Manning vs Brady

boston area dtv

SatelliteGuys Pro
Original poster
Dec 18, 2005
891
0
Boston
I think we can finally put this to rest.

Brady with no weapons went to the Super Bowl 3 times.

Peyton with no weapons stinks.

No hyperbole, no jargon. It is what it is. Peyton cant win without a ton of weapons.
 
I think we can finally put this to rest.

Brady with no weapons went to the Super Bowl 3 times.

Peyton with no weapons stinks.

No hyperbole, no jargon. It is what it is. Peyton cant win without a ton of weapons.

A typically uninformed and incorrect (and yes, completely hyperbolic) thought from a Pats fan.

Manning is not just playing with no weapons, he's playing with guys he's never played with before (at least at times), and an offensive line missing three starters. At least Brady had training camp and the entire season to get used to his second-tier recievers. And even this year, when Brady's been pressured, he looks just as ordinary as anyone else does in those circumstances. See the first 50 minutes of the Colts game and much of last night's game for proof.

Oh, and by the way, it's not like Tom Brady threw for 4 TD's a game with those guys. He played well, but he also had a lot of help from a great defense and good special teams. Isn't that what the Pats always preach? Team first? But when it's convenient, everyone wants to forget it. I'm not saying Brady's not having a great year, because he is. I'm not even saying he's not a better quarterback, because I think that can be debated until the cows come home. But to say that this year conclusively proves that he's the better quarterback is just not accurate. And actually, that's not even what you said. You said he "can't win without a ton of weapons," which is even more off base, considering the team is 9-2, and only has those two losses because of uncharacteristic play by the defense in the last 10 minutes against the Pats and a missed field goal by Vinatieri against the Chargers.
 
Regardless who I am a fan of, I used to believe that Manning was the better commander. I felt he knew the offense inside and out and put his players in position to make plays.

I felt Brady benefitted from having the better defense and while he did go to 3 SBs it wasnt all him.

I was wrong. Brady's receivers were nothing more than 3rd and 4th line WR's that HE made better. Reche Caldwell? David Patten? Jabar Gaffney? Deon Branch? Those were his best WRs and they stink without him.

The last time I saw Indy they still had Reggie Wayne a top notch WR.

The comment about playing with guys is wrong. Before this year Brady only played with Gafney and that was for half a season.

The Pats have been clicking all season long with new guys.

Maybe Peyton should do less commercials and practice a little more.
 
Regardless who I am a fan of, I used to believe that Manning was the better commander. I felt he knew the offense inside and out and put his players in position to make plays.

I felt Brady benefitted from having the better defense and while he did go to 3 SBs it wasnt all him.

I was wrong. Brady's receivers were nothing more than 3rd and 4th line WR's that HE made better. Reche Caldwell? David Patten? Jabar Gaffney? Deon Branch? Those were his best WRs and they stink without him.

The last time I saw Indy they still had Reggie Wayne a top notch WR.

The comment about playing with guys is wrong. Before this year Brady only played with Gafney and that was for half a season.

The Pats have been clicking all season long with new guys.

Maybe Peyton should do less commercials and practice a little more.

I'll give you Caldwell - that guy is a mess and lost you the AFC Championship last year (so Brady didn't actually make him better, did he?).

David Patten is on pace for about the same amount of yards with NO this year that he had in his two best years with NE, so he's not any worse off without Brady.

Gaffney is still with the Pats and is making some pretty big plays for them - at least in the games I've seen - although he's obviously not the #1 option like he was last year.

Branch is still a good receiver in Seattle - he's just been hurt more than he's been healthy since he's been there.

So, of the four guys you mentioned, I don't see that Brady made a difference to any of them. Caldwell stunk with Brady AND without him, Gaffney is still there and the other two have had comparable production away from Brady.

And I wasn't talking about the "new guys" the Patriots have. You missed my point. For one thing, those guys are actually good, as opposed to the guys (apart from Reggie Wayne) that Peyton has had to work with at times this year. For another, my main point was that Peyton didn't practice with those guys on the first team from the beginning of the year- he probably never planned on completing a pass to Craphonso Thorpe during this season.... Brady did get to try out his new toys from day one of training camp, so that has nothing to do with what I was saying.

As far as being the better commander and knowing the offense inside and out... Manning runs the entire offense from the field during the game, with no huddle AND no wristband. Need I say more?

Again, I'm not going to tell you Manning is better than Brady - I think it's a fun debate. I just have a problem with you saying that this year is definitive proof the other way...
 
Last edited:
As far as being the better commander and knowing the offense inside and out... Manning runs the entire offense from the field during the game, with no huddle AND no wristband. Need I say more?

Again, I'm not going to tell you Manning is better than Brady - I think it's a fun debate. I just have a problem with you saying that this year is definitive proof the other way...

Good point. To me, IF ANYTHING the ADDITION of the Moss and Welker and Stallworth have made Brady better....NOT the other way around like YOU suggest. Brady is a great QB....but before you finish crowning him the greatest QB in the history of the NFL.....why we wait till the season is over....:eureka
 
Or give somebody like Dan Marino the defense that Brady or Terry Bradshaw had, and the running game that Troy Aikman or Bradshaw had, and how many championships would he have won? They all need good all-around teams. No quarterback has won championships with no weapons. Even the 2000 Ravens, who people think of having no offense, had a tremendous defense and a 1,300-yard rusher. And talking about Deion Branch not being that good? Well how good do you have to be when you have 1,600-yard rusher like Corey Dillon putting pressure on the defense to stop the run. Makes it a lot easier to get open when your opponents are stacking the box. Ask the Eagles about how good Branch was in the Super Bowl.
 
Your all missing the point here. It doesnt matter what "weapons" you have. Winning in the NFL is done with solid defense and great offensive line play.

I dont care who the better quarterback is and it doesnt really matter. There both GREAT Qb's. PERIOD.

You think Tom Brady (or any other QB in the league) is going to win with randy moss, T.O. and Jerry Rice if there offensive line and defense stinks?

Brady is great but he is also a product of a great system. From coaching on down, the organization is very good. You think brady would be great on the raiders? Please, it takes great players around you to be great, not just great receivers.
 
Your all missing the point here. It doesnt matter what "weapons" you have. Winning in the NFL is done with solid defense and great offensive line play.

I dont care who the better quarterback is and it doesnt really matter. There both GREAT Qb's. PERIOD.

You think Tom Brady (or any other QB in the league) is going to win with randy moss, T.O. and Jerry Rice if there offensive line and defense stinks?

Brady is great but he is also a product of a great system. From coaching on down, the organization is very good. You think brady would be great on the raiders? Please, it takes great players around you to be great, not just great receivers.

Thank you, very well put ! :up:up:up
Particularly the Offensive line, Brady doesn't even need to have his jersey washed most nights ... of course they NEVER get called for holding either.

Jimbo
 
You look at the three games the pats could have lost (dallas, indy and philly). What are the common themes? Brady was getting hit and flushed from the pocket almost all day.

What was the result? eeking out wins.

Look at the games that he re-wore the jersey the next week because it was so clean? 56-7 70-3 49-6 62-9. I think there is a pattern here.

What makes him great is his ability to stay calm and cool and come through at the end. But, he does make mistakes like anyone else when he has pressure on him. Maybe not as many as A.J. Feeley, but he makes them nonetheless. And when those happen, he has a great defense to back him up.
 
I think Brady showed great composure in staying calm and coming back against an uppity Philly team.

Don't fool yourself...the Eagles were going to score IF they would of kept going to the middle of the field like they had done all game...they would have score....the Pats could not stop them.
 
I agree that they appeared to have the Pat's number. However, that doesn't negate my point about Brady's composure. He stayed cool under the pressure.

Don't fool yourself...the Eagles were going to score IF they would of kept going to the middle of the field like they had done all game...they would have score....the Pats could not stop them.
 
But again, it makes it easier to stay cool under pressure when he's not seeing any (pressure). Against the Colts and the Eagles, his line finally figured it out and protected him when it mattered most.

Very true. To me, there is no doubt that the 2 best pass protection lines in the last 4 or 5 years IS the Colts and the Pats O-Lines.
 
This is simple - Great QB + great team = Super Bowl rings. Great QB ( Marino, or the QB of your choice) + mediocre team = no rings. Can't think of any great teams without a great QB. (Got to admit that the Ravens are as close as I can come, and I hesitate to call them "great since they haven't done much since their championship.)
 
This is simple - Great QB + great team = Super Bowl rings. Great QB ( Marino, or the QB of your choice) + mediocre team = no rings. Can't think of any great teams without a great QB. (Got to admit that the Ravens are as close as I can come, and I hesitate to call them "great since they haven't done much since their championship.)

I think you CAN be great for one year....
 
This is simple - Great QB + great team = Super Bowl rings. Great QB ( Marino, or the QB of your choice) + mediocre team = no rings. Can't think of any great teams without a great QB. (Got to admit that the Ravens are as close as I can come, and I hesitate to call them "great since they haven't done much since their championship.)

Maybe not great teams, but there have been plenty of Super Bowl champions without a great quarterback, and even more who had a quarterback who just happened to have a good year at the right time....

82 Redskins
85 Bears
87 Redskins
91 Redskins
99 Rams
00 Ravens
02 Bucs
05 Steelers

Just to name a few. So I would modify your point a little. Good teams can win without good quarterbacks much easier than good quarterbacks can win without good teams.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)