Career - Peyton Manning vs. Tom Brady

[NaturalBuns]

I couldn't disagree more with this statement, no offense. If the Colts recover the surprise onside kick against the Saints and go on to win, then suddenly that makes Manning a better QB? Does David Tyree's helmet catch somehow make Brady worse, since without that the Pats would have won another SB?

To put it another way, do you think Terry Bradshaw is one of the top QBs of all time? He's got as many rings as Montana and more than anyone else.

Football is the most team-dependant of all the major sports. Judging a QB by the number of rings they have is only marginally useful at BEST since a team with a decent game manager at QB can win a Super Bowl with a dominant running game and defense (Hello Trent Dilfer!) while a great QB will have no chance without a strong supporting cast.

Brady and Manning are both elite QBs, top-10 all time at the position. I think they're close enough that you can make an argument for either one and be convincing. But saying "Brady is better than Manning because he has more rings, end of discussion" isn't a good argument.

My statement was made very clear "the ONE position that means winning in the NFL is QB. I stated that very carefully so I wouldn't get a response of "football is the most team-dependant major sport." I know it is thats why I worded it very carefully.

As for the decent game manager type QBs with dominate running game and defense yes of course there are different ways of winning a ring who said other wise? I'm pretty sure the Detriot Pistions proved that in the NBA in the early, mid 2000s with defense. So I don't see your arguement to be honest.

In the NFL it still comes down to your QB leading your team! Regardless its the one position that matters with W/L. You can have a Elite DB, MLB, OLB, HB, WR on a mediocre, bad team they will not get replaced by someone at their respected position if your losing.

If you have an Elite QB its very rare that your team is doing bad. Now it just comes down to who is gonna win more and yes tons of factors, HC, Supporting Cast etc etc but its like that for every sport and is never an excuse.

I read and understood your statement that QB is the one position where wins should be counted as part of a player's resume. I just completely disagree with you. I don't think you can say QB #1 is better than QB #2 because QB #1 has more rings. Period. There's too many situational variables that go into football teams winning and losing championships to put it all on one player.

You say it's unlikely for a team with a great QB to be doing badly? I give you last year's Saints. Brees has been a top-4 QB for the last several years, but New Orleans was borderline unwatchable last year and finished out of the playoffs. Supporting cast matters a LOT. Offensive line matters. Defense matters.

I have no problem with including rings as a small part of the Brady/Peyton debate, but when it's your whole argument it falls apart pretty quickly.

But see I'm not necessarily saying that I was trying to prove a point. My first post was,

If Brady isn't considered better than manning. Then Lebron James is already better then MJ. If you read into that you know exactly what I mean

"I don't think you can say QB #1 is better than QB #2 because QB #1 has more rings. Period. There's too many situational variables that go into football teams winning and losing championships to put it all on one player. "

That was exactly my point to what I said if people are gonna compare Lebron and MJ off rings because thats what it all is about the media builds it up, Real GM builds it up its not fair because to many things to consider who your drafted by. Cleveland or Chicago. Whos gonna be your supporting cast Mo williams and Big Z or Scottie Pippen, Rodman and many others. Whos gonna be your HC Mike Brown or Phil Jackson.

Whos your top weapon Reggie Wayne or Randy Moss. Whos your HC Tony Dungy or Bill Belichick.

That ties into the next thing you said about Brees missing the playoffs. Like I said its very rare for elite QBs to not at least have winning record seasons and at least playoff appearances. When it does happen either the QB himself is hurt or as you pointed out just recently Sean Peyton was MIA on suspension and now you see the team is 2-0 currently with him back.

The point I was trying to get across was in both sports people value whos better by success while both have too many variables that come along with it to be judge along those lines.

[KobeDwightPau]

Ill give it to Peyton because he likes to do everything out there by himself. Makes a **** load of audibles and is basically the offensie coordinator. He takes on so much responsibility, and I think thats why he struggles in the playoffs. The pressure is heightened, and hes still making these crazy audibles, and having to do everything on the fly. I think this pressure can transfer to his receivers and the whole offense, they all have to keep up with this mans intellect on the field.

[KobeDwightPau]

the one position in the NFL that winning means everything is QB. Brady has outdone Manning so far. So I stick by what I said if Manning is gonna be called better than Brady.

I couldn't disagree more with this statement, no offense. If the Colts recover the surprise onside kick against the Saints and go on to win, then suddenly that makes Manning a better QB? Does David Tyree's helmet catch somehow make Brady worse, since without that the Pats would have won another SB?

To put it another way, do you think Terry Bradshaw is one of the top QBs of all time? He's got as many rings as Montana and more than anyone else.

Football is the most team-dependant of all the major sports. Judging a QB by the number of rings they have is only marginally useful at BEST since a team with a decent game manager at QB can win a Super Bowl with a dominant running game and defense (Hello Trent Dilfer!) while a great QB will have no chance without a strong supporting cast.

Brady and Manning are both elite QBs, top-10 all time at the position. I think they're close enough that you can make an argument for either one and be convincing. But saying "Brady is better than Manning because he has more rings, end of discussion" isn't a good argument.

Truth right here. I don't know why people can't see this. In the NFL you need good blocking, to supplement good running backs, to protect the qb, without it, you aren't going to last. And you also need good defense, and special teams. Alex Smith could've won a superbowl with the 9er's if williams didn't muff two punts. Alex Smith is a clock managing qb, who doesn't throw any risky balls when hes on top of his game. In other words, he isn't THAT good.
Joe Flacco put on clinic in the playoffs last year, his blocking was great, his rb was great, his defense was great, the wide receivers were great, the special teams were great. The ravens were the complete package.

However, last year i could fault manning for the loss. Holiday returned two td runs, and manning still couldn't win.