The G.O.A.T.
-
Brady stands in these positions all time for each of these stats:
Yards #5 Manning #2
Completions #5 Manning #2
Attempts #6 Manning #2
TDs #5 Manning #1
Rating #5 Manning #3
Yards per game #8 Manning #3
Completion % #12 Manning #4
Lowest Int. % #2 Manning #18
TD% #22 (note.....all of top ten here are pre-1975 QBs except Rodgers) Manning #14
-
Brady's Ball Sack said:
Modern stats?
I don't think the modern QB, protected in the bubble and comfort of todays league rules can be compared fairly.
When comparing the HITS that Montana, Aikman, and Elway et.al had endure, half of these guys playing today would have been out of the league years ago.
Yes....and even those guys were protected compared to the likes of the 70s/60s/50s etc. QBs.
That is why I said to look at dominance within an era, not cross era.
-
Brady stands in these positions all time for each of these stats:
Yards #5 Manning #2
Completions #5 Manning #2
Attempts #6 Manning #2
TDs #5 Manning #1
Rating #5 Manning #3
Yards per game #8 Manning #3
Completion % #12 Manning #4
Lowest Int. % #2 Manning #18
TD% #22 (note.....all of top ten here are pre-1975 QBs except Rodgers) Manning #14
Zombo said:
Brady stands in these positions all time for each of these stats:
Yards #5 Manning #2
Completions #5 Manning #2
Attempts #6 Manning #2
TDs #5 Manning #1
Rating #5 Manning #3
Yards per game #8 Manning #3
Completion % #12 Manning #4
Lowest Int. % #2 Manning #18
TD% #22 (note.....all of top ten here are pre-1975 QBs except Rodgers) Manning #14
Rating, Yards/game, completion % TD% ... not "volume stats"
-
Brady stands in these positions all time for each of these stats:
Yards #5 Manning #2
Completions #5 Manning #2
Attempts #6 Manning #2
TDs #5 Manning #1
Rating #5 Manning #3
Yards per game #8 Manning #3
Completion % #12 Manning #4
Lowest Int. % #2 Manning #18
TD% #22 (note.....all of top ten here are pre-1975 QBs except Rodgers) Manning #14
Zombo said:
Brady stands in these positions all time for each of these stats:
Yards #5 Manning #2
Completions #5 Manning #2
Attempts #6 Manning #2
TDs #5 Manning #1
Rating #5 Manning #3
Yards per game #8 Manning #3
Completion % #12 Manning #4
Lowest Int. % #2 Manning #18
TD% #22 (note.....all of top ten here are pre-1975 QBs except Rodgers) Manning #14
If we did some yearly averages we could possibly compare. I still think Peyton's volume would be more.
Lets try this: Brady has had 13 years as a starter (he only threw 3 passes his rookie year)
Both Brady and Peyton lost a full year to injury (giving Peyton 16 years as a starter)
Peyton's average yards passing per year: 4355.69
Brady's: 4117.53
Peyton's average number of attempts per year: 565,56
Brady's: 551.36
Peyton has Yds. per att. avg of 7.7
Brady's is 7.4
Peyton has a Yds. per completion avg of 11.8
Brady's is 11.7
So they would probably be thisclose when all is said and done if given the same number of years/games.
-
Zombo said:
Brady stands in these positions all time for each of these stats:
Yards #5 Manning #2
Completions #5 Manning #2
Attempts #6 Manning #2
TDs #5 Manning #1
Rating #5 Manning #3
Yards per game #8 Manning #3
Completion % #12 Manning #4
Lowest Int. % #2 Manning #18
TD% #22 (note.....all of top ten here are pre-1975 QBs except Rodgers) Manning #14
Rating, Yards/game, completion % TD% ... not "volume stats"
Zombo said:
Rating, Yards/game, completion % TD% ... not "volume stats"
But they are still like both top 5 all time in those. (and I think ypg is a volume stat)
Championships and championship game appearance may be however.
-
Zombo said:
Brady stands in these positions all time for each of these stats:
Yards #5 Manning #2
Completions #5 Manning #2
Attempts #6 Manning #2
TDs #5 Manning #1
Rating #5 Manning #3
Yards per game #8 Manning #3
Completion % #12 Manning #4
Lowest Int. % #2 Manning #18
TD% #22 (note.....all of top ten here are pre-1975 QBs except Rodgers) Manning #14
If we did some yearly averages we could possibly compare. I still think Peyton's volume would be more.
Lets try this: Brady has had 13 years as a starter (he only threw 3 passes his rookie year)
Both Brady and Peyton lost a full year to injury (giving Peyton 16 years as a starter)
Peyton's average yards passing per year: 4355.69
Brady's: 4117.53
Peyton's average number of attempts per year: 565,56
Brady's: 551.36
Peyton has Yds. per att. avg of 7.7
Brady's is 7.4
Peyton has a Yds. per completion avg of 11.8
Brady's is 11.7
So they would probably be thisclose when all is said and done if given the same number of years/games.
If we did some yearly averages we could possibly compare. I still think Peyton's volume would be more.
Lets try this: Brady has had 13 years as a starter (he only threw 3 passes his rookie year)
Both Brady and Peyton lost a full year to injury (giving Peyton 16 years as a starter)
Peyton's average yards passing per year: 4355.69
Brady's: 4117.53
Peyton's average number of attempts per year: 565,56
Brady's: 551.36
Peyton has Yds. per att. avg of 7.7
Brady's is 7.4
Peyton has a Yds. per completion avg of 11.8
Brady's is 11.7
So they would probably be thisclose when all is said and done if given the same number of years/games.
You can just use per/game stats.
Here's a couple more "volume" stats though
Game winning drives: Manning #1 with 52, Brady #4 with 45
Comebacks: Manning #1 with 41, Brady #4 with 34
and one more key "prorated" stat:
Career sacked %: Manning #1 with 3.07%, Brady #14 with 4.83
-
Zombo said:
Brady stands in these positions all time for each of these stats:
Yards #5 Manning #2
Completions #5 Manning #2
Attempts #6 Manning #2
TDs #5 Manning #1
Rating #5 Manning #3
Yards per game #8 Manning #3
Completion % #12 Manning #4
Lowest Int. % #2 Manning #18
TD% #22 (note.....all of top ten here are pre-1975 QBs except Rodgers) Manning #14
Rating, Yards/game, completion % TD% ... not "volume stats"
Zombo said:
Rating, Yards/game, completion % TD% ... not "volume stats"
Also....if we look at just those particular stats.....Aaron Rodgers leads both Manning and Brady in every single category.
So look out there.
Rating: Rodgers, Romo, Brees each ahead of both
YPG: Stafford and Brees ahead of both
Completion %: Brees, Rodgers, Warner, Pennington ahead of both
TD%: Luckman, Graham, Baugh, Rodgers ahead of both.
-
If we did some yearly averages we could possibly compare. I still think Peyton's volume would be more.
Lets try this: Brady has had 13 years as a starter (he only threw 3 passes his rookie year)
Both Brady and Peyton lost a full year to injury (giving Peyton 16 years as a starter)
Peyton's average yards passing per year: 4355.69
Brady's: 4117.53
Peyton's average number of attempts per year: 565,56
Brady's: 551.36
Peyton has Yds. per att. avg of 7.7
Brady's is 7.4
Peyton has a Yds. per completion avg of 11.8
Brady's is 11.7
So they would probably be thisclose when all is said and done if given the same number of years/games.
You can just use per/game stats.
Here's a couple more "volume" stats though
Game winning drives: Manning #1 with 52, Brady #4 with 45
Comebacks: Manning #1 with 41, Brady #4 with 34
and one more key "prorated" stat:
Career sacked %: Manning #1 with 3.07%, Brady #14 with 4.83
Zombo said:
You can just use per/game stats.
Here's a couple more "volume" stats though
Game winning drives: Manning #1 with 52, Brady #4 with 45
Comebacks: Manning #1 with 41, Brady #4 with 34
With 3 more years under his belt Manning would have that advantage.....but I predict Brady would surpass those numbers with 16 full starter years....as Manning has had. (Brady at only 13)
and one more key "prorated" stat:
Career sacked %: Manning #1 with 3.07%, Brady #14 with 4.83
I also propound that Brady has not had nearly the kind of talent at WR that Manning has had over the years. Harrison/Wayne.
Only for a brief time did Brady have Moss.
And the guys that Denver has had overall have been much better than NEs WRs over the last couple of years.
-
Too many stats and ways to slice it.....how about using Approximate Value(AV) Ratings....they weigh EVERYTHING into account and give a total value score for the players entire career....stats...wins....years played....etc etc....and based upon AV rating....
Peyton Manning and Brett Favre are tied as the 2 most valuable players to EVER play(not just qbs)....after them, the next 8 are...
3) Fran Tarkenton
4) Dan Marino
5) John Elway
6) Tom Brady
7) Drew Brees
Steve Young9) Warren Moon
10) Joe Montana
-
Zombo said:
You can just use per/game stats.
Here's a couple more "volume" stats though
Game winning drives: Manning #1 with 52, Brady #4 with 45
Comebacks: Manning #1 with 41, Brady #4 with 34
With 3 more years under his belt Manning would have that advantage.....but I predict Brady would surpass those numbers with 16 full starter years....as Manning has had. (Brady at only 13)
and one more key "prorated" stat:
Career sacked %: Manning #1 with 3.07%, Brady #14 with 4.83
I also propound that Brady has not had nearly the kind of talent at WR that Manning has had over the years. Harrison/Wayne.
Only for a brief time did Brady have Moss.
And the guys that Denver has had overall have been much better than NEs WRs over the last couple of years.
Zombo said:
You can just use per/game stats.
Here's a couple more "volume" stats though
Game winning drives: Manning #1 with 52, Brady #4 with 45
Comebacks: Manning #1 with 41, Brady #4 with 34
With 3 more years under his belt Manning would have that advantage.....but I predict Brady would surpass those numbers with 16 full starter years....as Manning has had. (Brady at only 13)
and one more key "prorated" stat:
Career sacked %: Manning #1 with 3.07%, Brady #14 with 4.83
I also propound that Brady has not had nearly the kind of talent at WR that Manning has had over the years. Harrison/Wayne.
Only for a brief time did Brady have Moss.
And the guys that Denver has had overall have been much better than NEs WRs over the last couple of years.
I propound that you want to give Brady credit for seasons he hasn't played yet, could get his arm ripped off in the Super Bowl.
I also propound that it is not Manning's fault that Brady didn't start as a rookie.
Manning started and got beat up, his worst statistical year by far ... but he still wins almost every per/game and per/start stat.
Using your Phipps/Bradshaw thing ... what if Manning played his entire career with Belichick ... I think he'd have at least three rings ... but we'll never know.
Zombo
-
Too many stats and ways to slice it.....how about using Approximate Value(AV) Ratings....they weigh EVERYTHING into account and give a total value score for the players entire career....stats...wins....years played....etc etc....and based upon AV rating....
Peyton Manning and Brett Favre are tied as the 2 most valuable players to EVER play(not just qbs)....after them, the next 8 are...
3) Fran Tarkenton
4) Dan Marino
5) John Elway
6) Tom Brady
7) Drew Brees
Steve Young9) Warren Moon
10) Joe Montana
Too many stats and ways to slice it.....how about using Approximate Value(AV) Ratings....they weigh EVERYTHING into account and give a total value score for the players entire career....stats...wins....years played....etc etc....and based upon AV rating....
Peyton Manning and Brett Favre are tied as the 2 most valuable players to EVER play(not just qbs)....after them, the next 8 are...
3) Fran Tarkenton
4) Dan Marino
5) John Elway
6) Tom Brady
7) Drew Brees
Steve Young9) Warren Moon
10) Joe Montana
But the AV stat is also a volume stat. Believe me, I have used it enough times to know that. The longer and more productive a career is the higher that stat will go.
-
Zombo said:
You can just use per/game stats.
Here's a couple more "volume" stats though
Game winning drives: Manning #1 with 52, Brady #4 with 45
Comebacks: Manning #1 with 41, Brady #4 with 34
With 3 more years under his belt Manning would have that advantage.....but I predict Brady would surpass those numbers with 16 full starter years....as Manning has had. (Brady at only 13)
and one more key "prorated" stat:
Career sacked %: Manning #1 with 3.07%, Brady #14 with 4.83
I also propound that Brady has not had nearly the kind of talent at WR that Manning has had over the years. Harrison/Wayne.
Only for a brief time did Brady have Moss.
And the guys that Denver has had overall have been much better than NEs WRs over the last couple of years.
I propound that you want to give Brady credit for seasons he hasn't played yet, could get his arm ripped off in the Super Bowl.
I also propound that it is not Manning's fault that Brady didn't start as a rookie.
Manning started and got beat up, his worst statistical year by far ... but he still wins almost every per/game and per/start stat.
Using your Phipps/Bradshaw thing ... what if Manning played his entire career with Belichick ... I think he'd have at least three rings ... but we'll never know.
Zombo
Zombo said:
I propound that you want to give Brady credit for seasons he hasn't played yet, could get his arm ripped off in the Super Bowl.
I am saying that if they play the same number of seasons...their stats/production would end up being close to the same. (I also "warned" that Rodgers could surpass them both). Yes, it is a projection.
I also propound that it is not Manning's fault that Brady didn't start as a rookie.
Who is assigning fault? Peyton was the #1 overall pick in the draft and was handed the keys to the mint. Brady was #199 overall and had to wrest the starting position away from another #1 overall pick (Bledsoe).
Manning started and got beat up, his worst statistical year by far ... but he still wins almost every per/game and per/start stat.
He doesn't win the winning pct. stat.
Using your Phipps/Bradshaw thing ... what if Manning played his entire career with Belichick ... I think he'd have at least three rings ... but we'll never know.
No, but you know my view......BBs winning is a factor of having Brady, not vise versa.
Zombo
-
Your right. No one would have otto on that list. Four of his "championships" was in the AAFC, that had eight teams two of which were called the Yankees and the Dodgers! LOL. As far as I'm concerned the Super bowl era is where the Championships should be considered worthwhile, not that ancient history bullshit where lineman weighed 220 lbs. Of course if your a "Homer" those "championships" 70 years ago make you pround, go for it!
You are an idiot.
The game say, in the 70s was a lot more like the game played in the 40s/50s than it is to today's game. Ergo, since the game was so different....we MUST discount any titles won in the 70s....per your theory.
You are an idiot.
The game say, in the 70s was a lot more like the game played in the 40s/50s than it is to today's game. Ergo, since the game was so different....we MUST discount any titles won in the 70s....per your theory.
Hi. Basically starting in the super bowl era players were beginning to be bigger, faster and stronger than the previous decades. If thinking those so called "champinships" from 70 years ago make you feel better about the ineptness of our franchise for the last thirty years go for it, no need to get mad. Tell Ergo I said hi!
-
Brady's Ball Sack said:
Modern stats?
I don't think the modern QB, protected in the bubble and comfort of todays league rules can be compared fairly.
When comparing the HITS that Montana, Aikman, and Elway et.al had endure, half of these guys playing today would have been out of the league years ago.
Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Tony Romo, Rodgers, Rivers never dealt with the constant and legal hits after the ball was thrown. Manning would have been in a wheel chair..
Its impossible to say that these guys couldn't take the same hits. I venture that they could just like physically ungifted Bernie kosar did
-
You are an idiot.
The game say, in the 70s was a lot more like the game played in the 40s/50s than it is to today's game. Ergo, since the game was so different....we MUST discount any titles won in the 70s....per your theory.
Hi. Basically starting in the super bowl era players were beginning to be bigger, faster and stronger than the previous decades. If thinking those so called "champinships" from 70 years ago make you feel better about the ineptness of our franchise for the last thirty years go for it, no need to get mad. Tell Ergo I said hi!
in the 70s 1/8th of the current league didn't exist. The 70s have the same significance as the 60's 50's 40's and beforeHi. Basically starting in the super bowl era players were beginning to be bigger, faster and stronger than the previous decades. If thinking those so called "champinships" from 70 years ago make you feel better about the ineptness of our franchise for the last thirty years go for it, no need to get mad. Tell Ergo I said hi!
-
in the 70s 1/8th of the current league didn't exist. The 70s have the same significance as the 60's 50's 40's and beforeHi. Basically starting in the super bowl era players were beginning to be bigger, faster and stronger than the previous decades. If thinking those so called "champinships" from 70 years ago make you feel better about the ineptness of our franchise for the last thirty years go for it, no need to get mad. Tell Ergo I said hi!
in the 70s 1/8th of the current league didn't exist. The 70s have the same significance as the 60's 50's 40's and before
unless you are a stoolers fan, and then it's when the NFL started
-
You are an idiot.
The game say, in the 70s was a lot more like the game played in the 40s/50s than it is to today's game. Ergo, since the game was so different....we MUST discount any titles won in the 70s....per your theory.
Hi. Basically starting in the super bowl era players were beginning to be bigger, faster and stronger than the previous decades. If thinking those so called "champinships" from 70 years ago make you feel better about the ineptness of our franchise for the last thirty years go for it, no need to get mad. Tell Ergo I said hi!
Hi. Basically starting in the super bowl era players were beginning to be bigger, faster and stronger than the previous decades. If thinking those so called "champinships" from 70 years ago make you feel better about the ineptness of our franchise for the last thirty years go for it, no need to get mad. Tell Ergo I said hi!
Well, you are wrong. You apparently were not alive when all that went down.
As I said, players in the 70s were much, much closer to the size, strength speed of the players in the 50s than they are to today's players. That is an uncontroverted fact. Players, especially linemen did not to get like 300 pounds until the mid 80s.
Also, the nature of the game changed far far in favor of the offense. There was no 5 yard rule, no can't hit the QB rule etc. etc.
Otto Graham and Joe Montana were about the same height/weight.
The Browns last champion qb, Frank Ryan was 6'3". Pretty average for today's QBs.
-
Brady's Ball Sack said:
The physically ungifted Kosar couldn't take the hits either. He fell of the face of the earth faster than any QB I can remember, it just looked worse on him. His arm lost whatever strength it had to begin with, and his mobility became even more of a joke. That kid got belted around something fierce, and if he were playing under today's rules, his career would have been extended.
If we were playing under old rules, the neck fused Manning wouldn't be playing the last two years.
Possibly true about Manning. Kosar got hammered after the Browns OL fell apart, first with the retirement of Cody Risien and then other OL losses. The Browns did nothing much really to get quality OL to replace the lost ones....and BK suffered for it.
-
In 2007 Patriots went 12-4 with Brady. In 2008 they went 11-5 with Matt Cassell
In 2010 Colts went 10-6 with Manning. In 2011 then went 2-14 without him.
Brady not fit to lace Manning's boots.
-
The 2011 colts fully tanked to get luck.
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