Who will be remembered as the better QB? I lean towards Tom Brady. Peyton may be a better pure passer, but Brady has three championships. Plus, Peyton has a mediocre 9-9 playoff record, compared to Brady's 14-3 record.
Tom Brady or Peyton Manning?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Tom Brady is easily the better QB. He had arguably the greatest season all-time statistically speaking with a perfect 16-0 season, but he will be remembered for his championships. Manning hasn't accomplished what Brady has........by the way I am a Patriots fan. So I may be too biased for this discussion.Who will be remembered as the better QB? I lean towards Tom Brady. Peyton may be a better pure passer, but Brady has three championships. Plus, Peyton has a mediocre 9-9 playoff record, compared to Brady's 14-3 record.
monkeytoes61
SuperBowl wins is a TEAM STATISTIC. Brady won his rings because he had the most clutch kicker ever and a dominating defense back in the days. Now the defense's good but not great, and guess what? He wont ever comeback close to another championship as long as the defense is not back to its previous greatness. Peyton Manning was always forced to wins games onhis own, he got screwed by Vanderjagt and his choking and he never had as great of a defense as Brady used to have. So again, stop confusing individual achievements with team achievements.
Im just sick of Brady's fanboys bragging about his rings. In fact, his best season (the 16-0 year) where he had his record performance, he didnt even win the SB. And which was BTW only 1 more Pass TD than Manning, which overall doesnt mean anything since his division was thrash that year, so he could run up the score as much as he wanted.
Who do you think drove the team down field to put Vinatieri in position to kick the field goals? Whether we like it or not, QBs are judged by the number of rings on their fingers. Sure, there are exceptions (Marino, Fouts, Moon) but that is the "rule."monkeytoes61
Who held the ''The Greatest Show On Turf'' to only 17 points?
Peyton every day of the week. Give him the defenses the patriots had and he wins 5 straight SBs. I never understood why QBs get all the credit for SB wins. Tom had an awsome coach and a great defense. Most of the SB wins he was just along for the ride. And the one time it was on the offenses shoulders to win, they lost....
Peyton every day of the week. Give him the defenses the patriots had and he wins 5 straight SBs. I never understood why QBs get all the credit for SB wins. Tom had an awsome coach and a great defense. Most of the SB wins he was just along for the ride. And the one time it was on the offenses shoulders to win, they lost....
i5750at4Ghz
Exactly.
I'll go with Peyton Manning.
I'm a huge redskins fan, but I'm also a manning fan (peyton that is) and a Brady hater, and even i'll agree with Tom Brady over Manning.
Manning has the stats and the super smarts, but Brady is clutch, and 3 championships with no-name recievers. Both teams have defenses that step up in the playoffs, though patriots always had the edge over the colts in defense (vs other teams than the colts).
Regardless they are both fun to watch.
Just along for the ride? Please, look at his stat lines. He threw for 350 yards and 3 TDs against Carolina, and 254 yards and 2 TDs against Philly. In those later SBs, he had to score 24 and 32 points to win the games, by very slim margins. Plus, you can reverse the bolded statement. Give Brady Reggie Wayne and Marvin Harrison, you are looking at maybe more championships.Peyton every day of the week. Give him the defenses the patriots had and he wins 5 straight SBs. I never understood why QBs get all the credit for SB wins. Tom had an awsome coach and a great defense. Most of the SB wins he was just along for the ride. And the one time it was on the offenses shoulders to win, they lost....
i5750at4Ghz
Just along for the ride? Please, look at his stat lines. He threw for 350 yards and 3 TDs against Carolina, and 254 yards and 2 TDs against Philly. In those later SBs, he had to score 24 and 32 points to win the games, by very slim margins. Plus, you can reverse the bolded statement. Give Brady Reggie Wayne and Marvin Harrison, you are looking at maybe more championships.[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]
Peyton every day of the week. Give him the defenses the patriots had and he wins 5 straight SBs. I never understood why QBs get all the credit for SB wins. Tom had an awsome coach and a great defense. Most of the SB wins he was just along for the ride. And the one time it was on the offenses shoulders to win, they lost....
monkeytoes61
He outperformed Jake Delhomme in the 1 great SB performance he had. Awesome.
And that offensive situation has already been reversed, he's had Moss and Welker FFS. And didnt won a SB with them. So tell me, what does wins championships? Great QBs with great WRs or great QBs with great defense's? The answer is pretty clear.
Currently? Peyton Manning easily. Tom Brady hasn't been the same since the injury, he seems afraid to take a hit. While Manning has the Farve abilty of not getting injured or healing quickly from an injury and no letting it affect his game. If you considered all-time it would be Tom Brady over Manning.
Just along for the ride? Please, look at his stat lines. He threw for 350 yards and 3 TDs against Carolina, and 254 yards and 2 TDs against Philly. In those later SBs, he had to score 24 and 32 points to win the games, by very slim margins. Plus, you can reverse the bolded statement. Give Brady Reggie Wayne and Marvin Harrison, you are looking at maybe more championships.[QUOTE="monkeytoes61"]
[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]
Peyton every day of the week. Give him the defenses the patriots had and he wins 5 straight SBs. I never understood why QBs get all the credit for SB wins. Tom had an awsome coach and a great defense. Most of the SB wins he was just along for the ride. And the one time it was on the offenses shoulders to win, they lost....
Darth_Revan_666
He outperformed Jake Delhomme in the 1 great SB performance he had. Awesome.
And that offensive situation has already been reversed, he's had Moss and Welker FFS. And didnt won a SB with them. So tell me, what does wins championships? Great QBs with great WRs or great QBs with great defense's? The answer is pretty clear.
Manning outperformed Rex Grossmann in his SB win, even less impressive. Didn't Manning play like crap in the playoffs the year the Colts won the SB? Oh yeah, he did. He threw 7 INTs to only 3 TDs. I think he pretty much didn't show up for the first two games of the playoffs and the defense bailed him out. So all this bull about Manning winning multiple championships if he had a defense is garbage because his defense was good the past few years and he's only got 1 ring to show for it.
Peyton during regular season, Tom when it matters most.
SuperBowl wins is a TEAM STATISTIC. Brady won his rings because he had the most clutch kicker ever and a dominating defense back in the days. Now the defense's good but not great, and guess what? He wont ever comeback close to another championship as long as the defense is not back to its previous greatness. Peyton Manning was always forced to wins games onhis own, he got screwed by Vanderjagt and his choking and he never had as great of a defense as Brady used to have. So again, stop confusing individual achievements with team achievements.
Im just sick of Brady's fanboys bragging about his rings. In fact, his best season (the 16-0 year) where he had his record performance, he didnt even win the SB. And which was BTW only 1 more Pass TD than Manning, which overall doesnt mean anything since his division was thrash that year, so he could run up the score as much as he wanted.
Darth_Revan_666
So if Drew Bledsoe was the QB the whole season they still would have won the super bowl? I dont think so...
Lets see.. Brady wins more playoff games, Brady has most TD's in one season. Best TD to INT ratio EVER. Brady has more rings. Manning is better in commercials. For the Brady haters in this thread, oh it's a team effort, it's a team effort to Manning too! so for Brady it's team, for Manning, it's just Manning, right? You realize Manning has always consistently had a better supporting cast around him? Brady is a better QB, it's as simple as that, he doesn't throw INT's in the superbowl for the loss, I know that much. You can say whatever you want about 2008, but who brought the team down the field at the end of the fourth to get a TD to take the lead, Brady, his defense just didn't do their part. fastr
Like I said above, I'm a brady hater, but I think he's going to be remembered as the better QB. He's done more with less.
Hahaha, this is the perfect response.Peyton during regular season, Tom when it matters most.
CommanderShiro
id say peyton, i dont think brady is very good just a product of good coaching and better defense.
i also dont think joe montana was better then marino either, but thats just me...
[QUOTE="Darth_Revan_666"]
SuperBowl wins is a TEAM STATISTIC. Brady won his rings because he had the most clutch kicker ever and a dominating defense back in the days. Now the defense's good but not great, and guess what? He wont ever comeback close to another championship as long as the defense is not back to its previous greatness. Peyton Manning was always forced to wins games onhis own, he got screwed by Vanderjagt and his choking and he never had as great of a defense as Brady used to have. So again, stop confusing individual achievements with team achievements.
Im just sick of Brady's fanboys bragging about his rings. In fact, his best season (the 16-0 year) where he had his record performance, he didnt even win the SB. And which was BTW only 1 more Pass TD than Manning, which overall doesnt mean anything since his division was thrash that year, so he could run up the score as much as he wanted.
So if Drew Bledsoe was the QB the whole season they still would have won the super bowl? I dont think so...
Drew Bledsoe won the AFC championship that year in Pittsburgh if i'm not mistaken when Brady got injured. The moral to this whole argument is that Super Bowls should NEVER dictate ONE players career, because you can only affect one side of the ball (and that doesn't even include special teams). Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Dan Marino, Joe Montana, etc could all throw for 500 yards and 6 touchdowns in a super bowl for all i care, but if the D gives up 7 td's they can't do anything about that. Basketball is the ONLY sports where a person's greatness should be determined by championships because you can have an EQUAL impact on all aspects of the gameI wouldnt go as far to say that Brady is a ''system QB''. A system QB doesnt put up 50 TDs in a season. But, Bledsoe could had won that first SuperBowl, not a single doubt about it. And about that year where Manning won his SB, yes he did threw 7 interceptions, but he also did an epic comeback against the Patriots in the AFC Championship. Brady could prevented that comeback by scoring some more. But guess what, he didnt. Because his defense didnt bailed him out this time around.
So what your saying is, Manning defence bailed him out in the conference championship game because they prevented The better team from scoring? It goes both ways, both teams have Def's you know?I wouldnt go as far to say that Brady is a ''system QB''. A system QB doesnt put up 50 TDs in a season. But, Bledsoe could had won that first SuperBowl, not a single doubt about it. And about that year where Manning won his SB, yes he did threw 7 interceptions, but he also did an epic comeback against the Patriots in the AFC Championship. Brady could prevented that comeback by scoring some more. But guess what, he didnt. Because his defense didnt bailed him out this time around.
Darth_Revan_666
So what your saying is, Manning defence bailed him out in the conference championship game because they prevented The better team from scoring? It goes both ways, both teams have Def's you know? fastr
I was using the same shortsighted arguments that they use.
[QUOTE="CleanPlayer"][QUOTE="sixringz1"] I don't have any rooting interest in either, but 2 years ago my view of Brady changed significantly. When he got hurt i watched a qb who hadn't started a game since high school (8 years earlier) step right into that offense and lead that team to an 11 -5 record. Then Cassell went to KC and was non existent. That to me SCREAMED product of a system. Which makes me wonder if Brady were to be on another team without that coach and that system could he be as successful? I'm not sure and that's something we'll never know. I do know that Manning would be, because he "IS" the system. Like i said i have no rooting interest in either of them, and if you just look at their accomplishments Brady would win hand down, but if you look a little closer, i think this debate is closer to a coin tossmonkeytoes61The sucess Cassel had was based on Belichick and Cassel had a team that went undefeated in the previous season. Brady was never surrendered with "Pro Bowl" talent on offense until he got Moss and Welker, but before that Manning had better players with Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison, and Edgerin James. Manning still has arguably the best O-Line in the league and he STILL couldn't get the job done in the playoffs. I will admit Manning is the smartest football player alive, but he couldn't get the job done in the playoffs while Brady could where it counted. It's true. Manning almost never gets sacked, and had all kinds of weapons around him. both of you are talking about "weapons" on offense as if that is the only reason teams win. With all due respect to Brady, Bledsoe, or whoever was playing qb. The PRIMARY reason the pats won 3 super bowls was cause of their superior defense and special teams. Offensively there is no question Manning had more weapons, but the reason the colts could never get past the pats wasn't cause of tom brady, it was cause of the likes of Ty Law, Bruschi, Mcginnest, seymour, etc and the patriots defensive scheme. I mean i sware a couple of those games ty law caught more balls from manning than harrison did. lol. The colts D has improved a lot over the years but they still can't stop the run, and at the end of the day they don't put any fear in opposing offenses. But because of their improved D they are now viewed as a legit SB contender year in year out, where as in the early 2000's they weren't. There are 3 parts to football - offense, defense, special teams. At the begining of the decade they were great at offense but terrible at defense and special teams. I can't believe i'm writing so much on something i don't care about. lol. anyway this debate will never go away
[QUOTE="monkeytoes61"][QUOTE="CleanPlayer"]The sucess Cassel had was based on Belichick and Cassel had a team that went undefeated in the previous season. Brady was never surrendered with "Pro Bowl" talent on offense until he got Moss and Welker, but before that Manning had better players with Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison, and Edgerin James. Manning still has arguably the best O-Line in the league and he STILL couldn't get the job done in the playoffs. I will admit Manning is the smartest football player alive, but he couldn't get the job done in the playoffs while Brady could where it counted.sixringz1It's true. Manning almost never gets sacked, and had all kinds of weapons around him. both of you are talking about "weapons" on offense as if that is the only reason teams win. With all due respect to Brady, Bledsoe, or whoever was playing qb. The PRIMARY reason the pats won 3 super bowls was cause of their superior defense and special teams. Offensively there is no question Manning had more weapons, but the reason the colts could never get past the pats wasn't cause of tom brady, it was cause of the likes of Ty Law, Bruschi, Mcginnest, seymour, etc and the patriots defensive scheme. I mean i sware a couple of those games ty law caught more balls from manning than harrison did. lol. The colts D has improved a lot over the years but they still can't stop the run, and at the end of the day they don't put any fear in opposing offenses. But because of their improved D they are now viewed as a legit SB contender year in year out, where as in the early 2000's they weren't. There are 3 parts to football - offense, defense, special teams. At the begining of the decade they were great at offense but terrible at defense and special teams. I can't believe i'm writing so much on something i don't care about. lol. anyway this debate will never go awayI disagree with you on primary reason the Pats won 3 superbowls....they won those super bowls because their QB took advantage of the oppurtunity to win the game. Brady, not anyone else, led his offense in field goal territory to win the game. Colts had a great defense if I'm not mistaken during those years, they had one of the best pass-rushers in the league, great corners, and a legit safety. I can't accept their defense being an excuse for them not getting past the Patriots. Its on the QB, he made mistakes when pressure was in his face. If both of these QB's were on a team like the Lions/Browns where they had no O-Line, I still think Brady would've had the better career. Brady is better under pressure than Manning.
[QUOTE="sixringz1"][QUOTE="monkeytoes61"] It's true. Manning almost never gets sacked, and had all kinds of weapons around him. CleanPlayerboth of you are talking about "weapons" on offense as if that is the only reason teams win. With all due respect to Brady, Bledsoe, or whoever was playing qb. The PRIMARY reason the pats won 3 super bowls was cause of their superior defense and special teams. Offensively there is no question Manning had more weapons, but the reason the colts could never get past the pats wasn't cause of tom brady, it was cause of the likes of Ty Law, Bruschi, Mcginnest, seymour, etc and the patriots defensive scheme. I mean i sware a couple of those games ty law caught more balls from manning than harrison did. lol. The colts D has improved a lot over the years but they still can't stop the run, and at the end of the day they don't put any fear in opposing offenses. But because of their improved D they are now viewed as a legit SB contender year in year out, where as in the early 2000's they weren't. There are 3 parts to football - offense, defense, special teams. At the begining of the decade they were great at offense but terrible at defense and special teams. I can't believe i'm writing so much on something i don't care about. lol. anyway this debate will never go awayI disagree with you on primary reason the Pats won 3 superbowls....they won those super bowls because their QB took advantage of the oppurtunity to win the game. Brady, not anyone else, led his offense in field goal territory to win the game. Colts had a great defense if I'm not mistaken during those years, they had one of the best pass-rushers in the league, great corners, and a legit safety. I can't accept their defense being an excuse for them not getting past the Patriots. Its on the QB, he made mistakes when pressure was in his face. If both of these QB's were on a team like the Lions/Browns where they had no O-Line, I still think Brady would've had the better career. Brady is better under pressure than Manning. i'm assuming you're a pats fan so i'll try to bring a comparison into your wheelhouse. It would be like saying the reason the giants defeated the pats in the superbowl was because eli (ironically another manning, lol) "took advantage of the opportunity to win the game". No the reason they won that game was cause for 4 quarters the giants defense was living in the patriots backfield. Now if you acknowledge that the reason the giants won that game was cause of Eli and not their D i won't continue, but if you don't than you have to say the same thing about the pats first ring. It was the same scenerio. The defense of the pats held arguably the best offense in the history of the league to 17 points. Yes Brady lead the final drive, and yes vinetierri made the kick, but it was their D for 4 quarters that was the reason they won. As for the Colts D, LOL!!! They NEVER had a great D during the pats super bowl years. They were CONSISTANTLY ranked in the bottom 10 of the league. They had a couple solid PLAYERS, but not a great UNIT, and the numbers verified that. They have improved greatly over the last 3-4 years. Nobody is gonna confuse them with the Ravens or anything, but they are more than respectable, and that's why i said they are now viewed as LEGIT superbowl contenders year in and year out, where as before it was more of wishful thinking, or IF everything went their way. As for the lions/browns comparison that's something we'll never know. I used to have similar arguments growing up about Marino and Montana. If you were to switch those 2 could montana won a super bowl with miami (keep in mind marino never had another hall of fame player on his team. offense, defense or special teams)? I doubt it. Could Marino have won a super bowl on the 49'ers? Absolutely. Could he have won 4? that, i don't know. Comparing football players is always the hardest because football is so much more a TEAM game than any other sport. One player doesn't have the impact on an entire game like an nba player does for example.
[QUOTE="monkeytoes61"]Tom Brady is easily the better QB. He had arguably the greatest season all-time statistically speaking with a perfect 16-0 season, but he will be remembered for his championships. Manning hasn't accomplished what Brady has........by the way I am a Patriots fan. So I may be too biased for this discussion. I'm on the same exact boat lolWho will be remembered as the better QB? I lean towards Tom Brady. Peyton may be a better pure passer, but Brady has three championships. Plus, Peyton has a mediocre 9-9 playoff record, compared to Brady's 14-3 record.
CleanPlayer
Brady won 3 rings with Troy Brown as his BEST receiver...
Peyton in 9-9 in the play-offs with Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Pierre Garcon, Austin Collie, etc, etc...
Peyton is the Steve Nash of the NFL. Great during the regular season, average at best in the post season. Brady is the greatest winner of his generation.
Brady won 3 rings with Troy Brown as his BEST receiver...
Peyton in 9-9 in the play-offs with Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Pierre Garcon, Austin Collie, etc, etc...
Peyton is the Steve Nash of the NFL. Great during the regular season, average at best in the post season. Brady is the greatest winner of his generation.
heysharpshooter
You're just lying, WTF man, Deoin Branch was his best receiver.
And you seem to intentionnaly ignore the most important aspect of a football team, the defense. And the Pats used to have a dominant one. While Manning's defense was average at best and today it still fails to stop top offenses.
The fact and the matter is, Manning and Brady's ability are very close to 1 and the other, no matter who's got the edge. But Brady always had the better team.
And about Brady's 50 TDs season, thats only 1 more TD than Manning's performance, which means nothing at this point, you cant put Brady over the top because of 1 TD only.
[QUOTE="heysharpshooter"]
Brady won 3 rings with Troy Brown as his BEST receiver...
Peyton in 9-9 in the play-offs with Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Pierre Garcon, Austin Collie, etc, etc...
Peyton is the Steve Nash of the NFL. Great during the regular season, average at best in the post season. Brady is the greatest winner of his generation.
Darth_Revan_666
You're just lying, WTF man, Deoin Branch was his best receiver.
And you seem to intentionnaly ignore the most important aspect of a football team, the defense. And the Pats used to have a dominant one. While Manning's defense was average at best and today it still fails to stop top offenses.
The fact and the matter is, Manning and Brady's ability are very close to 1 and the other, no matter who's got the edge. But Brady always had the better team.
And about Brady's 50 TDs season, thats only 1 more TD than Manning's performance, which means nothing at this point, you cant put Brady over the top because of 1 TD only.
Dieon Branch is nothing to write home about...
And the Colts defense has consistently been very effective. The Colts defense is desigend specifically to work with their offense. its a defense designed to play with the lead with a pass rush and two deep safeties. Brady also has a much better post season record. And the post season is what matters.
[QUOTE="Darth_Revan_666"]
[QUOTE="heysharpshooter"]
Brady won 3 rings with Troy Brown as his BEST receiver...
Peyton in 9-9 in the play-offs with Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Pierre Garcon, Austin Collie, etc, etc...
Peyton is the Steve Nash of the NFL. Great during the regular season, average at best in the post season. Brady is the greatest winner of his generation.
heysharpshooter
You're just lying, WTF man, Deoin Branch was his best receiver.
And you seem to intentionnaly ignore the most important aspect of a football team, the defense. And the Pats used to have a dominant one. While Manning's defense was average at best and today it still fails to stop top offenses.
The fact and the matter is, Manning and Brady's ability are very close to 1 and the other, no matter who's got the edge. But Brady always had the better team.
And about Brady's 50 TDs season, thats only 1 more TD than Manning's performance, which means nothing at this point, you cant put Brady over the top because of 1 TD only.
Dieon Branch is nothing to write home about...
And the Colts defense has consistently been very effective. The Colts defense is desigend specifically to work with their offense. its a defense designed to play with the lead with a pass rush and two deep safeties. Brady also has a much better post season record. And the post season is what matters.
Yeah, as a Seahawks fan, I'm not exactly going to call Deion Branch a superstar.[QUOTE="CleanPlayer"][QUOTE="sixringz1"] both of you are talking about "weapons" on offense as if that is the only reason teams win. With all due respect to Brady, Bledsoe, or whoever was playing qb. The PRIMARY reason the pats won 3 super bowls was cause of their superior defense and special teams. Offensively there is no question Manning had more weapons, but the reason the colts could never get past the pats wasn't cause of tom brady, it was cause of the likes of Ty Law, Bruschi, Mcginnest, seymour, etc and the patriots defensive scheme. I mean i sware a couple of those games ty law caught more balls from manning than harrison did. lol. The colts D has improved a lot over the years but they still can't stop the run, and at the end of the day they don't put any fear in opposing offenses. But because of their improved D they are now viewed as a legit SB contender year in year out, where as in the early 2000's they weren't. There are 3 parts to football - offense, defense, special teams. At the begining of the decade they were great at offense but terrible at defense and special teams. I can't believe i'm writing so much on something i don't care about. lol. anyway this debate will never go awaysixringz1I disagree with you on primary reason the Pats won 3 superbowls....they won those super bowls because their QB took advantage of the oppurtunity to win the game. Brady, not anyone else, led his offense in field goal territory to win the game. Colts had a great defense if I'm not mistaken during those years, they had one of the best pass-rushers in the league, great corners, and a legit safety. I can't accept their defense being an excuse for them not getting past the Patriots. Its on the QB, he made mistakes when pressure was in his face. If both of these QB's were on a team like the Lions/Browns where they had no O-Line, I still think Brady would've had the better career. Brady is better under pressure than Manning. i'm assuming you're a pats fan so i'll try to bring a comparison into your wheelhouse. It would be like saying the reason the giants defeated the pats in the superbowl was because eli (ironically another manning, lol) "took advantage of the opportunity to win the game". No the reason they won that game was cause for 4 quarters the giants defense was living in the patriots backfield. Now if you acknowledge that the reason the giants won that game was cause of Eli and not their D i won't continue, but if you don't than you have to say the same thing about the pats first ring. It was the same scenerio. The defense of the pats held arguably the best offense in the history of the league to 17 points. Yes Brady lead the final drive, and yes vinetierri made the kick, but it was their D for 4 quarters that was the reason they won. As for the Colts D, LOL!!! They NEVER had a great D during the pats super bowl years. They were CONSISTANTLY ranked in the bottom 10 of the league. They had a couple solid PLAYERS, but not a great UNIT, and the numbers verified that. They have improved greatly over the last 3-4 years. Nobody is gonna confuse them with the Ravens or anything, but they are more than respectable, and that's why i said they are now viewed as LEGIT superbowl contenders year in and year out, where as before it was more of wishful thinking, or IF everything went their way. As for the lions/browns comparison that's something we'll never know. I used to have similar arguments growing up about Marino and Montana. If you were to switch those 2 could montana won a super bowl with miami (keep in mind marino never had another hall of fame player on his team. offense, defense or special teams)? I doubt it. Could Marino have won a super bowl on the 49'ers? Absolutely. Could he have won 4? that, i don't know. Comparing football players is always the hardest because football is so much more a TEAM game than any other sport. One player doesn't have the impact on an entire game like an nba player does for example.I will admit the Giants Defense had more to do than Manning did when the Giants beat us in 07. The Patriots Defense was a very crucial part of why we won 3 superbowls, even when the Pats beat the Colts to get to the Superbowl. So I do recognize your point lol, I just prefer Brady more. (I'm pretty biased because I am a Pats fan)
Peyton will alway be better than Brady in my opinion. For someone to win those many games with a mediocre defense like the one he has they have to be great. Give Manning a defense like the one Brady had when he won those superbowls and I would not be surprised if he had more rings than Brady by the end of both their careers.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment