Manning vs. Brady Debate

[BiggieScooby]

Interesting comparison between Manning & Brady and reasons why Manning is number 1.

 

Throughout Brady's career he has had the advantage of playing with some pretty good defenses whearas Manning has been handicapped and therefore forced to compensate for a crap defense.

 

Brady Career Average

9 Seasons 2001-2007,2009-2010.

New England NFL Offensive Average Rank 6.3 in Points Scored, 10.4 in Yards For.

Points Scored Per Game 26.6

New England NFL Defense Average Rank 6.9 in Points Against 15.0 in Yards Against.

Points Against Per Game 17.8

Average Margin of Victory 8.8

23 4th Quarter Comebacks and 32 Game Winning Drives

 

Manning Career Average

13 Seasons 1998-2010

Indianapolis NFL Offensive Average Rank 6.1 in Points Scored, 5.7 in Yards For.

Points Scored Per Game 26.1

Indianapolis NFL Defensive Average Rank 15.5 in Points Against, 17.4 in Yards Against.

Points Against Per Game 21.4

Average Margin of Victory 4.7

35 4th Quarter Comebacks and 46 Game Winning Drives

 

Conclusion: Manning has had to move the ball much greater distances to score an equivalent number of points. Additionally Manning has been subject to closer games which has exposed him to more pressure situations and having to come from behind more often than Brady.

Edited June 7, 2011 by BiggieScooby

[hammie65]

Although these types of debates will always be rabidly argued on both sides, I have to agree with these stats and averages as being evidence for putting P. Manning above Brady, regardless of the rings ratio. I personally think John Elway may have been better than both when you look at the teams and players he had around him before his two rings and how he was still able to win consistently, as well as the length of his career. He wasn't called the comeback kid for nothing.

 

I'm still waiting to see someone compile real-time stats on the average time that a quarterback has had to throw the ball per down and see who comes out as having had the most time to throw or "better protection". I've watched games and specifically timed how long Brady had to throw and he definitely has above average protection time. Does he get sacked? Yes, but on average only after several seconds of not being able to find a check down receiver or just an outright great play by a defensive player.

 

Let the counter arguments begin!

Edited June 7, 2011 by hammie65

[DreReed83]

Manning is WAY better than Brady and is WAY more valuable to his team. New England finished with an 11-5 record WITHOUT Brady in 2008. I'd LOVE to see the Colts have that kinda success without Manning.

 

I'd even say that Brady isn't even the 2nd or 3rd best QB in the league. Manning, Brees and Rodgers before Brady. I'd even say Philip Rivers is a better QB than Brady.

Edited June 8, 2011 by DreReed83

[San Jose Bills Fan]

If I had to pick between the two, I would pick Manning.

[stony]

Manning is WAY better than Brady and is WAY more valuable to his team. New England finished with an 11-5 record WITHOUT Brady in 2008. I'd LOVE to see the Colts have that kinda success without Manning.

 

I'd even say that Brady isn't even the 2nd or 3rd best QB in the league. Manning, Brees and Rodgers before Brady. I'd even say Philip Rivers is a better QB than Brady.

 

One man's opinion. But to say he's "WAY more valuable" is not saying he's better. It just means BB is better building a team than Polian is.

 

And remember, Brady won his Superbowls w/o a HOF WR. Manning has had draft after draft catered to him and he's only had one.

 

Way to go cap-locks...

[ajzepp]

If we're ONLY talking the QB position, I honestly don't know how anyone who has watched these two over the last ten years can say that Brady is the better QB. Clearly Manning has the better skill set and can do everything Brady can do either as well or better. Clearly the difference in the number of championships won has to do with the teams they've played on.

[ganesh]

If we're ONLY talking the QB position, I honestly don't know how anyone who has watched these two over the last ten years can say that Brady is the better QB. Clearly Manning has the better skill set and can do everything Brady can do either as well or better. Clearly the difference in the number of championships won has to do with the teams they've played on.

 

I think both are about even. In critical pressure times, both Brady and Manning have had their problems...What has separated NE is that their defense has bailed them out especially those 3 super bowl runs. The only time their offense was far superior than their defense was the 16-0 run, but then they lost to the Giants.

 

Both are great QBs. It is the same as the debate in the 90s...who would you rather have...Kelly, Marion, Young or Elway. Each had their own strengths and short comings. All were great QBs who went on to become HOFers.

[Cru Jones]

Wheres the debate? all you did was give a slew of empty defensive stats and say Manning is a better QB.

 

 

Lets suppose that defense is a possible reason for any qb's success, you then would also have to be open to the possibility that a qb can be the reason for thier defenses success. When manning has 350 yards and a 28 point lead his defense is in clock kill mode, so they are giving up more yards and points because they because keeping the clock moving is more important than stopping the opposing offense. I can guarantee if you watch any close game the Colts are in you will hear that their defense is struggling because they are not used to playing without a lead. When trailing by 10+ points to the Colts, teams tend to get one dimensional(pass)and althought they give up yards and points, they force more mistakes along with killing the clock. So in Brady's & the pats case they play in more close games('09 excluded) and have a more balanced attack and it forces the pats to play a tighter defense giving up less yards and points. So in my opinion Manning & Brady are the reason their defenses put up the kind of numbers they do. So I think it's stupid to think that two guys who have performed at such a high level for so long would have a defense to thank for it.

 

What I hate more than anything is when people try to win a quarterback debate with a Passer argument. Did Jim Kelly have better numbers than Marino? No, but he beat him 10 out of 15 times and 3 times in the playoffs. Joe montana won 4 super bowls (one against marino) and marino won zero, and does any non-Dolphin fan consider Marino better than Joe anymore? Nope. Time only remembers the winner"s" and winners will win at any cost even if that means handing the ball off. Peyton manning will go down as the greatest passer of all time, and if he is as good or better than Brady, his career should be considered a horrible disappointment if he doesnt win 5 superbowls.

 

to me if i need to win a fantasy football game manning is my man. if I need to win a real game with real humans regardless of how many yards he throws for and all I need is one more point than my opponent im going with Brady.

[Hplarrm]

This really comes off to me as a comparison of these two as to what would happen if reality were different.

 

While theoretically considerable this approach goes off the track pretty quickly. The ultimate argument for Brady is simply one of reality that when one stacks up SB appearances and wins there is no comparison between the two that in reality Brady has been a far more successful QB than Manning. Case closed end of story for those rooted in reality.

 

Yet, part of the fun of this game is the fantasy elements of football (which lends itself to fantasy sports which is in essence a fantasy about a fantasy).

 

My sense of this comparison in that regard is the fantasy question of how one would guess or propose the other would do if he QB'ed the others team. My GUESS would be that Indy would be more productive with Brady as QB than the Pats would be if Manning were QB. I say this because I think Indy is a better built team than I think the Pats are. I have more confidence that Brady would do what is necessary to win and produce with whatever squad he is given while Manning would need a team built to his amazing skills. The Pats would likely need to be a whole different team (a bit more stability from the deep threats at WR for example) for Manning to do well with it.

 

Ironically, I think the rate limiting factor here is that Manning is so talented one is forced to build the team around his skills while Brady's talent is that he is able to adapt under Belicheats direction he does whatever is necessary on each play.

 

 

I think the real important factor here is Brady is just the right talent for BB's team and approach. As was the case in Indy, in order to win (or even make the SB) one needs a solid OL, WR consistency, the best defensive coach in football, the best kicker in the game, and a great GM who does magic with ST building.

 

In the end, I think Brady could win the SB with a team built for Bledsoe and a good chunk of luck. I think Manning requires a team built for his amazing talents so if I have to pick a QB knowing that reality says several dozen things will have to happen after I get my QB and I cannot know for sure what they will be I go with Brady as my choice. He gives me a better chance to win with whatever reality allows me to have.

[Jauronimo]

While theoretically considerable this approach goes off the track pretty quickly. The ultimate argument for Brady is simply one of reality that when one stacks up SB appearances and wins there is no comparison between the two that in reality Brady has been a far more successful QB than Manning. Case closed end of story for those rooted in reality.

So in reality Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Mark Rypien and Eli Manning are every bit as good as Favre, Peyton and Brees, but none of the aforementioned are as good as Phil Simms and Roethlisberger? Looks like the who's won more Super Bowls approach went off the tracks pretty quickly too.

[Matt in KC]

I still think Manning is the better quarterback when discussing "best QBs of all time". But, the margin is getting a lot smaller than when I originally came to this conclusion.

 

In my mind, the strongest arguments for Manning are his leadership, consistently high performance and longevity. The strongest arguments for Brady are his team results and his stats.

 

Additional Arguments for Manning over Brady

• Many of the the Pats' team successes may be a reflection of a stronger team than Brady himself. Their 2008 Super Bowl season without Brady is evidence of this. (Then again, as mentioned below, Brady's flexibility allowed the Pats to put in an offense that wasn't specifically tailored to his skills/style). In contrast, the Colt seem mediocre at best on offense without Manning.
  

 

Additional Arguments for Brady over Manning

• To what extent has Manning demanded the team be built around him? Brady has achieved most of his results with mediocre RBs and WRs supporting the offense (and was through-the-roof throwing to Moss).
  
• Brady has been more flexible than Manning, allowing his (evil) coach to implement specific game plans for each opponent
  
• Brady seems to still be improving. Another season or two like last year with 36 TDs and 4 INTs (an absolutely amazing number) will really deminish the argument that Manning is significantly better with regard to consistently high performance and longevity.
  
• Big game performance. Brady has come through in big games better than Manning. While this could be due to game-planning, team performance, or whatever else, it needs to be mentioned.
  

 

Neither here nor there...

• Manning has been better at avoiding sacks (and along with it, time lost due to injury) than Brady
  
• Brady has been better at avoiding interceptions
  

Edited June 8, 2011 by Matt in KC

[RyanC883]

Manning is WAY better than Brady and is WAY more valuable to his team. New England finished with an 11-5 record WITHOUT Brady in 2008. I'd LOVE to see the Colts have that kinda success without Manning.

 

I'd even say that Brady isn't even the 2nd or 3rd best QB in the league. Manning, Brees and Rodgers before Brady. I'd even say Philip Rivers is a better QB than Brady.

 

100% agree. Your point about Indy and NE success w/o Manning or Brady is all you need to know about their value to their teams. I'd also take Rodgers and perhaps Brees before Brady. Brady would be killed playing behind the line Rodgers played behind last year.

Edited June 8, 2011 by RyanC883

[DreReed83]

One man's opinion. But to say he's "WAY more valuable" is not saying he's better. It just means BB is better building a team than Polian is.

 

And remember, Brady won his Superbowls w/o a HOF WR. Manning has had draft after draft catered to him and he's only had one.

 

Way to go cap-locks...

 

YES, AND TOM DIMITROFF HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM DRAFTING A BETTER TEAM. IT WAS ALL BELICHIK.

 

BRADY WON HIS SUPER BOWLS WITH A TOP 5 DEFENSE AND AN ALL PRO OFFENSIVE LINE. MANNING HAD AN AVERAGE DEFENSE AT BEST WITH AN AVERAGE OFFENSIVE LINE.

 

MANNING IS WAY MORE VALUABLE THAN BRADY WILL EVER BE.

 

WRONG AGAIN.

[Hplarrm]

So in reality Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Mark Rypien and Eli Manning are every bit as good as Favre, Peyton and Brees, but none of the aforementioned are as good as Phil Simms and Roethlisberger? Looks like the who's won more Super Bowls approach went off the tracks pretty quickly too.

No. To draw a conclusion simply based on stats whether you limit yourself to SB wins or you limit yourself to numeric comparisons like QB ratings (or some number which makes this up) are both stupid. An argument which focuses merely upon SB win success (where Brady clearly outshines Manning) or on raw offensive stats (be it OR merely on offensive numbers produced (Manning clearly outshines Brady if one attempts to reduce the comparison down to TDs throw, yardage wracked up or some other single statistical or combo like QB rating.

 

It strikes me that a far better estimation is general QB prowess might be found in judging how the other player would be if he was at the helm of the opponents team. My guess is that Indy with Brady would still be good. NE with Manning however would likely make 1 SB at best.

[stony]

YES, AND TOM DIMITROFF HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM DRAFTING A BETTER TEAM. IT WAS ALL BELICHIK.

 

BRADY WON HIS SUPER BOWLS WITH A TOP 5 DEFENSE AND AN ALL PRO OFFENSIVE LINE. MANNING HAD AN AVERAGE DEFENSE AT BEST WITH AN AVERAGE OFFENSIVE LINE.

 

MANNING IS WAY MORE VALUABLE THAN BRADY WILL EVER BE.

 

WRONG AGAIN.

 

Or Scott Pioli, right? But it's irrelevant to the main point.

 

I guess it boils down to rings for me. And a memory of two distinct drives in their respective Super Bowl game. Brady's first was a classic 2 min drill to get his team in FG range.

 

Manning had a chance to drive his team to victory and he threw a pick 6.

[BiggieScooby]

One of the main arguments folks come up with for Brady is his career head to head record against Manning. In addition they'll sight his lower interception, sack, and higher completion percentage. And while no one can argue that he has the better numbers in these categories a further dive into the series is required.

 

Here are some stats I've compiled of the 12 games Manning & Brady have faced off:

 

• 
   
  
• Manning is 4-8 head to head against Brady, he is 4-2 after a 0-6 career start.
  
• Manning is 2-5 in Foxborough & 2-3 in Indy
  
• On the road the Colts average 21.3 points for and 26.7 points against
  
• At home the Colts average 28.8 points for and 33.6 points against
   
  

 

 

Rushing:

 

• 
   
  
• The Colts average 29.5 carries for 114 yards and 1.1 tds per game. 325 rushes 1294 yds 3.9 avg 12 tds
  
• The Patriots average 31.5 carries for 133 yards and 1.0 tds per game. 347 rushes 1463 yds 4.2 avg 11 tds
  

 

• 
   
  
• In the 5 games the Colts have outrushed the Patriots they are 2-3
  
• In the 7 games the Pats have outrushed the Colts they are 5-2
  

 

Head to Head Stats:

 

• 
   
  
• Manning 26.7 completions, 43.4 attempts, 62% comp. percentage, 316.7 yds, 2.2 tds, 1.7 ints, 2.2 sacks
  
• Manning 294 completions, 477 attempts, 62%, 3484 yds, 24 tds, 19 ints, 24 sacks
   
  

• 
   
  
• Brady 23.0 completions, 34.6 attempts, 66% comp. percentage, 257.8 yds, 2.0 tds, 1.1 ints, 1.5 sacks
  
• Brady 253 completions, 381 attempts, 66%, 2836 yds, 22 tds, 12 ints, 16 sacks
  

 

The Foxborough Factor has played a significant role in this series:

• 
   
  
• Indy (record 2-3) - Manning 122 completions, 200 attempts, 61%, 1514 yds, 11 tds, 5 ints, 12 sacks
  
• @ Foxborough (record 2-5) - Manning 172 completions, 277 attempts, 62%, 1970 yds, 13 tds, 14 ints, 12 sacks
  

 

Brady

• 
   
  
• @ Indy (record 3-2) - Brady 113 completions, 163 attempts, 69%, 1300 yds, 12 tds, 6 ints, 7 sacks
  
• Foxborough (record 5-2) - Brady 140 completions, 218 attempts, 64%, 1536 yds, 10 tds, 6 ints, 9 sacks
  

 

Time In The Pocket:

 

• 
   
  
• Manning has a 3.1% career sack percentage. Against New England that percentage sky rockets to 5.0%
  
• Brady has a 4.9% career sack percentage, however that percentage drops to 4.1% against the Colts
  

 

Game Winning Drives & 4th Quarter Comebacks As A Measure of Who is More Clutch

 

• 
   
  
• Brady - 1 Game Winning Drive & 1 4th Quarter Comeback Game Winning Drive versus Colts
  
• Manning - 1 Game Winning Drive & 2 4th Quarter Comeback Game Winning Drives versus New England
   
  

 

The Bottomline:

 

Taking into account Manning has had to play 7 games in New England, gets pressured more often than Brady, has to compensate for a defense that gets run on more, this explains the apparent head to head advantage that Brady has over Manning. Additionally Manning has produced 3 victories with the game on the line, while Brady has turned the tide of only 2. I'll take Manning over Brady for his ability to overcome mistakes and make the clutch pass.

 

While no one knows what would have happened if Manning was a Patriot & Brady a Colt. It's likely Belichick would have 3 Super Bowl titles with Manning and perhaps more Super Bowl appearances. Manning would have benefited from having a dominant defense and been able to play a ball control possession offense. It wasn't until the mid 2000s that Manning had a defense that could slow Brady and not get physically pushed around. Tuck Rule aside Brady earned his 3 rings, and came within a helmet catch of being a perfect 4-0.

 

Who Had The Better Coach? Brady

Who Had The Better Defense? Brady

Who Had The Better Kicker? Brady

Who Had The Better OLine? Brady

 

If you were to put Manning in the early to mid 2000s Patriots I think you'd see a minimum of 3 titles.

Manning could have carried the team in 2005 & 2006, and with Moss & Welker in 2007 the Pats would have been dominant. Additionally Manning is so durable they would have gotten a repeat performance of 2007 in 2008 and 2009.

 

Brady on the 2001 to 2011 Colts would be good, however Brady doesn't have the skill-set and the athelticism of Manning to run the Jim Moore No-Huddle offense. Brady would need more tight ends and running backs to check down to eliminating the fast pace. Brady would not have been able to rely upon his defense like he did in New England. Brady would also have been put into situations where he faced more pressure and wouldn't have benefited from the protection he enjoys in New England. In all likelihood Manning would have won 4 to 5 titles, while Brady would have made it to 1 Super Bowl.

Edited June 8, 2011 by BiggieScooby

[Jauronimo]

No. To draw a conclusion simply based on stats whether you limit yourself to SB wins or you limit yourself to numeric comparisons like QB ratings (or some number which makes this up) are both stupid. An argument which focuses merely upon SB win success (where Brady clearly outshines Manning) or on raw offensive stats (be it OR merely on offensive numbers produced (Manning clearly outshines Brady if one attempts to reduce the comparison down to TDs throw, yardage wracked up or some other single statistical or combo like QB rating.

 

It strikes me that a far better estimation is general QB prowess might be found in judging how the other player would be if he was at the helm of the opponents team. My guess is that Indy with Brady would still be good. NE with Manning however would likely make 1 SB at best.

I would conjecture that the use of statistics and other measurables in analyzing and comparing the two players would be a more fruitful exercise than speculating on what could happen if the players were to trade places. I was trying to point out that all stats should be considered and that no single metric holds the answer to the question.

 

That said there really aren't any stats I can point to backup my gut feeling on the matter. Both are great players by any measure. Both have benefited from playing on good teams and landing with well run organizations. I'm just more impressed with Peyton's play and individual achievements. He really runs that offense, makes reads at the line and decides the play (as I understand it the coordinator calls in 3 or 4 plays and he chooses). His totals and stats are on pace to shatter every record in the book. For that reason I lean towards Manning.

 

There's something about NE and Belichek's system that seems to produce great QB play no matter who is under center. Bledsoe goes down and Brady becomes super bowl MVP. Brady goes down and Cassel steps up and almost makes the pro bowl in his first action since highschool. Neither Bledsoe or Cassel looked as good post New England. I'm not saying Brady would be average on another team or he is merely a system QB.

 

Both guys have the same weakness. Get a few shots on them and they start to unravel. Brady's aura took a big blow in that playoff game against the Jets. He looked like he quit out there. Manning gets down on his teammates when he gets hit, Brady whines to any ref who will listen. For the first 16 games I'll take Manning. In the big game I think Brady is a little tougher mentally.

 

I think both guys would each have another super bowl ring if their teams weren't so pass happy and had a more balanced attack. NE won 3 super bowls with screen passes and winning the time of possession. When they started running 4 wide every play they came up short. Indy also won the super bowl the only time they had a legit running game out of the backfield.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Jauronimo

[Rico]

Regular Season:

Brady 111-32 72% winning percentage

P-Gump 141-67-0 67% winning percentage

Advantage: Brady

 

Post-Season:

Brady 14-5 73% winning percentage

P-Gump 9-10 47% winning percentage... BELOW 50%

Advantage: Brady

 

Rings:

Brady 3

P-Gump 1

Advantage: Brady

[Cru Jones]

YES, AND TOM DIMITROFF HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM DRAFTING A BETTER TEAM. IT WAS ALL BELICHIK.

 

BRADY WON HIS SUPER BOWLS WITH A TOP 5 DEFENSE AND AN ALL PRO OFFENSIVE LINE. MANNING HAD AN AVERAGE DEFENSE AT BEST WITH AN AVERAGE OFFENSIVE LINE.

 

MANNING IS WAY MORE VALUABLE THAN BRADY WILL EVER BE.

 

WRONG AGAIN.

when the pat won against the Rams (the #1 offense) in 2001 they were the 23rd ranked defense.

[judman]

Manning beat Brady in the Super Bowl!