Manning vs. Brady

[Bugg]

Manning. And at least #18 didn't whine about some BS injury.

Tom Brady Just Wins!!! Well, Not Really.

http://youcantplayhere.blogspot.com/2011/01/tom-brady-just-wins-well-not-really.html

If there is one thing that I could eliminate from the NFL media's talking points, it would be using W-L record as a measure of a QB's individual performance. It has come to the point that I heard Aaron Rodgers being disparaged because he had yet to win a playoff game. Rodgers threw for 423 yards and 4 TDs, but his TEAM lost the game. So yes, he was 0-1 in the playoffs, but using that record to criticize Rodgers' performance is remarkably stupid. Peyton Manning made the playoffs carrying a pitiful Colts team, that had been ravaged by injuries, on his back. Not surprisingly, they lost. If you subscribe to the whole playoff record idea, Peyton would have been a better QB if he had missed the playoffs because that loss wouldn't have gone on his record. Since 2005, Tom Brady is 5-5 in the playoffs, Peyton Manning is 6-5, and Mark Sanchez is 4-1. OBVIOUSLY, Mark Sanchez is much better than the other two.

Tom Brady has specifically been the recipient of this misguided media praise. How many times have you heard that "Tom Brady just wins games" over the past decade? Yet, thanks to the Jets, the Patriots have now lost three straight playoff games. Those three games included a Super Bowl loss after going undefeated in the regular season, a first game loss at home as a #1 seed, and another first round home loss. Gosh, I could have sworn Brady just won games.

What's even more relevant is that the playoff master has been awful over those three games. In those games, Brady has thrown for 5 TDs, 4 INTs, and an atrocious 5.3 yards per attempt. In fact, even with all of Brady's postseason lore, he still carries an 85.7 career QB rating and averages only 6.46 yards per attempt (YPA) in the playoffs. Wasn't Brady supposed to step up his game in the playoffs? Yet, Peyton Manning, the renowned playoff choker, has a postseason QB rating of 88.4 and averages 7.51 YPA. To put that in perspective, Brady's career YPA drops from 7.4 in the regular season to 6.46 in the playoffs while Manning's YPA goes from 7.6 to 7.51. As you can see, Brady has a major drop-off from the regular season to the postseason, but it's Manning who takes the heat for playoff struggles. No one mentions that Peyton holds the NFL record for most playoff losses with a QB rating over 90 (and also over 80). It's much easier to look at the W-L record and ignore the fact that he has played well in the majority of the losses.

Just last weekend, Peyton Manning was strongly criticized for the last pass he threw in the Jets game. Somehow, driving the team down the field and setting up a lead changing field goal with less than a minute left just wasn't good enough for many media members. They decided to claim that Peyton blew the game by not completing his last pass. Bill Simmons called it a sloppy pass to a wide open receiver sparking Nate at 18to88.com to post this article and this picture (Remember the 4th and 13 pass to Branch Sunday night?). Both thoroughly debunked the crazy claims. Manning's performance in the Jets game looks much better after watching Brady be thoroughly frustrated by that same defense. The truth of the matter is, Peyton was extremely good against the Jets. It just goes to show that the national media can't be bothered with facts.

It's no coincidence that the Patriots' playoff ineffectiveness directly coincided with a major shift in philosophy. For whatever reason, the Patriots made the transition from defensive force to high-powered offense. Brady's role also made a dramatic shift. One of the best game managers in NFL history was suddenly responsible for putting the team on his back and carrying them to victory. Since that shift, Brady has experienced firsthand what Peyton Manning has experienced his whole career. You need a solid defense to win Super Bowls, and an incredible offense without a solid defense won't get it done.

Now that Brady's winning reputation and playoff expertise seem to have taken a solid hit, let's take a look at the media's claim that he is one of the best QBs to ever play the game. It was remarkably refreshing to hear Brian Kenny take a stand while filling in as the host of The Herd on ESPN radio. Kenny made a persuasive argument that Tom Brady was vastly overrated ("Vastly" may be a little extreme), while also attacking the idea that QBs should get credit for wins and losses. Needless to say, I enjoyed every minute of it.

When evaluating Brady, Kenny used a method that he uses for MLB Hall of Fame voting. According to Kenny, the best way to determine a player's career dominance is using the number of times they finished at the top of the league in the important statistics. This method rewards consistent greatness while recognizing that career stats may be skewed by a couple of amazing years (Tom Brady anyone?). Naturally, I was intrigued so I decided to delve further into the statistics.

Here's a table listing the number of years finishing in the top five in the major statistics

Peyton Manning Tom Brady

QB Rating 8 Years 3 Years

Yards 11 Years 3 Years

Yards Per Attempt 8 Years 2 Years

Interception % 3 Years 3 Years

Completion % 11 Years 4 Years

Touchdowns 13 Years 5 Years

Sack %* 11 Years 1 Year

Net Yards Per Attempt 7 Years 3 Years

*Some will argue that sack numbers are a product of the offensive line, but that is not necessarily true. Peyton Manning has consistently finished at the top of the league in sack percentage even though his offensive live has been mediocre at best over the past 4 years. Brady, on the other hand, has one of the best offensive lines in football, but he has only finished in the top five in sack percentage once in his career.

Notice anything specific? Brady only comes close to Peyton in one category, interception percentage. He gets blown out of the water in all of the other statistics. Does Brady have the consistent greatness to qualify him as one of the best QBs ever? It sure doesn't seem that way. The fact of the matter is that Brady has had two amazing seasons that have skewed his overall stats. Were those seasons dominant? Absolutely. However, it should be noted that Brady has been consistently outside the top five at his position in most important stats. Unfortunately, it looks like Brady's placement among the best QBs to ever play the game comes from his team's success more than his own.

While QB rating is far from a perfect statistic, this chart shows just how much different Brady's 2007 and 2010 were from the rest of his career.

QB Rating Peyton Manning Tom Brady

1998

71.2

1999

90.7

2000

94.7

2001

84.1 86.5

2002

88.8 85.7

2003

99.0 85.9

2004

121.1 92.6

2005

104.1 92.3

2006

101.0 87.9

2007

98.0 117.2

2008

95.0

2009

99.9 96.2

2010

91.9 111.0

Now, this article wouldn't be complete without a direct comparison of Brady vs. Manning.

The first chart was based on top five finishes in the NFL, but this next one is focused solely on Brady vs. Manning based on years finishing higher in the standings for each statistic. In order to make it fair, I began with 2001 (Brady's first year).

Peyton Manning Tom Brady

Adjusted Yards Per Attempt 7 Years 2 Years

Yard Per Attempt 7 Years 2 Years

Touchdowns 6 Years 3 Years

Completion % 7 Years 2 Years

Interceptions 4 Years 5 Years

Yards 7 Years 2 Years

Seasons with 4000 Yards Passing 11 Years 3 Years

Once again, Peyton Manning has a significant advantage. This chart doesn't take into account Peyton's 1999 and 2000 seasons, both of which would have placed above most of Brady's seasons. Even taking those out, it's obvious who has been the better QB over their careers.

To sum this all up, Peyton Manning has been much better overall, been much more consistent, been better overall in the playoffs, and has less of a drop-off from the regular season to the postseason. Brady supporters are left with one argument, W-L record. However, even that argument is (or at least should be) eroding away.

In the end, it'd be foolish to expect the use of logic and statistics to have much impact on the Jason Whitlocks of the world, but we can hope.

Posted by John Daugherty at 2:55 AM

[Blackout]

Manning is better flat out

both are top 10 QBs ever but Manning is the only one who's a top 5 QB

[SenorGato]

Manning is better flat out

both are top 10 QBs ever but Manning is the only one who's a top 5 QB

This, and I'm not including any anti-Patriots talk. Personally, I think it's possible that Seymour was the best player on the Pats' dynasty teams, while Manning is the unquestioned best player on the Colts.

[YouCantPlayHere]

Thanks for the post guys. Hopefully it will spark some debate, and as you may have noticed, I try to answer all of the comments in the comments section.

BTW, the charts look a lot better on the site. Hurts my eyes to see all those numbers crammed together here haha.

[Blackout]

and TEddy Bruschi...I remember way before the stroke occured saying he was the ******* man. for some reason the national media didn't catch on until after the stroke.

oh and remember that CORY DILLON guy they picked up? he was damn good.

[SenorGato]

and TEddy Bruschi...I remember way before the stroke occured saying he was the ******* man. for some reason the national media didn't catch on until after the stroke.

oh and remember that CORY DILLON guy they picked up? he was damn good.

No, I mean Seymour is a legitimate HOF talent who was the best player at his position during his era...by far too...I even think there's a decent gap between him and Aaron Smith.

[Klecko73isGod]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Manning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brady

And it ain't close.

Brady was along for the ride on those championship teams. They didn't win because of him, they didn't win in spite of him. He was a game manager, a great game manager but a game manager nonetheless.

Anybody notice that the second the Pats changed their whole philosophy from being a defensive team to being a quarterback-focused team that they stopped winning championships? You really think that is a coincidence? It's not. Brady is not a guy who can carry a team all the way by himself, and he's proven this by his lackluster postseason play recently.

[Bugg]

Thanks for the post guys. Hopefully it will spark some debate, and as you may have noticed, I try to answer all of the comments in the comments section.

BTW, the charts look a lot better on the site. Hurts my eyes to see all those numbers crammed together here haha.

Sorry about the formatting; I cut and pasted it. But keep up the good and interesting work.

[T0mShane]

Sketchy logic. QB stats (the ones used here) are a by-product of team success. Manning played with a Hall of Famer in Marvin Harrison and two possible HOFers in Dallas Clark and Reggie Wayne.

[CTM]

Sketchy logic. QB stats (the ones used here) are a by-product of team success. Manning played with a Hall of Famer in Marvin Harrison and two possible HOFers in Dallas Clark and Reggie Wayne.

Manning's team consistantly invested 1st round picks to support Manning's and the offense. They also hit more often when they did. Brady continually lost talent. Really, both are great players. I think Manning's had the better career, but Brady's been better since 2007. Either way, this isn't going to be a reasonable debate on a Jets site..

[Bugg]

Sketchy logic. QB stats (the ones used here) are a by-product of team success. Manning played with a Hall of Famer in Marvin Harrison and two possible HOFers in Dallas Clark and Reggie Wayne.

Circumstance cuts every which way, so thse stats over the lengths of the careers of both would seem to be a fair way to evalaute them. It cuts the variables down a bit. By the same logic about circumstances, Manning often has had to outplay a piss poor defense and a succession of sketchy coaching.Take away the rare times Bob Sanders was healthy and effective the Colts defense has been pretty awful, the Pats defense until Bellichick purged Seymopur mostly very good. Jim Mora, Dungy and now the idiot Caldwell are not in Belicheat's class. Brady also had a HoFer in Moss, and as you have told us a great JAG in Welker. And he would've had a few more seasons of Branch at a productive point in his career if Belichick was not hellbent on trying to win cheap.

We often had this discussion about Dungy and the Cover Who when it came to idiot Herman Edwards and their supposed great resumes. Dungy is ridiculously overrated. The Cover 2 in Tampa was good because of personnel.Better defensive schemes are flexible, not locked in to one way or another. Yet we well know Dungy and Ol'Hermie loved his 4-3 2 gap, 3 gap, go eff yourself nonsense, and acted like the shlef in Tampa was collapsing under the weight of the Lombardis they ahd won. They never won a damn thing, yet the media allows this nonsense to persist Duny is some kind of genius. Recall-Groh's jets winning a circus comeback in Tampa in a monsoon; the Bucs quitting on Dungy in a playoff game vs. the Eagles in 2001 right before he was fired; and Dungy losing the 2000 NFC title game to the Rams 11-6 as he choose to play the immortal Shawn King over servicable Trent Dilfer,who would win a title with the Ravens.

Would suggest Manning deserves some credit for dealing with imbeciles like Dungy and now Caldwell. That's a problem Brady has never had.

[donboyO]

Circumstance cuts every which way, so thse stats over the lenghts of the careers of both would seem to be a fair wayn to evalaute them. By the same logic about circumstances, Manning often has had to outplay a piss poor defense and a succession of sketchy coaching.Take away the rare times Bob sanders was healthy and effective the Colts defense has been pretty awful, the Pats defense until Bellichick purged Seymopur mostly very good. Jim Mora, Dungy and now the idiot Caldwell are not in Belicheat's class. Brady also had a HoFer in Moss, and as you have told us a great JAG in Welker. And he would've had a few more seasons of Branch at a productive point in his career if Belichick was not hellbent on trying to win cheap.

We often had this discussion about Dungy and the Cover Who when it came to idiot Herman Edwards and their suppsoed great resumes. Dungy is ridiculously overrated. The Cover 2 in Tampa was good because of personnel.Better defensive schemes are flexible, not locked in to one way or another. Yet we well know Dungy and O'Hermie loved his 4-3 2 gap, 3 gap, go eff yourself nonsense. They never won a damn thing, yet the media allows this nonsense to persist Duny is some kind of genius. Recall-Groh's jets winning a circus comeback in Tampa in a monsoon; the Bucs quitting on Dungy in a playoff game vs. the Eagles in 2001 right before he was fired; and Dungy losing the 2000 NFC title game to the Rams 11-6 as he choose to play the immortal Shawn King over servicable Trent Dilfer,who would win a title with the Ravens.

Would suggest Manning deserves some credit for dealing with imbeciles like Dungy and now Caldwell. That's a problem Brady has never ahd.

great post, shane seems to discount the HC quite a bit

[Klecko73isGod]

Sketchy logic. QB stats (the ones used here) are a by-product of team success. Manning played with a Hall of Famer in Marvin Harrison and two possible HOFers in Dallas Clark and Reggie Wayne.

And Brady played with a HoFer in Randy Moss during his best seasons. Not to mention a receiver whom according to you is an all-time great in Wes Welker.

So QB stats are a byproduct of team success so Brady's team accomplishments (SB wins) count more than his individual position stats? I don't follow your logic.

Manning has been the better player. You ever think that Manning's receivers have the numbers they have because they play with Manning and not the other way around? You argue that Welker is a beast but Manning's numbers are due to his receivers being great. Well if Welker is so great, isn't Brady also a product of his teammates?

It seems to me that the Brady backers love to employ double standards when comparing these two.

[HessStation]

Put Manning on the Pats and he has 5 Super Bolw rings. Put Brady on the Colts and he has zero. Manning > Brady.

[LionelRichie]

Brady is a great QB, period.

He has also benefited from a great pass blocking OL and is rarely hit. When Brady is pressured early in games he becomes an average QB and starts looking for a rush, even when it isn't there.

While Brady is undoubtedly a great QB, I think the "all-time" great discussion is a little overblown. Brady has been on some truly all-time great teams that would probably have won without him. When a team goes 11-5 with a backup QB that hasn't started since high school you have a pretty good freaking team.

This years Colts would have probably have been 5-11 with Matt Cassell...if they were lucky.

[CTM]

Brady is a great QB, period.

He has also benefited from a great pass blocking OL and is rarely hit. When Brady is pressured early in games he becomes an average QB and starts looking for a rush, even when it isn't there.

While Brady is undoubtedly a great QB, I think the "all-time" great discussion is a little overblown. Brady has been on some truly all-time great teams that would probably have won without him. When a team goes 11-5 with a backup QB that hasn't started since high school you have a pretty good freaking team.

This years Colts would have probably have been 5-11 with Matt Cassell...if they were lucky.

the fact that 11-5 didn't make the playoffs doesn't tell you anything about the conditions the record was achieved in? The year prior they went 16-0 against a tough schedule, the MC year was 11-5 against a supremely easy one.

[YouCantPlayHere]

the fact that 11-5 didn't make the playoffs doesn't tell you anything about the conditions the record was achieved in? The year prior they went 16-0 against a tough schedule, the MC year was 11-5 against a supremely easy one.

I don't know how it ended up, but it's not like they played the last place in the division schedule. They played all of the division winners in the AFC. Whether it was flukey that they ended up playing a weak schedule with Cassel I can't say. I just know that based on the NFL setup, it should have been a difficult schedule

[jason423]

It is an interesting article. I do think there are a few flaws. One is the sack argument. For years Manning had the better offensive line. Brady has made his linemen a ton of money with the way he plays. Both are great at avoiding sacks, but Mannings guys were far better even if the reputation of the guys states otherwise. I dont think he factors talent into this at all. The facts are that Brady did put up Manning-esque numbers when he finally got talent around him when they brought in Moss and Welker. Manning had great talent surrounding him in Harrison and Wayne as well as James at RB. That said clearly there never was an argument about who put up better numbers or was the more prolific QB. Manning has always won that hands down.

The big difference between the two was how you graded their postseason success and failures. The article does bring up Mannings postseason stats as some type of indication of success, but you also have to put those in some context. There have been games where Manning has put up some pretty numbers but never really had a good game, similar to what Brady did this past weekend. Manning probably had over 300 yards in last years SB but he did not play well. The team also has not scored as well as they have in the regular season which is on Manning since he is the focal point of the offense.

Manning has gotten better in the playoffs through the years and most of the argument was based on early career failure. Manning from 2000 thru the 2005 season was brutal in the playoffs. They never won. They got wiped out a few times, sometimes even in their own building. In the meantime Brady won 3 Super Bowls and was the driving force at the end of two of them. Even though those were not the Montana drives to the end zone they were certainly meaningful for Brady and his legacy. Ir crushed Manning.

Now its closer. Since the Pats last Super Bowl win Manning has won and lost one. Brady has lost one. Brady is 0-3 in his last 3 playoff games and played poorly in each. Manning is 1-2 with a great game against the Jets and two subpar games around it. It certainly makes things much closer between the two and now you have to go back and revalue what went on with New England from 2001-2004. Do you continue to give Brady those massive points for those game winning FG drives? Do you now go back and look at 2001 and say he was just along for the ride? Do you go back to 2004 and say, what he did was really not that special against an Eagles team that just choked down the stretch? I think those have now become valid questions and they were not valid questions as of 2008 because they won so much in the playoffs and he began putting up insane numbers once he got real offensive talent around him.

I do think the one thing that haunts Manning that will not haunt Brady is the fact that Manning never seems to win the close game in the playoffs and has made some big errors in them. Granted he did drive the team for a FG against the Jets but they did lose. Last year he threw that terrible interception that sealed the game. He had chances to put the Chargers away or drive for a win and failed with repeated 3 and outs. Those are all vivid memories. Brady really hasnt had that. When they lost he just lost. Only the Giants game was close and that has been remembered more for the Giants heroics than Bradys failures. The memory of Manning is his failures.

[Klecko73isGod]

I don't know how it ended up, but it's not like they played the last place in the division schedule. They played all of the division winners in the AFC. Whether it was flukey that they ended up playing a weak schedule with Cassel I can't say. I just know that based on the NFL setup, it should have been a difficult schedule

The problem with that is that only two games per year are determined by order of finish from the previous year.

I don't know that two games can make all that much of a difference. Not to mention that you may go from playing the NFC East one year to playing the NFC West the next.

This year the AFC East played the AFC North and NFC North, next year we play the AFC West and NFC East. While playing the NFC divisions is basically a wash, the AFC North is considerably tougher than the AFC West.

[CTM]

I don't know how it ended up, but it's not like they played the last place in the division schedule. They played all of the division winners in the AFC. Whether it was flukey that they ended up playing a weak schedule with Cassel I can't say. I just know that based on the NFL setup, it should have been a difficult schedule

our division match ups were the afc and nfc west, basically the two worst division in footbal.. they went 6-0 against the dregs of those divisions, 2-0 against an equally bad bills team, leaving them 3-5 against the only decent teams they faced.. jets/jets/phins/phins/colts/chargers/cardinals/steelers.. (and most of those teams weren't even that good)

the phins won the division cause they basically did the same thing, got fat off of the terrible afc west/nfc west

[Gainzo]

I don't know how it ended up, but it's not like they played the last place in the division schedule. They played all of the division winners in the AFC. Whether it was flukey that they ended up playing a weak schedule with Cassel I can't say. I just know that based on the NFL setup, it should have been a difficult schedule

In 2008 the Pats sucked. The only reason they went 11-5 was because the schedule had them play against the awful NFC & AFC West Divisions.

[CTM]

our division match ups were the afc and nfc west, basically the two worst division in footbal.. they went 6-0 against the dregs of those divisions, 2-0 against an equally bad bills team, leaving them 3-5 against the only decent teams they faced.. jets/jets/phins/phins/colts/chargers/cardinals/steelers.. (and most of those teams weren't even that good)

the phins won the division cause they basically did the same thing, got fat off of the terrible afc west/nfc west

as an aside, interestingly we took the opposite route, we basically beat all the good teams and went 2-4 against the really bad afc/nfc west teams. Had we equaled miami and ne's 6-0, we'd have won the division going away at 13-3

[Matt39]

Keep in mind Brady's knee injury....he was never very mobile, but he can barely even move now. His pocket presence and sliding ability in the pocket have diminished big time. If you pressure Brady out of the pocket he becomes an awful QB.

[YouCantPlayHere]

It is an interesting article. I do think there are a few flaws. One is the sack argument. For years Manning had the better offensive line. Brady has made his linemen a ton of money with the way he plays. Both are great at avoiding sacks, but Mannings guys were far better even if the reputation of the guys states otherwise. I dont think he factors talent into this at all. The facts are that Brady did put up Manning-esque numbers when he finally got talent around him when they brought in Moss and Welker. Manning had great talent surrounding him in Harrison and Wayne as well as James at RB. That said clearly there never was an argument about who put up better numbers or was the more prolific QB. Manning has always won that hands down.

The big difference between the two was how you graded their postseason success and failures. The article does bring up Mannings postseason stats as some type of indication of success, but you also have to put those in some context. There have been games where Manning has put up some pretty numbers but never really had a good game, similar to what Brady did this past weekend. Manning probably had over 300 yards in last years SB but he did not play well. The team also has not scored as well as they have in the regular season which is on Manning since he is the focal point of the offense.

Manning has gotten better in the playoffs through the years and most of the argument was based on early career failure. Manning from 2000 thru the 2005 season was brutal in the playoffs. They never won. They got wiped out a few times, sometimes even in their own building. In the meantime Brady won 3 Super Bowls and was the driving force at the end of two of them. Even though those were not the Montana drives to the end zone they were certainly meaningful for Brady and his legacy. Ir crushed Manning.

Now its closer. Since the Pats last Super Bowl win Manning has won and lost one. Brady has lost one. Brady is 0-3 in his last 3 playoff games and played poorly in each. Manning is 1-2 with a great game against the Jets and two subpar games around it. It certainly makes things much closer between the two and now you have to go back and revalue what went on with New England from 2001-2004. Do you continue to give Brady those massive points for those game winning FG drives? Do you now go back and look at 2001 and say he was just along for the ride? Do you go back to 2004 and say, what he did was really not that special against an Eagles team that just choked down the stretch? I think those have now become valid questions and they were not valid questions as of 2008 because they won so much in the playoffs and he began putting up insane numbers once he got real offensive talent around him.

I do think the one thing that haunts Manning that will not haunt Brady is the fact that Manning never seems to win the close game in the playoffs and has made some big errors in them. Granted he did drive the team for a FG against the Jets but they did lose. Last year he threw that terrible interception that sealed the game. He had chances to put the Chargers away or drive for a win and failed with repeated 3 and outs. Those are all vivid memories. Brady really hasnt had that. When they lost he just lost. Only the Giants game was close and that has been remembered more for the Giants heroics than Bradys failures. The memory of Manning is his failures.

The sack argument works because anyone who watches the Colts knows that they have been mediocre at very best over the past 4 years or so. Yet, Manning has finished first in the league in avoiding sacks twice during that period. Sacks are just as much on the QB as they are the line. Manning covers the flaws of the line because he gets the ball out so damn quick. Over that same period, Brady has had one of the best lines in football. He has time to cook a smore, eat it, and then throw a TD pass. Yet, he still has only finished top 5 in sack % once in his career.

As I said in the article, Manning has the NFL record with 4 playoff losses with a rating over 90. He also has the record for most lossed with an 80 rating or higher (6). Does that mean he has played poorly or that his team has?

Everything you talk about is subjective. It's furthered by the media narrative that it's always Manning's fault when he loses. He drove down the field and set up a go-ahead FG with less than a minute left in the game. Is it somehow a black mark on him that his TEAM allowed them to return the kickoff 45 yards, called a retarded TO, and then let them throw a pass to get into easy FG range? Or even better, that he had a 7 point lead at half, scored on every single possession in the second half and lost? Is it a black mark on him that they couldn't run the ball for one yard on 3rd and 1 to put the game away against SD? Is it his fault that Nick Harper can't avoid getting tackled by Ben Roethlisberger or that Mike Vanderjagt can't hit a FG to tie (this happened twice)? Is it his fault that the defense can't stop Billy Volek from carving up the secondary while Manning throws for over 400 yards, 3 TDs, and a 97.7 rating? Manning hasn't had big moments in close games? That's just not true. Ask the Pats, Ravens, Chiefs, Jets, etc. Manning threw one bad pass against the Saints and you say he had a bad game? You're predetermined to see things that way, and that kills objective analysis.

Then you have Brady who is 8-1 in the playoffs when he throws for LESS than 213 yards. Has more 3 INT games than Manning in the playoffs

This is the entire problem. People take what they believe happened or how they remember it and use that to come up with some kind of story or trend. Manning has better stats in the playoffs than Brady, and even more importantly, his stats have dropped off much less than Brady's in the playoffs. Yet, Manning gets the tag of a choke artist because his team let him down over and over while Brady get's the playoff god label because he was able to manage the game while his defense dominated and got him to 3 super bowls.

[YouCantPlayHere]

our division match ups were the afc and nfc west, basically the two worst division in footbal.. they went 6-0 against the dregs of those divisions, 2-0 against an equally bad bills team, leaving them 3-5 against the only decent teams they faced.. jets/jets/phins/phins/colts/chargers/cardinals/steelers.. (and most of those teams weren't even that good)

the phins won the division cause they basically did the same thing, got fat off of the terrible afc west/nfc west

You're talking about a first year starter rushed into service. You don't think that on its own cancels out the diff in opponents? Not to mention that Cassel's best games that year were against the Jets and Miami. Once again, I don't care about W-L record because it means nothing to me. However, Cassel's stats that year were frighteningly similar to Brady's career averages.

Funny fact. First year starter Matt Cassel threw 65% short passes in 2008 (One would assume that they dumbed down the offense and tried to minimize risks). And then you have Tommy in 2010 who threw 70% short passes. Take from that what you will.

[CTM]

You're talking about a first year starter rushed into service. You don't think that on its own cancels out the diff in opponents? Not to mention that Cassel's best games that year were against the Jets and Miami. Once again, I don't care about W-L record because it means nothing to me. However, Cassel's stats that year were frighteningly similar to Brady's career averages.

Funny fact. First year starter Matt Cassel threw 65% short passes in 2008 (One would assume that they dumbed down the offense and tried to minimize risks). And then you have Tommy in 2010 who threw 70% short passes. Take from that what you will.

Yes, Cassel with Moss and Welker put up similiar stats to Brady with Branch and Caldwell.

How about Brady with Moss and Welker? (against a much harder schedule)

68.9 comp% 4,806 yards 8.3 Y/A 50TD 8 INT 2788 DYAR 56.9 DVOA

Cassel?

63.4 comp% 3,693 yards 7.2 Y/A 21TD 11INT 655 DYAR 6.4% DVOA

Forget about ballparks, that's not even in the same sport. When adjusted for defenses faced, Brady had one of the best seasons by a QB ever, Cassel wasn't even as good as Shaun Hill this year. In fact, his 2008 season was pretty close to Chad Henne this year.

[JoeWillie]

They're both great QBs. The two best out there right now.

Montana was better than both of them.

[T0mShane]

And Brady played with a HoFer in Randy Moss during his best seasons. Not to mention a receiver whom according to you is an all-time great in Wes Welker.

So QB stats are a byproduct of team success so Brady's team accomplishments (SB wins) count more than his individual position stats? I don't follow your logic.

Manning has been the better player. You ever think that Manning's receivers have the numbers they have because they play with Manning and not the other way around? You argue that Welker is a beast but Manning's numbers are due to his receivers being great. Well if Welker is so great, isn't Brady also a product of his teammates?

It seems to me that the Brady backers love to employ double standards when comparing these two.

Whoa whoa whoa. I don't have a dog in this fight, bro-haus. I think it's as pointless an argument as Marino v. Montana. Bottom line, in 30 years, you're going to still be ranking both of these guys in the Top Ten of all time. And people in the bar will look at you funny when you start screaming how Brady is the worst top-ten QB of all time.

[Jets Voice of Reason]

Rivers vs Rodgers is shaping up to be an interesting debate.

[CTM]

Rivers vs Rodgers is shaping up to be an interesting debate.

My two favorite for awhile now, but Rodgers is just on another planet imo..

[JonEJet]

Manning and Brady

They're both home resting up while The Sanchize continues to sharpen his skills

[T0mShane]

My two favorite for awhile now, but Rodgers is just on another planet imo..

+1

I think Rodgers is the most physically gifted QB I've ever seen. I still worry about where his head is at times, but there's no denying the freak nature of what he can do on the football field.

[CTM]

+1

I think Rodgers is the most physically gifted QB I've ever seen. I still worry about where his head is at times, but there's no denying the freak nature of what he can do on the football field.

His head? Guy almost always makes the right decision and makes it quickly. Or do you mean concussions?

[jason423]

The sack argument works because anyone who watches the Colts knows that they have been mediocre at very best over the past 4 years or so. Yet, Manning has finished first in the league in avoiding sacks twice during that period. Sacks are just as much on the QB as they are the line. Manning covers the flaws of the line because he gets the ball out so damn quick. Over that same period, Brady has had one of the best lines in football. He has time to cook a smore, eat it, and then throw a TD pass. Yet, he still has only finished top 5 in sack % once in his career.

This is the entire problem. People take what they believe happened or how they remember it and use that to come up with some kind of story or trend. Manning has better stats in the playoffs than Brady, and even more importantly, his stats have dropped off much less than Brady's in the playoffs. Yet, Manning gets the tag of a choke artist because his team let him down over and over while Brady get's the playoff god label because he was able to manage the game while his defense dominated and got him to 3 super bowls.

That sack thing is just flat out wrong. NE has nothing close to a dominant O-line. Everytime they come against great pass rushers they flop. Manning has great control and awareness of the pocket. Brady just has a wicked release. All you have to do is look the the non-Brady year in the time frame you are talking about. Brady was sacked 21, 16, and 25 times in 3 years. Matt Cassel went down 47 times. Brady was sacked on 3.5, 2.75, and 4.8% of his dropbacks. His replacement 8.34% of his dropbacks.

Id take Manning over Brady, but Manning has had so many 4th quarter opportunities to win games and make up for that defense or a poor game and he just about always comes up short. Brady had two opportunities won the game, one of which the defense played horribly in.

[T0mShane]

His head? Guy almost always makes the right decision and makes it quickly. Or do you mean concussions?

The risks he takes with his body and the ball. It looks like he's playing on a playground at times. It hasn't really hurt him as yet, but it looks like he's always an inch away from disaster.