Brady: Where Does He Rank?
-
You don't think, all things equal, that Manning is better?
Tom played for one of the best Head Coaches ever, and played on better teams.
Manning was basically the whole Colts offense. Tom went down, and Cassel still took the team to the playoffs.
The Patriots won those superbowls, not Tom Brady and friends. And they had a little help from spygate tbh.
Tom Brady owns Manning 10-4 in head to head appearances, has 3 more Superbowl appearances, two more Superbowl rings, and holds the record for most post season wins of all time.
All of this garbage you bring up is not going to last after they both retire. Whether you like it or not, Brady is going to be remembered as the superior quarterback.
Everything the Manning apologists cite as examples of him being better are all the same things people said about Marino, right up until the day he retired.
How long did it last?
Answer: It didn't.
Because whether you like it or hate it, your feeble arguments for Manning over Brady will not hold up for future generations of fans that aren't emotionally invested in picking sides.
Sorry but you lose. It's inevitable. Time will erode Peyton's media driven place in the GOAT conversation, like it did with Marino and Dan Fouts. Once they retire, it's over.
P.S. Peyton Manning's Colts teams were STACKED with talent. It was just dispersed in different areas of the teams. If Peyton didn't fold like a wet paper bag when it mattered most, history might of recorded HIM as having the superior team. The only reason you say it is the opposite is because BRADY wins and Peyton loses.
Tom Brady owns Manning 10-4 in head to head appearances, has 3 more Superbowl appearances, two more Superbowl rings, and holds the record for most post season wins of all time.
All of this garbage you bring up is not going to last after they both retire. Whether you like it or not, Brady is going to be remembered as the superior quarterback.
Everything the Manning apologists cite as examples of him being better are all the same things people said about Marino, right up until the day he retired.
How long did it last?
Answer: It didn't.
Because whether you like it or hate it, your feeble arguments for Manning over Brady will not hold up for future generations of fans that aren't emotionally invested in picking sides.
Sorry but you lose. It's inevitable. Time will erode Peyton's media driven place in the GOAT conversation, like it did with Marino and Dan Fouts. Once they retire, it's over.
P.S. Peyton Manning's Colts teams were STACKED with talent. It was just dispersed in different areas of the teams. If Peyton didn't fold like a wet paper bag when it mattered most, history might of recorded HIM as having the superior team. The only reason you say it is the opposite is because BRADY wins and Peyton loses.
Do the eyeball test. Who is better? I don't care about rings or head to head stats. Those are products of teams accomplishments. Manning is a better QB. End of story.
Swap Manning and Brady on those pats and colts teams, and I bet Manning wins just as many superbowls, if not more.
-
Ok, bro, well in your alternate universe and bizzaro history, where Peyton wins six Superbowls as a Patriot, and Tom Brady sold car insurance, I guess your fantasy dictates Peyton is better.
Maybe you should write a comic book about it.
However, here in the real world, Brady is Mr. Clutch and Peyton has a REPUTATION for sucking in the cold, sucking in the play offs, and sucking when he's not just stat-compiling against an NFL bottom feeder in October.
Eye test says Brady.
Eye test was pretty clear two weeks ago if you missed it,
-
Ok, bro, well in your alternate universe and bizzaro history, where Peyton wins six Superbowls as a Patriot, and Tom Brady sold car insurance, I guess your fantasy dictates Peyton is better.
Maybe you should write a comic book about it.
However, here in the real world, Brady is Mr. Clutch and Peyton has a REPUTATION for sucking in the cold, sucking in the play offs, and sucking when he's not just stat-compiling against an NFL bottom feeder in October.
Eye test says Brady.
Eye test was pretty clear two weeks ago if you missed it,
Ok, bro, well in your alternate universe and bizzaro history, where Peyton wins six Superbowls as a Patriot, and Tom Brady sold car insurance, I guess your fantasy dictates Peyton is better.
Maybe you should write a comic book about it.
However, here in the real world, Brady is Mr. Clutch and Peyton has a REPUTATION for sucking in the cold, sucking in the play offs, and sucking when he's not just stat-compiling against an NFL bottom feeder in October.
Eye test says Brady.
Eye test was pretty clear two weeks ago if you missed it,
I think you're being a little of a Patriot homer. Brady and Manning are both great qbs, both lock first ballot HOFers. I don't necessarily buy the "I've got more rings than you do" argument that makes him a better qb. Montana has the rings, Farve has the stats- so who's better? You can argue that one till you're blue in the face. It will be the same way with Manning and Brady.
Incidentally I didn't miss that game nice luck out on a gift from the Donkeys in OT.
-
Ok, bro, well in your alternate universe and bizzaro history, where Peyton wins six Superbowls as a Patriot, and Tom Brady sold car insurance, I guess your fantasy dictates Peyton is better.
Maybe you should write a comic book about it.
However, here in the real world, Brady is Mr. Clutch and Peyton has a REPUTATION for sucking in the cold, sucking in the play offs, and sucking when he's not just stat-compiling against an NFL bottom feeder in October.
Eye test says Brady.
Eye test was pretty clear two weeks ago if you missed it,
I think you're being a little of a Patriot homer. Brady and Manning are both great qbs, both lock first ballot HOFers. I don't necessarily buy the "I've got more rings than you do" argument that makes him a better qb. Montana has the rings, Farve has the stats- so who's better? You can argue that one till you're blue in the face. It will be the same way with Manning and Brady.
Incidentally I didn't miss that game nice luck out on a gift from the Donkeys in OT.
I think you're being a little of a Patriot homer. Brady and Manning are both great qbs, both lock first ballot HOFers. I don't necessarily buy the "I've got more rings than you do" argument that makes him a better qb. Montana has the rings, Farve has the stats- so who's better? You can argue that one till you're blue in the face. It will be the same way with Manning and Brady.
Incidentally I didn't miss that game nice luck out on a gift from the Donkeys in OT.
We gifted them 17 points to start the half, so I don't think talking about OT gifts is really that relevant.
Tom Brady was breathing fire on Denver. Manning was sputtering along for 150 passing yards in 5 quarters of play.
Rings > Stats.
Throwing five or six touchdown passes against the Raiders or some other bottom feeder in week #3 is one thing.
Blazing a war path through the post season tournament, where there are no NFL bottom feeders and regular season push overs, is something entirely different.
Aaron Rodgers put it perfectly: The regular season is where you earn your pay check. The play offs is where you build your Legacy.
Stats are for losers.
There's a reason whymany football fans who weren't even alive when Montana played football, and never saw him play a single down, still regard him as the GOAT.
Achievements of the Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, and Peyton Manning caliber, are only discussed and celebrated while that player is playing. After retirement, they falter out of the GOAT discussion as the years tick by, and rightfully so. Peyton fanboys don't believe that will happen, but I remember when Marino retired, and it was the same thing. "Who is better? Montana or Marino?" That lasted right up until Marino hung up his boots. Now? Not even discussed. The answer is more or less universally answered "Montana"
And it'll be the same way 15 years from now with Brady and Peyton.
17 + post season wins, 5 Superbowls, 3 rings is real and it stands the test of time.
Beating up on scrubs in weak divisions then having a losing play off record, with 8 one and done's, will NOT stand the test of time.
The NFL fan that was born 5 years ago, and has no emotional investment in Manning, won't be celebrating the fact he could throw for 450 yards against a 2-5 team in October in the year 2025.
Dan Marino's legacy faded fast 5 years after he was out of the league. Sam with Dan Fouts. It'll be the same for Manning.
And Brady will remain up in the conversation with Joe Montana. forever, even with future fans who never saw him play.
-
But Brady looks like a fag.
-
A fag who bangs Giselle and, you know, anyone else he wants ever.
-
-
I think you're being a little of a Patriot homer. Brady and Manning are both great qbs, both lock first ballot HOFers. I don't necessarily buy the "I've got more rings than you do" argument that makes him a better qb. Montana has the rings, Farve has the stats- so who's better? You can argue that one till you're blue in the face. It will be the same way with Manning and Brady.
Incidentally I didn't miss that game nice luck out on a gift from the Donkeys in OT.
We gifted them 17 points to start the half, so I don't think talking about OT gifts is really that relevant.
Tom Brady was breathing fire on Denver. Manning was sputtering along for 150 passing yards in 5 quarters of play.
Rings > Stats.
Throwing five or six touchdown passes against the Raiders or some other bottom feeder in week #3 is one thing.
Blazing a war path through the post season tournament, where there are no NFL bottom feeders and regular season push overs, is something entirely different.
Aaron Rodgers put it perfectly: The regular season is where you earn your pay check. The play offs is where you build your Legacy.
Stats are for losers.
There's a reason whymany football fans who weren't even alive when Montana played football, and never saw him play a single down, still regard him as the GOAT.
Achievements of the Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, and Peyton Manning caliber, are only discussed and celebrated while that player is playing. After retirement, they falter out of the GOAT discussion as the years tick by, and rightfully so. Peyton fanboys don't believe that will happen, but I remember when Marino retired, and it was the same thing. "Who is better? Montana or Marino?" That lasted right up until Marino hung up his boots. Now? Not even discussed. The answer is more or less universally answered "Montana"
And it'll be the same way 15 years from now with Brady and Peyton.
17 + post season wins, 5 Superbowls, 3 rings is real and it stands the test of time.
Beating up on scrubs in weak divisions then having a losing play off record, with 8 one and done's, will NOT stand the test of time.
The NFL fan that was born 5 years ago, and has no emotional investment in Manning, won't be celebrating the fact he could throw for 450 yards against a 2-5 team in October in the year 2025.
Dan Marino's legacy faded fast 5 years after he was out of the league. Sam with Dan Fouts. It'll be the same for Manning.
And Brady will remain up in the conversation with Joe Montana. forever, even with future fans who never saw him play.
We gifted them 17 points to start the half, so I don't think talking about OT gifts is really that relevant.
Tom Brady was breathing fire on Denver. Manning was sputtering along for 150 passing yards in 5 quarters of play.
Rings > Stats.
Throwing five or six touchdown passes against the Raiders or some other bottom feeder in week #3 is one thing.
Blazing a war path through the post season tournament, where there are no NFL bottom feeders and regular season push overs, is something entirely different.
Aaron Rodgers put it perfectly: The regular season is where you earn your pay check. The play offs is where you build your Legacy.
Stats are for losers.
There's a reason whymany football fans who weren't even alive when Montana played football, and never saw him play a single down, still regard him as the GOAT.
Achievements of the Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, and Peyton Manning caliber, are only discussed and celebrated while that player is playing. After retirement, they falter out of the GOAT discussion as the years tick by, and rightfully so. Peyton fanboys don't believe that will happen, but I remember when Marino retired, and it was the same thing. "Who is better? Montana or Marino?" That lasted right up until Marino hung up his boots. Now? Not even discussed. The answer is more or less universally answered "Montana"
And it'll be the same way 15 years from now with Brady and Peyton.
17 + post season wins, 5 Superbowls, 3 rings is real and it stands the test of time.
Beating up on scrubs in weak divisions then having a losing play off record, with 8 one and done's, will NOT stand the test of time.
The NFL fan that was born 5 years ago, and has no emotional investment in Manning, won't be celebrating the fact he could throw for 450 yards against a 2-5 team in October in the year 2025.
Dan Marino's legacy faded fast 5 years after he was out of the league. Sam with Dan Fouts. It'll be the same for Manning.
And Brady will remain up in the conversation with Joe Montana. forever, even with future fans who never saw him play.
You are being ridiculous. I never even said Brady was not a great QB. I just think Manning is a better QB, all things equal. I didn't say he had more rings. I didn't say he played for better teams.
Rings don't mean shit when evaulating individual positions. Those are team accomplishments. Trent Dilfer has a ring, is a he a better QB than Dan Marino? Fuck, Bradshaw has 4 rings and he was not better than Dan Marino.
Why does your vagina bleed when someone has a different opinion? Shove a tampon in there, and accept that this topic is debatable. Stop being a whiny little bitch like your QB is on Sundays.
-
Manning's wife: advantage: Brady
-
We gifted them 17 points to start the half, so I don't think talking about OT gifts is really that relevant.
Tom Brady was breathing fire on Denver. Manning was sputtering along for 150 passing yards in 5 quarters of play.
Rings > Stats.
Throwing five or six touchdown passes against the Raiders or some other bottom feeder in week #3 is one thing.
Blazing a war path through the post season tournament, where there are no NFL bottom feeders and regular season push overs, is something entirely different.
Aaron Rodgers put it perfectly: The regular season is where you earn your pay check. The play offs is where you build your Legacy.
Stats are for losers.
There's a reason whymany football fans who weren't even alive when Montana played football, and never saw him play a single down, still regard him as the GOAT.
Achievements of the Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, and Peyton Manning caliber, are only discussed and celebrated while that player is playing. After retirement, they falter out of the GOAT discussion as the years tick by, and rightfully so. Peyton fanboys don't believe that will happen, but I remember when Marino retired, and it was the same thing. "Who is better? Montana or Marino?" That lasted right up until Marino hung up his boots. Now? Not even discussed. The answer is more or less universally answered "Montana"
And it'll be the same way 15 years from now with Brady and Peyton.
17 + post season wins, 5 Superbowls, 3 rings is real and it stands the test of time.
Beating up on scrubs in weak divisions then having a losing play off record, with 8 one and done's, will NOT stand the test of time.
The NFL fan that was born 5 years ago, and has no emotional investment in Manning, won't be celebrating the fact he could throw for 450 yards against a 2-5 team in October in the year 2025.
Dan Marino's legacy faded fast 5 years after he was out of the league. Sam with Dan Fouts. It'll be the same for Manning.
And Brady will remain up in the conversation with Joe Montana. forever, even with future fans who never saw him play.
You are being ridiculous. I never even said Brady was not a great QB. I just think Manning is a better QB, all things equal. I didn't say he had more rings. I didn't say he played for better teams.
Rings don't mean shit when evaulating individual positions. Those are team accomplishments. Trent Dilfer has a ring, is a he a better QB than Dan Marino? Fuck, Bradshaw has 4 rings and he was not better than Dan Marino.
Why does your vagina bleed when someone has a different opinion? Shove a tampon in there, and accept that this topic is debatable. Stop being a whiny little bitch like your QB is on Sundays.
You are being ridiculous. I never even said Brady was not a great QB. I just think Manning is a better QB, all things equal. I didn't say he had more rings. I didn't say he played for better teams.
Rings don't mean shit when evaulating individual positions. Those are team accomplishments. Trent Dilfer has a ring, is a he a better QB than Dan Marino? Fuck, Bradshaw has 4 rings and he was not better than Dan Marino.
Why does your vagina bleed when someone has a different opinion? Shove a tampon in there, and accept that this topic is debatable. Stop being a whiny little bitch like your QB is on Sundays.
There is no aspect in which Favre is considered over Montana for greatest of all time nor will there be any aspect in which manning is considered greater than Brady in the end. If they go head to head again in the playoffs Brady will once again punch Manning's ticket home
-
We gifted them 17 points to start the half, so I don't think talking about OT gifts is really that relevant.
Tom Brady was breathing fire on Denver. Manning was sputtering along for 150 passing yards in 5 quarters of play.
Rings > Stats.
Throwing five or six touchdown passes against the Raiders or some other bottom feeder in week #3 is one thing.
Blazing a war path through the post season tournament, where there are no NFL bottom feeders and regular season push overs, is something entirely different.
Aaron Rodgers put it perfectly: The regular season is where you earn your pay check. The play offs is where you build your Legacy.
Stats are for losers.
There's a reason whymany football fans who weren't even alive when Montana played football, and never saw him play a single down, still regard him as the GOAT.
Achievements of the Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, and Peyton Manning caliber, are only discussed and celebrated while that player is playing. After retirement, they falter out of the GOAT discussion as the years tick by, and rightfully so. Peyton fanboys don't believe that will happen, but I remember when Marino retired, and it was the same thing. "Who is better? Montana or Marino?" That lasted right up until Marino hung up his boots. Now? Not even discussed. The answer is more or less universally answered "Montana"
And it'll be the same way 15 years from now with Brady and Peyton.
17 + post season wins, 5 Superbowls, 3 rings is real and it stands the test of time.
Beating up on scrubs in weak divisions then having a losing play off record, with 8 one and done's, will NOT stand the test of time.
The NFL fan that was born 5 years ago, and has no emotional investment in Manning, won't be celebrating the fact he could throw for 450 yards against a 2-5 team in October in the year 2025.
Dan Marino's legacy faded fast 5 years after he was out of the league. Sam with Dan Fouts. It'll be the same for Manning.
And Brady will remain up in the conversation with Joe Montana. forever, even with future fans who never saw him play.
You are being ridiculous. I never even said Brady was not a great QB. I just think Manning is a better QB, all things equal. I didn't say he had more rings. I didn't say he played for better teams.
Rings don't mean shit when evaulating individual positions. Those are team accomplishments. Trent Dilfer has a ring, is a he a better QB than Dan Marino? Fuck, Bradshaw has 4 rings and he was not better than Dan Marino.
Why does your vagina bleed when someone has a different opinion? Shove a tampon in there, and accept that this topic is debatable. Stop being a whiny little bitch like your QB is on Sundays.
You are being ridiculous. I never even said Brady was not a great QB. I just think Manning is a better QB, all things equal. I didn't say he had more rings. I didn't say he played for better teams.
Rings don't mean shit when evaulating individual positions. Those are team accomplishments. Trent Dilfer has a ring, is a he a better QB than Dan Marino? Fuck, Bradshaw has 4 rings and he was not better than Dan Marino.
Why does your vagina bleed when someone has a different opinion? Shove a tampon in there, and accept that this topic is debatable. Stop being a whiny little bitch like your QB is on Sundays.
So rings are team accomplishments but individual statistics belong to the individual? So if Peyton Manning throws a five yard dump off to Decker, and Decker avoids 3 tackles and runs 60 yards for a touchdown, that's all on Peyton Manning? And if Tom Brady throws a bomb over Baghdad into triple coverage, and Randy Moss comes down with it for the touchdown, that's all on Brady?
Individual statistics are as much a team effort as a Superbowl.
Give Tom Brady or Peyton Manning 4 Calvin Johnsons and they would throw for 70 TD's in a season with 7,000 yards.
If you want to hold up stats as some end all be all, but dismiss CHAMPIONSHIPS like the QB was a spectator for them, or a losing play off record, like Peyton had nothing to do with it, you're just being disingenious
-
Brady doesn't have the stats of Manning, or Brees or even Rodgers , but if I had to win one game I would take Brady over those 3 all day long
-
He has certain stats over some of them and certain stats that are behind the others, which is the exact same for all of them.
But if you want a W, tom Brady is your man. I agree, and I've never seen a QB just breath fire on a defense in a big game like Brady, EVER. The near comeback vrs San Fran, or last years Houston game, or this years Denver game are great examples. It's like he gets personally offended at losing and starts making STATEMENT plays in ways I've just never seen from another QB.
The confidence he gives his team is uncanny.
-
I think you're being a little of a Patriot homer. Brady and Manning are both great qbs, both lock first ballot HOFers. I don't necessarily buy the "I've got more rings than you do" argument that makes him a better qb. Montana has the rings, Farve has the stats- so who's better? You can argue that one till you're blue in the face. It will be the same way with Manning and Brady.
Incidentally I didn't miss that game nice luck out on a gift from the Donkeys in OT.
We gifted them 17 points to start the half, so I don't think talking about OT gifts is really that relevant.
Tom Brady was breathing fire on Denver. Manning was sputtering along for 150 passing yards in 5 quarters of play.
Rings > Stats.
Throwing five or six touchdown passes against the Raiders or some other bottom feeder in week #3 is one thing.
Blazing a war path through the post season tournament, where there are no NFL bottom feeders and regular season push overs, is something entirely different.
Aaron Rodgers put it perfectly: The regular season is where you earn your pay check. The play offs is where you build your Legacy.
Stats are for losers.
There's a reason whymany football fans who weren't even alive when Montana played football, and never saw him play a single down, still regard him as the GOAT.
Achievements of the Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, and Peyton Manning caliber, are only discussed and celebrated while that player is playing. After retirement, they falter out of the GOAT discussion as the years tick by, and rightfully so. Peyton fanboys don't believe that will happen, but I remember when Marino retired, and it was the same thing. "Who is better? Montana or Marino?" That lasted right up until Marino hung up his boots. Now? Not even discussed. The answer is more or less universally answered "Montana"
And it'll be the same way 15 years from now with Brady and Peyton.
17 + post season wins, 5 Superbowls, 3 rings is real and it stands the test of time.
Beating up on scrubs in weak divisions then having a losing play off record, with 8 one and done's, will NOT stand the test of time.
The NFL fan that was born 5 years ago, and has no emotional investment in Manning, won't be celebrating the fact he could throw for 450 yards against a 2-5 team in October in the year 2025.
Dan Marino's legacy faded fast 5 years after he was out of the league. Sam with Dan Fouts. It'll be the same for Manning.
And Brady will remain up in the conversation with Joe Montana. forever, even with future fans who never saw him play.
We gifted them 17 points to start the half, so I don't think talking about OT gifts is really that relevant.
Tom Brady was breathing fire on Denver. Manning was sputtering along for 150 passing yards in 5 quarters of play.
Rings > Stats.
Throwing five or six touchdown passes against the Raiders or some other bottom feeder in week #3 is one thing.
Blazing a war path through the post season tournament, where there are no NFL bottom feeders and regular season push overs, is something entirely different.
Aaron Rodgers put it perfectly: The regular season is where you earn your pay check. The play offs is where you build your Legacy.
Stats are for losers.
There's a reason whymany football fans who weren't even alive when Montana played football, and never saw him play a single down, still regard him as the GOAT.
Achievements of the Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, and Peyton Manning caliber, are only discussed and celebrated while that player is playing. After retirement, they falter out of the GOAT discussion as the years tick by, and rightfully so. Peyton fanboys don't believe that will happen, but I remember when Marino retired, and it was the same thing. "Who is better? Montana or Marino?" That lasted right up until Marino hung up his boots. Now? Not even discussed. The answer is more or less universally answered "Montana"
And it'll be the same way 15 years from now with Brady and Peyton.
17 + post season wins, 5 Superbowls, 3 rings is real and it stands the test of time.
Beating up on scrubs in weak divisions then having a losing play off record, with 8 one and done's, will NOT stand the test of time.
The NFL fan that was born 5 years ago, and has no emotional investment in Manning, won't be celebrating the fact he could throw for 450 yards against a 2-5 team in October in the year 2025.
Dan Marino's legacy faded fast 5 years after he was out of the league. Sam with Dan Fouts. It'll be the same for Manning.
And Brady will remain up in the conversation with Joe Montana. forever, even with future fans who never saw him play.
Look, quite honestly I don't care which QB is better because both can clearly help their team's win a Super Bowl. And that is all that really matters. But almost all of your stats that you credit solely to Brady are TEAM stats. Saying Brady is 10-4 against Manning is idiotic since neither player directly lines up against one another. Manning threw for 150 yards in 5 quarters because the patriots gave up nearly 300 yards on the ground. There is no need for Manning to throw when the running game is that effective. You then go onto say stats are for losers and then use TEAM stats to credit Brady as the GOAT. Brady is an awesome QB but you have to take the blinders off and put together an unbiased opinion..
-
You are being ridiculous. I never even said Brady was not a great QB. I just think Manning is a better QB, all things equal. I didn't say he had more rings. I didn't say he played for better teams.
Rings don't mean shit when evaulating individual positions. Those are team accomplishments. Trent Dilfer has a ring, is a he a better QB than Dan Marino? Fuck, Bradshaw has 4 rings and he was not better than Dan Marino.
Why does your vagina bleed when someone has a different opinion? Shove a tampon in there, and accept that this topic is debatable. Stop being a whiny little bitch like your QB is on Sundays.
So rings are team accomplishments but individual statistics belong to the individual? So if Peyton Manning throws a five yard dump off to Decker, and Decker avoids 3 tackles and runs 60 yards for a touchdown, that's all on Peyton Manning? And if Tom Brady throws a bomb over Baghdad into triple coverage, and Randy Moss comes down with it for the touchdown, that's all on Brady?
Individual statistics are as much a team effort as a Superbowl.
Give Tom Brady or Peyton Manning 4 Calvin Johnsons and they would throw for 70 TD's in a season with 7,000 yards.
If you want to hold up stats as some end all be all, but dismiss CHAMPIONSHIPS like the QB was a spectator for them, or a losing play off record, like Peyton had nothing to do with it, you're just being disingenious
So rings are team accomplishments but individual statistics belong to the individual? So if Peyton Manning throws a five yard dump off to Decker, and Decker avoids 3 tackles and runs 60 yards for a touchdown, that's all on Peyton Manning? And if Tom Brady throws a bomb over Baghdad into triple coverage, and Randy Moss comes down with it for the touchdown, that's all on Brady?
Individual statistics are as much a team effort as a Superbowl.
Give Tom Brady or Peyton Manning 4 Calvin Johnsons and they would throw for 70 TD's in a season with 7,000 yards.
If you want to hold up stats as some end all be all, but dismiss CHAMPIONSHIPS like the QB was a spectator for them, or a losing play off record, like Peyton had nothing to do with it, you're just being disingenious
Terry Bradshaw > Tom Brady. Rings are what matters right? I am not dismissing championships, but come the fuck on man. Brady was on a much better team than Manning. The Colts defense was terrible for most of his tenure with the Colts. Plus Belichick is one of the best coaches in the history of the NFL. Though, I say once again, what has your team done post spygate?
Anyway if head to head record means anything, Eli Manning is apparently better than Brady too. He beat Brady twice in Superbowls....
Get real. This isn't Tennis. Head to head record means nothing. If you only compare Brady vs. Manning, then Manning is better. It is what it is. I don't get why it's so hard to understand.
I am not a Brady hater. He is hall of fame, top 5 QB for sure. But He isn't better than Manning, and He isn't better than Dan Marino even. Marino has zero rings. But played in an era that didn't favor the offense.
-
Ok, bro, well in your alternate universe and bizzaro history, where Peyton wins six Superbowls as a Patriot, and Tom Brady sold car insurance, I guess your fantasy dictates Peyton is better.
Maybe you should write a comic book about it.
However, here in the real world, Brady is Mr. Clutch and Peyton has a REPUTATION for sucking in the cold, sucking in the play offs, and sucking when he's not just stat-compiling against an NFL bottom feeder in October.
Eye test says Brady.
Eye test was pretty clear two weeks ago if you missed it,
I think you're being a little of a Patriot homer. Brady and Manning are both great qbs, both lock first ballot HOFers. I don't necessarily buy the "I've got more rings than you do" argument that makes him a better qb. Montana has the rings, Farve has the stats- so who's better? You can argue that one till you're blue in the face. It will be the same way with Manning and Brady.
Incidentally I didn't miss that game nice luck out on a gift from the Donkeys in OT.
Well put, HT...
I think you're being a little of a Patriot homer.
Ya think?
Individual statistics are as much a team effort as a Superbowl.
If you want to hold up stats as some end all be all, but dismiss CHAMPIONSHIPS like the QB was a spectator for them, or a losing play off record, like Peyton had nothing to do with it, you're just being disingenious
To argue that team effort impact on individual stats is as great as SB wins is ludicrous. Any single game, let alone an entire SB season, involves a team's Offense and Defense. I'm pretty sure a QB only directly impacts the Offense.
Equally ludicrous is your maintaining that Manning benefited from playing on "stacked" teams in Indy.
Brady is the most competitive/ driven QB in the game today. It has fueled him to greatness. That he still plays with the intensity he does given the years of success he has enjoyed is nearly unbelievable.
Manning is the greatest field general in the game today. Physically he is simply not the player he was...
I would love to have to choose between them in their prime. But as the OP pointed out this thread is about today... and today I take Aaron Rogers.
As for posterity...
Bart Starr won a lot of SBs.
Joe Namath won one.
Greater QB?
-
Yeah, Irsay even admitted that Peyton would've won more SBs if he had brought in better talent.
No he didn't. He didn't say that at all. He said, in a nut shell, that he got rid of Peyton because he couldn't win when it counted, even though they surrounded him with the weapons to give him the most elite offense in football.
Nice misrepresentation.
No he didn't. He didn't say that at all. He said, in a nut shell, that he got rid of Peyton because he couldn't win when it counted, even though they surrounded him with the weapons to give him the most elite offense in football.
Nice misrepresentation.
"Irsay meant to say that with better special teams and defense, Manning would've had more success in Indy."
-
Brady does have the Refs in his pocket. Would that make him the best?
-
Brady always gets the call, that makes him good.
IMO Peyton is the best game manager and qb.
-
Here is the end of this discussion:
Tom Brady is the better Quarterback
You can close the thread now
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login