Manning
Brady
Stats taken from wikipedia
In my opinion Brady > Manning.
Brady
Stats taken from wikipedia
In my opinion Brady > Manning.
Tom Brady v Peyton Manning
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
TheRedFlag said:
i have to agree with you on this
but i hate fecking Brady, he`s young, wealthy, a hell of a player, smart and good looking
on the other hand i`m only good looking and smart
marcosdeto said:
same here, its not easy
TheRedFlag said:same here, its not easy
no, no, i'm dead serious here, i`m good looking and smart
you, on the other hand ...
they're both class, head and shoulders above the rest. manning look terrific in the second half against denver.
i agree though, what brady has done in the post season is simply unbelievable.
i agree though, what brady has done in the post season is simply unbelievable.
marcosdeto said:no, no, i'm dead serious here, i`m good looking and smart
you, on the other hand ...
no, no, i'm dead serious here, i`m good looking and smart
you, on the other hand ...
aaaaw
shut up
i don´t like you ...
MUM!!!!!!!!!!!!
shut up
i don´t like you ...
MUM!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have to remember though that Brady has always had Belichek's defence to protect his leads so he has always been able to sit back and make the easy plays. Manning on the other hand has always had a shit defence, which scould implode at any minute, so he always has to go for the big play and put up as many points as possible. Brady did not win those Super Bowls, the Pats defence did.
RedCanadian said:
don't forget the special teams led by the boot of a certain guy called Adam V who will be on the Colts team Sunday.
About the Issue of who is the Better quarter back its very much a Dan Marino vs Joe Montana debate. One guy has got the stats while one guy has the rings. I go with the numbers.
Prediction: colts 27- Patriots- 13
Desert Eagle said:
Very good point... Vinatieri misses a few important kicks and are we still having this conversation??
Will he ever miss a clutch kick??
Thats why he is the best in the business.
Thats why he is the best in the business.
Desert Eagle said:
There's no evidence up to this point that he will.... and there won't be until he does. Best clutch kicker of all time?
No Doubt
I was shocked to see AV join the Colts
What the feck happened there?
What the feck happened there?
TheRedFlag said:
The patriots wouldn't match the colts offer and rumors were that he had a falling out with Belichick
TheRedFlag said:
$$$
AV is a fecking cnut and a fecking traitor then!
TheRedFlag said:
TRF you have to remember pro sports in North America are very different from that in Europe. A player spending his entire career with one team is almost unheard of, completely unlike football where players if they leave are looked at in a negative light. The salary caps in place in most pro sports almost ensure that players will play for multiple teams in their career.
In the words of that Alien dude from Looney ToonesRedCanadian said:
"makes me very angry"
TheRedFlag said:
Marvin the Martian
RedCanadian said:Marvin the Martian
RedCanadian said:
Joe Sakic, hockey's Paul Scholes. Legend. Very few players stay loyal these days that's true but sometimes they are forced to leave in trades. It can't be funny being forced to go to a shit team/city if you don't want too.
TheRedFlag said:
Well you could say the same for the Patriots who weren't willing to match the colts offer for a player who won them 2 superbowls.
Desert Eagle said:
every franchise has to keep to their limits..
AV is the Best at what he doe and it wa a disgrace that people like Akers were being paid more money. Thats the way i see it. I'm sure henry would have moved if arsenal stuck to their normal wage structure for him.
RedCanadian said:
Fair point about the defense RC, but you can't deny the fact that when it comes to win-or-go-home games, Manning normally loses. He hasn't won a BIG game like that in his entire career- college or pro. He also has the priveledge of throwing to Marvin Harrison (one of the all time Greats, IMO) and he handed the ball off to Edgerrin James for awhile too.
Manning is a great player, but if I am picking between the 2, I'd take Brady.
redyank said:
You also have to look at the offences that both teams run. Manning is forced to call all the plays and audibles into the play at the line based on coverage schemes. He is also forced to try and score as many points as possible because of a suspect defence. As far as handing off to Edge is concerned, he hasn't looked great since leaving Indy and Peyton. And to say that he hasn't won the big one is also kind of a misnomer. Last year's AFC Championship he brings the team back and drives them well into field goal range only for Vanderjerk to miss.
In Brady's case, (I do think he is the best leader in football) but he has had a much easier job. Stellar defence with a defensive wizard, in Belichek, running the team, making 21 points almost a death knell for the Pats opponents. he also ran a run heavy offence, with a great deal of play action, as the way to open up the passing game (the opposite of the Colts pass to open up the running game system). He is also in a system that relies on short and intermediate passes. It is also much easier on you when you know that if you get within 45 yards in crunch time you have almost a guarantee of at least 3 points. Would we talk about Brady the same way if Viniatieri doesn't kick the winning field goals in the AFC championship against Oakland, SB XXXVI versus St. Louis, or SB XXXVIII versus Carolina?
Both great QB's, but if I'm picking a QB, it's Manning. If I'm picking a player to lead my team, then I take Brady.
Richter said:
Steve Yzerman.....I rest my case.
RedCanadian said:
1. Manning has never won a championship in his career, for all of his greatness. What I said isn't a misnomer, it's a fact. When Tennessee won the National Title with Tee Martin at quarterback, who had just graduated? He had all the hype back then and didn't win the title with the same team in place that Martin had. I'm going back to college because it highlights my point- he's a great regular-season player who plays poorly by comparison in the big games. 15 tds to 8 ints in postseason play.
2. Brady. You're making it sound like just about anybody could play QB for Belichik and they'd win Super Bowls. He makes audibles at the line to adjust, just like Manning does. When they won he had an aging Curtis Martin running the ball. Manning had the 4th overall picking carrying for him. Martin is no slouch, but who would you rather have for that? Brady has simply done more with less talent surrounding him. There are 10 other players that play on offense, but for the most important position out there, its Brady for me.
redyank said:
I'm of the mind that championships are won by teams, not by individuals. If winning championships is all that makes a player great then Trent Dilfer is better than Dan Marino and Jim Kelly. If you look at the Pats teams that won the Super Bowls and compared them to the Colts from top to bottom other than the QB position it would look like this.
Offence:
WR - Colts>Pats
RB - Colts=Pats
Offensive Line - Pats>Colts
TE - Pats>Colts
Defence
Tackles - Pats>Colts
Ends - Pats>Colts
LB - Pats>Colts
Safety - Pats>Colts
CB - Pats>Colts
Special Teams
P - Colts>Pats
K - Pats>Colts
KR/PR - Pats>Colts
When a team is much better at almost every position, how is one player expected to overcome that?
I agree with you that it takes a very good QB to run Belichek's system as it is predicated on pin-point accuracy. But Brady has never had the pressure to run the offence, although he has taken more control since Weis left, but Manning calls the plays, not Tom Moore, the offensive coordinator.
Now to slag off the running game the Pats have had, Curtis Martin is a Hall of Famer, and Corey Dillon is no slouch. And as far as Martin being an aging RB, when they won the first SB, didn't he just win the rushing title 2 years ago? Edge fit the Colts system, but as a RB goes, he has shown the type of player he is without Peyton and Marvin this year with the Cards, a good, not great RB.
Brady is a better leader, hands down. But as a pure QB, it's Manning.
RedCanadian said:
Just did some more digging, and Curtis Martin was NOT on Brady's Super Bowl winning teams.
So I was wrong to bring him into the debate, but his absence strengthens my argument. In the years that Brady was SB MVP he was handing off to Antowain Smith and Kevin Faulk (instead of Martin)- hardly equals to Edgerrin James who rushed for 1500 and 1700 yards in 99 and 2000 respectively.
I agree with the team vs. individual points but the fact that Brady has won more big games 3 points or so tells you that he is simply better when he has to be.
Peyton manning is arguably the greatest player in the history of the NFL. Brady may have the rings but statistically he doesn't come close.
The reason why the Colts receivers have better numbers is because of Manning.Marvin, Reggie and Stokely weren't close to All-American receivers in college. Bottom line is that Colts receivers are amongst the best and have better numbers because of a better quarterback.
i manning rookie season the colts were 3-13. Look where they are now and thats without a D. Hell they are 8-0 with one of the worst run defenses in the history of football. Why? PEYTON MANNING.
Tom Brady has won Super Bowls, yes. But how many do you think he would have won without Bill Belichek, and that great defense...Richard Seymour, Rodney Harrison, Willie McGinnest, Teddi Bruschi, etc, etc?
Want proof look at last year where the pats had no D and therefore no ring.And Brady had his precious Deoin Branch last year too.
Brady is a great quarterback, and New England wouldn’t be quite the same without him. Manning also is a great quarterback – but Indianapolis would be in the toilet without him.
The reason why the Colts receivers have better numbers is because of Manning.Marvin, Reggie and Stokely weren't close to All-American receivers in college. Bottom line is that Colts receivers are amongst the best and have better numbers because of a better quarterback.
i manning rookie season the colts were 3-13. Look where they are now and thats without a D. Hell they are 8-0 with one of the worst run defenses in the history of football. Why? PEYTON MANNING.
Tom Brady has won Super Bowls, yes. But how many do you think he would have won without Bill Belichek, and that great defense...Richard Seymour, Rodney Harrison, Willie McGinnest, Teddi Bruschi, etc, etc?
Want proof look at last year where the pats had no D and therefore no ring.And Brady had his precious Deoin Branch last year too.
Brady is a great quarterback, and New England wouldn’t be quite the same without him. Manning also is a great quarterback – but Indianapolis would be in the toilet without him.
Desert Eagle said:
Marvin Harrison was 1st team All-American.
Reggie Wayne set the record at Miami (University) for receptions and yards. The same school that produced Michael Irvin, Lamar Thomas and Santana Moss by the way. Was an All Big-East selection.
Brandon Stokley played at Louisana-Lafayette, but still set the NCAA record for Freshmen in receptions. He AVERAGED 100ypg receiving.
These players were hardly unknowns before coming to Indianapolis.
One all american and no reciever who were selected in the top fifteen of any draft.redyank said:
If manning and Brady switched teams what do you think would happen to their two respective teams? I think the Pat would be unstoppable while the colts would struggle to make the playoffs.
Desert Eagle said:
You said they weren't anywhere near All-American, and you were incorrect. Now its the fact that they weren't top 15 picks?
Look at Brady's receivers:
Patton last pick 2nd round
Branch 33rd pick 2nd round
Troy Brown 8th round
On offense, Manning has always had players around him that were highly rated. I think Brady could win more with Indy's offense than Manning could with the Pats'.
Manning has six 4,000-yard seasons, Brady has one.
Manning threw an NFL-record 49 touchdown passes in 2004, Brady's career high is 28.
Manning has a 100-plus passer rating each of the last three years, Brady has never topped 100
Manning threw an NFL-record 49 touchdown passes in 2004, Brady's career high is 28.
Manning has a 100-plus passer rating each of the last three years, Brady has never topped 100
They both have the same gift that Joe Montana had. They both are able to instantly picture where everybody is on the field just before they release the ball. Montana would bring the ball back, give a lightning fast look, eye his receiver, and quickly, quickly get rid of the ball, throwing it to where the receiver was going to be by the time the ball got there. Peyton and Brady have the same ability to instantly assess the situation. Both great quarterbacks. But I'll take Brady every time. Pats fan since 1967.
Desert Eagle said:
If he retires tomorrow, there's NO doubt Manning will be in the Hall of Fame. I'm making the argument for Brady, not that Manning isn't a good quarterback.
The stats you posted are very impressive, but my point all along has been that they haven't won Manning any championships- in Pro or College. Look at the above stats on their respective Play-off games again.
If my life depended on a SB win and I could choose between the 2, I'd take Brady because he's shown the ability to win when it matters most.
Without a doubt the top two quarterbacks in the league. BOTH will make the Hall of Fame.
Manning does have the better stats and probably can out-throw Brady. But he DEFINITELY has always had the better receivers, and in general the better offense around him. The Colts are built around their offense, the Pats around their defense, yet Brady still manages to make the game about him.
DE, who gives a feck about draft picks? First round picks are always hyped up the arse and never really make as big an impact as all the pundits think. Don't go putting certain players on pedestals because of when they were drafted. Brady didn't go until one of the later rounds himself.
And as for the point about Manning running the offense generally on the fly (ie no-huddle, constant audibles and reading of the defense's formation), Brady can revert to that mode just as well and can succeed; it's all about pace and Brady is able to play at whatever it requires. The Colts can be devastating when they drive down the field the way they can; three 20 yard passes and they're in the red zone; it's very impressive and often effective, but if they are thrown off of their groove a little, they really fall flat. I seem to recall them being first and goal on the one yard line in the last seconds of a game against the pats a few years back; one td and they would win, yet they were turned down four plays in a row, and at home, quite pathetic. They have no running game either. Yes, I know they just beat us but I still value Brady at anytime. Manning is certainly capable of getting a ring though. The team around him is not quite as solid; ignoring their passing game, there isn't much EXCEPTIONAL about them. Manning is also sort of an uglier Beckham of the NFL; he has about 5000 new adverts a season, announcers and pundits are always looking to give him 2959439 compliments a game. If the media circus around him settled down, then maybe he wouldn't choke at every big game. The two times he's beaten the Pats have NOT been big games at all, despite the hype they received.
Brady is definitely my man. You can't argue with winning. Put it in football (english football that is) terms. If a side as talented as the Colts led by a player exceptional as Manning were never to win a damn thing, who would give a twat? Not I. Brady's got three rings and he's young and ready for more. Despite being a good-looking man with a nice hollywood girlfriend, he's really quite private and doesn't make any headlines except for his football. Manning's stats are exceptional, but most of this IS due to the team built around him, catered exactly to his talents. Keep in mind that game plans are drawn specifically to get him good stats. The Patriots rarely focus their strategy on giving Brady the chance to throw for a lot of yards and scores. They only do when the team they are playing can be exposed greatly by his game. This happened against the Vikings two weeks back (a poor pass defense was absolutely slaughtered by Brady and his no-name receiver squadron, despite us being able to attack them with an excellent one-two punch of running backs). The Colts would also destroy the Vikings, but they have no other weapons to turn to. Brady is the only big name on a rather unimpressive looking (keyword LOOKING) offense, yet he still wins constantly. Championships are championships; we can get back to this discussion when Manning's been to a Super Bowl (if he ever does get there) and then I'll re-consider. otherwise, feck him (and the colts, no other team in football that hasn't won shit gets such a good cock-sucking from the media).
Manning does have the better stats and probably can out-throw Brady. But he DEFINITELY has always had the better receivers, and in general the better offense around him. The Colts are built around their offense, the Pats around their defense, yet Brady still manages to make the game about him.
DE, who gives a feck about draft picks? First round picks are always hyped up the arse and never really make as big an impact as all the pundits think. Don't go putting certain players on pedestals because of when they were drafted. Brady didn't go until one of the later rounds himself.
And as for the point about Manning running the offense generally on the fly (ie no-huddle, constant audibles and reading of the defense's formation), Brady can revert to that mode just as well and can succeed; it's all about pace and Brady is able to play at whatever it requires. The Colts can be devastating when they drive down the field the way they can; three 20 yard passes and they're in the red zone; it's very impressive and often effective, but if they are thrown off of their groove a little, they really fall flat. I seem to recall them being first and goal on the one yard line in the last seconds of a game against the pats a few years back; one td and they would win, yet they were turned down four plays in a row, and at home, quite pathetic. They have no running game either. Yes, I know they just beat us but I still value Brady at anytime. Manning is certainly capable of getting a ring though. The team around him is not quite as solid; ignoring their passing game, there isn't much EXCEPTIONAL about them. Manning is also sort of an uglier Beckham of the NFL; he has about 5000 new adverts a season, announcers and pundits are always looking to give him 2959439 compliments a game. If the media circus around him settled down, then maybe he wouldn't choke at every big game. The two times he's beaten the Pats have NOT been big games at all, despite the hype they received.
Brady is definitely my man. You can't argue with winning. Put it in football (english football that is) terms. If a side as talented as the Colts led by a player exceptional as Manning were never to win a damn thing, who would give a twat? Not I. Brady's got three rings and he's young and ready for more. Despite being a good-looking man with a nice hollywood girlfriend, he's really quite private and doesn't make any headlines except for his football. Manning's stats are exceptional, but most of this IS due to the team built around him, catered exactly to his talents. Keep in mind that game plans are drawn specifically to get him good stats. The Patriots rarely focus their strategy on giving Brady the chance to throw for a lot of yards and scores. They only do when the team they are playing can be exposed greatly by his game. This happened against the Vikings two weeks back (a poor pass defense was absolutely slaughtered by Brady and his no-name receiver squadron, despite us being able to attack them with an excellent one-two punch of running backs). The Colts would also destroy the Vikings, but they have no other weapons to turn to. Brady is the only big name on a rather unimpressive looking (keyword LOOKING) offense, yet he still wins constantly. Championships are championships; we can get back to this discussion when Manning's been to a Super Bowl (if he ever does get there) and then I'll re-consider. otherwise, feck him (and the colts, no other team in football that hasn't won shit gets such a good cock-sucking from the media).
redyank said:
Fair enough. my point is simple, that Manning is a superior quarterback. I think the stats prove that and there is no doubt in my mind that with a decent defense and special teams manning would have more rings than brady.