It is probably the easiest choice of any of the positions. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning have clearly been the best quarterbacks in the NFL this decade.

While Brett Favre, Donovan McNabb, and Kurt Warner have some excellent arguments, none of them have the body of work in terms of regular season and postseason success that would suggest they should be ahead of Brady or Manning for that honor. That's the easy part.

However, if you were going to go back to 2000, which of these quarterbacks would you want to have as the starter?

The easy answer is Tom Brady, because he helped lead the Patriots to three Super Bowl titles to Peyton Manning's one, but I have never been someone that likes to simply count the rings and leave it at that. I think winning a Super Bowl is a team accomplishment and that there is more to looking at quarterbacks than just counting Super Bowl rings.

I decided to look at a number of different areas to determine who the best quarterback is for this decade. While I wouldn’t necessarily use this method in comparing quarterbacks of different eras, I think this is the best way to look at two quarterbacks of the same era, because they are competing against the same teams, in the same league, with the same rules.

To go this route, comparing Bart Starr and Tom Brady or Johnny Unitas and Peyton Manning would be a bit more challenging with different schedules, different rules, and different styles of play for the two players.

Tom Brady has an 87-24 record as a starter since coming over to the Patriots. That is an insane winning percentage of .783. It has resulted in six division titles for the New England Patriots. Peyton Manning is 101-43 since 2000 giving him a winning percentage of .701. He has won five divisional titles.

It's just too close to call. Brady has a better winning percentage and more division titles. He also has the only 16-0 regular season in NFL history. Peyton Manning has more wins in the decade and became the first quarterback in NFL history to win 12 games or more for six consecutive seasons. 

If you average out the statistics on a per game basis here is what they look like for each quarterback:

Peyton Manning - 22.1 completions in 33.7 attempts, 65.6 completion percentage, 262.2 passing yards, 2.0 touchdown passes, 0.9 INTs, and a QB rating of 97.8.

Tom Brady - 20.7 completions in 32.9 attempts, 62.9 completion percentage, 238.3 passing yards, 1.8 touchdown passes, 0.8 interceptions, and a QB rating of 92.9.

This one is pretty easy. Manning is much higher in completions, completion percentage, passing yards, and touchdown passes on a per game basis. He also has the higher quarterback rating. 

I think this goes to show why putting Manning ahead in regular season statistics is the prudent course of action. Peyton Manning has been to the Pro Bowl eight times out of the nine seasons he has played in this decade. The only season he did not make it was back in 2001 when Edgerrin James was lost for the year during their sixth game of the season. The Colts finished with a 6-10 record.  

Tom Brady is one of the most consistent quarterbacks in postseason history. His teams qualified for the playoffs in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. In those playoffs appearances he has a record of 14-3.

He has helped lead his teams to four Super Bowl appearances. They beat the St Louis Rams 20-17 in the 2001 season. He followed that up with a win over the Carolina Panthers 32-29 in the 2003 season. His Patriots beat the Philadelphia Eagles 24-21 the following year. Finally, his undefeated Patriots lost to the New York Giants 17-14 in the 2007 season.

Tom Brady has never lost a home playoff game as he is a perfect 8-0 at home. He is 3-1 in the Super Bowl and 4-1 in AFC Conference Championship Games.

Even more impressive is that two of his three losses have been heartbreakers. The Patriots lost a 38-34 heartbreaker in Indianapolis in the 2006 AFC Championship Game. In 2007, the Patriots lost by only three points to the New York Giants in the Super Bowl. The only playoff loss the Patriots have had by more than 10 points since Brady became the Patriots starting QB is a 27-13 loss at Denver.

Peyton Manning has been very good at guiding his team to the playoffs. The only year they failed to qualify for postseason action was 2001. Once he has gotten there, he has had a less than stellar record. He is just 7-8 in the playoffs for his career. Seeing that I am only looking at this decade, from the 2000 to 2008 season, he has a record of 7-7. Four of those wins came in the 2006 season when Peyton Manning led the Indianapolis Colts to a Super Bowl title.

That leaves just a 3-7 record the other seven seasons he has qualified for the playoffs. Five times the Colts have made the playoffs under Manning and failed to win a single playoff game.

Peyton Manning's teams have been roughed up in the playoffs a couple of times this decade. The New York Jets in the 2002 Wild Card Round destroyed the Colts 41-0. The Colts were also shutdown by the New England Patriots 24-3 in the 2004 Divisional Round.

Finally, if you want to look at their head-to-head record, Tom Brady has squared off against Peyton Manning three times in the playoffs. He has a 2-1 record against Manning's Colts.

No matter how you look at it, Tom Brady has the advantage in postseason success. He has double the playoff wins, two more Super Bowl victories, three more Super Bowl appearances, and a better head-to-head record. 

Those are much better conditions to work with than what Brady has had to play through. That makes it easier to put up big numbers.  

About the only award the NFL gives for the postseason is the Super Bowl MVP award. Tom Brady has won that two times in four Super Bowl appearances to Peyton Manning's only MVP win in his only Super Bowl appearance.

I'm not a big fan of Brady's Super Bowl MVP award against the Rams in Super Bowl XXXVI. He was only 16-for-27 with 145 passing yards, one touchdown, zero picks, and an 86.2 QB rating.

That one touchdown pass was the only one he threw all postseason. It was a good game, but hardly a MVP performance for the ages. Had I been given the chance to cast a vote, I probably would have voted for Ty Law who returned a 47-yard interception for a touchdown to give the Patriots a 7-0 lead.

Tom Brady was very deserving of the Super Bowl MVP award he won in the 2003 season with 354 yards passing and three touchdowns against the Carolina Panthers. It is one of the 10 best performances in Super Bowl history by a quarterback.

You could also have argued that Tom Brady was more deserving of the Super Bowl MVP award in 2004 when it was instead given to Deion Branch. In all, I feel like Brady should have had two Super Bowl MVP awards in the four games he has played in, and that is what he has won. It just didn’t come in the Super Bowls I thought it should.

If Peyton Manning were going to have an advantage over Brady, he would need a stellar MVP performance in his Super Bowl victory. Instead, he was 25-for-38 for 247 yards, one touchdown pass, one pick, and a QB rating of 81.8. 

This is a hard one for me. If you look at the supporting cast for the decade on offense, Manning had a decisive advantage. WR Marvin Harrison made seven Pro Bowls since 2000 and two All-Pro first teams. WR Reggie Wayne has made three Pro Bowls. RB Edgerrin James made three Pro Bowls.

OT Tarik Glenn made three Pro Bowls. C Jeff Saturday made three Pro Bowls and two All Pro first teams. RB Joseph Addai made a Pro Bowl. That list doesn't even include a weapon like TE Dallas Clark, who has yet to make a Pro Bowl due to Antonio Gates and Tony Gonzalez (now in the NFC with Atlanta) playing in the same conference so many years.

On offense, Brady didn't have that support until Randy Moss and Wes Welker arrived in 2007. All three of his Super Bowl rings were earned prior to that. Troy Brown made the Pro Bowl in 2001. Corey Dillon made the Pro Bowl in 2004.

Matt Light has made two Pro Bowls and one All-Pro first team from his tackle spot. Dan Koppen made the Pro Bowl in 2007 from his center spot, but the Patriots haven't had the offensive weapons prior to 2007 that Manning had with the Colts.

That is probably one reason why the Colts have finished in the top-five in scoring offense and yardage offense seven times this decade. Compare that to the New England Patriots who have been in the top-five only twice under Brady this decade in points scored, and in the top-five in yardage only once.

Therefore, I would say that other than in 2007, Peyton Manning had the vastly superior supporting cast on offense this decade.

Then, when the defensive side of the ball is analyzed, Tom Brady has a very big edge. The Patriots finished in the top five in scoring defense four times under Brady this decade and in the top 10 in yardage four times.

Compare that to the Colts who were in the top five in scoring defense only twice and the top-10 in yardage defense only twice. The best defensive unit on either team was the linebackers the Patriots had in their 3-4 defense. That is a big reason why they won three Super Bowls in four years.

The Colts have been pretty good at rushing the passer and playing pass defense this decade, but they are so light up front that they have struggled to stop the run most of this decade. That has caused them problems in the playoffs when the weather gets bad and running the ball becomes an even more important part of the game.

Probably where the Patriots had the biggest advantage was the kicker position. While Peyton Manning had to rely on Mike Vanderjagt for game winning heroics, the Patriots relied on Adam Vinatieri.

He helped deliver the "Snow Game" against the Oakland Raiders in 2001. He kicked the game winning kicks in all three Super Bowl wins that broke tie games and prevented them from going to OT.

Mike Vanderjagt, on the other hand, would make about 85 percent of his regular season field goals only to choke in the playoffs. The biggest choke was in 2005 when he missed a field goal against the Steelers with the Colts trailing 21-18 late in the game.

That caused the Colts to sign Vinatieri for the 2006 season. That was a huge signing come playoff time. He kicked five field goals for the Indianapolis Colts in 2006 that helped them get past the Baltimore Ravens. He was also big versus his old team, the New England Patriots. Without him, they probably would not have made it to Super Bowl XLI.

Then you also have the coaching staffs. While Tony Dungy is a terrific coach in his own right, he is not Bill Belichick. Dungy had a 2-4-playoff record with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and came to the Colts as a coach that couldn't win the big one.

Bill Belichick was a fantastic defensive coordinator under Bill Parcells, who helped the Giants win Super Bowls in 1986 and 1990. He also was the defensive coordinator on the 1996 Patriots team that lost to the Packers in Super Bowl XXXI.

He is the premier coach in the NFL today. He showed that last season when he led the Patriots to an 11-5 record without Tom Brady for all but the first game of the season. It has been a great asset for Brady to play under that type of coach.

I will give New England the advantage. While I think it is clear that Peyton Manning had the better supporting cast at wide receiver and running back, the Patriots had a very comparable offensive line, much better defense, special teams, and coaching staff.

Offense can't win games alone and while Manning played on the better offenses, Brady played on the better overall teams. Even though their winning percentages for the decade are pretty close, Brady played on the team with the better record four times in seven years, and they had identical records in 2006 with Indy having the tiebreaker on head-to-head victory.

That tells me the Patriots consistently had the better team over the decade.

Advantage: Manning (played with less overall talent so has the advantage) 

This is the last factor I decided to look at. The score is Brady 3 vs. Manning 3 with one tie. So basically, the whole thing is going to be decided on something that can't be measured statistically.

That is why this debate is so interesting. It is that close. You can make great arguments for Brady and you can make great arguments for Manning. Any team would be lucky to have them at quarterback and that is why they are easily the best quarterbacks of this decade. At the end, you are almost looking at a feeling to decide whom you would rather go with.

You aren't really going to solve anything here in terms of mechanics. Manning probably throws a harder ball whereas Brady can chuck the ball down field, but it hangs in the air a little longer. That works great with a jump ball receiver like Randy Moss.

They both have a great understanding of the game. They both have very high career regular season ratings. Manning has the second highest rating among quarterbacks with at least 100 starts and Brady is fourth.

They are also both extremely durable. Both quarterbacks are one of only five quarterbacks with consecutive game streaks over 100 games. Brady ended last year on a freak season-ending knee injury. That could have just as easily happened to Peyton Manning. It was just a bad break for Brady.

There just isn't a lot of separation there to me. If you were going to create a manual of how to play the position from a fundamental standpoint, it would probably be a video of Peyton Manning. However, if he were sick that day and you had to film it with Tom Brady instead, there wouldn't be a lot lost.

Here is why I go with Tom Brady in this discussion. Since 2000, the Indianapolis Colts have scored 26.7 points per game in the regular season. It's the best total in the NFL over that time span. Yet when the playoffs come, the Indianapolis Colts have averaged just 23.2 points per game. The problem again is those three games against Kansas City and Denver, twice, where the Colts scored 38, 41, and 49 points.

If you take those out, they are averaging 18.0 points per game in the playoffs. In their seven playoff losses this decade the Colts are averaging just 13.2 points per game. You aren't going to win with offense like that on a team that is built around a great offense. That is, essentially, half of the production that they have put up in the regular season over that same time span.

Equally troubling is that the defense hasn't been that bad. Over the decade, the defense has allowed only 22.1 points per game in the playoffs. Compare that to the 20.7 they are allowing over the regular season since 2000.

So basically the same defense is showing up in the postseason as the regular season, but the Colts are losing 50 percent of their games instead of winning at the 70 percent clip they are accustomed to in the regular season, because the offense can't play up to their regular season standard.

That doesn’t mean Manning is totally responsible for that. Marvin Harrison has only one 100-yard receiving game his entire playoff career. The line hasn’t always blocked the same way it did in the regular season. That caused a lot of problems against Pittsburgh in 2005. But Peyton Manning seems to be a guy that takes a step back once January football is played.

In 2000, his team lost 23-17 to the Miami Dolphins. In 2003, they lost 24-14 to the Patriots. In 2004, they lost 24-3 to the Patriots. In 2005, they lost 21-18 to the Steelers. The last two years they have lost to the Chargers by scores of 28-24 and 23-17. Those were all winnable games where the defense gave up a respectable point total and the offense was nowhere to be found. Giving up 41 points to the Jets in 2002 was the exception, not the rule.

Furthermore, even in the year they broke through and won the Super Bowl, Peyton Manning became the only quarterback in NFL history to win a Super Bowl in a postseason where he had more interceptions than touchdowns. About the only dominant football he played that postseason was after his team trailed New England 21-3 in the AFC Championship Game.

Too often, his team has underperformed their season average and lost home games they shouldn't have. If his team was losing games 42-35 and he was putting up solid totals, I would tend to put the blame on the front office for not surrounding him with enough defensive talent. But that isn't what has happened.

Then you look at Tom Brady. His team is averaging 24.7 points per game in postseason games since 2000, compared to the ,25.8 points per game they averaged in the regular season from 2001 to 2007. Remember that season average is a little higher than it should be due to the 36.8 points the Patriots averaged in 2007.

With fewer Pro Bowlers on offense and in worse weather conditions, he has found ways to give his team the same performance, if not a better performance, in the post season as he did in the regular season.

That doesn't mean he always did it. He failed miserably in 2007, where as the MVP of the NFL, his team only put up 14 points in a three-point loss in the Super Bowl, despite averaging 36.8 points per game in the regular season.

But a player isn't going to be perfect all the time, and Tom Brady has shown that more times than not you can depend on him to be the same player, or a better player, in the postseason.  Peyton Manning has shown the opposite.

You hear experts talk about a player having “it.” That thing that you can’t put into words that doesn’t get measured with statistics. Tom Brady has that in both the regular season and the postseason. Peyton Manning loses it once the calendar turns from December to January.

When it comes to the intangibles of playing well in big games, playing well under pressure, and playing well against the best competition in the NFL, Tom Brady has shown this decade that he is the best player in the NFL up to that task.

Therefore, by the slimmest of margins I believe that Tom Brady is the best quarterback of this decade. With that said, there is one more season in the decade. Can Peyton Manning catch Tom Brady this season to win that honor?

I believe he can. Peyton Manning doesn’t need to do anything more in the regular season. He has the advantage in regular season statistics and awards. Even if Brady came back from the knee surgery and threw 60 touchdown passes and 5,500 yards, the advantage would probably still be with Manning in those departments.

What Manning needs to do is lead his team to the playoffs. He then needs to not only guide his team to the Super Bowl, but also play well in doing it. He needs to have more touchdowns than interceptions in the postseason. He needs to raise his level of play.

If he were able to lead his team to the Super Bowl and put on a top-10 all-time level performance on the biggest stage, it would even their Super Bowl MVP count at two for the decade. It would also give him a historic performance in that game. He would also only trail Brady by one ring.

Given Manning’s big advantage in regular season statistics and awards, and a narrowed gap in postseason success, it would be pretty hard at that point not to give the honor of the decade’s best quarterback to Peyton Manning.

However, if Manning has his typical 4,000-yard passing season with 25 to 30 touchdowns, but lays another egg in the Colt’s first playoff game, it seems hard to believe that he could be considered the best quarterback of the decade, especially if Tom Brady goes on another postseason run coming off serious knee surgery.

The stakes are high this year. While every quarterback plays to win games it is always nice to be considered the best quarterback of your era. Whoever wins this honor is going to go a long way in determining which one is more deserving of being in the conversation for the best quarterback of all-time.

It is possible for two quarterbacks from the same era to be thrown into that discussion. Johnny Unitas and Bart Starr are both talked about and both played in the late 1950s to early 1970s. Joe Montana and Dan Marino are both in the debate. They played their best ball in the 1980s. Brett Favre and John Elway were the quarterbacks on the All-Decade team of the 1990s. All of those quarterbacks end up in the discussion.

Winning this honor isn’t going to end the debate. When Brady and Manning hang up their cleats, both names will be in the discussion, but that honor is going to give one of the quarterbacks an edge.

Who do you think is the best quarterback of the decade?

Would you go with Tom Brady or do you side with Peyton Manning?

Do you think there is anything I overlooked or failed to consider?

As always, I look forward to your comments.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (13)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

some facts but mostly opinions
written by brady fan, February 08, 2010

in his 2006 season peyton had his fantasy year, he beat his rival brady twice including the AFC champ game. this is the only season where manning has acutally had success in the post-season, where as brady strives year to year it seems, this year peyton made it to the superbowl and choked by throwing the (game winning) interseption, bradys pats were knocked out in the wildcard, manning has shown that when it comes down to the rings he does not have what it takes. Manning is potential hall of fame qb, but so is brady, brady is younger, and has 3 superbowls, but manning has the stats, in the end the point of the qb is to lead the team to the SB win, brady can do that, peyton cannot.
Brady>peyton.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Statistics
written by Séb, November 21, 2009

Forget the talk about statistical signficance, if you do not test for them. And what worth is a statistic, if you measure 49 TDs thrown under a roof with 50 TDs thrown outside. Would Brady have thrown 100 under better circumstances? OR Manning for only 25 in the reverse situation?

If Manning is a great QB he would be consistent for the entire season, which he is not at all, never been.

Now, Brady had one bad game in his last SuperBowl. Yes, but so did Manning, not for the first time in his rather infamous post-season history.

Last season, when Cassel took over at QB, it was a good opportunity to prove both sides right:

1) NE is a well coached team with balanced performance
2) Brady was the reason the Patriots were also successful

Cassel would never be the X-factor in games against good opponents. Think of the grizzly Pittsburgh loss, a team they got the better of the previous season quite easily. Cassel could not manage a turn-around game, never.

You want to win it all, you take Brady, and leave Manning on the bench.

• 
• -1
• 
• 

peyt the great
written by Kyle Alexander, November 10, 2009

You HAVE to go with Manning. He's been the ideal qb ever since he was drafted and was put on a bad team from the start where as Brady came into a system and a team that was already proven to be succesful. Brady is good or even great no arguing that but Manning has had to work with a worse team overall especially on defense. Offense wins games DEFENSE wins championships the Patriots found that out the hard way in 07 where as the colts have had lackluster defense througout the decade

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Missing Facts
written by Chad, October 05, 2009

If you're going to take out Manning's best three post season performances then why not take out his worst three for a better average? At least take out the egg their whole team laid against the Jets.

Also factor in weather for the Superbowl Manning played. It was raining after all.

I think spygate needs some sort of mention. Isn't it at all suspicious that Brady had defensive hand signals and, when asked, a former Patriot player said the hand signals helped most in the 2 min drill?

Why do people always rave about Mannings WRs? He makes his WRs good. If Harrison was so special then why does no team want him right now? Who is the Garcon guy who all of a sudden is a beast? People always complain about Bradys weapons because they aren't sexy names, but show me Kevin Faulk coming up short of the 1st down on 3rd down or fumbling. Show me Givens or Branch dropping a clutch pass. Tom Bradys WRs make big plays too, but no one wants to give them credit.

Peyton Manning was drafted #1 overall to the worst team in the NFL and was throw into the fire immediately. He had a whole team build around him and turned them around in a hurry. Brady on the other hand walked into a dream scenario. He had a championship defense and was asked to do much of what Ben Roethlisberger was his rookie year - hand the ball off and convert 3rd downs. Brady also had a little over a full year to learn the offense before he was asked to start.

Before Peyton was drafted, the Colts were a joke.
Before Brady was drafted, the Patriots had finished .500 or better in the previous four seasons including two division titles and one Super Bowls appearance. The previous four seasons before Manning was drafted the Colts managed to finish 3rd in the division twice, and two other bad season (not like 3rd is a good season) including one 3-13 season.

More than anything else, Peyton Manning IS the Colts. Tom Brady played for a great Patriots team, and when Brady was asked to carry the team did he go win a Superbowl? No. He actually choked. He put up 14 points with the best offense ever assembled in good field conditions. He consistently overthrew Randy Moss (how do you overthrow Randy Moss?) and frankly made poor decisions. He gets credit for a TD on one play where he threw to Moss because a DB fell down. Anyway you spin it Brady had a poor superbowl. Did his offensive line play as well as they usually do? No, but did Brady throw lots of checkdowns and screens to counter that? No. Am I the only one not afraid to say that Tom Brady choked in the biggest game of his life?

I like Tom Brady. I'm not strictly a Tom Brady hater. I like Peyton too. I only pointed out the things I thought you missed that need factored in. Frankly, i'll take either of these QBs on my team. If I had to pick it would be Peyton because he's done it longer. I feel comfortable enough that if I put him on the Super Bowl winning Patriot teams he would win just like Brady did.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by beyond wang, September 11, 2009

i take manning any day of the week and twice on sunday

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Patrick Welsh - Give me Peyton
written by Derek Lofland , June 15, 2009

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I was occupied this weekend and most of Monday with a family function. I agree Cassel's numbers look very similar to Brady's numbers from 2001-2006. But again, the big thing to me is that Cassel had Moss and Welker and Brady had Troy Brown and Earnest Givens.

The other thing is keep in mind that the 01-03 season were before the 04 rule changes, so you aren't comparing apples and apples there. Also keep in mind Brady led the NFL in touchdown passes in 2002 and passing yards in 2005. Cassel was eighth in passing yards and not in the top 10 in touchdown passes. Considering the offensive talent he had around him that is signifigant.

I think Cassel is going to take a step back in KC, because he is going to find it a lot harder to be successful in KC without those weapons. Brady has proven that no matter who they plug into that offense he can put up good numbers. Maybe not the most dominant fantasy football numbers, but good numbers that help his team win games.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Patrick Welsh, June 12, 2009

Derek, if you compare ANY quarterbacks stats to the 07 season by Brady, they will all look inferior. Throw out that one season and then compare Brady and Cassel. Keep in mind, Cassel's last time he was a starter was in high school!

Below, Brady's first 6 years as a starter(average), minus the season for the ages with Moss & Welker.

510 attempts 315 completions 62o;mpletion 3593 yards 24TD's 13INT's
516 attempts 327 completions 63o;mpletion 3693 yards 21TD's 11INT's

Above, Cassel's averages: first season as starter and first season starting a game since high school.

They look earily similar, do they not?

You can argue that Brady's 07 season should be included because Cassel was playing with the same playmakers, but I'm just trying to show how mortal Brady was pre Moss&Welker/07 and how Cassel performed to the same level as Brady throughout Brady's first 6 years as a starter.

Do you play fantasy baseball or follow baseball? If so or even if not, there's the career year that occurs for baseball players....all seasons look the same and then BOOM their stats have a dramatic increase......and the next season they return to the norm. In my mind, this is what 07 was for Brady, a career year never to be matched again. Take a look at Manning's TD totals......26,26,33,26,27,29,49career year,28,31,31,27. The 49 TD's stick out, just like Brady's 07 season will stick out when he retires.

I know Brady's a good QB, but from watching the games with Cassel last season, their offense didn't change much from the previous 4-6 seasons, minus the 07 season....but again, this was Cassel's first time starting a game in 8 years. It still blows my mind how well he performed last season.

As far as Manning, he's obviously benefited from the talent surrounding him, but from my observations, I'd still take him over Brady......c'mon, haven't you seen him in those commercials, he can do it all!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Patrick Welsh - Give me Peyton
written by Derek Lofland , June 11, 2009

Thanks for the comments. The Patriots won five less games in 2008 without Brady, threw for 1,000 less yards, and had 29 less touchdown passes; despite the fact that Moss and Welker were still in the lineup. The offense was nothing close to what it was in 2007. Furthermore the 21 touchdowns was the fewest that a Patriots quarterback threw in a single season since Brady's first year in 2001. In other words Cassel put up worse numbers in 2008 than Brady did between 2001-2006, despite having much better offensive talent around him. I just don't get the argument that there was no drop off without Brady in the lineup last year. The offense was good, but it was not as good as with Brady.

Second, I love that people say Brady is a product of Randy Moss and Wes Welker, but Manning supporters never want to give any credit to all the first round picks the Colts have surrounded Manning with on offense throughout his career. James, Addai, Harrison, Wayne, Clark, and Gonzalez are all first round picks. They added another first round pick this year in RB Donald Brown. In that case Manning made all those guys.

They are both great quarterbacks. Manning has been surrounded with more offensive talent the majority of his career and plays in much better conditions in the dome. Brady has had poor weather to deal with in Boston and not as much offensive talent (pre 2007), but has had a better defense and coaching staff. But Brady is a terrific talent that deserves better than to be labeled a system quarterback.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Patrick Welsh, June 11, 2009

Give me Peyton too. Brady is overrated as a QB if you ask me. Seeing how well Matt Cassell performed in that system opened my eyes even more. Brady performs well within their system and the team wins because of the system....on both sides of the ball.

Manning is a stud. He was bred to be a quarterback and is a once in a decade type talent. He will probably never be revered the way he should be due to the lack of championships, but all in all, he's one of the best in history. Brady doesn't even come close.

Where's Mr. New Englad Man Cincotta??

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Kevin Orris - Pittsburgh Game
written by Derek Lofland , June 10, 2009

Couple thoughts on that. In 2005 that was a divsional round game and the Colts offense scored just three points in the first three quarters. It was a miracle the defense even came up with the turnover (which was a fumble by Bettis) to save the game after Manning was sacked twice on the previous drive that stalled around the Colts 12 yard line. Manning did a good job of driving the team down the field, but the drive stalled and the Colts had to settle for the failed field goal.

The fact is that in Manning's eight playoff losses the Colts have averaged 13.5 points per game. I agree with you that the defense has not been as strong as the Patriots over the course of the decade. But one reason the Colts keep coming up short in January is that Peyton Manning does not bring his A game to the playoffs on a consistent basis.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Kevin Orris, June 10, 2009

2007 was a good year for the Colts, at least, towards the end of the season if I remember correctly. The rush defense for the Colts has been inconsistent and very vulnerable. Even the corner backs have been weak at times though; Nick Harper is my best example of that. The Colts once lost the AFC Championship because Nick Harper was stabbed in the back of the knee the day before the game and then got tackled by Big Ben on an interception return that should have been for a touchdown.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Kevin Orris - I'd take Peyton
written by Derek Lofland , June 09, 2009

Thanks for the comment. I think the Patriots have had the better defense over the course of the decade, but Manning has played with some pretty good defenses too. What about 2007 when the Colts led the NFL in scoring defense and Bob Sanders was the NFL Defensive Player of the Year? Also, in 2005 when they were second in scoring defense? Even in 2008 the Colts allowed the fewest passing touchdowns in the NFL with just six.

I think the Colts' run defense has been pretty weak, but they have been very good at sacks, forcing turnovers, and stopping the pass. Again, advantage Brady for playing on better defenses, but Peyton Manning has played on some pretty complete teams that just haven't gotten the job done in January.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Kevin Orris, June 09, 2009

I take Manning any day, but for the most part it's because I'm a Colts fan. I believe that you could have considered command of the team, or leadership qualities because Manning is the best in the league at that. He runs of the offense like no on else ever has, and works harder towards beating his opponent than any other player. Brady has been blessed with a great defense, where as Manning's defenses have been lackluster.

I would also say that the Patriots have a better o-line versus the Colts these days.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment Preview