It is, perhaps, the most popular debate in Pro Football. They are considered by most to be the top two quarterbacks in the game and of their generation. The storied history between these two players dates back all the way to 2001. The question of who is the better quarterback is the topic of discussion in this article.
I will explain in detail, both sides of the argument. Highlighting the key points that most people use when declaring one of the players as better then the other. I will now begin with the points made in Peyton Manning's favor and explain why these factors contribute to him being a better quarterback then Tom Brady.
I will begin with the rebuilding of the Indianapolis Colts. Manning was drafted No. 1 overall in the 1998 NFL Draft. The 1997 Colts were a 3-13 team that was the weakest power in professional football.
When Manning took over in 1998, they were not much better. The team struggled and again finished with a 3-13 record. Manning however was the shining star of the team and went on to break several rookie passing records for most completions, yards, and touchdowns. He finished second in the Rookie of The Year voting.
1999 was a year of major success as Manning's leadership and production took what was a 3-13 team the year before, and finished with a 13-3 record in 1999. To this date, it is the largest turn-around in NFL history. Manning, within one year, was able to take the worst team in Pro Football and turn them into an NFL powerhouse.
Manning had to help transform the weakest team in the game into the Colts that most people know them for today.
That struggle of having to rebuild is not something that Tom Brady ever had to face. When he took over the Patriots in 2001, he was part of a very good team. Some might argue that since the Patriots were 0-2 before Brady replaced Drew Bledsoe, that Brady was the main factor in them finishing 11-5. I'm sure he helped, but he wasn't alone.
The Patriots had the sixth ranked defense in the league in 2001 as opposed to the Colts who had the 29th ranked defense in 1998. Essentially, Manning was not getting the help on the other side of the ball that Brady was.
To prove my point, Brady was able to defeat the very powerful St. Louis Rams in Super Bowl XXXVI by completing only 59 % of his passes for 145 yards and 1 TD. This earned him Super Bowl MVP honors! Do you think the Colts would have beaten the Bears in Super Bowl XLI had Manning produced that little? That was the kind of backing that Tom Brady had during his career. Not every game, but certainly enough to make it so he was under far less pressure then Manning was more often then not.
The next point that illustrates Manning's superiority is the high statistical production. Simply put, Brady has not been as productive as Manning. The term "big numbers guy" gets unfairly used in derogatory fashion when talking about Peyton Manning as if being productive is somehow a bad thing. Bottom line is that Manning has done more for his team then Brady has done for his. If you don't believe me, look at the numbers...
Peyton Manning: 44,194 yards, 323 TD's, 162 INT's, 94.2 QB Rating
Tom Brady: 26,446 yards, 196 TD's, 86 INT's, 92.9 QB Rating
comments (48) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
"The story originated from a Boston reporter (who certainly couldn't be biased) who claimed that a person who worked inside the RCA dome told him the Colts big secret."
Just like this story is originating from someone clearly without personal bias.
about 1 month ago
Interesting article, can't say I totally agree with your conclusion, but I know that statistics and even intangibles can be used to support any argument.
One point I would dispute is the idea that here in NE we had a "Super Bowl caliber team" before Brady took over. At 0-2, Drew Bledsoe's best skills were making excuses and pointing fingers. I don't honestly believe that the rest of the team respected him much, and I know a lot of fans (including myself) who were sick of his act. He was a 3-step drop-back-and-throw type of QB who was entirely incapable of improvising anything or getting himself out of trouble. He was getting the big bucks and being treated like a superstar, but this team was never going to the SB with him under center. Period.
Enter Tom Brady. Three SBs in 4 years, what more is there to say? He was just some kid, not the superstar who was dragging down the rest of the team. The irony, of course, is that Brady is now the friggin' superstar. The difference is that Brady has never made excuses and has never dragged down the rest of the team. If anything, he has built it up by taking pay cuts to enable the Pats to bring in expensive talent.
Drew Bledsoe has a SB ring, but it's compliments of Tom Brady and the rest of the team who somehow, miraculously came to life when Bledsoe went down. I hate to see anybody get hurt, but that hideous injury to Bledsoe was the dawn of a new day in NE.
Bledsoe was the most overrated player in the league. If you don't believe me, talk to some Buffalo fans, and don't forget the folks in Dallas. So no, Tom Brady did not inherit a SB-bound team. He helped to create one. That should count for something.
about 1 month ago
I do not believe Bledsoe is overrated. I think most people view him as a "poor-man's Dan Marino" which is not a bad thing either.
I wouldn't say he has only Brady to thank for his 1 Super Bowl ring, he was the guy who helped the Patriots win the 2001 AFC Championship game if you remember. He did will for one year in Buffalo but was way past his prime when he reached Dallas.
His better days were in the 90's when leading the Pats to the Super Bowl in 1997. I agree that Brady is better then Bledsoe but I think some people are a little too harsh on Drew.
from about 1 month ago
A "poor-man's Dan Marino" is not something to be proud of. The comical part of the whole Bledsoe-Brady thing was that Bledsoe actually thought he was the better QB, hence his assumption that, once his injury healed, he would take his "rightful" place under center. His over-inflated ego was so offended that he wouldn't even accompany the team to the White House for that little post-SB ritual. Real team guy. Yeah.
Yes, Bledsoe WAS the most overrated QB in the NFL, and nowhere more than in his own mind. Read my comment again and you will see that I did not say that "he has only Brady to thank for his 1 Super Bowl ring". I said Brady and the rest of the team. And that is exactly the point. Bledsoe thought he WAS the team.
The record speaks for itself.
Anyway, never mind Bledsoe, he's old news or, really, never was news. I only brought up the dismal memory to make a point about Brady.
For further edification, read Alexeiv's comments below. Here again, I think the record speaks for itself.
about 1 month ago
Notice Brady has a TD to INT Ratio of 2.22 while Manning is 1.9
The other thing is Brady didn't have the receivers Manning had.
The other thing is, 4 Super Bowls to 1, 3 wins to 1.
Manning is a choker, he choked big time in 2005 and last season as well.
Sorry, but no.
This is like the argument between Montana and Marino, Montana wins the argument 9 of 10 times because Montana won 4 Super Bowls and had the better TD to INT ratio.
from about 1 month ago
Oh if you didn't know, Manning's first 3 playoff runs, 0-3.
Brady's first 3 playoff runs, 12-0.
from about 1 month ago
But the reasons that you claim for Brady to be better then Manning were addressed in the article, there you will find the rebuttle.
from about 1 month ago
Alexevi--Brady started 10-0. Not 12-0. 3 in 2001, 3 in 2003, 3 in 2004, 1 in 2005, then a loss.
about 1 month ago
The argument that if a QB is a team's offense that somehow makes that QB better is absurd.
Don't you think that the team's one dimensional style of offense has contributed more to Manning's great numbers?
You will notice that whenever there is a significant injury on the receiving core, Manning suffers.
How is Manning doing this season?
The Colts are a pass first team.
Brady is the better QB also because of his scrambling, Manning, like Marino cannot run, literally it's funny to see them run.
Brady doesn't run often, but when he needs to he runs well, and he's become more accurate than Manning in the past few seasons.
from about 1 month ago
hmm...a one dimensional offense? not true sir? Can you name any runningbacks that were colts backs, that were NFL Rushing Champs? Oh boy i sure can..check your stats first bud..but anyways, our running game suffers this year definately..but you cannot say we have a 1 demensional offense.
about 1 month ago
Manning is better than Brady because Manning can actually walk on two legs.
Brady is a bed-ridden cripple who people laugh at ...thanks to the MIGHTY Bernard Pollard.
Why are we comparing someone who can walk with someone who cannot?
Maybe we should compare Tom Brady to an injured quail ...or perhaps roadkill.
from about 1 month ago
What is a "team's offense", I don't understand the gramatical context of your sentence.
Anyway, no team has been more multi-dimensional then the Colts. Every starting running back who has played with Manning has gone to the Pro Bowl, Marshall Faulk, Edgerrin James, and Joseph Addai. they have all benefited from Manning's passing game.
As a matter of fact, the colts have been so good at two sides of the ball that Edgerrin James has more rushing yards then any other active running back, Manning is 2nd in every passing category only behind Favre who has played 7 more years then him.
Manning might not be a scrambling QB but he is better then his feet then Brady. He might not run for quite as many yards, but he more then makes up for it by using his feet to throw for far many yards and TD's.
I'm not seeing your point.
from about 1 month ago
Dracula's Buttocks,
Your name fits you, because this is one of the worst arguments I have ever heard. Tom Brady is currently injured. He had played in every game of his career before this year.
about 1 month ago
You play the game for rings not stat's, Manning had the players he had and Tom did the same. In the end who has more rings; this subject is so old to many people in Boston and the surrounding area. We judge greatness on championships in all sports and I'm not talking about the bench warmers. I'm talking about the leaders on the team that puts players on their back and makes them better. It took a cheap shot to give everyone hope they could win when he finally got a wide receiver. Now I know what it feels like to be a Yankee fan with everyone hating you because you win all the time. For all you haters still out there I have two things to say to you; Brady will be back next year and the nightmare begins and Bill Russell 11 NBA championships beat that Jordan.
from about 1 month ago
I'm not sure that I understand what you're talking about. What was the cheap shot?
Was it Bernard Pollard's season-ending destruction of that little girl Brady, or the NY Giants physically dominating and brutal manhandling of him (and the entire Patriot team) in the Super Bowl?
Just wanted to be sure you clarified what you meant.
about 1 month ago
If Brady doesnt Make his reciever look better how come Reche "butterhands" Calldwell has never had another 60 reception season and how about Jabar Gaffney with 21 post season receptions in 06 brady showed that mediocre starters can look good with him and if caldwell doesnt drop an easy ball he beats manning nd goes to another Super bowl. no way they dont beat rex nd the bears cuz even the choker did. How about Wez Welker could it be his emergence stemmed from Brady and Moss wasnt so great in Oakland
also Manning did throw an interception against the steelers in 05 to Polamalu just the cheating refs made the most bogus call ever seen to ty and rob the steelers (NO pun intended)didnt matter how many chances he got cudn do it
about 1 month ago
Shock article.
The 2001 Patriots were a "very good team" are you kidding me? they may have been better than the 98 colts but far from very good.
Secondly, sure mannings numbers are better, but it helps to have guys like wayne, harrison, clark, edgerrin james, joe addai, stokely etc for the majority of your career. brady didnt have great recievers until 2007, before that he was winning super bowls with david givens and deion branch, troy brown and jermaine wiggins and making afc championship games with reche caldwell. of course mannings numbers are going to be better! the guy had a hall of fame reciever (harrison) a young playmaker (wayne)
lastly, the rings....3 to 1...and dont come back with the spygate nonsense, the patriots won because they are better...any person who honestly would rather have manning over brady at this stage of their careers needs an examination...maybe i wouldve taken manning over brady in 02 but anytime after 04 is asinine. oh yea and brady owns manning in head to head matchups, with the colts only enjoying recent success....
about 1 month ago
"Take a look at a guy like Chad Jackson. He was a second round draft pick and a star in college. What did he do when he was drafted by New England? Nothing, because Brady has never been able to make his receivers better the way Manning has."
BTW this is the most rediculous thing ive ever read. Chad Jackson missed his first year because of an injury suffered before training camp, and was injured in his second year. Is that really Brady's fault. Dont let the facts get in the way of your argument. HOW IS THIS BRADY'S FAULT?
Its a shame you spent so long on this article only to come across as uninformed, ignorant, and asinine
about 1 month ago
The points people seem to be making here are the ones already discussed in the articles.
Brady has not always had bad recievers, they just have not looked spectacular playing with him. These "weapons" that Manning has had were not weapons before he played with them. He turned an 850 yard 6 TD a year guy like Harrison and all of a sudden he was have 1,500 yards a 13 TD's a year. Even a guy like Stokely was less then nothing before Manning and became a 1,000 yard + 10 TD guy as a 3rd stringer. You should read the entire article before posting.
What did Caldwell look better with NE, he never started more then 6 games with any other team! You weren't seriously using that as an argument where you? and Gaffney, he was a stating reciever on a playoff team, I'd hope he could catch at least 21 balls in 3 games.
And finally spygate is the furthest thing from non-sense. It only is treated that way by Pats fans who can not except that they would likely have 0 rings had they not done it. Think about it, only winning 3 SB's by 3 points! A game vs. the Raiders they clearly lost, etc. If they didn't need to cheat to win those very close games, why bother and risk so much?
about 1 month ago
Ryan,
You did a good job stirring the hearts of the Pats fans. I give Manning the credit he deserves. He is one of the greats but unless he does some catching up with super bowl wins he will still be overshadowed by Brady. In your heart that may never be true but when they both get busts in the HOF I wonder who will draw a bigger crowd.
from about 1 month ago
The boston/new england fan-base has more people then that of the indianapolis fan base I believe. For that reason, you might see more people there for Brady, hard to say.
To me though, the Super Bowl argument does not stand up very well. Jim Plunkett won more super Bowls then Peyton Manning, just because you play for the best team in football does not mean that you are the best QB.
If Peyton had a top-tier defense every year of his career, you'd probably see multiple rings as well. Even the year he won the SB was not his best year, he happened to be on the best team that year.
Rings are a team accolade and stats are a representation of what an individual has contributedto his team and in that sense, no one has done more for their team then Manning has.
about 1 month ago
Stokley is afine reciever in Denver without manning and noone is saying Manning stinks it up but hes just not Brady. Whether or not Manning is partly responsible for wayne and harrison which is at best a partial truth before playin with brady last year Brady moss reception totals were 49,60,42 only over 1000 yards once and 24 tds. one season with brady 98 receptions almost1500yds and 23 tds. Welker went from career highs of 67 catchs nd 1 td to 112 for 1100+ yds and 8 tds proving he can make talented recievers better. take reggie wayne away and let manning throw balls to chad jackson be my guest.
Brady Manning comparison goes like this
BRADY MANNING
SB APPS 4 1
SB WINS 3 1
SB MVPS 2 1
PLAYOFF RECORD 14/3 7/7
AS STARTER 87/24 108/57
PROBOWLS 4 8
MVPS 1 2
BRADY HAS THE SINGLE SEASONTD RECORD MANNING THE QB RATING and brady hasnt been around as long go figure the important ones like wins and super bowls there is no comparison bet bradys miserable bout that pro bowl mvp of mannings seen as he aint to bothered even turning up
about 1 month ago
I'll try to sift thru what your trying to say.
Stokely is a fine receiver? How?
Didn't Moss have over 10,00 yards and 100 TD's before coming to NE? The 3 seasons you used as examples were all seasons where Moss missed many games each year, since he played all 16 last year, wouldn't you expect those numbers to go up?
The Welker situation has been covered as well, Moss hogging up coverage. Heck, Welker's looking dangerous with Cassel.
The team accolades were addressed in the article.
about 1 month ago
Ok, I agree with some of your arguments, but I have to refute some of them.
First of all, the idea that Brady doesn't make players better is absurd. You act like David Givens and Troy Brown were the same players with or without Brady. Let's see, Givens was a 7th round draft pick who has done absolutely nothing since leaving the Pats two years ago. Troy Brown was an 8th round pick who never caught more than 41 passes in a season before Brady started throwing to him. Furthermore, Wayne and Harrison were both first round draft picks. Harrison caught 73 balls the year before the Colts drafted Manning. So I think he was a lot better than Brown or Givens to begin with. As for the Moss situation, how come he didn't magically transform the Raiders QBs into heroes? Why did he have 1550 yard receiving combined the two years before coming to the Pats and 1500 in one year with the Pats? I think that Brady definitely made him better. Chad Jackson was injury-prone and stuck behind superior receivers when he was with New England. It's not fair to blame Brady for not throwing to Jackson when he had Moss, Welker, and Stallworth. Jackson barely got on the field.
Also, you ignore the running back situation that each team had. The Pats have had one Pro Bowl caliber back with Brady, that being Corey Dillon, and he was only effective for one year really. Manning has had Marshall Faulk, Edgerrin James, and Joseph Addai. He hasn't exactly had to carry those offenses by himself.
Also, the Pats were not a Super Bowl caliber team when Brady took over. In 2000, they were 5-11 and in 2001 they were 0-2 when he came in. There is no doubt that he made them better. I won't say it was all him, but he helped them.
Also, you really can't use Spygate as a legitimate part of your argument. We don't know the extent of Spygate and how much it really helped the Pats. So unless you are able to accept the piped in sound counter argument, you can't use Spygate. Neither are proven, so both are better left out. I'd also like to add that since the Pats stopped "cheating", they've gone 23-5 and part of that time they haven't had their starting QB.
And I don't think anyone is saying Manning is a choker anymore. That's a bit of a straw man argument. I do think that you could fairly say that he underperformed in big games earlier in his career. Brady did not, for the most part.
from 8 days ago
Actually, since you mention the running back situation, someone said earlier that the Colts are a pass first team, and they certainly are, but what that person failed to mention is that the Patriots are ALSO a pass first team. In these two pass first offenses, Manning has been the far more effective passer, overall.
Now, in regards to the actual comment, will agree with you that having those backs has helped take the load off Manning's shoulders, but I think Manning's passing also helped take the load off the runningbacks shoulders. I'm sure you've noticed that James has not been anywhere near as productive since he left the Colts. Faulk was, but then Faulk went directly to the Kurt Warner led Rams, becoming part of the "Greatest Show on Turf". He had a Pro Bowl QB lobbing passes all over the field and a great offensive line. Most teams focused on stopping the passing game, which allowed Faulk to put up ridiculous numbers. In other words, he had the same advantages he had at the Colts, only more so. If Faulk had gone to say, the Bears, I don't think he would have been nearly as productive. Addai is probably your best argument here, since the Colts running game was anemic this year without him, but then so was the passing game. Manning just wasn't Manning for about the first 6 games of the season, and they still only lost 4 games. That offense works best when the passing game is firing on all cylinders. Last year, Kenton Keith put up good numbers at running back. I think the running back helps with Indy, but the key to that team is the O-line and QB.
Oh, and wasn't Moss injured for most of the two seasons prior to him arriving at New England?
about 1 month ago
This is why stats are corrupting fans in the NFL. Who cares what Brady's numbers are compared to Manning? Do GMs draft a QB for pretty stats or to win games?
McNabb is the ultimate example. He puts up great numbers. He wins a lot of games. But in BIG games, when it gets late, he clearly doesn't have the mental toughness to take his team down the field and win the game. If your QB can't do that in the big spot then everything else is irrelevant. Just look at how angry Eagles fans are and you'll see why.
Peyton's stats are so much better than Manning's because of the scheme. He had better weapons around him his whole career. He plays in a dome. Granted, it's a credit to Manning for executing, which is why he's a great quarterback, but his stats are very inflated because of that. He plays in a more agressive pass scheme, compared to the Patriots who liked to play a slower, more manageable offense.
But you know what gives Tom the upper hand? His ability to finish.
And your whole argument with winning a game outright being more clutch then having an okay game and winning on a last minute drive is completely wrong. Even in the super Bowl, the first, second, maybe even third quarters aren't severe pressure situations. The last drive of the fourth quarter is. It's dire. The ultimate pressure spot. And Brady has been as near to perfect as you can get in that spot.
I'll take Brady over Peyton any day.
about 1 month ago
I suggest you go back to the article and read the concept of stats representing production and how it does not matter what quarter of a game you throw a TD.
Manning's stats are better then Brady's because he is a better QB, he's turned players into the weapons they now are, and yes he runs a sophisticated offense compared top the more simple system run in New England. But thats all the more to Manning's credit. He's had to do that much because he hasn't had a top-tier defense to back him up like Brady has.
You could take Brady over Manning, but you wouldn't be getting the better QB.
from about 1 month ago
But I would get more Super Bowl rings. And that's all I really care about.
from about 1 month ago
David, I get what you're saying, but you look like you just said you want Trent Dilfer over Donovan McNabb....
about 1 month ago
Ryan, you make some good points here but you totally blow it too. Brady does make his recievers better. Look what Deion Branch did in Seattle even before he was hurt? Look what David Givens did in NO before he was hurt. David Patten.
Chad Jackson as an example of not making recivers better???? You need to check your facts there. Jackson had a hamstring injury nearly his entire rookie season, then blew out a knee in the AFC Championship game and never really played last year. This preseason the guy didn't even look like he could run a pass pattern so they cut him.
That's a very poor example for the point you are trying to make.
Hell, Brady even made Reche "fumble fingers" Caldwell look decent, when the guy wasn't dropping balls that hit him right on the hands.
about 1 month ago
I'm not saying he's never made anyone look better. Reche never started more then 6 games before he came to NE. My point here is that Brady has not developed receivers into superstars like Manning has. That is why he needed help from receivers who were already established in order to be productive on Manning's level.
from about 1 month ago
How do you know it wasn't the recivers that made Manning? That is what I might say, if I cared to debate the issue.
about 1 month ago
Since a very serious injury Stokley has struggled to stay on the field when he does hes a reliable slot guy very important to denvers offense when hes not they struggle. But il even accept hes nothing special. However Moss missed 6 games beetween 05-07 ave 2 ayear how good do you think those games were gonna be 20 catchses 5 scores a game ? Were seeing thisyears dipped production and Cassells deep ball struggles showing how good Brady made Moss last yearwhen it seemed every ball was on the money
about 1 month ago
"How do you know it wasn't the recivers that made Manning? That is what I might say, if I cared to debate the issue."
Go back to the article and read what I wrote about Harrison, his production prior to Manning. He averaged 850 yards and 7 TD's a year. Then he had his first full season with Peyton...
115 catches, 1,663 yards, 12 TD's
about 1 month ago
Typically a great QB makes a good receiver great, and an average one good.
Peyton inherited good receivers and made them great in an offense primed for big numbers.
Brady has had average receivers and made them look good in a more balanced offense.
Do you think Peyton would turn Reche Caldwell great? Deion Branch? David Givens? David Patten?
from about 1 month ago
Branch would look really good under Manning in my opinion and I feel the others would look good as well. My best example would be Brandon Stokely. If he could be a 1,000 + 10 TD guy just being a 3rd string reciever, imagine how well he'd do as a starter. And i certainly believe Branch is better then him.
about 1 month ago
I don't think Stokley would fare much better as a starter. The third WR typically plays every play in the Colts offense, so he techincally is starting. Except he's starting without any attention due to the abilities of Reggie Wayne and Marvin Harrison. Whoever he was lined up with was a mis-match, and couple that with Peyton's ability and there's no surprise he put up 1000 and 10 TDs.
You can put Jabar Gaffney in a similar mold as Stokley. He was a former 2nd round bust, let go by the texans, signed by the eagles, let go after one training camp, and signed on with the Pats. He didn't put up spectacular numbers last year but he did emerge as a better player than he had been throughout his career. A lot of that was because of Brady.
about 1 month ago
I agree with that analysis. I'm not saying that Brady can't make players better, he just can't to the degree that Peyton has. That's why he's needed players who were already proven effective elsewhere in order for him to put up big numbers.
about 1 month ago
Whenever one of Manning's wideouts gets hurt, Manning's numbers also take a hit. Brady is the better qb and when u say that Brady doesn't make his wideouts good cause like peyton???R u kiddng me what an awful argument. Brady spreads the ball and doesn't go to the same 3 guys every play so thats his fault. Manning has had a great tight end in dallas clark and 2 great wideouts to throw to his entire career so really, his wide receivers and manning himself compliment eachother (not in favor to either 1). To conclude, look at what what receivers have done since they left the pats such as Branch and Givens, absolutely nothing. Brady was good even with Reche Caldwell as his number one receiver....I'd like to see any qb be good with that kind of support.
from about 1 month ago
He's had 2 great WR's his entire career? Wayne was drafted in 2001. Great TE's? I love Dallas Clark but he's played with 1 pro-bowl TE in 11 seasons.
about 1 month ago
He is still a good tight end, whenever marvin or reggie don't have a big day he has 1. And yea he ha hardly made it to pro bowls- but look how good he did in the post season the year they won the superbowl. Also saying that Brady needs players that were already proven is a harsh statement since the only player who was really proven before going to the pats was moss, and even then people were saying he had lost it. I am not saying Peyton isn't good obviously, I just don't like how people can outright say one is better than the other because of whatever reason. There's no way to directly compare them and making excuses for one allows excuses for the other. THey r both great qb's (I personally think Tom Brady is the best ever) but I can see why people like Peyton too. The point is, every1's opinion is biased and there's no reason in arguing when it's that close of a competition.
about 1 month ago
It's all a matter of perception. Most feel that it is a very close debate. Some feel Brady is far better because we won 3 rings, some feel Manning is much better for superior production. My point here is that despite Manning winning 2 less rings, many still feel the comparrison is close. The very reasons that boost Manning to being close to Brady in manys eyes are the reasons why I feel he is better.
The reasons such as winning more rings that are used to support Brady, I feel are poor arguments. Thus, I feel secure enough to say one is better then the other, despite the popular belief that they are close.
about 1 month ago
Yea but the saying that Peyton is better because he makes his wideouts stars is a poor argument. Marvin played most of his career with Peyton Manning and Reggie Wayne has played his whole career with Peyton so it's a lousy assumption to assume one makes the other better. Also, you make it seem as if there is something wrong with spreading the ball out like Brady did throughout most of his career. I still have yet to see Peyton play without those wideouts and since I've seen Brady play with receivers such as Caldwell and Gaffney, who have done nothing either before coming to the pats or after leaving the pats, I believe Brady is a better qb since he helped bring that team to the playoffs and even win a game.
26 days ago
It's Brady. Working on an article myself right now....not this one, but similar...
One interesting fact for you: In 1999, Peyton Manning led an NFL record seven fourth-quarter comebacks in the season. 16 games, 13 wins, 7 fourth quarter comebacks.
8 days ago
I think the Ryan is right. Manning is a great QB on a good team, Brady is a good QB on a great team. Manning simply never had the defense that the Pats had. For proof, look no further than this season. It's true the Pats just missed the playoffs, and with Brady they probably would have been similar to last year, but they still managed an 11-5 record, after losing Tom Brady. Cassel is a lifelong back up quarterback, and yet the Pats are probably the best team that won't be going to the playoffs. I doubt the Colts could have turned in a similar performance without Manning.
It's a great debate, and there are points on both sides, but when it comes down to it, I just think Manning is the better overall QB.
8 days ago
The biggest difference between these two elite QB's are obvious.
Peyton Manning calls his own plays while running the no-huddle offense. He basically is the Offensive Cooridinator and QB rolled up into one. He's a throwback from the 50's-60's era when all QB's were true field generals.
Brady on the other hand wears a wristband and gets his plays from the coaches with very little options.
He would not survive as the starting QB for the Indy Colts and you can bet his stats would fall considerably.
8 days ago
In the 07-08 season, Brady had top-tier wideouts, even at the slot position. The only wideout Manning had all year was Wayne, and his other starting wideout was a rookie, even if he was a first round draft pick. Brady and the Pats went undefeated and had the 1st seed in the playoffs. Manning, with wideots like Aaron Moorehead (who, unless your a die-hard Colts fan, you probally never heard of before this season), locked up the second seed in week 16. Conclusion: even with unknown and unproven players, Manning still put up great numbers by any QB's standard. Manning is the better QB.
7 days ago
great article .. i mean look at what cassell has done.. hasnt started at all for about a DECADE and comes in to lead his team to an 11-5 record ( better than several of brady's seasons) and throws for not one but TWO 400 yard games, something brady has NEVER done, not ONCE in his ENTIRE career (not to mention in succession)! I wonder if Jim Sorgi could do anything as a quarterback that manning hasnt already done?.. the answer is no.. and Manning calls his own plays too and they work, where brady is more of a puppet for one of the greatest head coaches ever.. o yea and they have been caught cheating... caught the year moss made brady 22 touchdowns better than hed ever been (strange seeing as how he caught 23 of them) that puts a bit of asterisk next to his "record" huh.. (thats what 3 touchdowns thrown in a game they cheated?) brings his total to 47 and he threw far more passes in 2007 than Manning did in 04.. also look at Mannings season this year.. equalling anything brady had ever done pre-Moss.. and he did it with NO help.. NO running game.. NO defense.. not much help from his receivers.. an injured O-line.. and yet he practically single handedly led the team back from many sure losses and to the playoffs and yet another 12 win season..brady could never do that.. Manning is in a league of his own.. compare brady to someone like drew brees or hell even matt cassell
write a new comment