If Manning gets to two rings then I think that argument could be made. At this point, you have to take Brady.

No doubt. Manning still needs one more ring. For as good as Brady has been, let us not pretend he has gone out and thrown for 300+ in each Superbowl and dominated. When I think of their first victory, only thing that comes to mind is Ty Law returning a Warner pass for a TD and Vinateri making the game winning FG. He led the Pats to 1 TD in that game and did not even throw for 150 yards. The second I think about a flashy 3rd quarter and another Vinateri FG. The third I think about McNabb throwing up on the field because he was so nervous :lol: In fairness, he never threw the kind of pick that Manning completed last week. I give him props for managing all three wins perfectly and keeping his team in position to win but Brady still does not compare to Montana's greatness which many people like to compare him to.

If Manning gets to two rings then I think that argument could be made. At this point, you have to take Brady.

 

If Manning had taken this Indianapolis team all the way, it would have made it a lot easier to elevate him above Brady. I think this was Peyton's best season as a pro, and I think his play is largely responsible for elevating a decent roster to nearly winning a Super Bowl and having a shot at 19-0 (had they chosen to take it).

 

I don't think the Colts would be a playoff team without Manning. They'd be lucky to get to .500.

 

Wayne, Clark and Freeney are big time players. After that, they're not overly impressive to me. The o-line is solid, but Manning makes them look better than they are, IMO. The run game is average. Garcon and Collie came on, but they were young, and Manning makes everybody look better. The defense is only good at pass rushing, so they thrive because Manning typically has them playing with a lead. They're not that good otherwise.

 

If you take him out of the equation, and force this team to attempt to grind out W's like many other teams, they'd struggle mightily.

 

I know Manning has produced better numbers in a season, but I don't think he's had a more impressive performance than 2009.

No doubt. Manning still needs one more ring. For as good as Brady has been, let us not pretend he has gone out and thrown for 300+ in each Superbowl and dominated. When I think of their first victory, only thing that comes to mind is Ty Law returning a Warner pass for a TD and Vinateri making the game winning FG. He led the Pats to 1 TD in that game and did not even throw for 150 yards. The second I think about a flashy 3rd quarter and another Vinateri FG. The third I think about McNabb throwing up on the field because he was so nervous :lol: In fairness, he never threw the kind of pick that Manning completed last week. I give him props for managing all three wins perfectly and keeping his team in position to win but Brady still does not compare to Montana's greatness which many people like to compare him to.

 

The key in Brady's first Super Bowl was that Brady lead them on a drive to get Vinatieri in position for the game winner. Many of the analysts and announcers expected Belichick to kill the clock and take his chance in OT, but he turned the ball over to Brady and Brady delivered. At that point, Brady was considered nothing more than a game manager. It took another Super Bowl for people to start taking serious notice, and it took the third Super Bowl before he was elevated to the "best in the league" discussion.

 

The key thing for me with Brady is that he's proven in the clutch, especially in the post-season. He has three rings. He done much of it with average offensive talent, and when he finally got some talent to play with on his side, he produced the greatest single season from a QB in league history.

 

The Brady vs. Manning argument can go either way. I prefer Brady because of his post-season success, and I'm inclined to stick with that for now. But, him staying there could hinge on whether he returns to pre-injury form.

Brees was on Oprah today (Yeah, I watch Oprah!) and said that there was no way Peyton could have gotten to him after the game and that Peyton texted and called him afterwards to congratulate him.

Is Whitey Ford the greatest pitcher of all-time because he pitched/won the most games in the World Series?

 

I don't get the need to base it on championships.

 

That's the way it has always been in the NFL.....QB's are judged based on Super Bowl rings, and Brady has Manning dominated in that regard.

Brees was on Oprah today (Yeah, I watch Oprah!) and said that there was no way Peyton could have gotten to him after the game and that Peyton texted and called him afterwards to congratulate him.

 

:thumb:

^^^Glad to hear that, I already have said something about him contacting Drew.

 

I watch her show too sometimes if the topic is interesting, but members of my church don't like her views very much and bring her up quite often.

That's the way it has always been in the NFL.....QB's are judged based on Super Bowl rings, and Brady has Manning dominated in that regard.

 

 

 

You hear that a lot. That theory would make Terry Bradshaw the greatest of all time, I guess. I think Marino was better, even with no championships.

IN regards to Manning's greatness I like to play a game of switching roles. For example, let's say Manning played for the Pats most of the past decade. I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't have multiple rings. The defense of the Pats alone, led to many victories Brady really just didn't have to mess up, for them to be winners. That said, let's flip flop Brady to Indy, do they have that title? Would they have been in the same position this season? I tend to not think so. Lastly, let's look at the Matt Cassell (sp?) experiment....the Pats don't miss a beat and go 11-5 (arguably one of the best teams in the conference that missed the playoffs due to logistics)....Cassell leaves, goes to a miserable KC team, and performs miserably. Brady comes back, and performs well. I tend to feel Cassell would've put up the same type of numbers. It's ok to be a good QB in a great system...aka Brady...but it's another, when you make the system...aka...Manning.

Seriously?

 

I don't see how anyone could make a case for that. It would be like taking Favre over Montana. You could do it, but it's hard to argue with the results on the field.

 

The only case you could have for Brady is the results on the field in the Super Bowl.

 

The Colts have won more games this decade. Manning finished first in passing yards (42,254); first in touchdowns thrown (314); first in quarterback rating (98.3); first in Pro Bowl selections (eight); first in first-team All-Pro selections (five); was named league MVP a record four times.

IN regards to Manning's greatness I like to play a game of switching roles. For example, let's say Manning played for the Pats most of the past decade. I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't have multiple rings. The defense of the Pats alone, led to many victories Brady really just didn't have to mess up, for them to be winners. That said, let's flip flop Brady to Indy, do they have that title? Would they have been in the same position this season? I tend to not think so. Lastly, let's look at the Matt Cassell (sp?) experiment....the Pats don't miss a beat and go 11-5 (arguably one of the best teams in the conference that missed the playoffs due to logistics)....Cassell leaves, goes to a miserable KC team, and performs miserably. Brady comes back, and performs well. I tend to feel Cassell would've put up the same type of numbers. It's ok to be a good QB in a great system...aka Brady...but it's another, when you make the system...aka...Manning.

 

That is an excellent post.

 

I heard some guys comparing Montana to Manning and they all said Montana was the perfect fit for the system they had. In Indy, Peyton IS the system. There's something to be said about that.

The only case you could have for Brady is the results on the field in the Super Bowl.

 

The Colts have won more games this decade. Manning finished first in passing yards (42,254); first in touchdowns thrown (314); first in quarterback rating (98.3); first in Pro Bowl selections (eight); first in first-team All-Pro selections (five); was named league MVP a record four times.

 

Since we've started playing the "switching roles" game, I think its worth noting that Peyton Manning has been surrounded with superior offensive weapons virtually his entire career. Faulk, James, Addai, Harrison, Wayne, Clark, Stokley. Brady, on the other hand, hasn't been. Much of the argument for Manning in the past was based on his superior offensive statistics.

 

In RP's scenario, its truly a what-if scenario...what would Manning have done in New England? We can only speculate.

 

When it comes to my scenario, we know the answer. When Tom Brady was finally surrounded with elite offensive weapons, he produced the single greatest season in NFL history.

 

What we know is that Brady won three Super Bowls with a strong defense and average offensive weapons. He didn't produce Manning-esque numbers during that time. He simply lead his team to points when they had to have them in the biggest games. And, we know that he produced numbers that exceeded Peyton's when he was given comparable weapons to play with.

I think the Brady Manning comparisons are apples to oranges. Does somebody really want to sell me that Manning had a better defense than Brady over the years?

As for shaking hands Brees said it was no big deal at all that they talked that night when things settled down. I think that's Manning haters trying to find a way to attack him. If it was a normal game I could understand but the Super Bowl with the mass media hoovering over Brees I don't think it's that big of a deal and neither did Brees.

IN regards to Manning's greatness I like to play a game of switching roles. For example, let's say Manning played for the Pats most of the past decade. I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't have multiple rings. The defense of the Pats alone, led to many victories Brady really just didn't have to mess up, for them to be winners. That said, let's flip flop Brady to Indy, do they have that title? Would they have been in the same position this season? I tend to not think so. Lastly, let's look at the Matt Cassell (sp?) experiment....the Pats don't miss a beat and go 11-5 (arguably one of the best teams in the conference that missed the playoffs due to logistics)....Cassell leaves, goes to a miserable KC team, and performs miserably. Brady comes back, and performs well. I tend to feel Cassell would've put up the same type of numbers. It's ok to be a good QB in a great system...aka Brady...but it's another, when you make the system...aka...Manning.

 

Cassell? Seriously?

 

I can't believe people are down on Brady. He won 3 rings with guys like Deion Branch catching TDs. Manning makes his WR better, but his ring was won with two extremely elite WR in Harrison and Wayne and a great TE.

 

Brady is a system guy? Hows that system working in Cleveland with Mangini? How did it work for Notre Dame with Weis? I forgot that Matt Cassell led New England to a Super Bowl last season.

 

Both are elite QBs. Manning, in my mind, is probably the smartest football player of this era, if not ever. He is a great offensive coordinator, which what he is in my mind. He is a great passer, probably the best of this era as well IMO. But, Brady just has "it". He's money at the end of games (when healthy), which Manning never really has been. The playoff game they won against New England was a great comeback, but had NE had a little more time I don't know that Brady doesn't get them down the field for the win. He's money.

 

To me, it's kind of like comparing LeBron to Jordan. LeBron is IMO, the superior athlete and overall talent, but its hard to argue with the results. I know LeBron doesn't have a ring, but to me it's still similar. Let Manning win another ring and we'll talk. Regular season stats are great, but that's not how we measure greatness. If it is, then give me LeBron's career over Kobe's, which you obviously cannot do at this time.

 

People always slant the argument the way they want it to go. Let's hold Manning to a similar standard as we do everyone else. Brady has had the better career and as of now IMO is the greater QB and it's not close. Manning is maybe the better player, but I don't see the argument at all. System QB? Aren't all QB's system guys? How well would Manning do in a different system? Favre has played in a similar offense his entire career, so let's just say he's no good either. Montana and Young are obviously garbage because it was all Bill Walsh's offense.

Since we've started playing the "switching roles" game, I think its worth noting that Peyton Manning has been surrounded with superior offensive weapons virtually his entire career. Faulk, James, Addai, Harrison, Wayne, Clark, Stokley.

 

Clark, Stokely, Addai, and James are very much role players, not stars. Don't get me wrong, they have star power, but when James left, that star fizzled, and the Colts didn't miss a beat, same thing with Harrison, just wait until Addai is gone, or if Dallas becomes stupid. It's all about Peyton, he makes it work.