RealGM

Who do you guys think ranks higher in the all-time list among QBs?

Manning. His being able to pull out a game no matter how tough a situation in the 4th quarter in Indy astonished me to no end. He was unflappable.

You mean those eight one and dones in the postseason?

Geoffrey P wrote:You mean those eight one and dones in the postseason?

I'm not sure how or why we should punish a player for playing on a losing team. It's not like he was the main reason for those losses.

Peyton has carried a ridiculous workload every season being in the NFL. It's why when Lebron was in Cleveland, everyone compared him to Peyton Manning.

Brady since winning his 3rd Superbowl or better yet, since he has had to take on the Peyton Manning role and his dominant defense went away has been 7-7 in the post-season.

It's a team game.

Manning is found on the wrong side of the field far too many times in the playoffs for me to give him the nod over Brady.

Brady's championships put him over the top.

Manning - 1 Title and 1 SB appearance
Brady - 3 Titles and 5 SB appearances

I give the edge to Manning. The one year the Colts lost him to injury, they went from contenders to worst in the league. On the flip side, when the Pats lost Brady for a year they still won 11 games. Manning then went to Denver and turned them from fluky playoff team to legit contender.

I think comparing playoff records/titles is silly. The playoffs in the NFL(well, every sport really except NBA)are a gigantic crapshoot. I mean Manning did not play well in some playoff games, sure, but have you seen Brady in the playoffs recently? He's been mediocre more then you'd think. And if the Broncos secondary doesn't poop the bed there late, Manning is in another AFC Title game and possibly the Super Bowl. And it's not like Manning has never won. He has been to two Super Bowls, winning one. In fact he's won a ring more recently than Brady.

They're both first ballot HOF-ers obviously, and you ain't crying with either one, but if I had to pick one I'd go with Manning.

Higga wrote:I give the edge to Manning. The one year the Colts lost him to injury, they went from contenders to worst in the league. On the flip side, when the Pats lost Brady for a year they still won 11 games. Manning then went to Denver and turned them from fluky playoff team to legit contender.

BS argument. Luck comes in and they're a playoff team the year after. BB just knows how to coach and had a team that just went undefeated the year before, that's why the patriots won 11 games. If Brady played that year they were going 16-0 again. Maybe 18-1

As for Manning going to the Broncos, he lost them the playoff game on an awful across the body throw. Last years team made it further.

And if the Broncos secondary doesn't poop the bed there late, Manning is in another AFC Title game and possibly the Super Bowl. And it's not like Manning has never won. He has been to two Super Bowls, winning one. In fact he's won a ring more recently than Brady.

Another BS argument. Sorry man, don't mean to be harsh and pick on your points, but your first
point has an IF in it. We can't use IF's when arguing against Brady. That guy has the biggest IF's in history. IF Tyree doesn't make a miraculous catch that stuck to his helmet the patriots of 07 are the best team ever 19-0 and Brady has 4 SB rings. That's a much bigger IF then Flacco picking apart and Jacoby Jones getting behind a tired Denver defense.

Adding to the always fun "if" theme.

If Brady doesn't get hurt.
If Gronk doesn't get hurt, either year really.
If Welker catches the damn ball (Sorry I still bitter on that one)

I give the edge to Manning, personally. Although I'm of the school of thought that using a QB's win-loss record as a metric of their individual talent is really misleading. Better individual player and had to carry a bigger burden with the Colts than Brady did with the (pre-2007) Patriots. There's a reason IMO that Peyton has 4 MVPs and Brady has 2.

I think of it this way...put Brady on the Colts and I think they'd be roughly the same if not slightly worse. Put Manning on the Patriots (especially the pre-Spygate version with their dominant defense) and they'd be unstoppable. Totally unscientific, I know, but it's how I compare them.

BS argument. Luck comes in and they're a playoff team the year after. BB just knows how to coach and had a team that just went undefeated the year before, that's why the patriots won 11 games. If Brady played that year they were going 16-0 again. Maybe 18-1

As for Manning going to the Broncos, he lost them the playoff game on an awful across the body throw. Last years team made it further.

This year's Colts team was a really wacky 11 win team. All advanced metrics would suggest they were really like a 6 or 7 win team that got a very easy schedule and some fluky wins.

Last year's Broncos did not make it further than this year's. They both lost in the second round. But last year's Broncos got kind of a fluky big TD pass in OT to win, this year's had a fluky hail mary type TD against them to send the game to OT before Manning choked it away. Which goes back to my original point, using playoff success is not the best way to compare because the playoffs are such a crapshoot and so much luck is involved, and Manning has been as unlucky as anyone. I won't deny that he's had his letdowns, but Brady has had a few mediocre playoff games as well the last few playoffs.

Another BS argument. Sorry man, don't mean to be harsh and pick on your points, but your first
point has an IF in it. We can't use IF's when arguing against Brady. That guy has the biggest IF's in history. IF Tyree doesn't make a miraculous catch that stuck to his helmet the patriots of 07 are the best team ever 19-0 and Brady has 4 SB rings. That's a much bigger IF then Flacco picking apart and Jacoby Jones getting behind a tired Denver defense.

My point is that you can't just use playoff success because a lot of things have to go right to win in the playoffs and there is so much luck involved. Even Brady got lucky(tuck rule). Also the last few years, Brady has been pretty mediocre in the playoffs. He's also lost three home playoff games the last four years, playing terribly in all of them(2 to Ravens, 1 to Jets).

Here are Manning vs. Brady's QB ratings the last few years in the playoffs:

2012: Manning 88.3, Brady 84.7
2011: Manning N/A, Brady 100.4
2010: Manning 108.7, Brady 89
2009: Manning 99, Brady 49.1
2008: Manning 98.2, Brady N/A

2007: Manning 102.9, Brady 96
2006: Manning 69.8, Brady 76.5
2005: Manning 66.5, Brady 92.2
2004: Manning 119, Brady 100
2003: Manning 100.5, Brady 84.5
2002: Manning 41.5, Brady N/A

Over the last 11 seasons(Yahoo Sports doesn't go further back when it comes to postseason stats), Manning's playoff QB rating was better than Brady's QB rating 8 out of 11 of those seasons. If we throw away the years in which only one of them made the playoffs, that leaves 8 seasons. Of those 8, Manning had the better QB rating 5 of those 8. And just to show how wacky the playoffs are, the year the Colts won the Super Bowl Manning actually had his third worst playoff QB rating.

Higga wrote: using playoff success is not the best way to compare because the playoffs are such a crapshoot and so much luck is involved, and Manning has been as unlucky as anyone.

I kinda agree, but it is the barometer of everything. Flacco's gonna get 20 million dollars because of what he did in the playoffs. Eli Manning is a hall of famer because of his playoff runs. Average to good QB's in the regular season, but money in the playoffs and are now looked at as elite.

As far as manning being unlucky, I don't see it that way. I see him making stupid throws to lose games. The many to New England over the early 00's battles. The tracey porter interception. Then the latest one against Baltimore.

If I was running a team and had the number one pick, and could choose between rookie Manning or Brady, I'd take Manning.

That said, when it comes to who had the better career I have a hard to picking Manning. Even though I don't think you should evaluate individuals based on team accomplishments, even though I don't think Manning is a choker, and even though Brady plays for arguably one of the greatest coaches of all time and played with better defenses... I still take Brady.

Contradictions abound but that's how I feel.

I hate using playoff success in this argument. The Tom Brady that was winning championships wasn't even close to as good as prime Manning or prime Tom Brady. When the Pats offense was their strong unit they never won a championship. Manning never had the luxury of having a better defense than offense.

Roger Murdock wrote:I hate using playoff success in this argument. The Tom Brady that was winning championships wasn't even close to as good as prime Manning or prime Tom Brady. When the Pats offense was their strong unit they never won a championship. Manning never had the luxury of having a better defense than offense.

That's a good point. Brady has not won a Super Bowl when he's had to carry the brunt of the team. Those first three rings he had an elite D, something Manning has never had.

Denver didn't have a good defense? 4th in ppg against, 2nd in yards....seems like a pretty good d to me. They sure didn't lose because of that bone head across the body crap throw huh?

Pats 2000-16th in PPG against
Pats 2002-16th in PPG against
Pats 2003-1st in PPG

So the Last Pats Super Bowl team had a great defense, but the other two? Maybe they looked better when they got to play Peyton in the playoffs?

sunshinekids99 wrote:Denver didn't have a good defense? 4th in ppg against, 2nd in yards....seems like a pretty good d to me. They sure didn't lose because of that bone head across the body crap throw huh?

Pats 2000-16th in PPG against
Pats 2002-16th in PPG against
Pats 2003-1st in PPG

So the Last Pats Super Bowl team had a great defense, but the other two? Maybe they looked better when they got to play Peyton in the playoffs?

Except those aren't the Pats Super Bowl years. The Pats won the Super Bowl in 2001, 2003, and 2004.

01 Pats: 6th ranked D
03 Pats: 1st ranked D
04 Pats: 2nd ranked D

Source: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/y ... 04/opp.htm (replace the 2004 with 2001 and 2003 for those years)


And yeah, the Broncos had a good D this past year. But they also gave up 38 points in that playoff loss. You could take away the 10 points they scored off Manning turnovers, that's still 28 points given up, including the Flacco semi hail mary.

The NFL always confuses me on what season the Super Bowl year was also didn't help I was trying to look it up on my phone at work haha. I knew which years the Pats won, but I'm always thinking the 01 super bowl win is from the 00 season. I just feel Brady gets something taken away cause he happened to have a good defense. I just think that defense is some what overrated. It's a D that gave up 29 in a super bowl I wouldn't say that is really shutting down the door.

Manning was one and done in the playoffs with a 1st ranked defense in 07. He was one and done with a 2nd ranked defense in 05. He was one and done with a 7th ranked defense in 02. It's not like Manning has always had these terrible defenses either.

I'm interested in talking about this subject again.

I think when evaluating their overall skills and abilities as QBs, Manning was better than Brady at pretty much everything. Manning was more accurate from just about anywhere (except maybe deep ball in the past something years), bigger, more mobile, better control of game/tempo, etc. The one thing I would give Brady an edge and it's a very important edge is decision making, as evident by their INT totals year in and year out. Brady has always been good at avoiding INTs because of his smart decision making whereas Manning is more daring and has thrown more INTs. Manning is not as crazy or stupid as Favre or Cutler but he certainly takes more willing/daring risks than Brady.

TheChosen618 wrote:I'm interested in talking about this subject again.

I think when evaluating their overall skills and abilities as QBs, Manning was better than Brady at pretty much everything. Manning was more accurate from just about anywhere (except maybe deep ball in the past something years), bigger, more mobile, better control of game/tempo, etc. The one thing I would give Brady an edge and it's a very important edge is decision making, as evident by their INT totals year in and year out. Brady has always been good at avoiding INTs because of his smart decision making whereas Manning is more daring and has thrown more INTs. Manning is not as crazy or stupid as Favre or Cutler but he certainly takes more willing/daring risks than Brady.

Two of those I disagree with (I think they're very close) and the other two are silly. I'm sorry, but bigger? How does that work into a conversation of which player is better? As for mobility, they're both slow as molasses, no? They both collapse and fall to the ground when the pressure gets too close. They aint pulling no Eli's from 07 SB (yes, I went there and hurt myself).