kicking game. Both of his backups (playing in games he missed for injury) had better passer ratings than McNair behind that awesome protection. But, of course, Stevie did it all by himself.

Remember when Pats fans kept telling us that Branch and Givens were supposed to be below average receivers?! They were nothing without the greatness that is Tom Brady. And their TEs weren't very good. And that incredibly good offensive line was just ignored. And we don't need to talk about the NE defense and kicking game. Because Brady is better than god. Last year, the poor Pats had to use a rookie first round pick and a rookie second round pick to fill in for injuries in the O-line. Every bad throw Brady made last year (and there were a lot) was the O-line's fault. Every week we heard non-stop excuses about how poor Tom had to deal with the bad line.

When Manning's O-line (not as good as NE's to start with) had 3 significant injuries in 2004, he had to make do with an 5th round rookie and an undrafted rookie for the 2d half of the season. Despite leaky protection, he broke Marino's record. And no one ever heard a word about excuses for injuries to the offensive line.

65
by stan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 1:18pm

Aaron needs to divide the comments into sane and insane categories.

re: 12 -- Brady is better at play-action faking? Other than the fevered imaginations of the Brady-besotted lovers in the NE sports media, has anyone rational ever tried to make that argument? Manning has gotten defenses to bite on play fakes in games where his backs are having trouble making it back to the LOS.

Several years ago, the Colt running game was so bad that Manning had to develop a new way to run the zone stretch in order to produce running seams. His talents in run game mechanics are so special that other NFL coaches have complained about not being able to get their QBs to replicate him in practice for their defense.

66
by Dave (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 1:23pm

#61, okay, Dan Fouts (played home games in San Diego) and Dan Marino (played home games in Miami) were not great QBs. Interesting theory. And I say that a crazed Packers fan.

67
by Tim (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 1:27pm

Tom Brady is the Brett Favre of quarterbacks

68
by johnt (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 1:29pm

"Put Brady on the Colts and they’ve already won the Super Bowl instead of choking in the playoffs."

This is taking Pats homerism to an impressive new level. Manning basically maxes out the offensive power of the QB position in the Colts system. You can argue that he'd suck in NE, or that too much of the money is spent on the Colts O, but I don't see how you can seriously claim Brady could possibly do better. The Colts losses come from when the defense implodes, and no one player can overcome that.

"The salary cap difference is not so much in the cap numbers of the Peytom Branning nimself, but in what they pay for on the rest of the team."

That's part of it, but a big part of it is also Dungy's crappy Tampa 2 where he doesn't put anyone on the field who weighs more than 140lbs. A defense that could stop the run but was vulnerable to the pass would be far better for the Colts, because it's the grinding run drives that really murder them.

69
by Hart Lee Dykes (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 1:32pm

#36

"-Take a look at what happened in Manning’s playoff games.
From memory, because I really should be studying:
Vanderjagt misses a 30(?) yard field goal against Miami which would have forced OT.

The Colts defense gets lit up by the Jets, leaving Manning with no choice but to play catch up by the time he finally gets a chance to put a drive together.

The Colts receivers get mugged in New England, instigating an investigation into the officiating and subsequent ‘re-interpretation’ of the rule.

The snow game where Manning played horribly and he had no help from his receivers or his pro bowl RB."

As a Pats fan, this debate to me is silly. I don't care who is the better QB, the only thing I can honestly say is I'm happy with Brady. I used to hate when Yankee fans were not satisfied just to have the best team, they also had to have the best shortstop, even when the plain numbers showed Nomar and A-rod were better players. So, as a Pats fan, I don't feel the need to do this. I'm happy with Brady, and I wouldn't want anyone else. Non-Pats fans should understand that.

However, I cannot let this entire thing go without commenting on the above. Manning is an amazing QB, and unlike other Pats fans out there, I will admit that I think he'll retire with at least 1 ring, and possibly more than one, once all is said and done.

But, why the silly need to explain away his post-season failures? It would be better if Peyton/Colt fans just admitted that in the small sample size that is the NFL playoffs, Manning has been pretty damn awful when his opponent has not been the Denver Broncos.

70
by Hart Lee Dykes (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 1:34pm

"The Colts losses come from when the defense implodes, and no one player can overcome that."

Not true at all.

The Colt defense has played well in both playoff losses to New England. The Colt offense has not. Not all Manning's fault, but it isn't like Manning is throwing up perfect passer ratings in these playoff games and his defense is giving up 40 points a game.

I agree the statement you are responding to is blatant and annoying Pats homrerism. But, pretending that Manning has been the victim of a poor defense in the playofffs is simply not accurate.

71
by johnt (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 1:45pm

70: Well, I barely remember the first one, to tell you the truth. But the most recent one it was definitely the Colts defense fault. The Patriots just kept marching down the field 4 yards at a time with brutally long drives, then the totally fresh Pats defense would come on, drop 7 into coverage and pressure Manning with 4 and get a fast stop. But it was the pressure caused by the knowledge that if they didn't convert every series they'd be off the field for 8-9 minutes of clock time that really broke the Colts offense that game.

72
by randomn00b (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 2:18pm

It would be better if Peyton/Colt fans just admitted that in the small sample size that is the NFL playoffs, Manning has been pretty damn awful when his opponent has not been the Denver Broncos.

This is FO. We should know variance happens. Brady's also had a better team around him those SB years (except 2001, which was just fluky).

73
by GO BLUE (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 2:21pm

At the end of the day (and career), it's who has more Superbowl rings. As it stands right now, if both Brady and Peyton retired, Brady wins the "who's better" debate.

Brady was never crowned to be the next best thing in the world of football QB's. Nothing was expected of him and he has delivered more than Peyton. Peyton might be the better throwing QB and might have better over all talent than Brady, but he has yet to deliver when it really counts. Hopefully Peyton will get to the promised land and win that ring. He has the ability to do so. But he has to deliver in the big games which he has yet to do.

74
by CA (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 2:28pm

I definitely fall firmly in the Manning camp in the irrational Brady-Manning debate (Manning is the best QB I've ever seen; what more can I say?), but I think that the comparison of Brady to Jeter is an insult to Brady. There are tons of holes in Jeter's game as a baseball player; that is, there are a lot of important aspects of baseball in which Jeter is bad. In contrast, I really don't see any holes in Brady's game as a QB. I suppose you could argue that he could stand to be more mobile, but other than that he is very good at basically every aspect of his position.

75
by PatsFan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 2:31pm

Oh cool -- the vintage "Manning has magic powers beyond the ken of mortal men" stan has returned. Feels like old times.

76
by Kal (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 2:34pm

To be fair, Peyton looked pretty damn amazing after obliterating the 2003 Chiefs.

What I like about Brady: his total team committment. I've never heard of Brady saying that a loss was someone else's fault or whining about the calls or the coach or any of that.
What I don't like: his calls for more respect. Wow, you suck.

In contrast, I really don’t see any holes in Brady’s game as a QB. To be vaguely rational, Brady is great at reading zone coverages, throwing accurate balls normally, and making the right decisions when not under pressure. Where he fails is making decisions under pressure; he has made some absolutely boneheaded plays that make Brooks look like a genius. Denver knows how to beat New England and Brady because they put absurd pressure on him. The Colts, from what I've seen, have only done so once - last year's game, when the running game was ineffective.

77
by Nathan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 2:37pm

This is a question, and not an attempt at being snide.

How often does Brady throw deep? I never see it, I'd question his arm strength not that he needs it.

How often does he bomb it? Manning pulls it off pretty regularly with good touch.

78
by johnt (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 2:38pm

At the end of the day (and career), it’s who has more Superbowl rings. As it stands right now, if both Brady and Peyton retired, Brady wins the “who’s better� debate.

It is? Hmm. Poor Manning, he may never be as good a QB as Trent Dilfer or Brad Johnson.

79
by PatsFan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 2:39pm

Re: #77

Apparently you didn't watch any Pats games last year. Brady threw, and connected on, plenty of long balls.

This year, different story, 'tis true.

80
by Nathan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 2:41pm

I watched some pats games, but mostly Colts games. Maybe 4-5 Pats games. He was surgically an absolutely amazing QB, great at the 15 yard pass across the middle, but I just don't remember anything long.

Small sample size and all

81
by Kal (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 2:54pm

Heh. I remember this from a couple years ago and last year. Someone made a comment before the Pats/Jax game that Brady couldn't throw deep, and one of his first passes was this perfect bomb. He can throw deep fairly well. He doesn't have the long accuracy that McNabb or Palmer or Manning show, but he does well. It's certainly not a weakness, and his armstrength is fine for the important throws like the 10-yard out.

82
by john madden (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:04pm

If Jesus coached a football team, Peyton and Tommy B. would be backing up Brett Favre. Brett Favre is the greatest QB of all time, not to mention a better clutch hitter than A-Rod and could own Michael Jordan and Larry Bird in one-on-one-on-one with his hands tied behind his back.

All bow down to Brett Favre, the omnipotent and benevolent tosser of touchdowns!

83
by Steve (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:06pm

"It would be better if Peyton/Colt fans just admitted that in the small sample size that is the NFL playoffs, Manning has been pretty damn awful when his opponent has not been the Denver Broncos."

You forgot Kansas City. And Poland.

84
by stan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:16pm

75,

Patsfan, you are absolutely right about it feeling like old times. It's so comforting to know that you are so reliable. I keep writing what the best football minds in the game say about Manning and you keep writing snarky little personal attacks.

I'll keep referring to what coaches like Jeff Fisher, Mike Shanahan, and Dick Vermeil say about Manning doing things they have never seen before. You might try new ways to be nasty.

You can rely on those Boston sportswriters.

85
by Justin Wood (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:17pm

In the #5 commenet at the top, he states the Pats would be better with Manning and the Colts worse with Brady. I'd like to see Peyton do with the Pats what Tom has. Peyton has 2 very good receivers to throw to, including one hall of famer. Brady has no one. You give Tom Brady Harrison and Wayne and he would be unstoppable. You give Manning Reche Caldwell and Doug Gabriel and see what he can do.

And when Peyton leads any team to more than 2 wins in the play-offs then he can be compared to Tom Brady instead of Dan "No Super Bowl Wins" Marino.

86
by PatsFan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:20pm

Re: #82

You forgot to mention Favre's swagger and gunslinging :-)

87
by Kal (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:23pm

#85: If you give Manning Vrabel, Harrison, Colvin, and Bruschi, I bet he does pretty well. It's not just about the offense. And it's not just that the Pats won games because they had Brady.

That, btw, is one of the things I hate about this argument in general - the argument that Brady had no one and did so well. He had consistently one of the best defenses in the league. This is a huge bonus for any QB. Brady doesn't have the offensive weapons, but he also doesn't have the offensive numbers that go with those. What he does have is a defense that has been stellar throughout the 2000s with one exception.

88
by DaveO (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:25pm

On why Pats fans seem to need to loathe Peyton so much - I think Simmons bears responsibility for a lot of it. He went through a really juvenile stretch the last couple of years when he just couldn't stop poking fun, and NE fans lapped it up, much like the popular kids piling on the geek in High School (popular in this context = head-head success, and success in Super Bowls). Some of his ongoing themes (e.g. Manning is a selfish, me-first player only concerned with stats, his teammates don't like him) were just patently ridiculous to those of us who actually live in Indy and follow the Colts - but what are you gonna do?

I actually think that there might be a little psychological transference going on here. For a while there, it was pretty brutal to root for the Pats and Red Sox, especially the Sox (being the Yankees historical bee-otch and all). When both teams reversed their fortunes (simultaneously and spectacularly), the NE fans turned around and emulated the worst behavior of their former Yankee fan tormentors, by displaying, irrational, dissmissive arrogance.

89
by stan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:25pm

87,

Don't forget the offensive line. The NFL is about pass pro, first and foremost.

90
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:29pm

Trying to seperate qb performance from the performance of the offensive players surrounding the qb is really, really hard. Trying to sperate the qb performance from the performance of the qb's defense and special teams is also extremely hard. This is what lends the special air of irrationality to the Manning/Brady debate, but I'd have to say the the Brady fans win the irrationality award, in that they attempt to discount the rest of the Pats' roster when they put forth the Super Bowl victories as proof of Brady's superiority. Elway did not become a better quarterback in 1997, compared to years previous, Dan Marino was not a better qb in 1984 than he was in later years, and if the Buffalo Bills had been in the NFC from from 1990 through 1993, Jim Kelly would not have been any worse as a quarterback.

#54 is correct in that the far more interesting examination pertains to overall roster construction, and cap space allotment, in regards to the Pats and Colts.

91
by Kal (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:31pm

#89 - the Pats haven't had the best line or even the best pass-protecting line for a while. Point of fact, Manning has had better lines at least statistically. If he's had problems with the line it hasn't shown up all that often. It did spectacularly against SD and Pitt, but I'm not sure how much of that was manning's inability to call the protection correctly and how much was bad line play.

But they still have been good most of the time. Reasonable at runblocking, reasonable at passblocking. Brady has had some horrible line play along the way, and it hasn't been a consistent strength of the Pats for a while. Certainly not the way the defense has.

92
by Pat Fitzsimmons (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:38pm

Stat of the day:
 
Manning's career QB ratings: 
88.8 outdoors 
98.8 indoors 
78.9 cold temperatures (
 
Brady's career QB ratings: 
87 outdoors 
103.9 indoors 
89.4
 
A lot of the difference in their styles - Mannings longer passes versus Brady's shorter ones - is because they play in difference conditions. This also explains Brady's success in the playoffs. Winnig outdoors in the cold becomes very import in making it to the Super Bowl.

93
by bsr (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:39pm

#91 - Remember that 2001 O-line? Only one of those players still remains on the team. If someone wants to argue that Brady has had the benefit of good o-lines, then they are going to have to be specific and mention which year because there has been a tremendous amount of turnover and injuries there.

94
by bsr (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:41pm

#92 - My understanding is that Manning has also traditional thrown lots of short passes. In fact, if I recall correctly, Manning throws a greater percentage of his passes short then Brady does.

95
by Nathan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:48pm

If Manning gets time to throw, he is the best QB. What Quarterbacks were good with a rush similar to the Steelers last year?

Anyone?.. I remember every "great" quarterback in my lifetime getting pounded if the O-line can't stop the rush.

96
by Blair (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:52pm

Long time reader, first time poster.

Terry Bradshaw won 4 SuperBowls ('74,'75,'79,'80) and was the SuperBowl MVP in '74 and '75.

Dan Marino has almost every meaningful career and season passing record in NFL history, and Peyton has broken at least one, and is on track to break others.

Now, I'm (unfortunately) a huge fan of the Dolphins, but is there anyone who believes that Terry Bradshaw was a better QB than Dan Marino? I know I don't. I don't even hear Bradshaw mentioned in discussions about the best QB of all time very often, but Marino is mentioned every time.

Therefore, how can anyone think that Tom Brady is a better QB than Peyton Manning just because he has won SuperBowls? Championship rings don't measure your success as a player, they measure your success as a team on one specific day in a year (4 days if you want to count the entire playoffs). In my opinion, career stats are a better measure of the player. I usually have to use that argument when people say Elway was better than Marino. He wasn't. There, I said it. Long live #13!

97
by john madden (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:55pm

In these situations, I like to ask myself WWBFD? What would Brett Favre Do?

If Brett had to decide who was the better QB, he would take Peyton and Tommy B. out back and let 'em fight it out, last man standing would be the best QB in the NFL. And then Brett would beat the crap out of both of them.

98
by Kal (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 3:55pm

Not sure where you get those numbers, #92. In Brady's case, they seem to be way too high, and in Manning's case they seem too low. Not that comparing career numbers is all that useful given the two years that Manning has on Brady - but at least in terms of rating in the last few years Manning obliterates Brady.

Which is why we actually use DVOA instead of passer rating to determine who is better.

99
by doktarr (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:01pm

Re: Patsfan (re: stan and comment #12)

You may disagree with stan, but I don't see how you could agree with comment #12. The Colts offense is more built around post-snap misdirection than any offense in the league. See the oldie-but-goodie 2004 FO article linked in my name for a discussion of this. Lots of great comments in that one, too. Peyton sells the playfake very well.

#69's comments are nice.

100
by Pat Fitzsimmons (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:02pm

#98 - The numbers come from Yahoo! Sports. I'd like to look at DVOA, but there's no indoor/outdoor splits.

101
by EricG (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:04pm

#92 - Based on your selected stats, the argument between Brady and Manning becomes more complicated. If Brady had a slightly better rating outdoors than indoors than Manning's overall QB rating is still higher than Brady. This is known as Simpson's paradox. Is anyone aware of studies that show that quarterbacks perform better indoors than outdoors?

102
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:06pm

Great point, #96. In fact, I've long considered it very likely that if Peyton's daddy had his draft year reversed with Bradshaw, allowing Archie to play with Noll and Co., while Bradshaw got bludgeoned in New Orleans, Archie would be in the HOF, holding the record for qb SB victories ahead of Montana, and Bradshaw would be little remembered. It is amazing to me how the Brady fans discount the Belichik defense when promoting Brady's superiority on the basis of Super Bowl victories.

103
by Kal (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:08pm

#100: Ah, gotcha. How many games has Brady played indoors?

8.

Statistically, that's pretty much irrelevant. So yeah, Brady's been 5 points better in the 8 games he played indoors than Manning has in the 76 he's played. There's a shocker.

104
by throughthelookingglass (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:08pm

TUCK RULE!!!

105
by David Plunk (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:08pm

Since the two are quarterbacks, doesn't it make sense to look at their passing stats as the main, and possibly only, thing to measure them. It is illogical to look at wins considering they both only play one position on the field and football is too much of a team game to think one player wins and losses a game.

To say Brady is better simply because he has rings is ridiculous. He has rings because the other players on his team performed at a higher level than everyone else in the league for 3 years. He clearly has had much better defenses which are vitally important to winning Super Bowls. In fact, every Super Bowl winnner has had a defense ranked in the top 10 in points allowed. I don't think QBs have too much control over how well their team's defense performs.

So onto their passing stats. Brady has played in 86 games and gone 1683 for 2737 61.5% 19261yards 7.0YPA 133TD 69INT. Pretty good numbers. Manning has played in 135 games and gone 2932 for 4578 64.0% 35154yards 7.7YPA 259TD 132INT. Those are excellent numbers. He is the second fastest ever to 35000 yards. And he is already 10th all time in passing TDs. Brady is at a bit of a disadvantage because he has played in fewer games. But that is just one reason why Manning is better. He has been great over a longer period of time.

Ans as for their passing numbers in the playoffs: Manning is 193 for 322 2461yards 15TD 8INT. Half of those INTs came in one game againgst the Pats. Brady is 225 for 367 2493yards 15TD 5INT. They have pretty similar playoff numbers.

We can talk all day about why Brady has rings and why Manning doesn't. That would take all day because that has a lot to do with how the rest of their teams played and not as much to do with how well they threw the football. You can't argue that Manning has thrown the ball better, for a longer time than Brady has. That is not to say Brady isn't good. It is just saying that Manning has been a little better. And that is not a bad thing for Brady. Manning may turn out to be the greatest ever if he continues to throw the ball like he is.

106
by Sophandros (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:12pm

88:

That's probably the best assessment of this situation that I've seen.

Thank you.

107
by doktarr (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:16pm

RE: 98:

I believe those stats are accurate. If you look at every concievable split (home/road, indoor/outdoor, day/night, raining, windy, et cetera et cetera), Manning is higher in all of them except:

1) Cold
2) Windy
3) Indoors

(3) is obviously the wierd one. Basically, that comes down to small sample size, as Brady has only played 8 games indoors. Cold, windy conditions obviously hurt the Manning-led Colts.

108
by ToxikFetus (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:16pm

#5 just made my day. It takes a big ego to compliment yourself on a 16 month-old post. Bravo.

109
by MJK (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:27pm

OK, here's my rational/irrational take:

1). Both are fantastic. I'm a die-hard Pats fan, but if you took away Brady and gave the Pats Peyton, I wouldn't be upset (provided there was a full training camp to get all the offensive pieces to fit together). The only reason why I'd take one over the other if I was building a team from scratch is that Brady is a little younger.

2). To say that Brady runs a play fake better is silly. The Colts live on playaction.

3). Talent level around them: Hard to compare O-lines. Both O-lines are pretty good (except last year, when injuries bit the Pats). Subjectively, I think the Pats O-line is better at handing late pressure (delay blitzes) but struggles agains the all-out blitz at the snap, but the Colts' is better handling quick, all out pressure but struggles more against clever, delayed, unexpected stuff.

WR's I'm not going to say the Pats' WR's are horrible, but anyone that thinks Harrison, Stokley, and Wayne are worse than ANY 1-2-3 WR combo the Pats have had in the last 5 years (including Branch-Givens-Brown at their best) needs their heads examined. TE's are probably a wash, but I personally think Graham's dropsies and Fauria's tendency to catch and instantly fall down move the Pats' TE's over the last five years slightly below the Colts'.

The Pats have had a much better D ove rthe last five years (except for last year).

Running game: the edge has to go to the Colts. The pats had 1 good year with Dillon in 04 and half of this year so far. That's 1 1/4 years of excellent running game weighted down by three and a half years of injured Corey, Antoine Smith, Heath Evans, and Patrick Pass. The Colts have had five years of not-spectacular, but well above average running.

So at the end of the day, I would say Peyton has had more talent around him.

4). Here's how I break down their real strengths. Neither has any critical weaknesses, each just does certain things better.

Brady is better at quick reads, analyzing and adjusting to complex defensive schemes, and moving around to buy time in the pocket. Peyton throws a better long ball (Brady throws a pretty good one, but Manning's is near perfect) and is better at not getting hit as much (Brady takes an awful beating at times). I think Peyton throws better out patterns, but Brady is better deep over the middle.

5). The reason why Pats fans hate Peyton so much is that the National media has been in LOVE with him for years. Everyone extols his greatness, yet he has beaten the Pats exactly twice in his career. Historically, most of the time that New England fans have seen Peyton play, they see him play badly. So naturally they get annoyed when everyone says how wonderful he is. I'm not saying he's not a great QB--just that what New Englanders see doesn't match up with what everyone else sees because he generally hasn't played his best against New England.

6). One of the stupidest things I saw on these boards was a comment by a Denver fan shortly after the Broncos beat the Pats. He said something to the effect of "Brady is overrated. All you have to do is pressure him and get in his face before he has a chance to throw the ball, and he will make mistakes". Um, hello? Should I call you Phil Simms? That's the most obvious statement of the year. All you have to do is pressure ANY QB and get in their face before they can throw the ball, and they'll make mistakes. For some reason, Denver's been better at penetrating the Pats O-line than most teams, but Brady, like Manning, is very dangerous to try to pressure. Most of the time he'll pick you apart.

110
by MJK (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:39pm

What he does have is a defense that has been stellar throughout the 2000s with one exception.

Pats defense DVOA(rank):

2001: -6.3 (13)
2002: +0.3 (15)
2003: -22.0 ( 2)
2004: -11.3 ( 6)
2005: +10.5 (27)
2006: +1.3 (22)

I count two really good years, two average years, and one and a half bad years. That's not "stellar throughout the 2000's".

111
by Nathan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:40pm

MJK: Brilliant stuff.

112
by Kal (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:45pm

#110 - compare that defense with Indy's over the same period of time and see what you get. While 2001 was something of a lucky break in a lot of ways, 2003/2004 was a great defense. 2005 had the Pats playing at a high level from week 11 on.

They've had some bad luck with injuries but in a four-year stretch, the worst their defense was was mediocre - and that's when they didn't make the playoffs. If you like, they've certainly had a stellar defense relative to the Colts.

113
by PatsFan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:50pm

Nice post, MJK. But I think you need to post it in a thread for rational discussions, not here :-).

114
by Bobman (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:51pm

Man, this is fun reading. I feel like some sort of psycho puppet-master--every time I read a comment and want to comment, a few lines down my back is covered.

Paulette, thanks for coming back to crack me over the head with the trophies.

Finally, I agree with absoutely EVERYTHING everyone has said here.

A few small housekeeping items: Indy's D in playoff games: After the 1999 season, they lost to SB runnerups Tenn by 4 points--decisive score, a 64 yard TD run by Eddie George in the 4th qtr. Clearly Manning's fault. The next year, they made it to OT but lost by 6 to Miami. Lost by six in OT? Surely they did not allow a TD? Yes. And 209 rushing yards to... Antowan Smith? Lamar Smith? Some HoF-worthy guy. Manning's fault again.

So you see, the legend was pre-packaged before he got waxed by 41-0 NYJ (a game in which Edge gained 13 yards on 9 carries). Two 100+ yard rushers for NYJ in that one. Let's see TB win a playoff game with defensive and run support like that.

Regarding the "teammates under the bus" issue, yes, Vanderjagt does not drink and was quite ticked at that remark. I'd assume Manning knew that quirk of his kicker, so it's a little gratuitous. But let's not blame the victim--Vandy previously came out on TV and called Manning and Dungy essentially fireless and gutless. True or not, he took to the airwaves first (ableit in Canada). Manning was swatting back for himself and his coach, and tried to be dismissive rather than combative. Not attacking. Sadly, it was too funny for anyone to forget. Just to be clean, "idiot kicker" was justified. "Liquored up" was not.

And the "we had some protection problems" was... as true as the day is long. Any arguements about it's truth? I thought not. In ensuing days, Manning said (possibly to cover his ass, maybe to fill out the explanation) "Hey, I call the protection, so part of that's on me." and his OL had only agreement with him in interviews.

In fact, when you go back to earlier seasons, his receivers typically tapped balls that got intercepted and Manning used an odd phrase that I remember clearly in his interviews: "I'll write the check on that one, it was mine." i.e. my fault, not old stone hands over there. Now the ball placement may not have been pefect, but it often clanged off Colt receiver hands. PM might have dug up one of my dad's old chestnuts: "Sorry, Hit you in a bad spot. The hands."

115
by john madden (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:57pm

I blame Mike VanderDONK! for all of Peyton's lack of success.

116
by B (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 4:57pm

99: A lot of Indy's success in selling the play-fake has to do with the fact that the blocking/movement from the line looks exactly the same in a run or pass play. Indy's line doesn't get nearly enough credit for being able to pull this off. Having Peyton sell the fake is extremely helpful, but the defensive line/linebackers react to what they see from the line first.

117
by Bobman (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:01pm

MJK, great stuff. (second Colts fan to applaud your post) I like your point #5 in Post #109 especially and had never thought about that. I fully understand hating the national media tongue-bath anybody gets (ick, stop it already you dolts! You're making me hate my own team sometime!) but combine that with Pats fans generally only seeing PM at his worst... now it makes sense.

What you should point out with your D-DVOA is where Indy ranks those years. Also, the two years NE WAS stellar, they won it all. Their next best D-DVOA year (the flukey one) they won also.

Looking at nothing else, I'd say the D won the SBs (which is also not true--in fact, the D almost lost the Panthers game!).

But as was stated above, way too rational. Can't you foam at the mouth or something...? Come on, a little froth... get a latte or something to make it look convincing.

118
by Diane (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:03pm

The bigger question .... ROBO-MANNING or ROBO-BRADY ....

119
by Harry (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:05pm

It boils down to this - the Colts are evil and cursed, because, goddamnit, they are supposed to be the BALTIMORE Colts. Anyone associated with the move to Indianapolis, even tangentially such as playing for them now, is tainted and evil and deserves utter scorn. Therefore right thinking people hate Peyton Manning, just as they should hate anyone who plays for the Colts and anyone who roots for the disgusting travesty that is the "Indianapolis" (sic) Colts.

120
by john madden (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:08pm

Peyton Manning's Passer Rating inside domes of home teams with animal mascots during Monday night games on the week of a lunar eclipse: 127.2

Tom Brady's Passer Rating in even numbered years throwing passes of between 5 and 8 yards to left-handed receivers with uniform numbers below 84: 119.6

Brett Favre's Passer Rating wearing a green jersey out of the shotgun throwing to a tight-end whose Zodiac symbol is Sagittarius in the second half against AFC West teams: 136.1

I rest my case...

121
by doktarr (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:08pm

MJK, Bobman, others, great stuff. This discussion is much less irrational than in years past, which is not a bad thing, I think.

I'm not sure I agree that Brady has better quick reads, as quick reads by Peyton are fundamental to the Colts offense. The Pats managed to disguise their blitz looks really well in '03-'04, but that doesn't mean that Peyton isn't excellent at quick reads on the whole.

On the other side of the coin, as Aaron pointed out a couple weeks ago, though, Brady is probably the very best at screen passes. When the Colts are throwing a lot of screens, it's usually a sign that they are struggling, while the Pats can really kill teams on screen plays. As with all of these things, it's tough to divorce Manning and Brady's individual talents from the offenses around them.

Also, on the question of receivers - this is surely the one area where Manning has unquestionably had more talent around him. That said, one thing that neither Brady nor Manning has ever had is an Andre Johnson/Plexico/randy Moss/TO type; a guy who can flat-out win jump balls. I wonder whether it would be a waste to give Manning a receiver like this, since he's so accurate anyway (better off giving him great route runners like Harrison or Holt), or whether it would lead to massive fireworks as he could force teams to double-team the big receiver on every play.

122
by avatar (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:13pm

Knowing in advance the incredible foolishness of this thread, I would like to point out something about the comparison. Peyton Manning plays for a team that is offensively stacked. He tosses to Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Brandon Stokley, and Dallas Clark, and is protected by a hotshot offensive line that is very cohesive and has been together for a long time. Tom Brady consistently throws to whodats, including such stars as David Patten, Bethel Johnson, David Givens, Reche Caldwell, Christian Fauria, Jermaine Wiggins, Troy Brown, Donald Hayes... you name it, waver wire guys for many teams. Givens got a big contract on the basis of how good he looked receiving from Brady, and he promptly disappeared in Tennessee. Meanwhile, the best receivers Brady gets, guys like Deion Branch, are clearly not top notch caliber on other teams. Deion just doesn't compare to Wayne and Harrison. Now, we've all seen both Brady and Manning struggle. In 2001 Manning's team was highly ineffectual and Peyton through bushels of picks at different times. When Manning wasn't doing well, he sulked, gave his coach a hard time, and pointed fingers. Even just last year he pointed to his offensive line and blamed them for a loss. Brady, on the other hand, has routinely been patient through problems on the team... seems to have less of a chip on his shoulder. Maybe that's because he's not a first-over-all guy, but I think that Brady would be a much better team player on a team that really sucked. I think that Brady's poise would help any franchise, while Peyton would look more like that jerky quarterback in The Replacements, who makes fun of his teammates when they suck.

123
by doktarr (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:15pm

B #116,

Agree totally. It's about the entire offense selling the fake. The article I linked to in post #99 goes into detail on this.

You know, what would be really interesting would be to try to get some hard statistics on pass protection. Basically, on every sack or pass attempt, note:

1) Shotgun vs. drop-back vs. rollout
2) Whether or not there was a play fake
3) How many players rushed the QB
4) How many players stayed in to protect the QB
5) Whether the pass attempt was short, medium, or deep
6) Whether the QB was hit

...and find correlations between all of those, and how long the QB actually held onto the ball. Until we have stats like this, it's awfully hard to judge the pass protection of the offensive line, because so much is dependent on the QB's timing and what the defense does.

124
by B (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:18pm

123: The game charting project covers all of those. It also includes whether the QB was hurried and the location of the receiver for complete and incomplete passes that weren't tipped at the LOS.

125
by Bobman (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:22pm

Doktarr, Holy Moses! That's a lot to ask. Maybe for an EPC, or a short term charting project, but for every etam and every game? Wow, I wish that it was possible.

Oh, and BTW, I just read on-line that Brady was arrested for kicking kittens down the stairs. Bastard. Manning selflessly rushed to the veterinary hospital to save them. (after which, he'll use them as wigs in another commercial).

126
by King_Biff (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:27pm

I'll take the pepsi machine any day over Manning or Brady, actually I'll take the King second, then it's a crap shoot.

127
by Kal (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:29pm

#125: Peyton Manning can change the weather with his mind and wrote the screenplay to Glitter.

128
by CA (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:40pm

To all of you who are saying that Manning has had better receivers than Brady: Yes, that generally is true, but I think that Manning fails to get credit for making them look better than they truly are. I'm sure that some people are going to pounce all over the following statement, but I view Marvin Harrison as a good WR whom Manning has turned into a Hall of Famer. Similarly, Reggie Wayne is a good receiver whom Manning has turned into a star. It's not so much that Manning has great receivers as that Manning is so good that he makes his good receivers look great.

129
by stan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:40pm

109,

MJK thinks Brady is better at quick reads. Every coach in the NFL disagrees. Gosh, who you gonna believe?

116,

Why does the line do a good job of making the pass and run look alike? Because they are not asked to get any push at all. No other running attack in the NFL could work with run blocking the way the Colts do it on their zone stretch. The reason is that Manning's full sprint to the edge to handoff causes the problem. Secondary cannot support due to play action pass threat. Defensive front has to sprint to the outside with blockers leaning on them. Seams open up when a defender slips, trips, actually gets blocked well (very rare), or overruns. Without Manning's sprint to handoff, there is no running game from the outside zone.

130
by Becephalus (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:41pm

I am surprised anyone hasn't mentioned this yet.

If you were starting an NFL team and could your head coach, who would it be? I am guessing MANY MANY people would answer Billy Boy, I am guessing almost no one would answer Dungy.

Brady better D (improved field position, less pressure), better special teams (everyone here should know that this can be worth 5 pts a game itself) Better coaching.

Meanwhile he has worse stats in every way possible. He is a very good QB, but I personally don't even think its close. Manning has a legitimate shot at being decalred best ALL-TIME, Brady doesn't even have a legitimate shot of being declared best while he was playing.

ALso two more arguments Pats fans used that have dissvoled his year:

Brady had no one to throw to > Branch looks pretty damn good out in SEA so far.

Brady never had a great back like Edge to helping him > uh huh you were saying?

IDK this doesn't even seem like a debate to me. Even assuming I have no idea what I am talking about, I have a lot of repect and faith in Jowarski's judgement, and he also has indicated he doesn't think its close.

131
by doktarr (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:43pm

RE: 124, yeah, the game charting project does track 1-6, plus those other stats you mention which are great. What it doesn't do (correct me if I'm wrong here!) is actually tract the exact amount of time between the snap and when the QB throws the ball (or is sacked). Which would be pretty useful if we wanted to measure the relative contribution of the O-line to the success of a given passing play.

I guess the point is that it is awfully hard to separate an individual player from his offense.

132
by Malene, cph (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:45pm

Hm. Pats fan here. At this advanced point of discussion, I have no problem saying Manning plays better than Brady, and has played better - on average - for most of his career. I don't know if he IS better (is a Ferrari better than a Bentley?), but I do think he's played better. Different circumstances = different results, maybe, who knows.

I do know that I would never want to swap QBs though.
And I think the secret and real reason I loathe Manning is that he reveals something about me that I'm not proud of: that I dislike him simply for being dorky. When I think Brady vs. Manning, I'm back in junior high, picking the popular girl for my team over the more talented nerd-girl. And I'm a bit embarrassed. So, I'm sort of annoyed with Peyton for exposing my superficiality, I guess.
I suspect that on some level others might feel similarly.

133
by FabiusCunctator (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:45pm

Why compare Brady and Manning? Brady should be compared to multiple-SB-winning QBs, and Manning should be compared to the rest, like his father or Dan Marino.

134
by Scott de B. (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:50pm

The Colts losses come from when the defense implodes, and no one player can overcome that.

20-3. Three. Three three three three three.

To say Brady is better simply because he has rings is ridiculous. He has rings because the other players on his team performed at a higher level than everyone else in the league for 3 years.

No. He has one ring because after the Patriots defense was blown and tired, after the Rams had scored two touchdowns in five minutes to tie it, after the Rams had achieved so much momentum that the Rams fans in the room I was in actually came over to me and expressed their condolences at the Patriots' loss, after Madden was saying the Patriots should kneel on the ball and take the game to overtime, Brady took the football down the field with 55 seconds remaining and no time outs. There are maybe three or four quarterbacks in the history of the NFL that could have that, at that time, that place, under that pressure. Yet even though I had seen many a team of mine choke under pressure, I had a certain calm. Why? Brady, and only Brady.

He has another ring because after the Patriots defense was blown and tired, after the Panthers had tied the game with 1:08 remaining, after everyone said the game was going into overtime, Brady marched his team down the field, overcame a 1st and 20 after an offensive pass interference call, and allowed the Patriots to win.

And he has a third ring because he outperformed the quarterback on one of the top NFC teams three years running, a team that bolstered itself by getting one of the top recievers in football, who played, and played well that game.

135
by Thok (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:50pm

I'm half waiting for the inevitable ROBO-PUNTER vs Catholic Match Girl argument.

136
by crack (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:51pm

#127: Tom Brady can predict the names of peoples children and pick people who are allergic to peanut butter out of a lineup.

137
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:52pm

When looking at the Pats defense in 2001, my impression is that their performance toward the end of the year far exceeded what they did at the beginning, and culminated in their stoning of the St Louis Martzs, with the invaluable assistance of The Martz himself.

138
by Tom S (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:53pm

ROCK - PAPER - SCISSORS!!!

HA HA HA

139
by Tom S (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 5:54pm

Two Words: Both Suck!

No, Wait! SUPER BOWL!

LOL

140
by Independent George (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 6:03pm

CHUCK NORRIS VS. ROBO-PUNTER

141
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 6:03pm

That does it. #134 has won the irrationality contest for all time. Instead of saying that player A is better than player B on the basis of a handful of games, it is now said that player A is better than player B, largely on the basis of......... TWO DRIVES!!!!!Ummmm......okay....

Not only that, it is asserted that on one of the drives, against a defense which was nothing special, perhaps even below average, in terms of a defense appearing in a championship game, only three or four quarterbacks IN HISTORY could have driven the offense for a non chip-shot field goal. Ummmmmmm....extra special okay.....

Sheesh!

142
by Kal (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 6:08pm

#136:
Peyton Manning actually threw his mother under the Tennessee bus. This is why we see Archie Manning in commercials but never Mrs. Manning.

Also, Peyton Manning claims to be a Christian but is actually working to summon great Shub-Niggurath, mother of a thousand hellspawn, to devour our sweet fleshy bits.

143
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 6:09pm

Actually, I've now adopted the method of reasoning favored by many, and have thus concluded that the Rams' and Panthers' defense choked, as well as McNabb, which proves that Brady is nothing special.

144
by Kyle W (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 6:10pm

Who would you draft first, ROBO punter or Catholic Match Girl?

145
by Kal (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 6:11pm

#134: When was the patriot defense getting all blown and tired? I mean, you'd think they'd wait until after the game for that sort of thing...

146
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 6:13pm

Yeah, kal, that sort of thing is usually only seen on pay-per-view.

147
by Diane (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 6:16pm

[142]

But it sure was a pretty throw under the bus, cause you know Manning and the bus spend Friday afternoons working on their patterns.

148
by Kal (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 6:36pm

#147 - Hahaha. And of course. Like Phil Simms says, you know the reason that it works? Because they practice that during the week.

I now totally want to see Peyton Manning literally throw his offensive linemen under a bus. We've got computer generated imagery. We can reanimate the dessicated corpse of Pat Summeral. Surely, we can get Peyton to throw a LG under a bus.

149
by Nathan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 6:49pm

Have I mentioned that Brady stole your girlfriend in high school? I just thought you should know.

150
by D M (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 6:56pm

Quick question, and I couldn't find the relevant data. Anyone know the 2 minute statistics for Tom and Peyton for the regular season and for the playoffs? Also, Tom's defenses were so much better! He never won a single playoff game in which the pats scored more than 21 points! And all of their superbowl wins, and playoff wins were defensive monster games! They were never won by last minute drives or anything..did they?

151
by B (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 6:59pm

140: Tek Jansen can take them both on single-handedly.

152
by B (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 6:59pm

140: Tek Jansen can take them both on single-handedly.

153
by MJK (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 7:30pm

Sorry, my bad, I'll try to be more irrational.

Brady is better than Manning because he's the second coming of Joe Montanna, and Manning is the second coming of Dan Marino, and everyone knows that Joe Montanna was way better than Dan Marino!

154
by Shannon (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 7:31pm

I think it's so rational here because the irrational are over at cnnsi.com (click name)

155
by Shannon (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 7:31pm

I think it's so rational here because the irrational are over at cnnsi.com

156
by Diane (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 7:36pm

Hmmm .... Brady's offensive linemen get to go on dinner dates with him and bicker over who gets to protect his credit card. Manning's O-line gets thrown under a bus ... Life just isn't fair ... :-P

157
by Kal (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 7:46pm

From the SI thread, this is my favorite bit so far. Can you spot all the factual mistakes?

2001: 2nd year backup steps in after bledsoe goes down and wins games by not turning the ball over and relying on a strong running game. Nobody claimed Brady was the best that year, however the talks of "most underrated player" start.

2002: Antoine Smith starts to slow down, injuries pile up and the offense needs to rely on the pass. Brady quietly leads the league in TDs and throws for 3,000+ yds. No marquee recievers on the team. "most underrated qb" picks up speed.

2003: Still without a running game, the patriots rely mostly on short passes with the occasional shot deep. Patriots outgun all the top dogs that year including the co-mvps manning and mcnair, not to mention mcnabb and finally another game winning td drive to win the superbowl. People start to notice he is up their with the top qbs in the league. "most underrated qb" becomes over-used and annoying.

2004: After two years, Pats finally get a running game, lifting the load off of Brady. Patriots outgun everyone, including manning and mcnabb. Another superb superbowl performance and Brady is no longer "underrated". The Manning vs. Brady debate reaches full fervor.

2005: Injuries destroy the defense and the running game. Brady picks up the load (again) and throws for over 4,000 yds. Despite having a terrible team game, NE almost pulls out a victory in the Denver playoff game. People are shocked Brady actually lost in a playoff game. Manning's best team ever gets beaten by the Steelers two weeks later. Brady vs. Manning continues.

158
by john madden (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 7:52pm

If you had to rely on Peyton Manning to throw a linemen under the bus in a crucial situation, he would choke. Tony Dungy would have to bring in ace clutch-kicker Mike Vanderjagt to kick the linemen under the bus, and of course, Vanderjagt would kick the linemen wide right.

159
by David Plunk (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 7:54pm

So MJK. You think that simply because Brady and Montana have rings, they are better than Manning and Marino. Did I get that right? I want to make sure that is what you think so then we can all explain to you how irrational that is.

160
by John Madden (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 7:54pm

Actually, though, I really disagree with trying to throw the lineman under the bus now, with only a minute thirty to go. They should just kneel on the lineman and then throw him under the bus in overtime.

161
by John Madden (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 7:56pm

No, Brady and Montana are better than Manning and Marino because they have "poise" and "heart" and are "clutch". You can't coach clutch!

162
by Asshat (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 7:56pm

This has to be the funniest thing I have ever read. I am a die-hard Pats fan, and while I detest Manning, its not because of this whole Brady Vs. Manning debate.

The reason I hate Manning so much is because everyone in the world feels the need to shove their collective hand down the pants of Manning, and simulate shaking a carton of O.J.. ESPN, analysts, and all of these people that believe that passer rating etc. is what makes a QB great, are the ones who infuriate me also. That and his personallity is that of a drunken redneck, who's brain and speech patterns have been permanently ruined by a mix of moonshine/meth-lab fumes/and incest. That slack-jawed moron has never made me want to purchase a product that he has endorsed, EVER. Manning is nothing more than a over-hyped college QB who will never translate into a Super-Bowl winning one. He might have the best stats and the best rating yadda, yadda, yadda, but in all reality, he is nothing more than a lost little boy in a sport ment for MEN.

Brady is a MAN....wait, THE MAN. Last time I checked, the Pats have only one loss so far this season. That is considering their horrible WR core, and the fact that every team schemes against their TE's. Like was said above, give Brady any superstar reciever or two and watch what happens. He is much cooler under pressure and has the ability to make a great play when the called one goes wrong. Manning on the other hand cant stand to be at fault and blames his coaching staff and schemes, when it is usually HIM calling audibles at the line every play like he is some sort of a offensive mastermind/player-coach. No wonder his O-Line doesnt like him, he is confusing them with 12 different audibles before he calls one play to run, every down. I'd side-step a 300lb lineman and watch him take Manning down too if I gad to deal with that sort of pompous crap. If Manning can put any blame on the coaching staff, its letting him be his own play caller and screw up important situations....like the playoffs.

SUCK ON THAT MANNING APOLOGISTS!!!!!!

163
by throughthelookingglass (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 7:58pm

147
but i thought the bus was a clutch team leader. why would he be practicing with manning when he could be perfecting his swaggar?

164
by SJM (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 7:59pm

Re: The only thing that matters is Super Bowls

You know which QB doesn't get enough respect around here? Terry Bradshaw. He is clearly tied for best QB ever with Montana, since they each have 4 Super Bowls, making him a better QB than Young, Favre, Marino, Elway, Unitas, and anybody with the last name Manning. Not even Brady is as good as Bradshaw.

165
by throughthelookingglass (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 7:59pm

159
look at the top of the page :)

166
by Bobman (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:00pm

145/146/147, funny stuff. So that's NOT Olivia in the Sports Center spot? It surely was not Cooper (the oldest) in front of them taking the tour. Maybe they're both under a bus somewhere. Dirty little secrets.

You know what really kills me is that they'll both go into politics, become senators/governors, and then run for president on opposite tickets in the same season. er... same election year.

I know whom I like now and strongly suspect I'd contribute lots of money to the other side then.

167
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:01pm

Peyton Manning is Manny Ramirez. Tom Brady is David Ortiz.

One is better in every technical sense, but I'd still take the other in a heartbeat.

I think the reason so many people dislike Peyton and like brady, is Peyton is a golden boy. Hes a perfect football player: Hes got great genetics, perfect form, perfect built. Hes the prototypical passer. He's also always been that way. Brady had to fight for his spot. Brady doesnt have the talent Manning has, but has become such a smart player that he still shreds defences. Hes a case in "what can you do if you work hard at it" vs. Peyton Manning, whos a case of "what can you do if your born with perfect genes"

168
by CA (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:06pm

Re: 166

Now that's what I call an irrational argument! Good work, Rich!

169
by Bencoder (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:07pm

Yawn.....

I'm holding out for the Romo-Rosenfels thread.....

170
by Asshat (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:08pm

Oh yea, I forgot to include........

CUT THAT MEAT, CUT THAT MEAT, CUT THAT MEAT!!!!!

What a friggin' moron......go whine and throw your arms in the air over that one, Slingblade !!

171
by David Plunk (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:09pm

You know what 164, your right. Why should I even try? But I have to respond to 161. What are you talking about? Are you saying that Marino and Manning and every other QB to never win a Super Bowl doesn't have those things? How can you prove that? Did Brady and those other guys have it before they won Super Bowls? If they did, how can you prove it? And 163, what are you talking about? Yeah Super Bowls mean everything for the team because the TEAM is what wins them. Great QBs don't win Super Bowls. Great TEAMS do. Did Bradshaw, Montana, Brady, or any other QB play both sides of the ball when they won Super Bowls? I don't think so. Every team to win the SB has had a top 10 defense in points allowed. None of those QBs had any affect on how their defense played and they should therefore not get the credit for it.

172
by bsr (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:10pm

Just one comment. Manning really has no excuse for NOT winning a superbowl. He has had great players and great coaches surrounding for many years now and his teams have been superbowl caliber. This isn't Archie Manning on the Saints or even Dan Marino in Miami. Manning has had plenty of chances to win one. Not saying it was all his fault, but....

173
by bsr (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:13pm

170 - I guess then that Great QBs don't put up stats then either. Great offenses do?

174
by Bencoder (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:14pm

Oh and #5, Put Dungy on the Pats and are they better?

Hint: Not.

175
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:15pm

re:102

Will, according to DVOA, the Belichek defence was only good in 2003, and other than that, its been all offence.

176
by David Plunk (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:18pm

172-That is different. I was talking about winning games and SBs. Winning games and SBs involves a lot more than having great QB play. That alone won't win SBs. As far as great stats, that still relies on the other players in the offense. A good running game helps. And you have to have a good line that gives you time to throw the ball. Passing stats are the thing that should be looked at when comparing QBs because that is what they have the most control over. They don't control the running game or the defense.

177
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:23pm

Yeah, Rich, that Manning would have a ring for sure, if he just had Brady's work ethic....

bsr, that's actually more true than you think, which is why, when analyzing qb performance at the highest level, it usually becomes an irrational argument.

178
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:25pm

130:

"Branch has looked pretty good in SEA"

he's also playing on the equivalent of a reciever all star team. Hes getting the same advantage Brandon Stokely gets in Indy, IE everyone is so concernced with Harrison and Wayne that he's covered by a linebacker half the time.

Branch is a good WR, no question, but dont take the SEA time yet as too indicative. Hes usually playing single man against a team's #2 corner.

179
by David Plunk (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:25pm

The whole thing with comparing individual players and QBs to each other is just dumb. They all play on different team, under different circumstances, with different talent, and against different opponents. Considering that the nature of football is that it is the ultimate team game and you can't do your job effectively without 10 other guys doing their's, it very hard to say definitively that one QB is better than another. How many times do backups come in and play well? How many times do journeymen veteran QBs find a team with a good defense and get to the playoffs? It all depends on the team around you.

180
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:29pm

Rich, the Pats defensive DVOA was 6th in 2004, and I highly suspect that their defensive performance at the end of 2001 was much better than at the beginning. Please don't try to make the argument that the Pats were winning Super Bowls with average defensive performances.

181
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:38pm

Rich, I think the Pats had the #6 defense (DVOA) in 2004, and I highly suspect that their defensive performance at the end of 2001 was much better than at the beginning. Don't try to make the argument that the Pats were winning Super Bowls with average defenses.

182
by MJK (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:38pm

In case anyone (David Plunk) didn't notice, I had my tongue planted firmly in my cheek when I posted posts 153 and 161.

I like Rich's analogy. Manning is better by the numbers, but I'd rather have Brady on my team.

183
by Wikitorix (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:42pm

Vladimir Putin has more Super Bowl rings than Manning, Marino, Diet Pepsi Machine, and Superman combined. Clearly, Russia would beat the US at football, even if the US could put all four on the field at the same time.

184
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:44pm

MJK, I think the best argument is that one would really prefer to know the rest of one's roster well before expressing a preference.

185
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:44pm

Will, Indy's defensive DVOA(-9)in 2005 was similar enough to NE in 2004 and 2001 (-11,-6).

If you want to say Brady has had a better D, sure, but Peyton did have a year where he had a great D....and lost.

2003 was an aberation, the Pats D was dominant. In the other years, they've been good, but no better than Peyton had in 2005.

186
by Andy S. (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:50pm

There is something to be said that as a Pats fan, my only views of manning are in the games that the Pats won. I did see Manning play agains the Jets earlier in the year, and I will admit it was like watching a different QB. The Jets hung around till the end. Manning was poised and cool, and looked like a different player. I can appreciate his talents better now than when I only see him play against the Pats. Next Sunday will be an interesting game. I only hope it doesn't come down to a last second field goal.

187
by Adam Gretz (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:54pm

I demand more of this thread.

188
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:54pm

Yes, Rich, and calling Manning inferior to Brady because the Colts lost a playoff game in 2005, when the Colts' defense gave up early first quarter scores, is, well, as irrational as saying that Ted Williams was an inferior hitter to Mickey Mantle because Williams had a lousy World Series the one time he played he in it.

189
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 9:01pm

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for Manning's clear superiority. I'm saying that they are both darn good quarterbacks and that seperating their performance from those that surround them is an entirely subjective exercise, making it impossible to provide a definitive answer as to who is better. This is not a case where one guy has dregs and the other Pro Bowlers.

190
by Rob (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 9:15pm

I agree with Will Allen--judging solely by the 2005 playoff loss seems like rubbish to me. Their opponent, lets not forget, played very well right up until the Superbowl, beating three very good teams. Moreover, in the one year Peyton had a good defense (2005), the team threatened to go undefeated and according to DVOA, was best in the league. Hmm.

191
by Cleveland (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 10:15pm

Charlie. F'n Frye. So there.

For what it's worth, Manning can make throws that no one--not Brady, probably not even Marino--could make. And Brady so far has proven that he's probably the best big game QB since Montata. Brady led the league in passing yardage last year and has dealt with inferior supporting casts on offense. Manning had dealt with small, soft defenses. Each is great. I would love to have either. For what it's worth, they are even, according to this neutral Cleveland fan.

192
by DaveO (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 10:27pm

Re 189:

they are both darn good quarterbacks and ... seperating their performance from those that surround them is an entirely subjective exercise, making it impossible to provide a definitive answer as to who is better.

Amen, Brother. Debating the respective supporting casts, while fascinating in its own right, isn't likely to advance the argument about who is "better". There are hundreds of ways to frame the arguments, and let's face it, all of them can be interpreted pretty much however we are already predisposed to see the matter anyway.

Does Manning make his receivers look better than they really are, or do his receivers prop him up? What about the O-line? Do Brady's drive management acumen and leadership skills actually make his defense better? Does Peyton make his worse?

Who the heck knows? And, more to the point, what would even count as real evidence to support one or the other argument?

It's fun to argue, though...

193
by Starshatterer (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 10:29pm

Stan (#64 )--

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that Branch and Givens are bad receivers.

What I am saying, is that the Patriots are not willing to pay to keep good receivers, much like the Colts are unwilling to pay to keep good linebackers. Both teams count on the draft and budget free agents to replenish one, while paying good money to keep the other.

194
by Nathan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 10:45pm

It’s fun to argue, though…

No it isn't.

195
by ZS (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 10:46pm

Here's my take on the whole thing:

T H E D O D G E B A L L E P I C

Let's say the city of Indianapolis declared war on the entirety of New

England, and all forces are diminished except Tom Brady for New England

and Peyton Manning for Indianapolis. By a little known American law,

they each get to choose any five people in a game of winner-take-all

Dodgeball. The winner becomes supreme emperor of the entire triangle of

Indy, Boston, and the northernmost tip of Maine. They must both pick

another QB, a rockstar, an ESPN celebrity, an NFL center named Jeff,

and a choice pick.

Peyton selects Eli, Magnus von Magnusson or whatever that

world's-strongest-man guy's name is, Jeff Saturday, the mustached gent

from the phone commercial, and Slash from Velvet Revolver.

Brady selects Jeff Hartings, Drew Brees, the most recent Lumberjack

Games champ, Chris Cornell from Audioslave, and, after unsuccessfully

trying to pick Robo-Punter (rule against that), goes with Ugly Betty.

The game is 5-on-5, three balls. The rosters:

Team Manning: E. Manning on far right, Slash on right-center, Magnus on

center, Saturday on left-center, Peyton on far left, mustached fellow

sitting.

Team Brady: Hartings on far right, Brees on right-center, Brady on

center, Ugly Betty on left-center, Lumberjack Guy on far left, Cornell

sitting.

Eli, Brady, and Peyton get the balls first, but Eli throws too soon and

hit Brady while in the neutral zone, so he's out. Peyton throws a long

ball and hits the Lumberjack and then richochets off of him and hits

Brady, so they're both out.

With all three balls on the Brady team, Hartings, Brees, and Betty all

grab a ball. Hartings' ball heads for Slash, but it bounce off his

guitar and back into the hands of Hartings. Brees' ball hits Magnus, so

Magnus is out. Betty chucks hers at Jeff Saturday, who, with a career

passer rating of 38.6 (I think), catches it, bringing Eli back in.

So it's Jeff Hartings with a ball and Drew Brees versus Slash,

Saturday, and the Mannings with a ball for each Manning. Jeff Hartings

tries his luck again at Slash, and this time hits the hair. Slash is

irritated, but out. 3-2. Saturday, Peyton and Eli now have all the

balls, and all go directly for Brees. Hartings, realizing who has the

arm on their team, jumps in front of Brees, sacrificing himself for the

sake of the team. Brees now has all three of the balls, but it's 3 to

1. Using all the strength he has, Brees chucks it at Saturday's

shoulder, hitting him, and it bounces into the air. Brees catches it,

and Chris Cornell is in.

Brees and Cornell have all three balls, and throw two at the brothers

Manning. Eli gets clonked by Cornell, but Peyton catches Brees' throw,

taking him out. Brady in, Brees and Eli out. It's Saturday-Peyton vs.

Brady-Cornell. Just for dramatic tension's sake, Cornell and Saturday mutually agree to remove each other. So it's Brady-Manning, just as you probably predicted at the beginning of reading this. They both go back, throw, and...

Brady's down! Brady's been hit! Team Peyton wins!

But wait.

Just as the referee goes to raise the arm of Peyton, a phone drops out. Holy shit. It's the mustache guy. Team Peyton is disqualified for lying on the roster!

TEAM BRADY WINS! TEAM BRADY WINS! Tom Brady is your king, Indianapolis! Hail Emperor Brady!
-----------------------------------------

What do you think?

196
by ZS (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 10:46pm

Ooh, that didn't turn out like I hoped. Damn notepad. Sorry about that.

197
by Nathan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 10:47pm

Oh, and we discuss Sorgi vs. Cassel quite indepthly in the previous thread, but we can revive it.

We determined Sorgi is much better than Cassel, and if you disagreed, you were stupid.

The papers were submitted to many scientific journals but have yet to be accepted as of yet. We are hoping next week that both teams rest their QB's for their tough matchup the week after, and we can decide it once and for all.

Although secretly we all know that Cassel's defense makes him look better than he is.

198
by DaveO (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 10:55pm

How about this: A used reciprocal saw is better than the color blue.

199
by BillWallace (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 10:56pm

1) If I have the first pick overall in a total league redraft, for 1 season, I take Peyton. I'd take Brady #2.

2) re: 59 "Exactly what part of him is soft?". Peyton's next commercial... Cialis. But seriously, Peyton's not soft. He might be bad in the cold though, that is a problem.

200
by B (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 10:59pm

202: Jeter plays Short Stop, which is the most important defensive position, but A-Rod is just a third-baseman, so Jeter is better.

201
by Purds (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:01pm

(This is going to quadruple-post, because the FO server won't let me say anything, so I keep trying!!)

I can't believe I used THIS weekend to go away! And miss all this good rubbish! My Colts-Fan-Living-In-New-England-Take:

1) Manning is better because the Pats fans are obsessed with him and the Colts. To wit: an 18,000 plus message thread on Boston.com about the Colts/Manning. Only true greatness inspires such hatred.

2) Manning is better because in the past three years, he's never lost a playoff game to any team that did not go on to win the SB. Brady lost to in the playoffs the lowly Broncos last year, and the Broncos couldn't even MAKE IT to the SB.

3) Manning is better because Brady needed Drew Bledsoe to bail him out of a playoff game. Manning, the comsumate MAN, takes his beatings like a man, staying in the games ALWAYS!

'Nough Said!

202
by throughthelookingglass (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:03pm

ROBO-PUNTER is clearly ranked too low because he has zero supper bowel rings. Ranking players based on tony cornhisers fantasy team is way better than this. Cathlick match girl rox and will return rofl bcause mechs suk and will kil us all!!!!!!!

203
by Malene, cph (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:05pm

Despite the fine effort of ZS, this thread is getting nowhere near the irrationality of the glorious Original Thread.
I blame Will Allen for being reasonable.

Also, I think if we went back to genuflecting every 12 posts, that only would bring the sillay.

204
by fromanchu (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:10pm

Brady is obviously a better qb than manning. He's no match for leinart, however. And he isn't in the same converstaion with david carr. Talk about a stone cold fox!

205
by DaveO (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:13pm

Yikes! Posts jumping order! Numbers re-ordering, seemingly at random! Total Chaos!

206
by dCalla (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:14pm

Goats prefer Manning. They fear Brady.

207
by David Plunk (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:28pm

Sorry MJK if I misinterpreted your sarcasm. And OMG, the MNF crew is terrible. I love Kornheiser on PTI but he doesn't know a lot of football. And Theisman is a jackass. I can't stand how they show the number of wins QBs have and make speaches like the one #209 was talking about. Most of the media fails to realize that it is a team game. They just keep proving the old saying that 'The QB gets too much praise and too much blame.' They are the main culprits of that saying.

208
by DaveO (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:28pm

re: 199

Oh, I dunno, I think Asshat (162 and 170) has put in a Yeoman's effort here...

209
by Adam Gretz (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:31pm

This thread needs some life.

Alex Rodriguez is better than Derek Jeter.

210
by PatsFan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:41pm

Heh...Pats have 5 yards rushing.

211
by PatsFan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:41pm

Whoops -- wrong thread.

212
by doktarr (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:42pm

Oh, crap. Tony K on MNF just gave the classic "all team success is attributable to the quarterback" speech, and thereby annointed Tom Brady as the best player ever.

213
by Alex DL (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:43pm

And cnnsi's Andrew Perloff adds his 2bits into the debate. click name for link. hopefully.

214
by Independent George (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:48pm

I love this randomized comments glitch that's going on with the server right now; I'd be irritated on any other thread, but it really enhances the irrationality of this debate. I think it might have to do with the timestamps on each comment - it looks like it's taking the local time of whomever is commenting.

215
by Alex DL (not verified) :: Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:54pm

vs. cnnsi's don banks opinion of why Manning is the dog's biscuits.

216
by Dan (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 12:05am

The only way to settle this debate is with a battle of genuflection, which I will begin here on neutral territory, at 216=12x18, by genuflecting towards both parties, *genuflect*, *genuflect*. Now, gentlemen, start your genuflecting. May the BEST QUARTERBACK EVAR!!! win.

217
by Underdog Brady (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 12:15am

To add more fuel to the fire, Brady just had one hell of a first half at MN. `17-25 for 257 yards 2 td, 1 int.

218
by Nathan (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 12:22am

This is not me, but I thought research was in order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peyton_Manning

Why am I not watching the Pats game?

219
by B (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 12:32am

218: So you don't think Manning actually was voted "cutest in class"?

220
by Underdog Brady (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 1:04am

Brady...4 td's 358 yards passing. Can he add another one or two in the 4th quarter?

221
by doktarr (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 1:28am

UB, it's a good half, but i's not as impressive as Manning's second half in the Broncos game.

222
by fromanchu (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 1:42am

anyone else make up fake first names while watching gamecenter? for example mandy moore just caught a pass short right. or a favorite from last year, ratrick fitzpatrick.

223
by thad (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 1:51am

1983 Oakland Raiders
why am I posting this? anybody?

224
by David Plunk (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 2:27am

You might be posting the 83 Raiders because they prove I spoke incorrectly. They are one team that finished out of the top 10 in points allowed. They were 13th that year and still won the Super Bowl. That is still a good defense. They didn't have great QB play though. Plunkett had 20TD and 18INT. He also had 2TD and 2INT in the playoffs.

225
by costanza (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 10:19am

Manning is better in september and october while Brady is better in january and february. Period.

226
by Mike B (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 10:38am

OMG COLTS FANS ARE SO STUPID. THIS ISN'T EVEN AN ARGUMENT UNTIL THE COLTS HAVE RRIINNNGGGS.

And that is how you make an irrational argument, fools. Get it out of your system, stop being so uptight.

227
by thad (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 10:40am

You are correct.
Their defense really improved when Mike Haynes came on board around mid season.

228
by John Grenci (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 10:57am

re old # 275
Put Brady on the Colts.
Are they better or worse?
(Hint, Worse.)
Put Manning on the Patriots
Are they better or worse?
(Hint, Better.)
What does that mean? I don’t know.

I am not certain where this comes from. I suppose it is EASY to think that the colts who go 13-3 every year, might go 12-4 with Brady. I think it is impossible to tell.

the pats being better with manning? again, I dont know. look, what happened to manning against the steelers last year when he did not have time to throw.

ever since Brady came into the league, he has had makeshift OL's, different wide receivers every year. Manning has had among the best OL's in the game (except maybe just recently), and Marvin Harrison.

Further, quite simply, Brady has 3 super bowls and manning has none. I am the first to say that number of Super Bowls is overrated, but it still cannot be discounted. on top of everything else, Brady seems to be the consummate team player, while Manning threw his offensive lineman under the bus.

I take Brady any day of the week....

229
by Harry (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 11:06am

#226 - right on. People keep coming in here and trying to make rational arguments! Give it up folks.

PEYTON IS A CHOKER! BRADY RULES! YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! SUCK ON THAT, COLT FANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

230
by PatsFan (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 11:32am

Well, given the games that Brady and Manning had this weekend, and with next weekend's clash being on FNIA (someone make both that name and Pink go away!), the hype machine this week is going to be amazing.

231
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 11:52am

Will, (re 188) I'm not arguing that Brady is better than manning. I just think saying Manning has never had a defence is bullshit. He had a damn good one last year, and didnt do anythign with it.

232
by DaveO (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 12:10pm

Re 228:

We hear what we want to hear, we see what we want to see, we believe what we want to believe.

Here in Indy, we hear Peyton own up to his responsibilty time and time again, even when it doesn't seem to be his fault (and trust me, we know what "under the bus" means- I know people who know Jeff George personally). We see him always, without fail, step up to the mike and try to give an honest answer, even after a tough loss when he's played less than his best, when I'm sure he'd rather be trashing furniture in the locker room. We hear unwavering support from his O-line, and the rest of his teammates for that matter (Vanderdork being the exception - and how many Colts took his side exactly?). That's why, when Manning made the comments that he did after the Steelers game, it wasn't a big deal here - against everything else we've seen from Peyton for the past 7 years, it was easy to see where he was coming from.

You NE fans, on the other hand, see someone whose teams have come up short more often than not in those few times that you have seen him (and, no, sorry, those aren't the only "Big Games" that Peyton has played). You feel pretty damn good about your team and your QB, as well you should. You read talented wiseasses like Simmons and his ilk, and that makes you feel good too. You see way too much Peyton on TV, and that pisses you off, because you think you know something about him (he's a whiny, selfish, me-first, choking jerk) that no-one else seems to want to acknowledge. That's why, when Manning made the comments that he did after the Steelers game, you all scream "Under the Bus! Under the Bus!".

Whatever. We hear what we want to hear, we see what we want to see, we believe what we want to believe.

233
by doktarr (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 12:11pm

Rich #231,

Since you say he "didn't do anything with" a good defense, clearly, going 13-0 means nothing to you. Only the playoffs matter. I would point out that Manning led a furious fourh quarter comeback with that team, a comeback that fell short (well, wide right anyway) on the same sort of kick that Vinatieri made three or four times in the playoffs. Giving Brady "credit" for the snow game while discounting Manning in the Pittsburgh game is simply illogical.

But anyway, since only the playoffs matter, let's look at the way the defense was playing at the end of the year. The Colt's 2005 year-end weighted defense was dignificantly inferior to the 2001 and 2004 Pats' D, and drastically inferior to the 2003 peak. So no, Manning has never had a defense of the sort Brady has had three times.

234
by DaveO (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 12:16pm

231:

Maybe, but take it from someone who has seen at least part of every Colts game for a couple of years - that D went missing around week 13 of last season, and hasn't been seen since.

235
by costanza (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 12:20pm

233 - that "comeback" only happened because of the worst call in league history (the Polamalu non INT call) and because of Bettis' improbable fumble.

236
by DaveO (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 12:23pm

235:
That “comeback� only happened because of the worst call in league history (the Polamalu non INT call) and because of Bettis’ improbable fumble.

True, but that doesn't change the fact that Peyton played very well, with the pressure on and on a big stage, in the second half of that game.

237
by doktarr (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 12:25pm

Very thoughtful comments DaveO.

The absurd thing about the "under the bus" protection comment is that it was obviously, unquestionably true, as all the Indy linemen have affirmed. Partly it was a silly scheme, but the fact is they had protection problems that game. The only thing about that comment that was dumb was Manning's "I'm trying to be a good teammate here" line. If he doesn't say that, I think the line may have come off differently.

As far as the Vanderjagt thing, Peyton was basically in a no-win situation there. If he doesn't fire back to defend himself and his coach, he would probably have been widely considered a pussy who was buffaloed by his kicker, of all people. By going on the agressive, he created an unfortunate soundbite for all time, but cemented his alpha status on the team.

238
by doktarr (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 12:33pm

RE: 235,

First, the non-INT was not even close to the "worst call in league history". The non-forceout call THIS WEEK (in the Jets game) was worse, and that wasn't even that terrible a call. It was borderline. I agree they got it wrong, but it was definitely possible to interpret eiter way.

Secondly, doesn't this make the parallel to the "snow game" even greater? In stead of the "tuck play" (possibly correctly interpreted, but absolutely a borderline call), we have the non-INT call. In stead of Vinatieri nailing one of the most difficult clutch kicks in postseason history, you have Vanderjagt honking it wide right in a dome.

239
by Dan Riley (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 12:40pm

At Cold Hard Football Facts they compare Brady and Manning to DaVinci and Michaelangelo. Not bad. And they contend that there nothing "silly" or "irrational" about this debate. It is in essence what sports is all about, and we should all be privileged to be witnesses to one of the great debates and two of the great careers in NFL history. I recommend:
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php?Page=1102&Category=1

240
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 12:42pm

Rich, failing to win a single playoff game against the eventual Super Bowl champion, a game in which your defense gives up quck first quarter scores, qualifies as "not doing anything" with a good defense in only such narrow circumstances as to be meaningless.

241
by Info-man (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 12:55pm

They are both good.

242
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 12:57pm

Absolutely, doktarr. Anybody who saw Roethlisberger and Co. against the Colts' defense in the playoff game last season, and concluded that Manning received anything approaching the defensive support that Brady received in the years the Pats won the Super Bowl, is deluding himself.

243
by bsr (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 12:59pm

233- Giving Brady “credit� for the snow game while discounting Manning in the Pittsburgh game is simply illogical.

Not really. Nobody is saying that he didn't drive the team down at the end there, but who cares. They lost. He didn't have some other wordly game where he took the team on his shoulders and willed them to victory only to have it spoiled by the kicker. He played..o.k. He was on his home field in perfect conditions with one of the best offenses in the leage and he only scored 18 points. Comparing that to Brady's performance as a first year starter in a blizzard kind of fails.

And yes 13-0 is meaningless.

244
by Tony Korhiser (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 1:02pm

DID YOU SEE TOM BRADY LAST NIGHT? He made throws only Tom Brady could make, and he was so good, the receivers made catches that only Tom Brady could normally catch. He carved up the Minnesota secondary like a Butterball turkey for an early Thanksgiving dinner. Peyton Manning can't even make breakfast without breaking a couple eggs, but Brady set out a full course dinner. Yeah, he had a little help since it was a pot luck game, and the Pats D brought a side of run-stuffing.
But Tony, what about that pick he tossed to Darren Sharper in the first quarter? Brady was just tossing some scraps from his feast to the dogs in the Minnesota secondary. Get on the Tom Brady gravy train now, he's the greatest quarterback of all time, until next Monday night, when I anoint Andrew Walter.

245
by DaveO (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 1:06pm

Re: the Colts' "great" 2005 D:

Even when it was going like gangbusters last year, I had the impression that the scheme was outperforming the actual personnel. For one, the O had such a mystique about it, and would put up so many points so quickly, that opposing coaches seemed to be game planning for being behind by 2+ scores before the game even started (and, perhaps in a self-fulfilling sort of way, they usually were right), which often played right into the Colts' defensive strength. Also, a healthy, peppy Sanders and a fair-to-competent MLB really do change the whole dynamic of the D - without them, it almost seems like the Colts are playing 11 vs 10 or 11 vs. 9 against the inside run, in part because almost all of the success that the D has found in the past has been predicated on the two DE's frantically attacking the pocket from the sides and behind. That really seems to be just about the only look that the Colts' D ever shows, no matter what the situation.

I think what happened is that Sanders got tired (then hurt), and at the same time good teams with smart coaches and the personnel to back them up figured out how to handle the scheme. For whatever reason (the end-of-season turmoil, taking the last month of the season off, personnel changes/injuries this year, general hubris) The Colts' brain trust just seems to be slow to adapt.

246
by C (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 1:08pm

Brady's girlfriend is hotter then Peyton's wife. End of story.

247
by DaveO (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 1:12pm

243: He didn’t have some other wordly game where he took the team on his shoulders and willed them to victory

Hate to break it to you, but this has never ever happened in the history of the NFL (although it's fun to talk as if it happens all of the time). Every legal play of every game that has ever been played is the sum of the contributions of 22 players, and there's really no way to disentangle an individual's individual contributions. It might seem pretty clear from time to tome on specific plays, but when considerdering a sequence of, say more than 3 plays at once, it becomes hopelessly complex.

248
by D (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 1:12pm

Do we have Brady's DVOA and PAR scores worked out yet?

249
by DaveO (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 1:14pm

246: Have you ever seen Peyton's wife? Maybe it's just me - I always preferred Mary-Anne to Ginger...

250
by bsr (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 1:15pm

240 & 242 - Oh come on now. They held Pitt to 21 points. It isn't some insurrmountable deficit. This was supposed to be one of the greatest offenses ever and it was too much to ask for them to score 21 points?

And Pit wouldn't have been "the eventual Super Bowl Champion" if the Colt beat them. It was a close game. It wasn't as if they ran into the 85 Bears.

251
by Disco Stu (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 1:30pm

Peyton Manning's commercials this year have put him over the top. "Maybe like Peyton Manning's team, maybe". I know he's really just a robtic golden boy gamefilm junkie, but I feel like I want to have a beer w him after that commercial.

Side Note- my buddy dressed up as Peyton Manning in the commercial for Halloween, and it was amazing.

252
by bsr (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 1:30pm

Hate to break it to you, but this has never ever happened in the history of the NFL (although it’s fun to talk as if it happens all of the time). Every legal play of every game that has ever been played is the sum of the contributions of 22 players, and there’s really no way to disentangle an individual’s individual contributions. It might seem pretty clear from time to tome on specific plays, but when considerdering a sequence of, say more than 3 plays at once, it becomes hopelessly complex.

Bull! So all of those other instances of great games by Peyton were simple illusion? This is where the true irrationality takes hold.

Peyton is great, look at his TDs, look at his yards!

But he didn't play great in the playoffs?

Yeah well its a team sport.

O.k. then, well then look at what Brady has done with his team. He's won three championships?

You can't give him credit for those, TDs and Yards are a better indicator.

Huh?

253
by B (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 1:40pm

How the Colts D worked in 2005:
Teams would gameplan for facing the Colts to try and "shorten the game" and keep the Colts offense off the field by running the ball often in the first half. The Colts would counter this by lining safety Bob Sanders up as a linebacker, with his primary responsibility in run support. Then when teams were in 3rd and long, he'd drop back into pass coverage. Marty Shottenheimer, of all people, noticed the pattern, and in the Chargers/Colts game he started throwing early. The Steelers copied the strategy in the playoff game.

254
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 1:52pm

bsr, if you don't recognize the value of an early lead in a playoff game, well, there really is no hope for rational discussion, which I suppose is the point of this thread. Just for the hell of it, however, please show me where the Pats defense had a similar first quarter playoff performance in the years they won the Super Bowl.

And just for giggles, is it really your contention that a game in which there are 22 players affecting every single play, and forty four starters not counting special teams, has contests in which a single player can have "some other wordly game where he took the team on his shoulders and willed them to victory"? If so, I might suggest that this isn't the best website for you.

255
by DaveO (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 1:54pm

252: Golly, I don't even know where to begin...

You seem to have me confused with someone else. I never said Brady has never had a great game, nor did I claim Peyton's never had a crappy one. It would be ludicrous to claim that some individual players aren't better than others at the same position, or that some don't contribute more than others to their teams' success. That's what this site is all about, trying to find those magic correlations that help to show how an individual's performance affects the outcome of the game.

But, for God's sake, even Aaron on his best day woudn't claim that he'll actually get there, or anywhere near! For some of us, that's the beauty of the thing - the deeper you go, the more your realize just how complex, intertwined, and challenging the game is.

What's Bull is this "willing to victory" dreck. Sure, mainstream sports journalists love to trot that crap out, and it sounds just wonderful and inspiring coming out of John Facenda's mouth, but those guys are in the business of providing superficial entertainment to an audience presumed to be equally superficial. Even a cursory glance underneath suface reveals the rhetoric be pretty much empty.

Shouldn't even have to say this at this point, but: Peyton Manning has never won an organized football game. Tom Brady has never lost one. The two have never played head to head...

256
by Bob Cook (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 2:18pm

Excuse me, is this the Official Thread for Irrational Laurence Maroney vs. Joseph Addai Arguments?

257
by Robert (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 2:19pm

I think we are comparing apples to oranges here. We are comparing the stats of a quarterback, based on the results of the other 21+ people that pla y in the game. Pats defense is one of the tops in the nation, while Colts defense allows MANy more points per game. Manning therefore has to put up greater numbers to come out on top, while Brady just needs his defense to do what they do.

258
by bsr (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 2:23pm

254 & 255 - I think both of you may have been misunderstanding me. I wasn't condemning Manning for not having an "other wordly game and willing there team to victory". I said "He didn’t have some other wordly game where he took the team on his shoulders and willed them to victory only to have it spoiled by the kicker." In other words, I found fault with a common excuse that it was all the kicker's fault or all the defense's fault. In fact, I am trying to make the point that the entire team, including Manning, are responsible for the loss because no game is free of mistake or blame on every player.

I will go even further to say that not only are there 22 players affecting every single play but there are also a host of back ups and coaches effecting every single play as well. I would also contend that, almost to the same degree, there is also more then one person that effects every single passing play, even for the colts.

259
by Thad (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 2:27pm

That's a very good point Will.
It seems pretty tough to come back from 14 points down and win.
Of course their was the Bills Oilers game a few years back but I am having a hard time thinking of other examples. I am sure there are some but not too many.
Probably the greatest individual effort I have ever seen on a single play was that Steve Young 47 yard run against the Vikings that was parodied in the Burger King comercial. It seemed like every Viking player had a shot at him. I think that was a game winning td in ot?
I never saw Manning or Brady do anything quite so jawdropping.

260
by bsr (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 2:39pm

And what Peyton gets none of the blame for them being down 14 to ZERO after the first quarter? What happened to all that 22 starters stuff? Out the window huh?

So the fact that Manning and the heralded Colts O went three and out on their first series contributes nothing to that? The Colts D then goes out and intercepts the ball and gives the Colts O good field position. How does the heralded Colts O respond? Another 3 and out. The D then holds them to those same 14 points through out the second quarter. How does the heralded Colts O respond with still three quarter of the game remaining? A field goal. Oh, its all the Ds fault. Afterall, who could ever come back from an 11 point deficit at the half in their own stadium in perfect conditions with one of the best offenses in the history of the game. :rollseyes:

261
by DaveO (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 2:54pm

This is great - a perfect illustration of the awsomeness of this thread. Forget Manning v. Brady for a moment, and let's mangle the arguments, and say that bsr is arguing that the Colt's O lost the first half. and Will's arguing that the Stillers' D won it. There is no possible way to rationally decide who is right. Chart every play, decide who won each individual matchup, formulate the perfect algorithm for combining them, dine heartily on the most obscure of stats - and then, go ahead and put whatever interpretation on it that you're already disposed to make.

Take for example, this Sunday's Colts/Broncos matchup (I'm done talking about the Stillers - it's too early to start drinking)...

Colts Homer:

Golly, that Peyton just took his team on his shoulders and refused to lose. Every throw was perfect; every read was just the right one. I mean, that was the friggin' consensus best D in the league, and he shredded it like Megadeth on speed! The D was DOA - Peyton just willed 'em to victory...

Pats Homer:

Eh, whatever. Half of the QB's in the league could have made those throws. With that line (was he even hit, fer Chirssakes?!), in a meaningless regular season game, with the Ghost of Roc Alexander inhabiting Darrent Williams' body, he hits a few open passes. Let's all freakin' crown his ass. He probably went off the field and rubbed one out on his stat sheet after the game...

Who is right? Both are. Neither are. Both occupy an infinite number of points on the sliding scale of rightness/wrongness. ..

Personally, I'm still more interested in just why NE fans hate Peyton so much, and why you just don't see the reciprocal hatred of Brady here in Indy. It's not that it's any more of an irrational argument, but it's not really pretending to be something that it's not...

262
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 3:12pm

bsr, if you are going to roll you eyes, at least do so in response to something that was actually written. The point I'm making is the utter, complete, and total fatutity of using a single playoff game, in which the Colts' defense yielded 14 first quarter points, as an example of Manning failing to capitalize on defensive support similar to what Brady enjoyed in the years the Pats won the Super Bowl, thus proving Brady's superiority. It is a silly argument.

Nice to see you recognize that inherently high degree of player interdependence in a football game, which makes it eye-rollingly obvious how silly it is to use an extremely small sample of games to establish one very good quarterback's superiority over another very good quarterback.

Thad, early leads in every NFL game are very important, but it is even more so when it comes to playoff games. The number of playoff victors who have overcome 14 point first quarter deficits is very small, which is why having a defense which doesn't yield two first quarter touchdowns greatly increases the odds of victory. Yes, if the offense scores in the first quarter, the defense has more room for error. The easier route to victory, however, is having a defense not yield two first quarter touchdowns.

263
by doktarr (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 3:13pm

bsr,

Really simple:

Peyton did not have his best game against the Steelers that day. He was OK, great in the fourth quarter comeback, but not great overall. Any talk of him "blowing the game" or "throwing his team under the bus" is baloney, though.

The flip side of this is that, objectively, Brady has had just as bad games, and several worse games, during the Super Bowl run. The whole pro-Manning argument is that if you try to distill out how well Manning has played, it's better on the whole than Brady.

I don't get your attempted strawman argument in post #252 - your pro-Manning argument (albeit somewhat misrepresented by "Yards and TDs") is self-consistent there. Brady and Manning lose and win because of the contributions both of themselves, and of their teams. When we look at statistics that attempt to filter out opposition and other factors, Manning generally has the better individual performance - but that does not guarantee victory.

264
by undethebus (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 3:20pm

I think after last night we all saw how Brady could be on the Colts.

265
by bsr (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 3:42pm

261 - I don't hate Peyton or feel anything towards him coming close to that emotion. I think what is annoying, to me, is the media's proclomation of the colts before having accomplished anything.

262 - Well then I guess I would ask you to do the same since I never tried to "use an extremely small sample of games to establish one very good quarterback’s superiority over another very good quarterback.", which you claim as eyerollingly obvious.

They are both very good quarterbacks, tops in their profession. Picking between them is like spliting hairs, in my mind. What I do take issue with however, are those that try to dismiss superbowl winning quarterbacks and absolve Manning of responsibility in those losses.

Oh, and Manning only had one opportunity with that defense because they lost the first game. Essentially Manning has had one opportunity to play with a good defense while Brady had three.

263 - Did you read the above? There are no statistics that filter out all outside factors. There are 10 other players and a host of coaches involved in every single play. As such saying "that if you try to distill out how well Manning has played, it’s better on the whole than Brady" is just as meaningless as meaningless as Brady is better because he plays better in big games and in superbowls. That is to say, there is some truth and fiction to both arguments. How some colts fans can't seem to grasp this is mystifying to me.

266
by gmc (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 3:46pm

There is no question that Peyton Manning is the best quarterback in the NFL. He has better skills than Brady, better presence than Brady, better knowledge of defenses than Brady, makes better decisions than Brady.

Brady does do one thing better: deal with pressure. If Manning gets pressured he throws the ball away, and he has happy feet if he can even -see- a D lineman. This is why pass-rush teams beat the Colts over and over in the playoffs.

Of course, Brady would put up better stats with Wayne and Harrison to throw to - still not Manning stats though. The Colts need to set up better for the playoffs; more running, more protection, and less dependence on Manning to win games for them.

267
by DaveO (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 3:50pm

266: Your second paragraph reveals a stunning lack of familiarity with Peyton's game...

268
by Jonathan (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 3:51pm

261 - I can help regarding the Payton 'hate' in NE.

The biggest component of it is merely historical at this point. When the Patriots were trying for their 2nd Super Bowl, Payton was hyped to the ends of the Earth by the media. This grated on Patriot fans who were watching a team win without super stars on it. Brady was in his 3rd year as a starter and nobody was talking about a 'dynasty' at the time. Of course, since winning his 2nd and 3rd Super Bowls, Brady has been similarly hyped to the ends of the Earth by the media so the 'team vs superstar' reason is pretty much moot.

Another big component in keeping NE fans fired up about the debate is that our local media, primarily the Boston Globe, have been regular hatchet men in ripping the Patriots in general and Brady specifically. This might seem odd to other regions but fans in NE have had to put up with what amounts to the owners of the Red Sox (Yes, the Globe partially owns the Sox. Nope. No conflict of interest there.) ridicule Brady and the Patriots _while_ they were winning multiple Super Bowls. It got so that it was comical how out of touch the Globe's editorials were and kind of reminded me of that Iraqi PR man.

Anyway, the bottom line is that NE fams don't hate Payton as much as they hated the hype surrounding him and have been goaded quite a bit on the subject thanks to the local media.

269
by Jeremy (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 3:55pm

262:
Thad, early leads in every NFL game are very important, but it is even more so when it comes to playoff games. The number of playoff victors who have overcome 14 point first quarter deficits is very small, which is why having a defense which doesn’t yield two first quarter touchdowns greatly increases the odds of victory. Yes, if the offense scores in the first quarter, the defense has more room for error. The easier route to victory, however, is having a defense not yield two first quarter touchdowns.

This is a poor argument. How many teams facing 14-point first quarter deficits were clearly the lesser team in their game, and therefore unlikely to win outright from the start? How many were seemingly better than or equal to their opponents, and playing at home after a bye against a team playing its second consecutive road playoff game?

Yes, being up 14-0 in the first quarter helps you win. Duh. But does it help you win more than the fact that you are sufficiently superior to be up 14-0 in the first quarter?

263:
The flip side of this is that, objectively, Brady has had just as bad games, and several worse games, during the Super Bowl run. The whole pro-Manning argument is that if you try to distill out how well Manning has played, it’s better on the whole than Brady.

I can think of three games that were as bad or worse -- the Denver loss last year, the 2003 divisional game against Tennessee, and the 2003 AFC championship games against Indy. On the road against a team off a bye, at home in frigid temperatures, and in the snow (in a game in which Manning's threw four picks and had a passer rating of 35.3). Which of these comes close to approximating the situation Manning was in last year -- at home, in a dome, off a bye? It's worth noting that the previous year, in winning on the road against the 15-1 Steelers (a team I would think compares fairly well to last year's bunch), Brady had probably the best game of his career: 14 of 21 for 207, 2 TDs, 0 INT, and a passer rating of 130.5. Oh yeah, and he did that in a game in which Corey Dillon averaged 3 ypc on 24 carries, on an 11-degree night, after dealing with a 103-degree fever the night before (according to various reports).

All of which is not to say that Brady is definitively better than Manning. I'm a Pats fan, and no one scares me more than Peyton Manning (with the possible exception of the Tomlinson/Gates combo). Manning is spectacular -- I wouldn't take him over Brady, but what do you expect? I'm just saying, if you're going to make claims like the above...you probably shouldn't.

270
by doktarr (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 4:01pm

RE: bsr 265,

You're right, of course, that it's impossible to use stats to completely separate player from team. But some tools are better than others at removing context. And the more we try to bleach out the other factors, the more Manning's numbers shine.

That said, absolutely, stats cannot settle this argument any more than Brady's rings can. That's why we have eyes. And that's probably why "colts fans can’t seem to grasp" the parity of these arguments: because what their eyes tell them that Manning has every bit the positive impact on the field that the stats show.

RE: 266,

I would slightly amend your comment on Manning when he is pressured. Manning is actually excellent at stepping up in the pocket and delivering the ball quickly, when he gets pressured from the edge. What he struggles with is pressure coming from up the middle. He's not very good at moving laterally away from pressure and still delivering the ball. You could reasonably argue that this is his biggest technical weakness.

271
by Kal (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 4:02pm

Well, at least we haven't gotten to the irrational "Peyton's always sucked against the Patriots, and Brady's always done really well, therefore Peyton is worse" argument. Cause the head-to-head matchup is sooooo relevant.

272
by bsr (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 4:06pm

#270 - What Pats fan's eyes tell them is that Brady is the single most individual player responsible for the Patriots three superbowls. I'll take the superbowls.

273
by Jonathan (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 4:08pm

261 - I just remembered one other, much older, reason why NE fans 'hate' Payton.

Any long time Patriot's fan has a permanent, deep seeded fear and loathing of Manning for one simple reason: Payton reminds us of his only real peer Dan Marino. And Dan Marino reminds us of all those painful years of getting waxed by the Dolphins. I didn't say it was rational but there it is :-)

Yes, I still chant "squish the fish" when the Dolphins come up to visit...

274
by Kal (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 4:11pm

#269: There was that absolutely atrocious game that Brady had against Miami in 2004, where he literally gave the game away by throwing an idiotic interception at the end of the game. Seriously, there was no way that Miami could win unless Brady does something like that - and he does. He threw 4 picks against the 3-13 dolphins.

That was nice weather. Not in a dome though. But it was against a stupid bad team. And it did actually matter that year, as that effectively knocked them out of the race for HFA, losing it to the Steelers.

275
by doktarr (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 4:12pm

RE: 268,

Makes a lot of sense. I would argue that even back in 2003, the Pats had their share of superstars, it's just that most of them (e.g. Seymour) didn't get a ton of hype.

Of course, if you can articulate the anti-Manning sentiment that well, then surely you can understand the rest of the country being sick of Brady at this point. I mean, holy crap, did you hear Tony Kornheiser's bit on Brady at the start of the MNF game? I can't believe it's not on Youtube yet.

276
by doktarr (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 4:13pm

RE: 272,

I don't disagree with that statement and I wouldn't argue with the sentiment therin. But that statement does not, in any way, imply that Brady is better than Manning.

277
by costanza (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 4:16pm

This is not about being a Pats or a Colts homer. I am a Steelers fan and therefore hate the Pats and Brady. But I recognize he's by far the best QB in the game. No one else is close.

278
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 4:41pm

bsr, please explain how noting that a small sample of playoff game(s) is a near-useless tool for establishing one very good qb's superiority over another is to "dismiss superbowl winning quarterbacks".

Also, it is wholly inaccurate to state that Manning failed in his one opportunity to win a Super Bowl with a good defense, because in that playoff game, the Colts defense did not play well. This is no knock on Brady, of course.

My point, Jeremy, is that yielding two touchdown drives in the first quarter is by definition a poor defensive performance, and that such defensive performances are rarely overcome, especially in the playoffs. Whether that is because the team with that scored the 14 points is overwhelmingly likely to be much better, or because the team that fell behind had an uncharacteristic poor first quarter, or the team that was ahead had an uncharcteristic good first quarter, is irrelevant to my larger point. Which is that a defense which yields 14 points in the first quarter of a playoff game is very, very, seldom made up for by the play of that team's quarterback, making it especially pointless (even if were were to ignore the issue of sample size, which we shouldn't) to use that game as evidence of that quarterback's inferiority to another quarterback.

My point is that all the arguments which attempt to establish Manning's inferiority to Brady, and vice versa, are inherently irrational.

279
by Jeremy (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 4:46pm

274 -- I was only looking at playoff games.

280
by Diane (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 4:55pm

We interrupt the "less filling/tastes great " battle for some news ...

Belichick's son arrested over weekend (pot possession)

http://tinyurl.com/yxlpyx

281
by Diane (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 4:55pm

We interrupt the "less filling/tastes great " battle for some news ...

Belichick's son arrested over weekend (pot possession)

http://tinyurl.com/yxlpyx

282
by Dave (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 5:06pm

The best irrational argument is the one that ends the irrational debate very simply. Brady has three rings and Manning has none. Thats it. End of story. I am ignoring the fact that there are a lot of other players on the field and that it is a team game. That doesn't matter. As far as I am concerned, Brady was lined up next to Bruschi and was making tackles. He was also blocking for running backs and holding the ball when Vinatieri made all of those kicks. And obviously since Manning doesn't have a ring, he is either not doing all of those things or he is not doing all of them as well as Brady. Passing stats you say? Who cares! Quarterbacks don't pass the ball. They win football games.

283
by Jonathan (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 5:06pm

RE: 275

Well, I empathize with your pain in having to listen to how great Brady's arm is or how 'smart' he is in throwing the ball and moving around in the pocket ad nauseum.

Frankly, prepare yourself for the Brady hype to get worse in the coming years when Brett Farve is finally kicked out of the league and Tom Brady is subjected to Madden's undivided attention.

Personally, I love it but then I'm a Pats fan so I don't count. :-)

284
by David (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 5:14pm

Frankly, prepare yourself for the Brady hype to get worse in the coming years when Brett Farve is finally kicked out of the league and Tom Brady is subjected to Madden’s undivided attention.

That is the single best argument for suicide I have ever seen. Dear God, man.

Here's my perspective on Manning/Brady: Brady is a far better Super Bowl quarterback than Manning has ever been, but Manning's passses to Reggie Wayne and Marvin Harrison are just leagues better than anything Brady has ever thrown to them. So hell if I know.

285
by Grouchy Bills Fan (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 5:17pm

Hey 21, can you please not mention Alex Van Pelt again? Following pro football is my way to forget about the bills.

286
by Sam (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 5:45pm

In terms of raw talent, Manning is better than Brady, that is undeniable.

Brady is great because the Patriots system makes him that way. That is not a diss on Brady, because it works both ways. The Pats system is also great because of Brady's skills.

It's silly to say "Manning is better than Brady because if the two QBs switched places, Manning would make the Pats better and Brady would make the Colts worse". That is not fact, it's opinion. There is no way to prove it, because it will never happen.

Oh - and people should stop talking about how the Patriots defense and not Brady won those Super Bowls. That's the same defense that got torched by Jake Delhomme in SB 38. So enough already. Give Brady and the Patriots system credit for a great job.

287
by bsr (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 6:27pm

bsr, please explain how noting that a small sample of playoff game(s) is a near-useless tool for establishing one very good qb’s superiority over another is to “dismiss superbowl winning quarterbacks�.

Why should I do that? I know I never tried to make such a connection.

Also, it is wholly inaccurate to state that Manning failed in his one opportunity to win a Super Bowl with a good defense, because in that playoff game, the Colts defense did not play well. This is no knock on Brady, of course.

Sorry, I think holding the opposition to 21 points and two turnovers is playing well.

288
by PhillyCWC (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 6:45pm

What all of you fail to consider is that neither Manning nor Brady is the best QB in the game. That honor, of course, belongs to Donovan McNabb.

hahahahahahahahaha - okay, seriously, I'm a huge Eagles homer and couldn't even convince myself of that!

Let the McNabb-bashing commence...

289
by PhillyCWC (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 6:49pm

Seriously, Manning seems like the kind of dorky every-guy I might have dated in high school or college. Brady seems too perfect to be real, and therefore must be an android/alien. My vote goes to Manning.

290
by Bridget Moynihan (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 7:47pm

Hmmm,

how about Brady's supporting cast just departed:
Team, DPAR, DPAR Rank, PAR, PAR Rank, DVOA, DVOA Rank, VOA, Passes, Yards, TD, Catch %

Branch with Brady
27.5 12 24.8 16 19.0% 13 15.1% 125 998 5 62%
Branch on new team
3.6 56 4.7 46 -0.1% 52 5.2% 34 261 2 50%
Givens with Brady
12.8 29 11.6 30 5.5% 35 3.2% 96 738 2 61%
Givens on new team
TEN -0.7 -1.1 -20.5% -24.6% 18 104 0 44%

Just sayin,

Bridget Moynihan

291
by doktarr (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 7:52pm

RE: 290,

Edge

And if you wanna say that running backs are dependent on things other than the QB, then, well, so are wide receivers.

292
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 8:36pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, BSR, but did you not say that someone was discounting Super Bowl winning quarterbacks?

Sorry, I think giving up 14 points in the first quarter of a playoff game is by definition a bad defensive performance. When points are yielded, not just how many are yielded, has a huge influence on the ourtcome of a game. Now, if Indy had not allowed the Steelers to control the clock at all after they yielded 14 right away, you might have a point, but that isn't what happened. If you give up 14 right off the bat, you better have a bushel of three and outs afterwords, and that isn't what happened.

293
by Dan Riley (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 8:59pm

The more I read of this debate (and I realize now I could have finished the annotated edition of Ulysses by now), I see that it's as much about Pats fans and Colts fans settling scores as it is about the two QBs. This is useless, but I'll try anyway so somewhere in cyberspace there's a record at least. Colts fans, here's one Pats fan who does not hate Peyton or disrespect him. He's terrific in the commercials and I realize he has no control over how often they're run. When I watched that game on Sunday and saw the Broncos had left him with...what? three seconds or something, I said Denver is screwed. His stats are amazing. He is everything everybody says he is, and I want to repeat what I said in a much earlier post, we are all viewing a truly golden age of QB'ing with these two guys at the top. (BTW, Jonathan #266...excellent). All that being said...this Sunday...next Sunday...and any Sunday in January, the man I want QB'ing my team is Brady. I think in their heart of hearts, Indy fans feel the same. It defies logic and loyalty, but they know it to be true and it drives them a little crazy. It would drive me crazy too, so I really, really feel your pain.

294
by bsr (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 9:07pm

I didn't say it was you specifically. There has been alot of that in general in this thread. I didn't mean to imply that you were saying it. I do however, respectfully disagree with your assesment of Peyton's defense. They did enough to give the heralded Colts offense a chance to get back in the game. The fact that it took them two quarters to finally wake up is there own problem.

295
by doktarr (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 10:38pm

Does anyone feel like picking the result of the game?

I'm saying Pats 45, Colts 31, assuming the weather is nice. And it will be all Peyton's fault.

296
by B (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 10:48pm

295: With all of his missed tackles on Maroney, the loss is clearly Peyton's fault. And only scoring 31 points against a defense that's yet to give up more than 17? Clearly a choke job.

297
by bsr (not verified) :: Tue, 10/31/2006 - 11:16pm

These games tend to have results that nobody expects.

Pats 3 Colts 2. Adam misses a 25 yard chip shot to win it.

298
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Wed, 11/01/2006 - 12:49am

bsr, everything is relative. Show me a game in the years where the Pats won a Super Bowl in which the Pat's defense yielded 14 first quarter points, and I'll reconsider whether Manning has ever received defensive support on par with Brady's.

299
by bsr (not verified) :: Wed, 11/01/2006 - 1:56am

Sure here you go:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=241031023

Don't you think you are over doing it just a little with this? I mean they were only down by 11 at the half and scored two TDs in 5 minutes later on in the game. The idea that this was some insurrmountable lead is ridiculous and only serves to discredit manning and that offense. What good is that offense if they can't be expected to score more then 14 points or more accurately 21 points in a game. I mean that is what they are supposed to be great at isn't it?

Let me ask you this. Do you think the Colts have been a championship caliber team the past few years? How about this year? Why?

300
by doktarr (not verified) :: Wed, 11/01/2006 - 2:42am

Bringing up a game where the Pats lost doesn't really disprove Will's point. Well, it does show that the Pats have had bad defensive games, but it doesn't show that Brady has led the offense to overcome it.