it depends. in said scenario is Joe Smoe a Patriot?

Not saying you're wrong overall, but I feel like this isn't a good point.

Actually I want to add Joe Montana and Marino to this as well:

Edit: This isn't to argue who is better out of the current vs Older as the game is different today than even a decade ago. Just to compare. In Marino's defense he likely had the worst supporting cast in offensive skill talent. He had a good OL for a long time though.

I agree that Manning's overall body of work and peak form are stronger than Brady's, but Brady had better seasons in '01 and '02 as well as '07.

Of course I'm a Pats fan. But people have still yet to prove me wrong. And the guy that pointed to ANY/A is just trying to grasp SOMETHING that Brady didn't do better than Manning that year.

Yes, I remember that. It was not awesome.

No, they have. You simply refuse to admit it. Take a good, long look at the stat boxes Needle has posted. Stop using one year as your ONLY argument. Try to look at an entire body of work.

brady played on better teams in '01 and '02, whether he had better seasons is up for debate. his #'s were not really all that impressive compared to now but neither were manning's.

also, do you see how unreasonable it is to say that his '07 season was better on the basis of 1 td? he also attempted also 100 more passes and ended up w/2 fewer ints, but only threw for 300 more yards and also had a worse sack rate. that extra info matters too

edit: like i already said there is a case for brady here, but it's not comparing peak statistical performance

I mean you know the argument I'm going to make here, right? I'll make it anyways. Clearly Brady was a huge factor in the Pats winning three superbowls. His play with lesser weapons was extraordinary. He did not have even close to 30+ HOFers and maybe didn't have any on offense to work with. Yet he still won super bowls and put up excellent numbers. Then when he was given the weapons, he had the greatest season a QB has ever had.

Manning is a great QB, no doubt, and the argument is close and before 07 it was even closer still. I believe that 07 changed all that.

What haven't we proved wrong? Your argument is very weak. Your argument is he won rings. I dispell that saying it's a team game, where the QB is important but not everything. A team could theoretically win a SB with a make shift QB like the Ravens did with Trent Dilfer. Is Trent equal to Peyton too? They both have 1 ring. Of course they aren't equals, but I didn't need to explain that to you.

Your other argument is that in 1 season with equal talent, Brady was in fact better? First of all that's extremely arguable. Brady and co, ran up the score at time throughout the season. Peyton sat in game 16 (2 pass attempts), and ran slightly cold WRT TD passes the last couple of weeks that season. Obviously Brady doesn't play in a dome, but that year it didn't seem to matter all that much. I'm not also saying at times Peyton didn't run up his TD totals, he obviously did, but I don't remember the complaints from other teams when it happened like it did during Brady's run where he was passing deep into the 4th quarter during blowouts.

The other arguments are that Manning WR core has always been stellar. It's the reason why he's so great. That can easily be dispelled. Last year without Marvin for most of the year and with Dallas hurt for part of the season, he won MVP. This year MVP #s without Marvin, without his #2 WR, and without a reliable running game--his production just keeps on trucking.

Brady has had equivalent production to Manning in 1 season. In most other seasons where they've both been top level QBs, Manning has been better and definitely has been more consistant. Just because Brady some how ends up with more rings is not good enough justifcation for Brady being better than Manning to most people. I guess to you it is though.

Anyone who thinks Brady is better than Peyton is simply a Boston homer, that's all there is to it.

Good work once again, dude. I mean, why use words when you can use insignificant, completely irrelevant pictures to try to prove your argument?

OK here is the 04/07 Manning vs Brady

Go take a look at his stats for some of their SB runs. At times he was just a game manager.

When he won it in 2001. 1 TD and 1 INT for the ENTIRE PLAYOFFS. Yet he won a SB. Games vs PIt and STl. 250 combined yards and 1 TD. Yes he was so important, they couldn't have possibly won it without his amazing production.

In 2003 he was a key cog in their win, I can't argue with that. In 2004, he was more of a game manager again although very good at it.

Since 2004, Peyton's losses have been to the following teams in the playoffs. 2004, NE on the road in the playoffs. 2005, NE on the road in the playoffs. 2006, Pit at home in the playoffs. SDG at home in the playoffs and SD in the road in the playoffs. He's beaten some 3-4 teams in that run, but he's still 2-5 against 3-4 teams in the playoffs during the last couple of season. Peyton sucks against a good/great 3-4 team. I've said that for years. It's his achilles heel.

hey do you guys remember when the Pats were winning some game 40-0 or whatever and they put Cassel in but he played poorly so they put Brady in so he could get some more TD's??? that was pretty cool too.

Clearly one is decisively better than the other

Because people have been proving it for the last twenty minutes and you refuse to listen. I've argued with enough Boston homers to know that they'll never change their minds so I'd rather needle you and entertain myself.

But mostly,

1 yard of any/a is a significant gap, so idk why you are rolling your eyes

Yeah, I completely agree. My rolleyes was mostly directed towards the guy who is here arguing for Brady. And partially at the general fact that this thread did not start and end with that stat being posted.

I was comparing years side-by-side because that's what the post I was responding to seemed to do. Not trying to compare Manning's 04 with Brady's 07. In fact Manning's 04 may well be better -- higher YPA, and only a slightly higher INT%. I'm not a big fan of TD%. It correlates with overall offensive performance, but not nearly as much as YPA and INT%.

Also, Brady's defenses were better than Manning's in 01 and 02, but his offensive teammates certainly weren't. The big problem with Manning's earlier years is his INT%.

Here's the thing. Yes, stats are great and the holy grail of this forum. However, there things that make a QB great that can't be contributed to stats. It's what made Montana great and Elway great. And it's what made Brady great before 07 and stats and the intangibles made him great in 07. He has it all. He can put up great numbers and he can win the big games. As much as you don't want to admit it, the superbowls that Brady has won DO matter. It doesn't always matter (Roethlisberger a great example) but the Pats did not have a killer D and didn't have awesome weapons on offense. Brady and his intangibles were a HUGE factor in all three Superbowl victories and they DO matter in this instance. Now, Brady's only looked adequate this year and if he doesn't get back to his old self (I believe and hope that he will) after his injury, Manning will clearly surpass him but right now, I think Brady has had a better career, if only by a very small margin.

hah. sorry i missed the sarcasm. i take everything at face value in these sorts of threads


not really fair to discount manning's stats b/c of his offenisve teammates, but not brady's rangs b/c of his overall team quality

Nah, it's cool. Wasn't the most effective way to communicate my point.

You are going to be crucified for this trash. This is a huge amount of BS.

In 2003, the Pats D gave up the least amount of points in the league. They were 12th in the NFL in scoring. They were 6th in the league in giving up poitns in 2001 and 2nd in 2004. LOL they didn't have a great D. They had a really awesome D and significantly better than what Manning had.

And lol it doesn't matter with Big Ben but it does with Brady. You are really fooling yourself. You can't play both sides.

Montana was sick good in the playoffs. But he had sick good teams. Even as a 9er fan, I realize that now. Montana gets a ton of credit but the 9er Ds during that time were very, very good. His running game and pass blocking were also good. He also for a time had Jerry and Jerry was good with every QB he ever had.