Manning v. Brady 16

[FireChan]

Manning is awesome when everything is going his way (the weather, no pressure, great weapons at his disposal). When he doesn't have these, he's not so awesome.

 

Brady, OTOH, has proven time and time again, that he is awesome no matter the conditions facing him.

 

That's what separates the two.

 

Except when it's snowing playing Cincy.

[Rico]

Manning is awesome when everything is going his way (the weather, no pressure, great weapons at his disposal). When he doesn't have these, he's not so awesome.

Indeed. Concerning GOAT: The greatest QB of all time would rise to the occasion in these situations, and that's precisely why he is NOT in the conversation.

[Alphadawg7]

Brady is better than Manning, and its not even open for debate in my book. If Brady had Mannings weapons all these years, it would be Brady with those same records and probably 4 more SB MVPs to boot.

 

Manning has played with some of the greatest offensive talent in the NFL just about every year he has been in the league. Brady has played the bulk of his career with mediocre offensive weapons. With the exception of when Moss was there with Welker, he has not had a #1 WR the bulk of his career. More often than not he has had a mediocre running game, and his biggest weapons he has had have either been their short term (see Moss) or regularly hurt (see Gronk and Hernandez).

 

No one in NFL history has done more with less IMO in regards to his offensive weapons. Manning has been spoiled with talent.

 

Not to mention, how can someone of Mannings caliber, with 12-14 wins consistently have so many "one and done" playoff appearances? Manning finally won the big one and beat the great Rex Grossman, big deal. I would give anything to have Manning on our team, but in the conversation of the greatest ever he needs to get in line behind more than one QB like Brady and Montanna.

 

If I had my choice between Peyton and even Kurt Warner to make one playoff run, I take Warner. Some QB's play big in big moments, but Peyton just has come up small waaaaaay too often for someone so prolific in the regular season. He's the classic front runner. He will be one of the greatest to ever play no doubt, but Brady for me is the better player, has the better career, and they guy who I feel will come through more often than Manning when it counts.

[Deranged Rhino]

Brady is better than Manning, and its not even open for debate in my book. If Brady had Mannings weapons all these years, it would be Brady with those same records and probably 4 more SB MVPs to boot.

 

Manning has played with some of the greatest offensive talent in the NFL just about every year he has been in the league. Brady has played the bulk of his career with mediocre offensive weapons. With the exception of when Moss was there with Welker, he has not had a #1 WR the bulk of his career. More often than not he has had a mediocre running game, and his biggest weapons he has had have either been their short term (see Moss) or regularly hurt (see Gronk and Hernandez).

 

No one in NFL history has done more with less IMO in regards to his offensive weapons. Manning has been spoiled with talent.

 

Not to mention, how can someone of Mannings caliber, with 12-14 wins consistently have so many "one and done" playoff appearances? Manning finally won the big one and beat the great Rex Grossman, big deal. I would give anything to have Manning on our team, but in the conversation of the greatest ever he needs to get in line behind more than one QB like Brady and Montanna.

 

If I had my choice between Peyton and even Kurt Warner to make one playoff run, I take Warner. Some QB's play big in big moments, but Peyton just has come up small waaaaaay too often for someone so prolific in the regular season. He's the classic front runner. He will be one of the greatest to ever play no doubt, but Brady for me is the better player, has the better career, and they guy who I feel will come through more often than Manning when it counts.

 

This has been the knock on Manning since Tennessee. It was the same thing for Lebron James until he won his second ring, it's a tough rep to shake without more than one chip.

[Alphadawg7]

This has been the knock on Manning since Tennessee. It was the same thing for Lebron James until he won his second ring, it's a tough rep to shake without more than one chip.

 

Yeah agreed, and even Lebrons 2nd ring was questionable about how much luck fell their way...first against Indy and then in game 6 when SA had it all but won after Lebron Lebricked. But a lucky bounce and an impossible 3 changed that. Still, he has the ring, and the back to back...but I don't feel Lebron is much different than Manning.

 

No team game is a one man game, but when your best player is up and down in the biggest moments, they will struggle to win when it counts. Lebron was one fluke 3 from being 1-4 in the finals despite having the most talented team in the NBA 4 of those 5 finals appearances. Much like Mannings playoff history, both have had big moments, but not enough given the magnitude of the player and have come up short too often given the overall talent around them at those times.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Alphadawg7

[Orton's Arm]

Brady is better than Manning, and its not even open for debate in my book. If Brady had Mannings weapons all these years, it would be Brady with those same records and probably 4 more SB MVPs to boot.

 

Manning has played with some of the greatest offensive talent in the NFL just about every year he has been in the league. Brady has played the bulk of his career with mediocre offensive weapons. With the exception of when Moss was there with Welker, he has not had a #1 WR the bulk of his career. More often than not he has had a mediocre running game, and his biggest weapons he has had have either been their short term (see Moss) or regularly hurt (see Gronk and Hernandez).

 

No one in NFL history has done more with less IMO in regards to his offensive weapons. Manning has been spoiled with talent.

 

Not to mention, how can someone of Mannings caliber, with 12-14 wins consistently have so many "one and done" playoff appearances? Manning finally won the big one and beat the great Rex Grossman, big deal. I would give anything to have Manning on our team, but in the conversation of the greatest ever he needs to get in line behind more than one QB like Brady and Montanna.

 

If I had my choice between Peyton and even Kurt Warner to make one playoff run, I take Warner. Some QB's play big in big moments, but Peyton just has come up small waaaaaay too often for someone so prolific in the regular season. He's the classic front runner. He will be one of the greatest to ever play no doubt, but Brady for me is the better player, has the better career, and they guy who I feel will come through more often than Manning when it counts.

 

I'm glad you mentioned Kurt Warner. In his three Super Bowls, he threw for 414 yards against the Titans, 377 yards against the Steelers, and 365 yards against the Patriots. These represent the three highest passing yardage totals in Super Bowl history.

 

He threw for 300 yards in 41.9% of his games played--the highest percentage of any quarterback ever. He tied Dan Marino's record of being the fastest QB to reach 30,000 career passing yards. The knock on Warner is longevity, or lack thereof. His career started late, ended a bit early, and had a fallow period in the middle. Despite all that, he was only about two years away from matching Joe Montana's career yardage total when he retired. If Joe Montana is in the conversation for best quarterback ever, I don't think Kurt Warner should be excluded based on those two years. Not that I'd put Warner best overall, but he's definitely in the conversation for top-5 best overall.

[TheFunPolice]

Brady has the arrogant swagger that makes me hate his guts but helps him win big games

[boyst]

Brady is better than Manning, and its not even open for debate in my book. If Brady had Mannings weapons all these years, it would be Brady with those same records and probably 4 more SB MVPs to boot.

 

Manning has played with some of the greatest offensive talent in the NFL just about every year he has been in the league. Brady has played the bulk of his career with mediocre offensive weapons. With the exception of when Moss was there with Welker, he has not had a #1 WR the bulk of his career. More often than not he has had a mediocre running game, and his biggest weapons he has had have either been their short term (see Moss) or regularly hurt (see Gronk and Hernandez).

 

No one in NFL history has done more with less IMO in regards to his offensive weapons. Manning has been spoiled with talent.

 

Not to mention, how can someone of Mannings caliber, with 12-14 wins consistently have so many "one and done" playoff appearances? Manning finally won the big one and beat the great Rex Grossman, big deal. I would give anything to have Manning on our team, but in the conversation of the greatest ever he needs to get in line behind more than one QB like Brady and Montanna.

 

If I had my choice between Peyton and even Kurt Warner to make one playoff run, I take Warner. Some QB's play big in big moments, but Peyton just has come up small waaaaaay too often for someone so prolific in the regular season. He's the classic front runner. He will be one of the greatest to ever play no doubt, but Brady for me is the better player, has the better career, and they guy who I feel will come through more often than Manning when it counts.

This argument is made often, usually successfully, but refuses to take in to account the defenses that were attached to both QB's.

 

Compare Brady's D to Mannings.

 

The adage that defenses win championships is as old as time and true every day, every week, every month, every year.

 

2001

NE 6th

Indy 31

 

2002

NE 17th

Indy 7th

 

2003

NE 1st

Indy 20th

 

2004

NE 2nd

Indy 19th

 

2005

NE 17th

Indy 2nd

 

2006

NE 2nd

Indy 23rd

 

2007

NE 4th

Indy 1st

 

2008

NE 8th

Indy 7th

 

2009

NE 5th

Indy 8th

 

2010

NE 8th

Indy 23rd

 

2011

NE 15th

Indy 28th

 

2012

NE 9th

Indy 21st

 

2013

NE 10th

Den 22nd

 

2014

NE 20th

Denver 12th

 

NE Avg: 9th

Den Avg 16th

 

Correlate those to the years both teams won the most, and the big show.

[MrLocke]

What people seem to forget about Indy's defense is that they played indoors and on carpet two disadvantages to defenses. Also the Colts never played ball control type offense something else that helps the defense.

[Mr. WEO]

I'm glad you mentioned Kurt Warner. In his three Super Bowls, he threw for 414 yards against the Titans, 377 yards against the Steelers, and 365 yards against the Patriots. These represent the three highest passing yardage totals in Super Bowl history.

 

He threw for 300 yards in 41.9% of his games played--the highest percentage of any quarterback ever. He tied Dan Marino's record of being the fastest QB to reach 30,000 career passing yards. The knock on Warner is longevity, or lack thereof. His career started late, ended a bit early, and had a fallow period in the middle. Despite all that, he was only about two years away from matching Joe Montana's career yardage total when he retired. If Joe Montana is in the conversation for best quarterback ever, I don't think Kurt Warner should be excluded based on those two years. Not that I'd put Warner best overall, but he's definitely in the conversation for top-5 best overall.

 

I agree. Warner was the balls. Toughest QB ever. Easy HOF'er.

 

This argument is made often, usually successfully, but refuses to take in to account the defenses that were attached to both QB's.

 

 

Look, if your defense is good enough to help you win 68% of your regular season games (including 68% out of your conference, 68% outside of a dome), yet you only 47% of your playoff games....it's not the defense.

 

Although I must say, the only SB P Manning won was because of his defense--in 2006 his march through the playoffs he was awful every game.

[boyst]

I agree. Warner was the balls. Toughest QB ever. Easy HOF'er.

 

 

 

Look, if your defense is good enough to help you win 68% of your regular season games (including 68% out of your conference, 68% outside of a dome), yet you only 47% of your playoff games....it's not the defense.

 

Although I must say, the only SB P Manning won was because of his defense--in 2006 his march through the playoffs he was awful every game.

Indianapolis has played no one for many years. Tennessee was their biggest threat and that did not last long. They get at least 4 gimmie's a year between Jacksonville, Houston and Tennessee - they should win 6 games, really.

[MattM]

 

 

I agree. Warner was the balls. Toughest QB ever. Easy HOF'er.

 

 

 

Look, if your defense is good enough to help you win 68% of your regular season games (including 68% out of your conference, 68% outside of a dome), yet you only 47% of your playoff games....it's not the defense.

 

Although I must say, the only SB P Manning won was because of his defense--in 2006 his march through the playoffs he was awful every game.

 

So, there's no difference between the quality of regular season opponents and post-season opponents then?

 

Indianapolis has played no one for many years. Tennessee was their biggest threat and that did not last long. They get at least 4 gimmie's a year between Jacksonville, Houston and Tennessee - they should win 6 games, really.

 

That's the division NOW--remember that most of the time Manning was playing in Indy either Tennessee or Jacksonville were decent teams.

[boyst]

So, there's no difference between the quality of regular season opponents and post-season opponents then?

 

 

 

That's the division NOW--remember that most of the time Manning was playing in Indy either Tennessee or Jacksonville were decent teams.

I think I must have had too many concussions. i do not know when Jax was ever decent.

[Mr. WEO]

Indianapolis has played no one for many years. Tennessee was their biggest threat and that did not last long. They get at least 4 gimmie's a year between Jacksonville, Houston and Tennessee - they should win 6 games, really.

So, there's no difference between the quality of regular season opponents and post-season opponents then?

 

 

 

That's the division NOW--remember that most of the time Manning was playing in Indy either Tennessee or Jacksonville were decent teams.

 

For both of you--see the Colts record outside the division and the conference--they played everyone over time and won...until the playoffs.

 

So, no, the difference between the regular season and the post-season is not the opponents over all of those years and all of those games. It's the performance of the Manning-led teams in the playoffs.

[MattM]

 

 

 

For both of you--see the Colts record outside the division and the conference--they played everyone over time and won...until the playoffs.

 

So, no, the difference between the regular season and the post-season is not the opponents over all of those years and all of those games. It's the performance of the Manning-led teams in the playoffs.

 

Have to point out again that by definition one plays better teams in the playoffs, so one would expect to lose more playoff games as a % than regular season games. Personally, anything at 60% or better in playoff games is pretty good to me, even if Manning has not hit that. Brady is money in the playoffs, but has issues (a cheating scandal that specifically benefitted his side of the ball) of his own that Manning doesn't have.

 

On the J'ville point, some of those mid-aughts Del Rio teams were chic SB picks those years and were almost always playoff spot contenders.

[Mr. WEO]

Have to point out again that by definition one plays better teams in the playoffs, so one would expect to lose more playoff games as a % than regular season games. Personally, anything at 60% or better in playoff games is pretty good to me, even if Manning has not hit that. Brady is money in the playoffs, but has issues (a cheating scandal that specifically benefitted his side of the ball) of his own that Manning doesn't have.

 

On the J'ville point, some of those mid-aughts Del Rio teams were chic SB picks those years and were almost always playoff spot contenders.

 

Hmmm...let me try this one more time...

 

 

Looking at the teams that Manning was one and done (which is 8 times in 13 seasons) agaisnt in the playoffs, his record agaisnt them in the regular season is a combined 46-23. So....when he faced these teams in the regular season, he dominated them. In the playoffs, he folded.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Brady has the arrogant swagger that makes me hate his guts but helps him win big games

+1

tuck rule, knee rule, whiner rule

 

because they get away with cheating and ZERO ramifications by the NFL

 

burn the tapes and it will all go way

[Orton's Arm]

Hmmm...let me try this one more time...

 

 

Looking at the teams that Manning was one and done (which is 8 times in 13 seasons) agaisnt in the playoffs, his record agaisnt them in the regular season is a combined 46-23. So....when he faced these teams in the regular season, he dominated them. In the playoffs, he folded.

 

I recently read Charles Duhigg's book The Power of Habit. It's very well researched, and recommended reading.

 

The book mentions Tony Dungy, and his efforts to install new habits in the players he coached. Dungy's philosophy is that defenders typically look at too many information cues, making them slower to react than would otherwise have been the case. He worked to instill new habits. Teaching them to pay attention to a few information signals, and those signals only.

 

When he was in Indy, the players bought into Dungy's approach during the regular season. But when the postseason came, they felt they had to do something more. Apparently, that "something more" consisted of going back to their old habits. The habits Dungy was trying to eradicate. To Dungy, the problem was a question of trust. They trusted his system enough to use it in the regular season, but not in the postseason.

 

Then Dungy's son died. That death deepened the bond between players and coach, causing them to trust his system even in the postseason. The Colts went on to win the Super Bowl on the strength of their defense. As you pointed out, Manning didn't play particularly well during that postseason stretch.

 

Unlike Joe Montana or Kurt Warner, Peyton Manning doesn't play better in the postseason than the regular season. If anything, he's a bit worse. But he's not necessarily as much worse as the Colts' string of one-and-done playoff appearances might suggest.

[Mr. WEO]

I recently read Charles Duhigg's book The Power of Habit. It's very well researched, and recommended reading.

 

The book mentions Tony Dungy, and his efforts to install new habits in the players he coached. Dungy's philosophy is that defenders typically look at too many information cues, making them slower to react than would otherwise have been the case. He worked to instill new habits. Teaching them to pay attention to a few information signals, and those signals only.

 

When he was in Indy, the players bought into Dungy's approach during the regular season. But when the postseason came, they felt they had to do something more. Apparently, that "something more" consisted of going back to their old habits. The habits Dungy was trying to eradicate. To Dungy, the problem was a question of trust. They trusted his system enough to use it in the regular season, but not in the postseason.

 

Then Dungy's son died. That death deepened the bond between players and coach, causing them to trust his system even in the postseason. The Colts went on to win the Super Bowl on the strength of their defense. As you pointed out, Manning didn't play particularly well during that postseason stretch.

 

Unlike Joe Montana or Kurt Warner, Peyton Manning doesn't play better in the postseason than the regular season. If anything, he's a bit worse. But he's not necessarily as much worse as the Colts' string of one-and-done playoff appearances might suggest.

 

Respectfully disagree.

 

As for Dungy, his method of changing focus wasn't very successful during the regular season. As Jaybost pointed out, the D was mediocre. But it did rally in 2006 playoffs.

[49er Fan]

Both are certain HOFers but Brady's dominance over P. Manning is really only in the regular season. Brady is just 2-2 vs. Manning all-time in the playoffs and 0-2 since 2006. Brady's wins over Manning were in the '03 and '04 seasons. That's a long time ago.

 

NFL MVPs: P. Manning 5, Brady 2

Edited November 4, 2014 by 49er Fan

[bbb]

I always thought playoff records look skewed, and people shouldn't look at them like regular season records. If you get the number two seed, win your divisional game, and lose in the AFC Championship, you are 1-1. That doesn't look good, but you made it to the friggin AFC Championship!

 

I was just thinking, Jim Kelly was 3-3 in his first three playoff season. Looks very mediocre. But, he went to the AFC Championship twice and the Super Bowl once!!

[Mr. WEO]

Both are certain HOFers but Brady's dominance over P. Manning is really only in the regular season. Brady is just 2-2 vs. Manning all-time in the playoffs and 0-2 since 2006. Brady's wins over Manning were in the '03 and '04 seasons. That's a long time ago.

 

NFL MVPs: P. Manning 5, Brady 2

 

SB MVP's: Brady 2 Manning 1 (for 1 TD pass in the first Q??)

 

I always thought playoff records look skewed, and people shouldn't look at them like regular season records. If you get the number two seed, win your divisional game, and lose in the AFC Championship, you are 1-1. That doesn't look good, but you made it to the friggin AFC Championship!

 

I was just thinking, Jim Kelly was 3-3 in his first three playoff season. Looks very mediocre. But, he went to the AFC Championship twice and the Super Bowl once!!

 

Kelly won more playoff games than he lost.

[Alphadawg7]

What people seem to forget about Indy's defense is that they played indoors and on carpet two disadvantages to defenses. Also the Colts never played ball control type offense something else that helps the defense.

 

Couple of things...there are quite a few seasons in that list where Indy had a top 12 D, more than enough to matter.

 

If you want to weigh defenses, you also have to way offensive efficiency hurting their defensive stats. Indy/Den scores so often and so fast, that by default their defense will be on the field a lot. And thats how stats easily have totals increased. Their defense wasn't always as bad as the stats suggested. And in many of the games where Indy was eliminated via upset, their Defense played good enough to win and it was the offense that sputtered.

 

So, I hear this defense argument all the time when these two are compared, but for me its not a valid one for two key reasons...

 

1. This is about Brady vs Manning...not Pats vs. Indy. Head to head, Brady has owned Manning with a 2-1 win ratio.

2. Brady and Manning play on offense...Brady has accomplished an amazing resume offensively despite having inferior talent to Manning.

3. Brady has a much better playoff resume, and not just in wins and losses, but in actual QB play.

4. The defensive gap isn't as big as that stats suggest to me. Indy scored so fast and frequently, that their stats suffer, but he still had some all time greats on his defense over the years. And, Manning has only one SB win against Rex Grossman, yet he had a top 12 defense 5 times. With the offenses he had, any top 15 defense should be more than sufficient to win the SB.

5. Brady is two fluke plays away from 5 SB rings and 4 SB MVPs. Nothing against the Giants, but it took 2 nearly impossible plays to beat the Pats those 2 years. Manning has not been good in 2 out of his 3 SB's and had many other flops, one and dones, etc for a player of his legacy and caliber.

 

Manning is one of the greatest ever, no doubt...but give me Brady or Warner over him in the playoffs any day of the week.

[MrLocke]

Couple of things...there are quite a few seasons in that list where Indy had a top 12 D, more than enough to matter.

 

If you want to weigh defenses, you also have to way offensive efficiency hurting their defensive stats. Indy/Den scores so often and so fast, that by default their defense will be on the field a lot. And thats how stats easily have totals increased. Their defense wasn't always as bad as the stats suggested. And in many of the games where Indy was eliminated via upset, their Defense played good enough to win and it was the offense that sputtered.

 

So, I hear this defense argument all the time when these two are compared, but for me its not a valid one for two key reasons...

 

1. This is about Brady vs Manning...not Pats vs. Indy. Head to head, Brady has owned Manning with a 2-1 win ratio.

2. Brady and Manning play on offense...Brady has accomplished an amazing resume offensively despite having inferior talent to Manning.

3. Brady has a much better playoff resume, and not just in wins and losses, but in actual QB play.

4. The defensive gap isn't as big as that stats suggest to me. Indy scored so fast and frequently, that their stats suffer, but he still had some all time greats on his defense over the years. And, Manning has only one SB win against Rex Grossman, yet he had a top 12 defense 5 times. With the offenses he had, any top 15 defense should be more than sufficient to win the SB.

5. Brady is two fluke plays away from 5 SB rings and 4 SB MVPs. Nothing against the Giants, but it took 2 nearly impossible plays to beat the Pats those 2 years. Manning has not been good in 2 out of his 3 SB's and had many other flops, one and dones, etc for a player of his legacy and caliber.

 

Manning is one of the greatest ever, no doubt...but give me Brady or Warner over him in the playoffs any day of the week.

 

Sorry if my earlier post was misleading. I think were saying the same thing, though. I'm trying to say Indy's defenses weren't as bad as people seem to think because of the reasons I mentioned.

 

Playing on carpet hurt Indy's defense.

Playing indoor's hurt Indy's defense.

Not playing a ball control offense hurts Indy's defense.

 

One of the biggest myths that Manning apologists like to push is that he didn't have a defense when this is not the case. He played with Freeney, Mathis and Bob Sanders all guys who are difference makers. Sanders was a dpoy. Mathis and Freeney are both in the 100 sack club.

 

I take Brady any day of the week! Given that the stats are even close is a miracle if you ask me. Manning had the better skill position players, he's the least sacked qb of all time and had the advantage of playing indoors. We all know about his struggles outdoors. He has to play outdoors a lot more if he's in New England.

[Pneumonic]

........................ Brady has played well enough to win 5 super bowls. Manning, just one.

 

Brady has been one defensive stop away from victory in his two SB losses. Manning, OTOH, got blown out in 1 SB loss and threw a game sealing pick-6 in the other.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Pneumonic

[MattM]

 

 

Hmmm...let me try this one more time...

 

 

Looking at the teams that Manning was one and done (which is 8 times in 13 seasons) agaisnt in the playoffs, his record agaisnt them in the regular season is a combined 46-23. So....when he faced these teams in the regular season, he dominated them. In the playoffs, he folded.

 

Not following you at all here--using the numbers you used (46-23), looks like you're using aggregate records against playoff opponents during the regular season over a number of years (since 69 is multiples of the 8 times they were one and done). That doesn't make sense to me--for example, a team could be 4-12 one year that the Colts beat them in the regular season, but then 3 years later they beat the Colts in the playoffs when said team was 12-4 that year. Of course they were a tougher out that playoff season and thus you'd expect the Colts to have a worse record against playoff teams than regular season teams.

 

On folks above on Brady's dominance over Manning, how much of that was home field advantage, as they also played twice as often at Foxboro? I thought I read this week that neither has beaten the other on the road since 2006.

 

That's all without mentioning the Spygate asterisk that Belichick firmly planted next to all his teams' records--even more so in this case where Brady would have been a direct beneficiary of said cheating.

[bbb]

Kelly won more playoff games than he lost.

 

Did you read my post. I said the first three playoff years.

 

And, looking at his playoff record, it's 9-8. Once again, proving my point. Looks incredibly mediocre - and he went to four Super Bowls!

[ganesh]

........................ Brady has played well enough to win 5 super bowls. Manning, just one.

 

Brady has been one defensive stop away from victory in his two SB losses. Manning, OTOH, got blown out in 1 SB loss and threw a game sealing pick-6 in the other.

Brady is also one defensive stop or one offensive play from three SB losses. The Pats won all those SBs with a FG at the end of the game and beating the Rams when they stopped them at the 1 yard line.

[OJ's Glove]

Brady is also one defensive stop or one offensive play from three SB losses. The Pats won all those SBs with a FG at the end of the game and beating the Rams when they stopped them at the 1 yard line.

 

Your notions are slightly off here.

 

Yeah, they were all close games. The point being that Brady didn't play poorly in any of them really, and handed his defense the lead late in the game in the two he lost. Even in 36 where he was basically a rookie and wasn't statistically good - and the Patriots offense only scored one offensive TD, he still had the game winning drive in crunch time to set up the FG. Then of course the shoot-out against Carolina in SB38 where he was great.

 

They never "stopped the Rams at the one yard line" in SB36. I think you're confused on that one. The Rams were only in the red zone twice in that game and scored TD's both times. The play where Warner fumbled on the one yard line and the Pats returned it for a TD was overturned by a penalty.

 

They had a ten-point lead on Philly in SB39. Philly's long-bomb TD that made it a three-point game wasn't technically in garbage-time, but it was close to it. There was no "winning FG" in that game.

 

Manning was lousy in the one SB he won, arguably against the weakest NFC champion in the last 20 years.

Edited November 5, 2014 by OJ's Glove

[Boatdrinks]

 

On folks above on Brady's dominance over Manning, how much of that was home field advantage, as they also played twice as often at Foxboro? I thought I read this week that neither has beaten the other on the road since 2006.

 

That's all without mentioning the Spygate asterisk that Belichick firmly planted next to all his teams' records--even more so in this case where Brady would have been a direct beneficiary of said cheating.

 

 

Probably a lot. I'll take Manning over Brady any day, but I could predict the outcome going in to last Sunday. The Broncos will start out better than the Pats, then the penalty flags will start to fly. Oh, and the Pats will not get called for a single Offensive holding or illegal contact on D ( even though they are grabbing and holding Broncos WRs on almost every play. And the game will always be @ Foxborough ( 3 years in a row, really?) ifGoodell and Blob Kraft have anything to say about it. At one point when the Pats were up by 21 I believe the penalty count was 7 to 1. Even late , Tamme tried to haul in a TD in the corner of the EZ with one hand. Why? Because his arm was being held by a Pats DB. The ref must have thought he was showboating , because there was no flag thrown. How about last years OT debacle @Gillette? Manning hits Tamme for a key first down in OT inside the Pats 40. Getting very lose to FG range after they traded several punts. But wait, a flag for Offensive pass interference. Minimal contact by both DB's.. What a joke. The league wants the big ratings of Boston and all the bandwagon Pats fans everywhere. Put the game @ Denver( like last years Championship game) and its a different story. And both teams had significant injuries, so that was a wash. Brady has had the benefit of the best coach in football, hands down. All the Pats SB wins were by a FG at the end, and they haven't won a SB since their focus went away from an elite defense. That is no coincidence. Brady is a great QB and certain HOFer , but I still think Manning is the best I've seen . You just get disgusted with the favoritism shown the Pats by the NFL and the officials.

[Pneumonic]

I only time I would choose Peyton over Brady is come pizza commercial time.