Tom "Iceman" Brady

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by The Huddle

Exactly. The tired anti-Brady arguement boils down to:

Brady is good because of his team.
Manning is good in spite of his team.

Apparently Manning's stats were achieved without the benifit of an extremely talented offense designed to maximize his signature strength (his arm strength). It's all about Manning.

Meanwhile, the fact that the Pats are 12-1 in the playoffs with Brady says nothing about Brady.

See, the arguement that Manning's offensive mates are a reason why his stats look so much better than Brady's is a completely valid argument, but no one has put foward much of an arguement along those lines for me to respond to yet. Nobody has looked at Manning's numbers vs. Brady's numbers and shown me that they are at least comprable (I believe while Brady has very solid numbers, Manning is just on a different level). If someone had done that this arguement wouldn't be so silly right now. The statement, "Manning's offense is better" is a blanket statement. That doesn't mean that Brady is automatically better. Brady has a better offense than Aaron Brooks, and surely Brooks isn't better, but by your logic he would be. Use stats, or other evidence to make a case.

"Meanwhile, the fact that the Pats are 12-1 in the playoffs with Brady says nothing about Brady." Exactly. You might be learning. It certainly doesn't hurt him, but that says nothing about Tom Brady's role in those 13 games. Actually, Brady's played pretty well in most of those games, but none of you have brought that up yet. You've just thrown the record figure out there with no subsequent arguement.

It's not really about Manning's team and Brady's team at all. You've made it that way. Here's how I would state my view.

Tom Brady is a very good NFL QB.
Manning is the best Quarterback on the planet.

Given a choice I guarantee you 2/3rds of the GMs in the NFL would take Brady over Manning if the goal was "winning a championship" and not "putting up gaudy stats".

And those 2/3 are the Matt Millen's of the world who will be out of a job in 5 years. Because if they can't see something as obvious as Manning>Brady (all hard evidence points this way), how can they be expected to select the best talent at OTHER positions where the evidence is less clear?