Tom "Iceman" Brady

Becaue he loses tons of games...that's pretty much it. That and he doesn't win in the playoffs (the wins and losses I'm referring to)Since Plummer signed with Denver, he has the best win-loss % of any QB over that timeframe. That includes both Brady and Manning.

No arguement here, Manning's a winner too.

But then again, doesn't being a winner just mean you've won more than you've lost.

But ultimately these guys are judged on winning championships, and right now Brady is up there with Montana and Manning with Marino.

But ultimately these guys are judged on winning championships, and right now Brady is up there with Montana and Manning with Marino.Very true, and even more unfortunate.

I cant stand any brady supporter arguments because you only have one... look at the rings man look at the rings... who gives a flying f*ck. that doesnt mean anything, the pats are good because of coaching not because tom brady is some miracle QB. being a quarterback is about leadership, but its also about playing your goddamn posistion which he is NOT THE GREATEST AT, good yes, but no way in hell the greatest. Look at the skins for chrissakes, 3 different qbs with superbowl wins in 10 years. I gurantee you the pats could win with a different QB, then everyone might think a little differently about brady, get off his damn nuts. The pats have a GOOD TEAM with a GOOD QUARTERBACK and EXCELLENT COACHING, not the greatest QB in the nfl, the pats win with a strong team effort and a good coach. you cant just deny statistics on the field and then arbitraly throw in, look at how many rings hes got hes obviously the greatest. WHO CARES how many damn rings hes got, if hes not producing the numbers hes not the best qb in the nfl.

Give it up whie you are still behind. Your quote above is so wrong in so many ways it would take me days to prove each point wrong, so I will only address the most glaring ones:

1) The players and coaches are all in it for the rings/championships, not the stats you so cling to. Dan Marino would give up half of his good for nothing records/stats for one SB ring and a SB MVP.
2) Your rant about the The Patriots having a great coach and being a great team despite Brady. Fact: the Pats were not a good team when Brady took over for an injured Probowl QB Drew Bledsoe and coach Bellichek in 2001.
Under Bledsoe & Bellichek they were 5-11 in 2000 and started an ugly 0-2 in 2001. I know this better than most on this site because I lived in Boston from 2000-2004. I watched every Redskins and Pats game 2000-2004.
Brady stepped in on a VERY BAD team and took them to a SB WIN in his first year as a starter. So please check your facts before you run off at the mouth and say the Pats are/were a good team despite Brady. The fact is they were not a good team before Brady took over.
3) In all three SB's Brady drove the Pats in last second drives for game winning field goals with very little time on the clock. What makes Brady better than any other QB playing today: He handles the pressure of the big game better then anybody else. Manning and Marino do not handle the pressure of the big playoff games very well. Until last year Manning was terrible in the playoffs. Not so-so or average, he was TERRIBLE. Three and four interception games.
Manning has never won a single champonship at any level of his entire football career. That says it all about his ability to handle the preasure of the big games.

Give it up whie you are still behind. Your quote above is so wrong in so many ways it would take me days to prove each point wrong, so I will only address the most glaring ones:

1) The players and coaches are all in it for the rings/championships, not the stats you so cling to. Dan Marino would give up half of his good for nothing records/stats for one SB ring and a SB MVP.
2) Your rant about the The Patriots having a great coach and being a great team despite Brady. Fact: the Pats were not a good team when Brady took over for an injured Probowl QB Drew Bledsoe and coach Bellichek in 2001.
Under Bledsoe & Bellichek they were 5-11 in 2000 and started an ugly 0-2 in 2001. I know this better than most on this site because I lived in Boston from 2000-2004. I watched every Redskins and Pats game 2000-2004.
Brady stepped in on a very bad team and took them to a SB WIN in his first year as a starter. So please check your facts before you run off at the mouth and say the Pats are/were a good team despite Brady. The fact is they were not a good team before Brady took over.
3) In all three SB's Brady drove the Pats in last second drives for game winning field goals with very little time on the clock. What makes Brady better than any other QB playing today: He handles the pressure of the big game better then anybody else. Manning and Marino do not handle the pressure of the big playoff games very well. Until last year Manning was terrible in the playoffs. Not so-so or average, he was TERRIBLE. Three and four interception games.
Manning has never one a single champonship at any level of his entire football career. That says it all about his ability to handle the preasure of the big games.I'd agree with your assesment that Brady is the biggest reason for the Patriots improvement, but a lot of the reasoning for such a sudden improvement was as much about Drew Bledsoe NOT being the Quarterback as it was about Tom Brady becoming the Quarterback.

I'd agree with your assesment that Brady is the biggest reason for the Patriots improvement, but a lot of the reasoning for such a sudden improvement was as much about Drew Bledsoe NOT being the Quarterback as it was about Tom Brady becoming the Quarterback.

Then how did Bledsoe get them to a Superbowl under Parcells and Bledsoe get nominated to so many Probowls? I'll admit Bledsoe was PART of the problem in 2000 and 2001. However look at the WR and RB's Brady had to work with in 2001, when he stepped in as a 6th round draft pick, never started an NFL game before. There are no hall of fame players there. Brady has done it with less big name talent than anybody else.
I'm sorry but you cannot fairly say Brady is overrated.
Yes the media has their knee pads on and blowing Brady and the Pats every night on TV.
But you can say that and even more for Manning and Urlacher. These two guys are the poster childs of the media and NFL and they have won nothing, THAT BY DEFINITION IS OVERRATED. Not Brady who has won three SB's.

Again, I'm saying if Peyton proves that he can beat Brady under pressure, then an already weak arguement that Brady is a better playoff QB loses it's basis. Manning is no better for beating the Patriots, it's a team game.

Ultimately, someone needs to prove that something changes in Manning brain come playoff time that affects his performance. Because right now, I look at the 2 time league MVP, see the same guy on the field on Sunday, and know that he could have a huge day. Remember, 3 times (2 vs Denver, 1 vs KC), Manning has gone insane in the playoffs. This further weakens the arguement that he cant get it done in the playoffs, because he HAS.

Do you honestly believe that a different person throws on the Colts 18 uniform in the playoffs, a person of considerably less skill? It's BS IMO, that Brady's game elevates in the playoffs, it doesn't. He's the same guy, a top 3 QB in the league. Manning has struggled in some games in the playoffs, but hes also had 3 games in which his team punted a total of 3 times. He can get it done.

Actually it sounds like you're saying that if the Colts win, the case for Brady is weakened and/or destroyed...but if the Pats win, the case for Manning is as strong as ever. I can't see how that makes any sense.

Look, Manning has a good team around him and an excellent coach. I have been impressed with their defensive effort the last couple of weeks, especially consdiering Manning has been somewhat off. We should resume this argument after he wins a championship.

Look people Im not arguing against brady, ive never said he wasnt good, but IMO hes not at the same level as the greats yet, i think its a little premature to be putting him up with all time greats because he has simply not had the longevity of them. I said earlier when he comes out and does it for his whole career then yes he will be up there with the greats, but until then im not going to put him on the same level as marino and montana. And defensewins, id think with a name like that youd understand the concept of a team winning, not just one man, yes hes a great leader and shows good poise, but strictly when it comes to playing your posistion im not ready to throw him up there with the ranks of the NFL all time elite. People constantly say that steve young was one of the best leaders in the NFL of all time, Ill put Brady's leadership abilities up there with youngs but strictly as a player Im not sitting him up there with the big dogs yet.

Then how did Bledsoe get them to a Superbowl under Parcells and Bledsoe get nominated to so many Probowls? I'll admit Bledsoe was part of the problem in 2000 and 2001. However look at the WR and Rb's in 2001. There are no hall of fame players there. Brady has done it with less big name talent thatn anybody else.I'm going to admit up front that I wasn't much of an NFL afficinado in 1996. I was 8. The only game I remember is the Superbowl.

I'm guessing that since we are taking about a time before the college QB revolution that began with Plummer in 97 and Manning/Leaf in 98. Bledsoe was a QB who went first overall, a rarity for the age, was probably an above average QB for the day. I mean you had guys like Neil O'Donnell leading his team to the superbowl, so how hard could it have been. You had Favre, Marino, Elway, Aikman....and like Jeff Hostetler or something as the leagues top QBs.

Also the probowl is a poor way to evaluate talent, IMO.

You're definately coming off like a Brady fanboy.

The only sentence I take large issue with in this post is this one: "If NE goes to INDY and wins next week anyone who still says Manning is better than Brady is a fool."

That's too general. What if they go into Indy and win in the same fashion they beat San Diego. What have they proved? That they can get lucky at key times and win despite getting outplayed? Brady 4 Prezident!!!!

The only arguement that could possibly hold any water is one that says the playoffs and regular season are two seperate seasons, and that the complexity of the playoffs is so different from the regular season that its practically not even football. In which case, Brady's performance over 13 games is better than Peytons over 10. But why? Why would it be any different? The pressure is always really, really high during an NFL game. Any game. Peyton Manning obviously isn't bothered by pressure. Cold weather maybe, but not pressure.

The last two times these teams have played, Manning killed them. Torched them. Both times on the road. Where were you for those games?

There obviously is one QB who is more poised with better leadership than Brady, and thats Manning. His production is unbe-freakin-leavable. He wins 75% of his games with little to no help. He is better that Brady in every facet of the game.

I think we will see that this week.
Whats wrong if someone is a Brady fanboy. It sure sounds better than a Manning I can't score a TD or win a playoff fanboy.LOL