Game on the line Brady all day.

 

No argument from me. Like I said, if you take Kobe, IMO it's only possible using the title reasoning to take Brady too. I just hate the double standard people try to use.

Okay, you'll get no more argument from me then. :thumb:

 

For the record I would take Manning over Brady as a QB as well, but with the way people on here acted over the Kobe/LeBron things, I think if you go Kobe because of the rings you have to go with Brady as well.:thumb:

 

I can buy that argument....but I am on the other side. Kobe has had a completely better situation. I tend to use my argument, if you switched LBJ and Kobe, I think the Lakers would be better, and the Cavs wouldn't be close to as good as they are now.

Well, you did miss it. I don't appreciate people acting like I'm stupid, so I give it back when I feel like someone is being overly pushy. Basically, we said the same thing, which I said was my mistake.

 

Yes, today IMO Peyton is better but if for some reason they both retired today historically Brady would be remembered as the better QB. Just like I have said with LeBron and Kobe. Everyone (just about) knows that LeBron is better right now, but most agree that if both careers ended today Kobe would go down as the better player. Kind of hard to word, but I think it's kind of obvious.

I still feel like RP is still arguing for better player and you're still arguing for better career. Like you said, obviously Brady would be known for the better career but that doesn't mean he has to also be known as the better player. Should Trent Dilfer be remembered as a better player then Dan Marino?

 

This thread is just way too jumbled and nobody seems to be arguing the same point, even after attempts of clarification so I will gracefully bow out. I don't have a problem with anyone thinking Brady is a better player, I can understand the argument completely as long as it isn't based solely on rings.

I can buy that argument....but I am on the other side. Kobe has had a completely better situation. I tend to use my argument, if you switched LBJ and Kobe, I think the Lakers would be better, and the Cavs wouldn't be close to as good as they are now.

 

Each of their teams are set up for their style of play its not really fair to make that assumption.

I think that Peyton is certainly the better player.....I also feel Peyton will have the better career when it's all said and done.

Each of their teams are set up for their style of play its not really fair to make that assumption.

We are in an imagination world for this argument. That said, just switch the players. I feel it is clear the Lakers would at worst, not miss a beat.

I can buy that argument....but I am on the other side. Kobe has had a completely better situation. I tend to use my argument, if you switched LBJ and Kobe, I think the Lakers would be better, and the Cavs wouldn't be close to as good as they are now.

 

I agree. Kobe is a great player, but LeBron and Shaq in his prime stay together and win probaly 6 or 7 titles instead of 3, had he been the one that came early and ended up in the same situation as Kobe, I think LeBron would already be mentioned as Jordan's equal. But, I'm extremely biased.

 

I still feel like RP is still arguing for better player and you're still arguing for better career. Like you said, obviously Brady would be known for the better career but that doesn't mean he has to also be known as the better player. Should Trent Dilfer be remembered as a better player then Dan Marino?

 

This thread is just way too jumbled and nobody seems to be arguing the same point, even after attempts of clarification so I will gracefully bow out. I don't have a problem with anyone thinking Brady is a better player, I can understand the argument completely as long as it isn't based solely on rings.

 

The bolded is correct. That's what I've been trying to say for a while to you man. Which is why I said it was my bad a few pages ago.:thumb:

I think that Peyton is certainly the better player.....I also feel Peyton will have the better career when it's all said and done.

 

I can buy that. IMO, if he can get even one more ring, I will feel that his career was better.

I can buy that. IMO, if he can get even one more ring, I will feel that his career was better.

 

While I agree, it is odd to hear you say over and over again that it is all about rings. But then say that if Peyton has two and Brady has three, that Peyton will have a better career.

While I agree, it is odd to hear you say over and over again that it is all about rings. But then say that if Peyton has two and Brady has three, that Peyton will have a better career.

 

Read some of my post above. I said that so others would argue for Peyton. Once you argue for Peyton, IMO you have to go with the King over Kobe. That's what my entire rant was about. Some of the reasons given for Peyton not having more rings, fit LeBron's situation even better. At least PM has played with some other HOF'ers who were in their primes.

Read some of my post above. I said that so others would argue for Peyton. Once you argue for Peyton, IMO you have to go with the King over Kobe. That's what my entire rant was about. Some of the reasons given for Peyton not having more rings, fit LeBron's situation even better. At least PM has played with some other HOF'ers who were in their primes.

Really?

 

Kobe 4 - LeBron 0

 

Brady 3 - Manning 1

 

And even you said if Manning gets to two then he will pass Brady? There are way too many contradictions from you to even get into it really.

 

Also, when comparing careers, Kobe's career numbers compared to LeBron are MUCH better than Brady to Manning.

 

It's a really bad analogy comparing these two examples anyways. Kobe has the majority of his career behind him and LeBron has just come into his prime. Manning and Brady are much easier to compare.

Really?

 

Kobe 4 - LeBron 0

 

Brady 3 - Manning 1

 

And even you said if Manning gets to two then he will pass Brady? There are way too many contradictions from you to even get into it really.

 

Also, when comparing careers, Kobe's career numbers compared to LeBron are MUCH better than Brady to Manning.

 

It's a really bad analogy comparing these two examples anyways. Kobe has the majority of his career behind him and LeBron has just come into his prime. Manning and Brady are much easier to compare.

 

OR, I said all of that before. I said it wasn't an exact comparison, but it's similar. Brady's post season career has far surpassed Manning career, has it not? Kobe's post season career has far surpassed James' career, has it not?

 

But, in the regular season James and Mannings career numbers are superior. Maybe James and Bryant are close, but James is statistically better in ever category, every single one of the main 5 categories. I didn't say it's an exact match, but if you're (not you but others have) going to say that rings are overrated in the comparison for Brady and Manning, then you would have to say the same for James and Bryant would you not? Maybe James doesn't have a ring yet, but like we all knew it was only a matter of time before Peyton got one, James will eventually get one (or 3-5) I would imagine.

For the contradictions, I don't really care about the rings, like I said before. I just want everyone held to the same standard. If LeBron can't be better than Kobe because Kobe has 4 rings, then Manning cannot be better than Brady because Tom has 3 rings to Manning 1. I don't look at it like that, if you remember back to the NBA discussions you'll remember that.

 

Give me Bryant or Brady's career, but as a player I take Manning and James and never look back. If Manning has 2 rings, I think his overall body of work would be better than Brady, even though TB has 1 more ring. If LeBron has 2 rings, I think his overall body of work would be better than Kobe's, even though Kobe has 4 rings.

 

Does that help? I know I've been all over the place in this one.

Statistically speaking, yes.

 

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

 

No doubt. But, my point as stated earlier is simply this...

 

All we can do is speculate that Manning would have won 3 titles with Brady's New England teams.

 

We know what Tom Brady did with elite talent surrounding him. So, its not a stretch to think his numbers would be much closer to Mannings had he had guys like Moss and Welker for the last decade.

 

I'm still inclined to stick with Brady in this discussion. Whether he stays at the top depends on whether he starts to play like the pre-knee injury Brady, and how many Super Bowl rings each guy ends up with.

 

But, to restate again, I don't have a problem with anyone who thinks Manning is better. Its the statements like "Manning/Brady and its not even close" that I disagree with.

decent running game?

 

2009 - colts were last, pats were 12th

2008 - colts were second to last, pats were 6th

2007 - colts were 18th, Pats were 13th

2006 - colts were 18th, Pats were 12th

 

 

Not so much on the running game. The Oline is efficient at best, if they were excellent they would be able to run better. So good in fact, that only 1 lineman was named to the pro bowl....

 

In recent years, the Colts ground game hasn't been that good. Manning, to me, has been more impressive in the last 2-3 years than at any point in his career, culminating with the 2009 season which was his best football, IMO. That's why he's closed the gap with Brady in my opinion. But, at this point, I'm sticking with Brady because of the better post-season and clutch play track record...but, Brady didn't look like his old self this season. There's absolutely no doubt that Manning was the superior player in 2009.

 

I think Peyton Manning makes the Colts offensive line look much better than it actually is. His smarts allows him to know where to go with the ball, what play to call, where the pressure is coming from, etc...he moves away from the pressure and gets the ball out quick. He makes them look good.