Well I have some stats also.

 

In the Patriot's Super Bowl win over the Eagles it was more of the defense than the offense I believe. The Eagles had 4 turnovers that game, 3 were interceptions. Brady threw for 2 TD's. Pats won 24-21. I would think the Defense probably won that game.

 

Patriots win over the Rams was thanks to Vinateri not Brady.

 

I will give major credit for the Super Bowl win over the Panthers though. 3 TD's and 350+ yards.

 

But during the regular season he has had a QB rating over 93 once. 2007 he had a QB rating of 117

 

Manning has had a QB rating of over 93 six times, his highest being in 2004 when it was 121.

 

Manning has thrown for 25 or more TD's every year he's been in the league while Brady has only thrown for 25 or more TD's 4 times.

 

 

Yes there is a experience factor where Manning has been in the league longer but I don't see where everyone thinks Brady is some kind of King QB. He has 3 rings yes, but so does Rick Fox for the Lakers so does that make him a great NBA player? I think not.

 

So your saying that Brady is some sort of second fiddle like Fox was? That he wasn't instrumental in the Patriots getting to, and winning the Super Bowl? Ridiculous....

 

Who, may I ask, was responsible for them getting there? The defense? Okay, yes they had a good one. But someone has to score some points right? So what offensive juggernaut was it that led to Brady being a second fiddle on his team? Corey Dillon? Ben "winter" Coats? Kevin Faulk?

 

Football isn't played in a vaccuum. Ever think that maybe the reason the Colts were so unsuccessful in the playoffs is because Manning threw the ball so much? This caused the defense to be on the field for a long time, leading to their low rankings. Amazingly, the Colts find a run game, the defense becomes world beaters, and they win a Super Bowl. Shocking.

I'm comparing the fascination people have with if you have a ring then you're some kind of great player. Look at Dilfer with the Ravens, he won the SB but he wasn't a great QB.

 

Rings don't make the player, numbers do. And outside of this past season Brady had average to slightly above average numbers at best.

 

And outside this past season he had average to slightly below average talent around him offensively.

 

You can be the best QB in the league but if you don't have the talent around you, you won't put up the numbers. Or maybe your more concerned about winning football games than breaking all kinds of passing records?

 

Numbers have very little bearing on how great a player was or is currently. As previously mentioned, see Dan Marino. By your justification he should be the best QB EVER.

Vinateri would'nt even got to kick it if Brady didnt get him in field goal position.

 

No doubt. You ever want to see the 2 minute drill run to perfection, go back and watch the end of that game. If that isn't leadership I don't know what is.

Comparing Tom Brady to Rick Fox? Good God...

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Peyton Manning.

Rick Fox and Tom Brady...

 

...sorry, I'm still laughing. I can't even add anything to the debate now...

 

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

One tidbit though...Peyton's stats during Indy's Super Bowl run was some of the worst of his career...apparently, like Brady, it was his supporting cast, defense and running game, that won the Super Bowl for his team, in spite of his performance at the QB position.

 

1034 Yds, 63.4%, 3 TD, 7 Int (in 4 post-season games)

 

His highest QB rating was 81.8 vs. Chicago in the Super Bowl.

Also, ironically enough, if you look at their passer rating in playoff games, Brady's is higher. Shocking, I know.

 

In 17 career playoff games, Tom Brady is 14-3...233 ypg, 62.5%, 26 TD, 12 Int, 88.0 Rating.

 

In 14 career playoff games, Peyton Manning is 7-7...278 ypg, 61.8%, 21 TD, 17 Int, 84.4 Rating.

Brady....duh.

Some people are just haters.

I'd take Manning over Brady, but I wouldn't complain about having either as my starting QB.