Tom "Iceman" Brady

....The reason this is such a dead end arguement for the Brady guys is because theres absolutely ZERO evidence that Brady does even one thing better than Manning. ...

There is a ton evidence. The problem is you create some lame excuse to dismiss any factual evidence that proves Brady is as good or better Qb in certain catagories. Look Manning is ONE of the great QB.

Do not take this the wrong way, but you are 18 y.o.; believe it or not there are QB's like Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw, Roger Staubach, Sammie Baugh, John Elway and Steve Young that have combined AWESOME TALENT and winning MULTIPLE (more than one) big games (super bowls). Tom Brady is closer to these all time greats then Manning or Dan Marino is.

You will soon realize America and the World likes a winner and Manning is not YET a winner. NOBODY remembers who came in second place.
Manning will be a winner some day. He is not yet there.
That is what seperates the great players from the all-time greats.
Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Warren Moon , Fran Tarkenton, Archie Manning (peyton's dad) are players that fall in the same catagory as Peyton Manning, Great/Awesome Hall of Fame talent but never won the big games.

20 or 30 years form now your kids will watch old NFL Films of the 80's, 90's, and 2000's and they see a limited amount of a great Dan Marino, but they see a ton of 3 time SB Champ Tom Brady.
Winning is what seperates the good from the great.

i'd say they were probably close overall over the last few seasons
just from what i remember i'd give an edge to the colts on offense,an edge to the pats on defense and sp.teams was pretty much even until the post season.Last year, I'd agree that the Colts had a better team than NE. They both lost pretty bad in the same round in the playoffs.

Every year before that, I'm sure most people would agree with me that the Pats were the better team.

There is a ton evidence. The problem is you create some lame excuse to dismiss any factual evidence that proves Brady is as good or better Qb in certain catagories. Look Manning is ONE of the great QB.

Do not take this the wrong way, but you are 18 y.o.; believe it or not there are QB's like Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw, Roger Staubach, Sammie Baugh, John Elway and Steve Young that have combined AWESOME TALENT and winning MULTIPLE (more than one) big games (super bowls). Tom Brady is closer to these all time greats then Manning or Dan Marino is.

You will soon realize America and the World likes a winner and Manning is not YET a winner. NOBODY remembers who came in second place.
Manning will be a winner some day. He is not yet there.
That is what seperates the great players from the all-time greats.
Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Warren Moon , Fran Tarkenton, Archie Manning (peyton's dad) are players that fall in the same catagory as Peyton Manning, Great/Awesome Hall of Fame talent but never won the big games.

20 or 30 years form now your kids will watch old NFL Films of the 80's, 90's, and 2000's and they see a limited amount of a great Dan Marino, but they see a ton of 3 time SB Champ Tom Brady.
Winning is what seperates the good from the great.Every quarterback you listed there was a truely great player. Anyone that doesn't clump Marino in there with those guys is making a big mistake.

Marino was never a champion, and I'm sure he regrets that, but he was a great Quarterback. When you talk about all time greatest QBs, Marino has to be right up there ahead of some guys who were Champions.

For my money, Elway was the greatest ever. I wasn't impressed as much about his two championships (the Broncos were over the cap both years, and the league office never caught it til 2003 when they took away some midround draft picks), as I was with the fact they came at the end of his career where he was still playing at a very high level.

I believe Peyton Manning could one day be the greatest ever. If he retired tomorrow, I'd place him short of the top 5, but in the top 10.

I don't think you are trying to say America won't remember Marino, but I'm certain they will. The guy's a hall of famer. Guys like Moon, and Archie, and Fran Tarkenton, were very very good players, but didn't do as much stat wise in this league as the all time greats. Brady is on pace to be greater, IMO, then these guys. He has to do it longer than 6 years, he will be up there, probably in the top 5 ever. Will he be greater than Montana or Young? Not sure, he might be. Manning almost certainly will be if the Colts don't fall off the map.

See, the arguement that Manning's offensive mates are a reason why his stats look so much better than Brady's is a completely valid argument, but no one has put foward much of an arguement along those lines for me to respond to yet. Nobody has looked at Manning's numbers vs. Brady's numbers and shown me that they are at least comprable (I believe while Brady has very solid numbers, Manning is just on a different level). If someone had done that this arguement wouldn't be so silly right now. The statement, "Manning's offense is better" is a blanket statement. That doesn't mean that Brady is automatically better. Brady has a better offense than Aaron Brooks, and surely Brooks isn't better, but by your logic he would be. Use stats, or other evidence to make a case.

"Meanwhile, the fact that the Pats are 12-1 in the playoffs with Brady says nothing about Brady." Exactly. You might be learning. It certainly doesn't hurt him, but that says nothing about Tom Brady's role in those 13 games. Actually, Brady's played pretty well in most of those games, but none of you have brought that up yet. You've just thrown the record figure out there with no subsequent arguement.

It's not really about Manning's team and Brady's team at all. You've made it that way. Here's how I would state my view.

Tom Brady is a very good NFL QB.
Manning is the best Quarterback on the planet.

And those 2/3 are the Matt Millen's of the world who will be out of a job in 5 years. Because if they can't see something as obvious as Manning>Brady (all hard evidence points this way), how can they be expected to select the best talent at OTHER positions where the evidence is less clear?

I "might be learning"? That's rich. Thanks.

I'll throw this out there: without Brady, the Patriots don't come close to that 12-1 playoff record.

I've actually stated my admiration of Manning several times in this thread, but at this point I feel compelled to add that if he is truly as superior to Brady as you claim, it's increasingly puzzling how the Colts have failed to win a Super Bowl with him at the controls considering some of the talent they've had on hand. Teams with mind-blowing offenses and mediocre defenses have made it to the Big Dance numerous times- but not "The Best Quatreback on the Planet" and his Colts.

Until I see Manning lift his team to the next level in a title game, I will continue to believe that Brady is ultimately the better quarterback because to me it's all about leading your team over the hump in clutch time (again, I realize you object to terms like "clutch" but I will continue to use them as I think most fans know exactly what I am talking about, even if they do not agree with my assessment of Brady), not setting individual records. Manning has a great arm and puts up great numbers, but I am not yet convinced that he is a pressure quaterback the caliber of Brady.
I think pressure adversely affects him, and I thought the same thing when he was at Tennessee. He now has a chance to make some progress in that area this weekend (actually, I feel like the Colts are just flat out due, but that's just a gut feeling). I would be interested in resuming this conversation when Manning has at least gotten his team into a Super Bowl game.

I'll throw this out there: without Brady, the Patriots don't come close to that 12-1 playoff record.Well, I guess that depends on who was QBing them instead. Assuming you mean the average NFL backup, I completely and utterly agree with you on this point. And so does the rest of the world.

I've actually stated my admiration of Manning several times in this thread, but at this point I feel compelled to add that if he is truly as superior to Brady as you claim, it's increasingly puzzling how the Colts have failed to win a Super Bowl with him at the controls considering some of the talent they've had on hand. Teams with mind-blowing offenses and mediocre defenses have made it to the Big Dance numerous times- but not "The Best Quatreback on the Planet" and his Colts.It's hardly mind blowing. From the top down, the Patriots are a more structurally sound organization than the Colts. Their teams have more depth on both sides of the ball. They can afford to let defensive players walk, and replace them. The Colts simply can't afford to let their players walk and stay competitive. The Patriots seem to be the more soundly coached team, though I'm tired of people kissing Belichicks ass for winning with the best team.

4 out of the last 5 years the Colts defense has been in 2006 Redskins territory. They are undersized. For one year in 2005, teams tried throwing more then they ran against the Colts, and it didn't work. Consequently, that's the one year since 2003 that the Colts have had a better team than the Pats. Every other year, opponents pretty much just run it down the throats of the Colts, and it's up to Peyton to go out and outscore the opponent. That can work in the regular season vs. some crappy defenses, but when you go on the road in the playoffs and play a string of great defensive teams, the Colts offense gets lambasted. The offensive line, recievers, backs, Manning, everyone. Put quite simply, they get beaten by a better team. Rarely does Brady have to play a better team, he lost to Denver last year, he played bad last week in a win against SD, against Oakland in 2001 he did nothing for 3.5 quarters only to obviously turn the ball over on a possible game saving drive...later to have the call overturned on a rule no one knew prior to that. Brady pretty much suffers from all the things Manning does in the playoffs in the rare occasion he has to play a superior team. Their performance in those games are very similar, except Manning has to play those games more often because historically, his team hasn't been quite as good.

Until I see Manning lift his team to the next level in a title game, I will continue to believe that Brady is ultimately the better quarterback because to me it's all about leading your team over the hump in clutch time (again, I realize you object to terms like "clutch" but I will continue to use them as I think most fans know exactly what I am talking about, even if they do not agree with my assessment of Brady), not setting individual records. Manning has a great arm and puts up great numbers, but I am not yet convinced that he is a pressure quaterback the caliber of Brady.
I think pressure adversely affects him, and I thought the same thing when he was at Tennessee. He now has a chance to make some progress in that area this weekend (actually, I feel like the Colts are just flat out due, but that's just a gut feeling). I would be interested in resuming this conversation when Manning has at least gotten his team into a Super Bowl game. As far as your opinion goes, you're more than welcome to it. But you are posting it in a public forum for many to see. I don't think you're arguement accurately answers the question who is better, so I take it as my duty to put my opinion out there to make sure that the "he just wins" theroy stops here. My problem isn't that people think Brady is better, it's that their reasoning is shoddy. If people truly think that rings and abstract ideas are more predictive of future performance than past performance, I cannot change their opinion. We haven't seen enough of the playoffs to really know if Brady's game elevates while Manning's drops. Brady's done better so far, but what's to say that winning 12 games as opposed to 6 isn't just luck? Probably is more than luck, but we don't know that. It's just a very, very small sample size. What we do know is that in non-playoff exclusive arguements, Manning is the better player. We know that all QBs tend to struggle in underdog situations, and Brady is no exception. The Patriots have done a great job in the playoffs, and the Colts a mediocre job, but mindlessly attributing that discrepency to QB play with no further evidence is nothing short of poor judgement.

I disagree that its all about leading a team over the hump in clutch time. I think its about consistent play from kickoff to final wistle. Comebacks are every bit as much luck as skill. Dominating an opponent is pretty much all about skill.

Playing under pressure is an abstract idea. There might be something there...might not. Tough to discredit a guy for not being a good pressure player when we aren't sure what effect it has on the game. One thing is for sure: the sports media makes it out to be a bigger deal than it is.

I disagree that most fans actually know what clutch is, as much as they might think they do. I doubt that you can actually explain it to me. I think it's an accepted term used in sports that people dont really understand. It's got mystique because people don't understand it. And if people don't understand it, how can one guy be better at it than another? Just because a guy on TV uses a word doesn't means he knows what it means. Can he define it? I can't.

Individual records mean nothing. It's certain statistics that matter. Past performance can predict future performance. That's the major idea. Past rings can't predict future rings, otherwise the Colts shouldn't even show up this week. Past wins can't predict future wins. I'm more interested in how a team won, then the fact that they won (unless of course, its the Redskins). I don't really care that the Pats won three championships because I'm not a Pats fan. I do care how they did it, because if I see a similar line of behavior in another team, I know that what they are doing is conducive to success.

If team A has Peyton Manning, then overall they would be better off then if team A had Tom Brady. Team A would have a great QB situation either way (in many cases the difference is negligible. Sometimes, it can be decisive), but they are better with Manning. You don't have to agree, but thats the bottom line.

He throws the ball to the players that are actually on his own team in the playoffs better.

awesome, this one definately made me laugh

[quote=GTripp0012;271139]Well, I guess that depends on who was QBing them instead. Assuming you mean the average NFL backup, I completely and utterly agree with you on this point. And so does the rest of the world.

It's hardly mind blowing. From the top down, the Patriots are a more structurally sound organization than the Colts. Their teams have more depth on both sides of the ball. They can afford to let defensive players walk, and replace them. The Colts simply can't afford to let their players walk and stay competitive. The Patriots seem to be the more soundly coached team, though I'm tired of people kissing Belichicks ass for winning with the best team.


Why dont you ask Peyton Manning why they cant afford to replace any of there players they lose, I bet hell give you 100 million reasons. I dont know why you keep arguing for a guy that has inflated stats on his record and really nothing more, no significant playoff wins, no Superbowl wins. Look Peyton is a great player, no doubt, but the purpose of a QB is to lead his team to championships, Tom does Peyton Doesnt. You keep ranting and raving about how Tom Brady played on better teams than Peyton Manning, yet the Colts have clearly had more talent every year. Would you like to know why the Patriots had better teams than the Colts, Talent aside, because they had a true leader, a guy to rally the troops, someone who doesnt buckle under pressure, Tom Brady. He makes them a better team, because all of the players on the Patriots are willing to put there own physical health at risk to protect him, and thats why Tom Brady is a better QB, Peyton Manning can have all the statistics in the world in his favor, but at the end of the day, Tom Brady still remains the better team player, and out of the two hes the only true champ.

One more point:

2002 NE was a better team (better ranked) than 2001 NE in all three phases of the game; offense, defense, and special teams...thus a bettter football team. However, 2001 NE won the super bowl, and 2002 NE missed the playoffs.

A last place schedule, a tuck rule, and the Steelers and Rams, teams far better than the Patriots, both laying respective eggs in championship games was all it took to turn Tom Brady into a legend.

Maybe Manning IS due this year.

Disclaimer: The 2003 Patriots and 2004 Patriots were both the leagues' best teams in their respective years. Both teams were most deserving of a Championship. All I'm saying is that the 2001 Patriots were lucky SOBs. The same source that has the 03 and 04 Pats as the leagues best team has 01 NE as the leagues 12th best team.

Source: Football Outsiders

Why dont you ask Peyton Manning why they cant afford to replace any of there players they lose, I bet hell give you 100 million reasons. I dont know why you keep arguing for a guy that has inflated stats on his record and really nothing more, no significant playoff wins, no Superbowl wins. Look Peyton is a great player, no doubt, but the purpose of a QB is to lead his team to championships, Tom does Peyton Doesnt. You keep ranting and raving about how Tom Brady played on better teams than Peyton Manning, yet the Colts have clearly had more talent every year. Would you like to know why the Patriots had better teams than the Colts, Talent aside, because they had a true leader, a guy to rally the troops, someone who doesnt buckle under pressure, Tom Brady. He makes them a better team, because all of the players on the Patriots are willing to put there own physical health at risk to protect him, and thats why Tom Brady is a better QB, Peyton Manning can have all the statistics in the world in his favor, but at the end of the day, Tom Brady still remains the better team player, and out of the two hes the only true champ.You've responded to me three times and have said exactly the same thing every time. Try ingenuity. Or some light research. Either or.

What makes Tom Brady a better leader???? You obviously have inside information that the rest of us don't. Be a doll and share it.

What is your source that the Colts had more talent than the Pats?

Here's mine:
FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Pro Football Prospectus 2006 and 2005 (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/)

OR

NFL.com - NFL Stats (http://www.nfl.com/stats)

At least guys like The Huddle or defensewins or wolfeskins are trying to back up their opinions, I just find you ignorant so far. I implore you to prove me wrong.

there is a poll question on redskins.com that asks "if you were a GM starting a team who would be your pick at qb"

choices are brady, manning, breeze and grossman

brady is leading with 55.3 %
manning is 2nd with 29.6 %


over 8000 votes and brady still has a comanding lead.:tongue