Tom "Iceman" Brady

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by The Huddle

I'll throw this out there: without Brady, the Patriots don't come close to that 12-1 playoff record.

Well, I guess that depends on who was QBing them instead. Assuming you mean the average NFL backup, I completely and utterly agree with you on this point. And so does the rest of the world.

I've actually stated my admiration of Manning several times in this thread, but at this point I feel compelled to add that if he is truly as superior to Brady as you claim, it's increasingly puzzling how the Colts have failed to win a Super Bowl with him at the controls considering some of the talent they've had on hand. Teams with mind-blowing offenses and mediocre defenses have made it to the Big Dance numerous times- but not "The Best Quatreback on the Planet" and his Colts.

It's hardly mind blowing. From the top down, the Patriots are a more structurally sound organization than the Colts. Their teams have more depth on both sides of the ball. They can afford to let defensive players walk, and replace them. The Colts simply can't afford to let their players walk and stay competitive. The Patriots seem to be the more soundly coached team, though I'm tired of people kissing Belichicks ass for winning with the best team.

4 out of the last 5 years the Colts defense has been in 2006 Redskins territory. They are undersized. For one year in 2005, teams tried throwing more then they ran against the Colts, and it didn't work. Consequently, that's the one year since 2003 that the Colts have had a better team than the Pats. Every other year, opponents pretty much just run it down the throats of the Colts, and it's up to Peyton to go out and outscore the opponent. That can work in the regular season vs. some crappy defenses, but when you go on the road in the playoffs and play a string of great defensive teams, the Colts offense gets lambasted. The offensive line, recievers, backs, Manning, everyone. Put quite simply, they get beaten by a better team. Rarely does Brady have to play a better team, he lost to Denver last year, he played bad last week in a win against SD, against Oakland in 2001 he did nothing for 3.5 quarters only to obviously turn the ball over on a possible game saving drive...later to have the call overturned on a rule no one knew prior to that. Brady pretty much suffers from all the things Manning does in the playoffs in the rare occasion he has to play a superior team. Their performance in those games are very similar, except Manning has to play those games more often because historically, his team hasn't been quite as good.

Until I see Manning lift his team to the next level in a title game, I will continue to believe that Brady is ultimately the better quarterback because to me it's all about leading your team over the hump in clutch time (again, I realize you object to terms like "clutch" but I will continue to use them as I think most fans know exactly what I am talking about, even if they do not agree with my assessment of Brady), not setting individual records. Manning has a great arm and puts up great numbers, but I am not yet convinced that he is a pressure quaterback the caliber of Brady.
I think pressure adversely affects him, and I thought the same thing when he was at Tennessee. He now has a chance to make some progress in that area this weekend (actually, I feel like the Colts are just flat out due, but that's just a gut feeling). I would be interested in resuming this conversation when Manning has at least gotten his team into a Super Bowl game.

As far as your opinion goes, you're more than welcome to it. But you are posting it in a public forum for many to see. I don't think you're arguement accurately answers the question who is better, so I take it as my duty to put my opinion out there to make sure that the "he just wins" theroy stops here. My problem isn't that people think Brady is better, it's that their reasoning is shoddy. If people truly think that rings and abstract ideas are more predictive of future performance than past performance, I cannot change their opinion. We haven't seen enough of the playoffs to really know if Brady's game elevates while Manning's drops. Brady's done better so far, but what's to say that winning 12 games as opposed to 6 isn't just luck? Probably is more than luck, but we don't know that. It's just a very, very small sample size. What we do know is that in non-playoff exclusive arguements, Manning is the better player. We know that all QBs tend to struggle in underdog situations, and Brady is no exception. The Patriots have done a great job in the playoffs, and the Colts a mediocre job, but mindlessly attributing that discrepency to QB play with no further evidence is nothing short of poor judgement.

I disagree that its all about leading a team over the hump in clutch time. I think its about consistent play from kickoff to final wistle. Comebacks are every bit as much luck as skill. Dominating an opponent is pretty much all about skill.

Playing under pressure is an abstract idea. There might be something there...might not. Tough to discredit a guy for not being a good pressure player when we aren't sure what effect it has on the game. One thing is for sure: the sports media makes it out to be a bigger deal than it is.

I disagree that most fans actually know what clutch is, as much as they might think they do. I doubt that you can actually explain it to me. I think it's an accepted term used in sports that people dont really understand. It's got mystique because people don't understand it. And if people don't understand it, how can one guy be better at it than another? Just because a guy on TV uses a word doesn't means he knows what it means. Can he define it? I can't.

Individual records mean nothing. It's certain statistics that matter. Past performance can predict future performance. That's the major idea. Past rings can't predict future rings, otherwise the Colts shouldn't even show up this week. Past wins can't predict future wins. I'm more interested in how a team won, then the fact that they won (unless of course, its the Redskins). I don't really care that the Pats won three championships because I'm not a Pats fan. I do care how they did it, because if I see a similar line of behavior in another team, I know that what they are doing is conducive to success.

If team A has Peyton Manning, then overall they would be better off then if team A had Tom Brady. Team A would have a great QB situation either way (in many cases the difference is negligible. Sometimes, it can be decisive), but they are better with Manning. You don't have to agree, but thats the bottom line.