Manning v. Brady 16

[bbb]

I always thought playoff records look skewed, and people shouldn't look at them like regular season records. If you get the number two seed, win your divisional game, and lose in the AFC Championship, you are 1-1. That doesn't look good, but you made it to the friggin AFC Championship!

 

I was just thinking, Jim Kelly was 3-3 in his first three playoff season. Looks very mediocre. But, he went to the AFC Championship twice and the Super Bowl once!!

[Mr. WEO]

Both are certain HOFers but Brady's dominance over P. Manning is really only in the regular season. Brady is just 2-2 vs. Manning all-time in the playoffs and 0-2 since 2006. Brady's wins over Manning were in the '03 and '04 seasons. That's a long time ago.

 

NFL MVPs: P. Manning 5, Brady 2

 

SB MVP's: Brady 2 Manning 1 (for 1 TD pass in the first Q??)

 

I always thought playoff records look skewed, and people shouldn't look at them like regular season records. If you get the number two seed, win your divisional game, and lose in the AFC Championship, you are 1-1. That doesn't look good, but you made it to the friggin AFC Championship!

 

I was just thinking, Jim Kelly was 3-3 in his first three playoff season. Looks very mediocre. But, he went to the AFC Championship twice and the Super Bowl once!!

 

Kelly won more playoff games than he lost.

[Alphadawg7]

What people seem to forget about Indy's defense is that they played indoors and on carpet two disadvantages to defenses. Also the Colts never played ball control type offense something else that helps the defense.

 

Couple of things...there are quite a few seasons in that list where Indy had a top 12 D, more than enough to matter.

 

If you want to weigh defenses, you also have to way offensive efficiency hurting their defensive stats. Indy/Den scores so often and so fast, that by default their defense will be on the field a lot. And thats how stats easily have totals increased. Their defense wasn't always as bad as the stats suggested. And in many of the games where Indy was eliminated via upset, their Defense played good enough to win and it was the offense that sputtered.

 

So, I hear this defense argument all the time when these two are compared, but for me its not a valid one for two key reasons...

 

1. This is about Brady vs Manning...not Pats vs. Indy. Head to head, Brady has owned Manning with a 2-1 win ratio.

2. Brady and Manning play on offense...Brady has accomplished an amazing resume offensively despite having inferior talent to Manning.

3. Brady has a much better playoff resume, and not just in wins and losses, but in actual QB play.

4. The defensive gap isn't as big as that stats suggest to me. Indy scored so fast and frequently, that their stats suffer, but he still had some all time greats on his defense over the years. And, Manning has only one SB win against Rex Grossman, yet he had a top 12 defense 5 times. With the offenses he had, any top 15 defense should be more than sufficient to win the SB.

5. Brady is two fluke plays away from 5 SB rings and 4 SB MVPs. Nothing against the Giants, but it took 2 nearly impossible plays to beat the Pats those 2 years. Manning has not been good in 2 out of his 3 SB's and had many other flops, one and dones, etc for a player of his legacy and caliber.

 

Manning is one of the greatest ever, no doubt...but give me Brady or Warner over him in the playoffs any day of the week.

[MrLocke]

Couple of things...there are quite a few seasons in that list where Indy had a top 12 D, more than enough to matter.

 

If you want to weigh defenses, you also have to way offensive efficiency hurting their defensive stats. Indy/Den scores so often and so fast, that by default their defense will be on the field a lot. And thats how stats easily have totals increased. Their defense wasn't always as bad as the stats suggested. And in many of the games where Indy was eliminated via upset, their Defense played good enough to win and it was the offense that sputtered.

 

So, I hear this defense argument all the time when these two are compared, but for me its not a valid one for two key reasons...

 

1. This is about Brady vs Manning...not Pats vs. Indy. Head to head, Brady has owned Manning with a 2-1 win ratio.

2. Brady and Manning play on offense...Brady has accomplished an amazing resume offensively despite having inferior talent to Manning.

3. Brady has a much better playoff resume, and not just in wins and losses, but in actual QB play.

4. The defensive gap isn't as big as that stats suggest to me. Indy scored so fast and frequently, that their stats suffer, but he still had some all time greats on his defense over the years. And, Manning has only one SB win against Rex Grossman, yet he had a top 12 defense 5 times. With the offenses he had, any top 15 defense should be more than sufficient to win the SB.

5. Brady is two fluke plays away from 5 SB rings and 4 SB MVPs. Nothing against the Giants, but it took 2 nearly impossible plays to beat the Pats those 2 years. Manning has not been good in 2 out of his 3 SB's and had many other flops, one and dones, etc for a player of his legacy and caliber.

 

Manning is one of the greatest ever, no doubt...but give me Brady or Warner over him in the playoffs any day of the week.

 

Sorry if my earlier post was misleading. I think were saying the same thing, though. I'm trying to say Indy's defenses weren't as bad as people seem to think because of the reasons I mentioned.

 

Playing on carpet hurt Indy's defense.

Playing indoor's hurt Indy's defense.

Not playing a ball control offense hurts Indy's defense.

 

One of the biggest myths that Manning apologists like to push is that he didn't have a defense when this is not the case. He played with Freeney, Mathis and Bob Sanders all guys who are difference makers. Sanders was a dpoy. Mathis and Freeney are both in the 100 sack club.

 

I take Brady any day of the week! Given that the stats are even close is a miracle if you ask me. Manning had the better skill position players, he's the least sacked qb of all time and had the advantage of playing indoors. We all know about his struggles outdoors. He has to play outdoors a lot more if he's in New England.

[Pneumonic]

........................ Brady has played well enough to win 5 super bowls. Manning, just one.

 

Brady has been one defensive stop away from victory in his two SB losses. Manning, OTOH, got blown out in 1 SB loss and threw a game sealing pick-6 in the other.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Pneumonic

[MattM]

 

 

Hmmm...let me try this one more time...

 

 

Looking at the teams that Manning was one and done (which is 8 times in 13 seasons) agaisnt in the playoffs, his record agaisnt them in the regular season is a combined 46-23. So....when he faced these teams in the regular season, he dominated them. In the playoffs, he folded.

 

Not following you at all here--using the numbers you used (46-23), looks like you're using aggregate records against playoff opponents during the regular season over a number of years (since 69 is multiples of the 8 times they were one and done). That doesn't make sense to me--for example, a team could be 4-12 one year that the Colts beat them in the regular season, but then 3 years later they beat the Colts in the playoffs when said team was 12-4 that year. Of course they were a tougher out that playoff season and thus you'd expect the Colts to have a worse record against playoff teams than regular season teams.

 

On folks above on Brady's dominance over Manning, how much of that was home field advantage, as they also played twice as often at Foxboro? I thought I read this week that neither has beaten the other on the road since 2006.

 

That's all without mentioning the Spygate asterisk that Belichick firmly planted next to all his teams' records--even more so in this case where Brady would have been a direct beneficiary of said cheating.

[bbb]

Kelly won more playoff games than he lost.

 

Did you read my post. I said the first three playoff years.

 

And, looking at his playoff record, it's 9-8. Once again, proving my point. Looks incredibly mediocre - and he went to four Super Bowls!

[ganesh]

........................ Brady has played well enough to win 5 super bowls. Manning, just one.

 

Brady has been one defensive stop away from victory in his two SB losses. Manning, OTOH, got blown out in 1 SB loss and threw a game sealing pick-6 in the other.

Brady is also one defensive stop or one offensive play from three SB losses. The Pats won all those SBs with a FG at the end of the game and beating the Rams when they stopped them at the 1 yard line.

[OJ's Glove]

Brady is also one defensive stop or one offensive play from three SB losses. The Pats won all those SBs with a FG at the end of the game and beating the Rams when they stopped them at the 1 yard line.

 

Your notions are slightly off here.

 

Yeah, they were all close games. The point being that Brady didn't play poorly in any of them really, and handed his defense the lead late in the game in the two he lost. Even in 36 where he was basically a rookie and wasn't statistically good - and the Patriots offense only scored one offensive TD, he still had the game winning drive in crunch time to set up the FG. Then of course the shoot-out against Carolina in SB38 where he was great.

 

They never "stopped the Rams at the one yard line" in SB36. I think you're confused on that one. The Rams were only in the red zone twice in that game and scored TD's both times. The play where Warner fumbled on the one yard line and the Pats returned it for a TD was overturned by a penalty.

 

They had a ten-point lead on Philly in SB39. Philly's long-bomb TD that made it a three-point game wasn't technically in garbage-time, but it was close to it. There was no "winning FG" in that game.

 

Manning was lousy in the one SB he won, arguably against the weakest NFC champion in the last 20 years.

Edited November 5, 2014 by OJ's Glove

[Boatdrinks]

 

On folks above on Brady's dominance over Manning, how much of that was home field advantage, as they also played twice as often at Foxboro? I thought I read this week that neither has beaten the other on the road since 2006.

 

That's all without mentioning the Spygate asterisk that Belichick firmly planted next to all his teams' records--even more so in this case where Brady would have been a direct beneficiary of said cheating.

 

 

Probably a lot. I'll take Manning over Brady any day, but I could predict the outcome going in to last Sunday. The Broncos will start out better than the Pats, then the penalty flags will start to fly. Oh, and the Pats will not get called for a single Offensive holding or illegal contact on D ( even though they are grabbing and holding Broncos WRs on almost every play. And the game will always be @ Foxborough ( 3 years in a row, really?) ifGoodell and Blob Kraft have anything to say about it. At one point when the Pats were up by 21 I believe the penalty count was 7 to 1. Even late , Tamme tried to haul in a TD in the corner of the EZ with one hand. Why? Because his arm was being held by a Pats DB. The ref must have thought he was showboating , because there was no flag thrown. How about last years OT debacle @Gillette? Manning hits Tamme for a key first down in OT inside the Pats 40. Getting very lose to FG range after they traded several punts. But wait, a flag for Offensive pass interference. Minimal contact by both DB's.. What a joke. The league wants the big ratings of Boston and all the bandwagon Pats fans everywhere. Put the game @ Denver( like last years Championship game) and its a different story. And both teams had significant injuries, so that was a wash. Brady has had the benefit of the best coach in football, hands down. All the Pats SB wins were by a FG at the end, and they haven't won a SB since their focus went away from an elite defense. That is no coincidence. Brady is a great QB and certain HOFer , but I still think Manning is the best I've seen . You just get disgusted with the favoritism shown the Pats by the NFL and the officials.

[Pneumonic]

I only time I would choose Peyton over Brady is come pizza commercial time.