Tom "Iceman" Brady

Well, if you bring contract size into it, you may very well have an arguement. One could potentially attribute the Colts inability to have a consistent defensive threat to keep them in games to the fact that Manning's contract is so freakin massive.

But if so, I'm confused as to why you open your post by listing some talented players from the Colts' D. Whats your arguement? That the Colts have and have had a better defensive unit than the Patriots? On what basis?

FRPLG hits this one directly on the head. If you take Manning off the Colts, you have a really piss poor football team. If you take Brady off the Patriots, the team gets significantly worse but only probably to a 8-8 maybe 7-9 level. This of course implys that a replacement level backup (i.e crappy) would take the reins in both situations.

If the question was which quarterback has had the more fufilling career, the answer is Brady. If the question was which quarterback has ultimately been more successful, the answer is Brady. Citing three championships would be a great defense for both of those positions. But if you are trying to answer the simple questions "Which guy is the best?" or "Which one should I take on my team?", you have to look beyond rings to who actually gives his team the best chance to win. 3 rings does crap for Brady going foward. You think Robert Mathis will have Brady wrapped up this week for a sack, only let him go on the context that the guys a three time champion? Not likely.

From a philosophical point of view, I think the whole idea of "winning a ring" is BS anyway. Stay with me. Football is a team game. The players and coaches win and lose as a team. A ring is very much an individual award, and to me thats a crappy way to represent a team achievement. The Lombardi Trophy is the most soughtafter trophy in sports. It is awarded to the team who wins the NFL Championship each year. It's a team award given for team achievement. Playing for a ring is, at its core, a rather selfish thing to strive for. In effect, you are exerting effort for personal gain, instead of that of the team. Playing for a championship, and playing for a trophy for your team is completely selfless. If you are wondering, this is a very key reason why I put no value into how many "rings" a guy has.

I know that there is little distinction between the two because they come as a package, but the ring would be completely worthless if it didn't represent team achievement, so to use it as an arguement for individual achivement is downright silly.

I get what your saying, and I understand its a team effort, but a QB has a bigger responsibility than most other players on the team, hes looked at as the leader and cant buckle under pressure. Brady is a cold-blooded leader, plain and simple, Peyton folds to much in important games, and I would much rather have Tom Brady who may not be as athletic a QB as Peyton Manning yet he has that extra something that just makes average athletes great QBs, I guess many people say they have that look in there eyes. Peyton Manning is an incredible player, to me hes the next best QB in the league behind Tom Brady, but to say that the colts would be a horrible team without Peyton is a stretch, and to say that the Patriots would still be average without Brady is laughable, Tom Brady is the glue that holds that team together, just read interviews about him made by players on his team. But I do see where your coming from and Ill ask you this, would you rather have a great fantasy football QB leading your team or would you rather have a 3-time Champion QB leading your team?

I get what your saying, and I understand its a team effort, but a QB has a bigger responsibility than most other players on the team, hes looked at as the leader and cant buckle under pressure. Brady is a cold-blooded leader, plain and simple, Peyton folds to much in important games, and I would much rather have Tom Brady who may not be as athletic a QB as Peyton Manning yet he has that extra something that just makes average athletes great QBs, I guess many people say they have that look in there eyes. Peyton Manning is an incredible player, to me hes the next best QB in the league behind Tom Brady, but to say that the colts would be a horrible team without Peyton is a stretch, and to say that the Patriots would still be average without Brady is laughable, Tom Brady is the glue that holds that team together, just read interviews about him made by players on his team. But I do see where your coming from and Ill ask you this, would you rather have a great fantasy football QB leading your team or would you rather have a 3-time Champion QB leading your team?Hmmm, would I rather have a great fantasy football QB or a 3 time Champion to lead my team? Well, not to cop out, because I'll have a decision by the end of the post, but I can't really make a call from that.

I think I know what you mean by FF QB. But to me, fantasy football QB means a guy that throws a lot of touchdowns. In most scoring systems, the yard between the one and the goalline counts for 151 times every other yard. (25 yards/point, TD=6 points) To me, stats that lead to NFL success, and stats that lead to FF success are very, very seperate statistics. Quarterbacks who complete more of their passes for more yards per attempt will in general be more successful than those who don't. QBs who do that in FF are worthless unless they also throw TDs.

3-time champion means nothing unless I know something else about him. Based on history, I would be forced to take nameless 3 time champion over great fantasy player. All QBs that have won 3 times have been good players (Brady is 2nd only to Montana of the group that also includes Bradshaw and Aikman, IMO). Sometimes you can get great fantasy QBs who arent good NFL QBs.

But once I know more about the QBs, which is the whole idea of having stats on them, I could make a much better decision. Like Peyton Manning over Tom Brady for example.

This disscussion is getting silly. Reminds me little kids arguing the Super Man is better then Spider Man fight. Or Aqua Man can Kick Bat Man's ass. Sonny is better than Billy. Gary Clarke is better than Art Monk.

The truth is it is all OPINION as to who is better. They are both great QB's regardless of what you or I think or say.

They have different strength and weakness'. This is not a science, it is all opinion. Let see what happens on Sunday and form our own opinions then.
Even after Sunday I am sure we will all disagree then anyway.

If Manning chokes and throws three or four interceptions in a big game yet again, Manning fans will say the Pats have a better team. If Brady chokes and has a bad game the Brady fans will say he can't win every time.

This disscussion is getting silly. Reminds me little kids arguing the Super Man is better then Spider Man fight. Or Aqua Man can Kick Bat Man's ass. Sonny is better than Billy. Gary Clarke is better than Art Monk.

The truth is it is all OPINION as to who is better. They are both great QB's regardless of what you or I think or say.

They have different strength and weakness'. This is not a science, it is all opinion. Let see what happens on Sunday and form our own opinions then.
Even after Sunday I am sure we will all disagree then anyway.

If Manning chokes and throws three or four interceptions in a big game yet again, Manning fans will say the Pats have a better team. If Brady chokes and has a bad game the Brady fans will say he can't win every time.As your username would remind us, it's far more important and conducive to success to have a dominant defense than a great QB. It's also far more difficult to sustain defense year to year. Like the Redskins.

Also the Pats do have a better team and Brady can't win every time. It's true. Which will win out? Tune in on Sunday (That's GTripp for "it ain't that simple").

As your username would remind us, it's far more important and conducive to success to have a dominant defense than a great QB. It's also far more difficult to sustain defense year to year. Like the Redskins.

Also the Pats do have a better team and Brady can't win every time. It's true. Which will win out? Tune in on Sunday (That's GTripp for "it ain't that simple").

I will agree that Brady has benefitted from a better a slightly better team defense only if you agree that Manning has choked in really big games through out his entire carreer.
Examples: (his QB ratings are most alarming)

1) Wild card lose to Jets in 2002: 2 int's ; Zero Td's and a QB rating of 31.3

2) Confrence Playoff loss to NE in 2003: 4 int's; 1 TD; QB rating 35.5

3) Confrence Playoff loss to NE in 2004: 1int; zero TD; QB rating 69.3

4) Divisional Playoff WIN to Bal 2006; 2 int; zero TD; QB rating 39.6

Brady's worst playoff QB rating in his career was last weeks San Diego game 57.6, otherwise his INDIVIDUAL PLAY and stats IN THE BIG GAMES is way better than Mannings. You can say all you want about their team mates talent, but the Colts defense did not throw 4 ints to NE. It was Manning that made the decisions, read the defenses and threw the ball that earned him those failing QB ratings. Not his teamamtes. Manning has to take responsibilty for his actions.
Oh, and wasn't it Manning that in frustration during their end of regular season 5 game losing streak called out the defense during a post game interview?
Pot to kettle your black.

I will agree that Brady has benefitted from a better a slightly better team defense only if you agree that Manning has choked in really big games through out his entire carreer.
Examples: (his QB ratings are most alarming)

1) Wild card lose to Jets in 2002: 2 int's ; Zero Td's and a QB rating of 31.3

2) Confrence Playoff loss to NE in 2003: 4 int's; 1 TD; QB rating 35.5

3) Confrence Playoff loss to NE in 2004: 1int; zero TD; QB rating 69.3

4) Divisional Playoff WIN to Bal 2006; 2 int; zero TD; QB rating 39.6

Brady's worst playoff QB rating in his career was last weeks San Diego game 57.6, otherwise his INDIVIDUAL PLAY and stats IN THE BIG GAMES is way better than Mannings. You can say all you want about their team mates talent, but the Colts defense did not throw 4 ints to NE. It was Manning that made the decisions, read the defenses and threw the ball that earned him those failing QB ratings. Not his teamamtes. Manning has to take responsibilty for his actions.
Oh, and wasn't it Manning that in frustration during their end of regular season 5 game losing streak called out the defense during a post game interview?
Pot to kettle your black.In both Patriot losses, the team had a top 10 defense. In 2003, the Patriots had the No. 1 pass D and the No. 4 rush D. Last week, his opponent, Baltimore, had the leagues No. 1 defense. All 4 of the games you mention were road games for the Colts in chilly to freezing outdoor environments.

Does that mean that the losses weren't Manning's fault? Of course they were. He deserves as much blame for the losses as credit for the wins (which IMO is far less than he gets, but w/e). But to me, a choke situation can only occur when a team is heavily favored to win, and they go in and lay an egg. In ALL of those contests you mention, his team was the underdog. So losing those matchups to me is not a choke situation, and the bad statlines are a result of his team getting beaten (by a superior unit) as much as they are a result of some bad decisions.

I think you could argue that he may have choked last year vs. Pittsburgh, but that team went on to win the Super Bowl. And he spent most of that game on his ass as his offensive line had a horrendous day. Theres little doubt in my mind that Peyton played well enough to win that game and his team let him down. That's not necessarily the case with all the games, just this one.

So not only does he not choke in all big games, I think he might have choked once, ever, and even thats debateable.

The point is that we don't know why Brady usually wins in the playoffs and Manning sometimes struggles. Maybe something wacky happens to Peyton's brain during playoff time that clouds his judgement (But only in certain games, other times he's normal). Maybe he's just facing superior defensive units. Maybe it's the cold weather that affects his judgement. Maybe the games are fixed. Maybe it's bad luck. Maybe the sample size is too small to know anything. We don't know for sure and that last reason is why.

What we do know is this. If you combine the playoffs with the regular season into a clump I like to call "football games", Manning is the far superior QB to Brady. Under the most pressure packed situations, Manning almost always comes through in the clutch. So we can be almost certain it isn't the pressure. In Peytons 3 most impressive playoff games, Manning has torched the opposition to the point where the Colts averaged 1 punt a game over those three. Did Brady ever have a 3 game stretch remotely close to that impressive?

Maybe we need to define what "choking" is before using it against a guy. Put some paramaters on it.

What we do know is this. If you combine the playoffs with the regular season into a clump I like to call "football games", Manning is the far superior QB to Brady. Under the most pressure packed situations, Manning almost always comes through in the clutch. So we can be almost certain it isn't the pressure. In Peytons 3 most impressive playoff games, Manning has torched the opposition to the point where the Colts averaged 1 punt a game over those three. Did Brady ever have a 3 game stretch remotely close to that impressive?

Maybe we need to define what "choking" is before using it against a guy. Put some paramaters on it.

What we do know is this??? Give it a rest. This last post is filled with some real imagination though. "Under the most pressure packed situations, Manning almost always comes through" is your exact quote and it is completely discredited by actual facts. Manning does not not not come through under pressure. You have no facts to support such a ridiculous statement.

Peyton Manning's career playoff record is 5-6! Pretty mediocre for pressure situations especially seeing as how two of those five wins are from this year when he has been god awful!

What we do know is this??? Give it a rest. This last post is filled with some real imagination though. "Under the most pressure packed situations, Manning almost always comes through" is your exact quote and it is completely discredited by actual facts. Manning does not not not come through under pressure. You have no facts to support such a ridiculous statement.

Thank you wilsowwilso, you beat me to the response..

GTripp0012 seems to create his own definitions like choke. 'You can only choke when your are the favorite.' Says who?

Peyton Manning, 1st player picked in his draft, 2004 NFL CO-MVP of the entire league, highest paid player in the NFL and by your own words(GTripp0012) is the BEST Qb in the NFL, gets a 31.3b rating in a playoff game and that is not choking? LOL! He has a 5-6 career playoff record.
When you put all those facts together that is the definition of choking.

If a rookie, second string, sixth round pick Qb makes it to the playoffs and loses bad that is not choking. But the Great, Awesome, #1 QB Peyton Manning does it and looks really bad in the process, that is choking. If Manning had just a mediocre/average game in the loss, that would not be choking. But he had an AWFUL game.
That is choking.
Thats what happens when you are the highest paid QB in thte NFL, the expectation is higher.
The highest paid QB should not be getting a 31.3 QB rating in his most important game of his career.
He chokes in big games. That is a fact.

What we do know is this??? Give it a rest. This last post is filled with some real imagination though. "Under the most pressure packed situations, Manning almost always comes through" is your exact quote and it is completely discredited by actual facts. Manning does not not not come through under pressure. You have no facts to support such a ridiculous statement.This year in New York to play the Jets. He leads not one, but two game winning drives. He scored, Jets returned the kick for a TD, and he went down and scored again. All in the last 3 mins.

I'd like to see some of the "actual facts". I'm pretty sure you're full of it.