Tom "Iceman" Brady

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

You will soon realize you can not use any fact, stat or accomplishment of Bradys that might be better than Mannings.
If you point to the terrible games Manning had in the playoffs, Mr. GTripp0012 will blame the Colts offensive line, defense or the other teams incredible defense. Everyone else is to blame for Mannings terrible playoff performances other than Manning.

But what in gods name does Brady do better than Manning. IMO, he moves around better in the pocket. That's it.

The reason this is such a dead end arguement for the Brady guys is because theres absolutely ZERO evidence that Brady does even one thing better than Manning. He doesn't complete more passes. He doesn't get more yards, he doesn't get more TD's.

His offenses score significantly less (this is a team stat, so you may dismiss this arguement as a product of his offensive unit, although Manning has significantly more control of this unit than Brady does over the final outcome of games).

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

That's the thing, NO stats favor Brady. Part of that is Manning's offense, but mostly it's because he's jsut better, plain and simple.

i don't understand your logic, maybe it's just me but you seem to want to discredit brady's stats, and yes there are plenty of stat in his favor, you choose to call them "team stats" but yet you want to give all credit to manning for his completions and his passing yardage and his qb rating when you know very well just as much credit should be given to his recievers.

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

But what in gods name does Brady do better than Manning. IMO, he moves around better in the pocket. That's it.

He throws the ball to the players that are actually on his own team in the playoffs better.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

He throws the ball to the players that are actually on his own team in the playoffs better.

Does he? I think its pretty equal, ESPN posted the stats yesterday.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

i don't understand your logic, maybe it's just me but you seem to want to discredit brady's stats, and yes there are plenty of stat in his favor, you choose to call them "team stats" but yet you want to give all credit to manning for his completions and his passing yardage and his qb rating when you know very well just as much credit should be given to his recievers.

But WHY should I see those team stats as anything more than having a superior team (as his team is quite obviously superior, evidenced by the wins)? What's your reasoning that they SHOULDN'T be discredited in a debate about individual players, not teams? Every other piece of evidence says that Manning outplays Brady. So why all of a sudden does Brady get more credit for doing less?

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

But WHY should I see those team stats as anything more than having a superior team? What's your reasoning that they SHOULDN'T be discredited in a debate about individual players, not teams? Every other piece of evidence says that Manning outplays Brady. So why all of a sudden does Brady get more credit for doing less?

but isn't it reasonable for manning to have better stats in certain areas because he has superior recievers ? when you say "superior team" are you speaking of offense , defense or both because it is debatable as to which team has had the best offense over the past few seasons.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

but isn't it reasonable for manning to have better stats in certain areas because he has superior recievers ? when you say "superior team" are you speaking of offense , defense or both because it is debatable as to which team has had the best offense over the past few seasons.

Yes, its very reasonable to say that Manning's stats are improved by his offensive teammates. But I don't think it comes close to explaining the massive distance he continues to put between himself and Brady year after year. There's a small minute possibility that if Harrison and Wayne are the two greatest recievers ever, that it may explain the enitre gap in production.

I don't buy it. Harrison and Wayne don't help Manning out after the catch nearly as much as Santana does for us. Is Joseph Addai really a better runner than Dillion or Maroney? For that matter, was Edgerrin James really that much better? He hasn't been so hot in Arizona.

Players who leave Indy's offense traditionally don't have success other places. Who could blame them?

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

there is a poll question on redskins.com that asks "if you were a GM starting a team who would be your pick at qb"

choices are brady, manning, breeze and grossman

brady is leading with 55.3 %
manning is 2nd with 29.6 %

over 55 % of skins fans can't be wrong

[GTripp0012]

Superior team refers to the offense, the defense, and special team. Superior team means if the teams played 100 times on a neutral field, I believe that the team I deem superior would win significantly more times than it lost.

If their stats were close, I wouldn't bother arguing it. My beliefe is that Manning is SO much better that it would be foolish to say otherwise. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or even the majority. But I do want to see people who think Brady is the leagues best QB defend him with evidence that says he's the leagues best QB, not that he's a winner or clutch. If you say that, you havent said anything. Jake Plummer's a guy who is both a winner and clutch. There's a bunch of guys in the league who I'd rather have than Plummer. We have two on our team right now.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Superior team refers to the offense, the defense, and special team. Superior team means if the teams played 100 times on a neutral field, I believe that the team I deem superior would win significantly more times than it lost.

i'd say they were probably close overall over the last few seasons
just from what i remember i'd give an edge to the colts on offense,an edge to the pats on defense and sp.teams was pretty much even until the post season.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

....The reason this is such a dead end arguement for the Brady guys is because theres absolutely ZERO evidence that Brady does even one thing better than Manning. ...

There is a ton evidence. The problem is you create some lame excuse to dismiss any factual evidence that proves Brady is as good or better Qb in certain catagories. Look Manning is ONE of the great QB.

Do not take this the wrong way, but you are 18 y.o.; believe it or not there are QB's like Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw, Roger Staubach, Sammie Baugh, John Elway and Steve Young that have combined AWESOME TALENT and winning MULTIPLE (more than one) big games (super bowls). Tom Brady is closer to these all time greats then Manning or Dan Marino is.

You will soon realize America and the World likes a winner and Manning is not YET a winner. NOBODY remembers who came in second place.
Manning will be a winner some day. He is not yet there.
That is what seperates the great players from the all-time greats.
Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Warren Moon , Fran Tarkenton, Archie Manning (peyton's dad) are players that fall in the same catagory as Peyton Manning, Great/Awesome Hall of Fame talent but never won the big games.

20 or 30 years form now your kids will watch old NFL Films of the 80's, 90's, and 2000's and they see a limited amount of a great Dan Marino, but they see a ton of 3 time SB Champ Tom Brady.
Winning is what seperates the good from the great.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

i'd say they were probably close overall over the last few seasons
just from what i remember i'd give an edge to the colts on offense,an edge to the pats on defense and sp.teams was pretty much even until the post season.

Last year, I'd agree that the Colts had a better team than NE. They both lost pretty bad in the same round in the playoffs.

Every year before that, I'm sure most people would agree with me that the Pats were the better team.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

There is a ton evidence. The problem is you create some lame excuse to dismiss any factual evidence that proves Brady is as good or better Qb in certain catagories. Look Manning is ONE of the great QB.

Do not take this the wrong way, but you are 18 y.o.; believe it or not there are QB's like Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw, Roger Staubach, Sammie Baugh, John Elway and Steve Young that have combined AWESOME TALENT and winning MULTIPLE (more than one) big games (super bowls). Tom Brady is closer to these all time greats then Manning or Dan Marino is.

You will soon realize America and the World likes a winner and Manning is not YET a winner. NOBODY remembers who came in second place.
Manning will be a winner some day. He is not yet there.
That is what seperates the great players from the all-time greats.
Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Warren Moon , Fran Tarkenton, Archie Manning (peyton's dad) are players that fall in the same catagory as Peyton Manning, Great/Awesome Hall of Fame talent but never won the big games.

20 or 30 years form now your kids will watch old NFL Films of the 80's, 90's, and 2000's and they see a limited amount of a great Dan Marino, but they see a ton of 3 time SB Champ Tom Brady.
Winning is what seperates the good from the great.

Every quarterback you listed there was a truely great player. Anyone that doesn't clump Marino in there with those guys is making a big mistake.

Marino was never a champion, and I'm sure he regrets that, but he was a great Quarterback. When you talk about all time greatest QBs, Marino has to be right up there ahead of some guys who were Champions.

For my money, Elway was the greatest ever. I wasn't impressed as much about his two championships (the Broncos were over the cap both years, and the league office never caught it til 2003 when they took away some midround draft picks), as I was with the fact they came at the end of his career where he was still playing at a very high level.

I believe Peyton Manning could one day be the greatest ever. If he retired tomorrow, I'd place him short of the top 5, but in the top 10.

I don't think you are trying to say America won't remember Marino, but I'm certain they will. The guy's a hall of famer. Guys like Moon, and Archie, and Fran Tarkenton, were very very good players, but didn't do as much stat wise in this league as the all time greats. Brady is on pace to be greater, IMO, then these guys. He has to do it longer than 6 years, he will be up there, probably in the top 5 ever. Will he be greater than Montana or Young? Not sure, he might be. Manning almost certainly will be if the Colts don't fall off the map.

[The Huddle]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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?

I "might be learning"? That's rich. Thanks.

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

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.

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.

[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.