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.

 

No, it was a superb season, but he didn't finish, therefore it wasn't the greatest season.

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.

 

 

LeBron -vs- Jordan, is apples and anchovies at this point. You are just as biased as I am regarding Brady -vs- me to Peyton. Like I stated earlier, the majority of so called experts say Peyton is the best now, and likely the best ever. That lends more to validating my argument than anything else that could be said on here.

LeBron -vs- Jordan, is apples and anchovies at this point. You are just as biased as I am regarding Brady -vs- me to Peyton. Like I stated earlier, the majority of so called experts say Peyton is the best now, and likely the best ever. That lends more to validating my argument than anything else that could be said on here.

 

Huh? I'm biased? I never said James was better than Jordan. What I was saying is that if you're going to not look at titles in this comparison then you have to do it for all other ones as well. Which means you would have to say LeBron is better than Kobe, Marino is better than Elway or Unitas, Farve is better than Montana. Can't have it both ways.

 

The majority of the people that said that said it before the Super Bowl thinking it was automatic that the Colts would win. There is no valid argument for stating that Peyton is a greater QB than Brady. It's just not possible. I don't care which one you like, Brady has had the greater career and it's not debatable. I usually say people can think whatever they want but in the society we have today it's just not possible to say Manning is the better of the two. In fact I think you could make a case (though it would be a weak one) that Brees and Big Ben are on Peyton's level.

Huh? I'm biased? I never said James was better than Jordan. What I was saying is that if you're going to not look at titles in this comparison then you have to do it for all other ones as well. Which means you would have to say LeBron is better than Kobe, Marino is better than Elway or Unitas, Farve is better than Montana. Can't have it both ways.

 

The majority of the people that said that said it before the Super Bowl thinking it was automatic that the Colts would win. There is no valid argument for stating that Peyton is a greater QB than Brady. It's just not possible. I don't care which one you like, Brady has had the greater career and it's not debatable. I usually say people can think whatever they want but in the society we have today it's just not possible to say Manning is the better of the two. In fact I think you could make a case (though it would be a weak one) that Brees and Big Ben are on Peyton's level.

The better player and the better career are to completely different things. Obviously Brady has had the better career, there's no questioning that but to say Manning can't even possibly be considered a better player then Brady is one of the more ludicrous things I've ever read on here.

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.

 

So he's smarter and a better passer but couldn't possibly be considered better? I don't get it.

 

I'm sorry but it's a pet peeve of mine when people use the 'if they had more time' argument in sports. Obviously if they was more time anything could have happened, but they put time restraints on the game for a reason, thus there is no point in discussing it. It's like when people say "well if he had been there' or 'if they had switched teams'... well it didn't. Hypothetical arguments are a complete waste of time and effort when it comes to comparing players. We only have stats and personal evaluations to go off of and in this case there is more than one stat besides the number of title rings that needs to be discussed although some people would have you believe otherwise.

The better player and the better career are to completely different things. Obviously Brady has had the better career, there's no questioning that but to say Manning can't even possibly be considered a better player then Brady is one of the more ludicrous things I've ever read on here.

 

We were arguing two different things. I agree that as a player Manning is better, but if their careers ended today Brady would be the greater QB.

 

So he's smarter and a better passer but couldn't possibly be considered better? I don't get it.

 

I'm sorry but it's a pet peeve of mine when people use the 'if they had more time' argument in sports. Obviously if they was more time anything could have happened, but they put time restraints on the game for a reason, thus there is no point in discussing it. It's like when people say "well if he had been there' or 'if they had switched teams'... well it didn't. Hypothetical arguments are a complete waste of time and effort when it comes to comparing players. We only have stats and personal evaluations to go off of and in this case there is more than one stat besides the number of title rings that needs to be discussed although some people would have you believe otherwise.

 

See above.

 

For the 2nd part of the argument, we like the hypothetical because its fun. It doesn't change anything, but we get to use our imaginations and that's why people use it IMO. Pet peeve or not, I really don't care, it doesn't hurt anyone and it obviously doesn't change anything. Get over it.:idunno:

Huh? I'm biased? I never said James was better than Jordan. What I was saying is that if you're going to not look at titles in this comparison then you have to do it for all other ones as well. Which means you would have to say LeBron is better than Kobe, Marino is better than Elway or Unitas, Farve is better than Montana. Can't have it both ways.

 

The majority of the people that said that said it before the Super Bowl thinking it was automatic that the Colts would win. There is no valid argument for stating that Peyton is a greater QB than Brady. It's just not possible. I don't care which one you like, Brady has had the greater career and it's not debatable. I usually say people can think whatever they want but in the society we have today it's just not possible to say Manning is the better of the two. In fact I think you could make a case (though it would be a weak one) that Brees and Big Ben are on Peyton's level.

Your post is so off base, that I can't even fathom a response. Simply baffled.

No, it was a superb season, but he didn't finish, therefore it wasn't the greatest season.

 

50 TD's vs. 8 Int's? It was the greatest season ever from an NFL QB. There is no support to argue otherwise.

 

You can't claim Brady "didn't finish" and then defend Peyton Manning's career in the same breath.

 

:idunno:

 

I agree on guys like Stokley and Addai. But, up until 2007, that's the caliber of players Tom Brady had supporting him on offense.

 

For the record, I don't have a problem with anyone supporting either guy. The statements that I find erroneous are when someone claims one guy or the other is better and its not up for debate. It is up for debate and it largely hinges upon whether you're more impressed by regular season success and statistics vs. Super Bowl rings and clutch post-season play.

His passing numbers are quite a bit below the all-time greats.

 

True. But, the talent surrounding him for much of his career wasn't on par with most of the guys on that list. When he got it, he produced a season that exceeded anything ever done. :idunno:

Your post is so off base, that I can't even fathom a response. Simply baffled.

 

Seriously? What's wrong with it RP? Are you going to tell me that historically Manning is better than Brady? Maybe he's a better passer, but you cannot argue with the rings. Brady's legacy is game winning Super Bowl drives, Manning's legacy may end up being throwing a pick in the Super Bowl. Just because you're a Manning fan doesn't automatically make him a greater player.

 

My response to Boondock explains my view. I'm arguing that Brady is the greater player, not necessarily the better player.

True. But, the talent surrounding him for much of his career wasn't on par with most of the guys on that list. When he got it, he produced a season that exceeded anything ever done. :idunno:

 

Statistically speaking, yes.

 

Statistically speaking, Manning is way better when you compare their careers.

Statistically speaking, yes.

 

Statistically speaking, Manning is way better when you compare their careers.

 

Statistically speaking, regular season speaking, I agree. Now the playoffs are an entirely different story...

I agree on guys like Stokley and Addai. But, up until 2007, that's the caliber of players Tom Brady had supporting him on offense.

 

The difference is that while Brady and Manning had similar supporting role type players, Brady's defense was one of the most dominant in the league, not so much for Peyton. I liken it to this. I feel if you switched Peyton and Brady to the opposite team, I feel NE wouldn't miss a beat, while the Colts would miss the playoffs.

We were arguing two different things. I agree that as a player Manning is better, but if their careers ended today Brady would be the greater QB.

 

 

 

See above.

 

For the 2nd part of the argument, we like the hypothetical because its fun. It doesn't change anything, but we get to use our imaginations and that's why people use it IMO. Pet peeve or not, I really don't care, it doesn't hurt anyone and it obviously doesn't change anything. Get over it.:idunno:

I'm not even trying to argue with you, you're the only one who was talking about careers here, people were discussing who the better QB is.

 

Please explain to be the difference between 'greater' and 'better', I really have no idea what you're trying to argue.

 

I have nothing to get over, I just find it pointless when people use hypothetical situations to provide support for a stance on something.

Seriously? What's wrong with it RP? Are you going to tell me that historically Manning is better than Brady? Maybe he's a better passer, but you cannot argue with the rings. Brady's legacy is game winning Super Bowl drives, Manning's legacy may end up being throwing a pick in the Super Bowl. Just because you're a Manning fan doesn't automatically make him a greater player.

 

My response to Boondock explains my view. I'm arguing that Brady is the greater player, not necessarily the better player.

You like to argue the better player is the one with the ring....that's hilarious, especially in a game like football when it is so team dependent, more so than any other sport. In that case your argument would suggest that Trent Dilfer was a better Qb than Marino.