Hollywood Donahoe Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 Well. Brady does not call his own plays ... there were a ton of articles on this, but here is one of the ones on the top (http://www.senorcafe.com/archives/000135.html) Senor Cafe? SENOR CAFE?! I'll pretend I didn't read that. I see as much proof that Brady calls his own plays as I do that Manning does. More, maybe, considering Manning has an OC and Brady does not. Here are the stats: 3,607 24.6 TD 13.2 INT 61.9% 88.5 rating (Brady) 4,148 30.5 TD 16.2 INT 63.9% 93.5 rating (Manning) I personally dont consider 541 yards, 6 TD's, 2% more accurate and a 5% better ranking close. Hmmm. I do, in the grand scheme, and viewing it context. BTW: Supporting casts? I believe YOU GUYS have a better offensive line than the Colts have. No. Not even remotely close. Not to mention that you are a Patriots fan and I am NOT a Colts fan. So you are definately biast. Biased. And you may not be a Colts fan, but you seem to be a Manning fan, so you're a bit biased youself, I would say. Also ... Charlie Weiss is an amazing O-Coordinator. Isnt it odd that the first year he is gone is the year that you guys dont make it past the 2nd round? He was here in '00 and '02 when we didn't even make the playoffs.
EC-Bills Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 None-the-less, this really doesn't matter to me. If you guys want to believe Brady is better then that is fine. Statistically it is not even close and that is why no one here wants to bring in stats. Leadership I will admit, Brady probably has the edge. BTW: Does Brady call his own plays? Didn't think so. 568958[/snapback] Peyton may have flashier stats, but the most important stat for me is W/L in the postseason and Brady is the clear winner.
Hollywood Donahoe Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 Here is another link ... from Tom Brady himself: (It is a question and answer thing on the Patriots website) http://www.patriots.com/mediacenter/index....d=13068&pcid=85 Ah, thank you for that confirmation. Belichick is so candid, I'm sure he allowed his QB to announce to the press the nature of the team's offensive playcalling situation.
daquixers_is_back Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 Ah, thank you for that confirmation. Belichick is so candid, I'm sure he allowed his QB to announce to the press the nature of the team's offensive playcalling situation. 568994[/snapback] Yes - because telling the team website that the QB (instead of a man up-stairs), calls the plays is a HUGE deal ...
daquixers_is_back Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 Here is the thing The question I am asking is this: Who is the better QB? The better pure QUARTERBACK is Peyton Manning. If the question was: "Who has the better playoff record?" Then of course the answer would be Brady. Brady and his TEAM wins more playoff games. But Brady is not a better pure QUARTERBACK than Peyton Manning and stats can prove that.
Hollywood Donahoe Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 he question I am asking is this: Who is the better QB? The better pure QUARTERBACK is Peyton Manning. ...Brady is not a better pure QUARTERBACK than Peyton Manning and stats can prove that. QBs do not play in vacuums. They play in different systems with different supporting casts, in different stadiums in different temperatures, with different trainers and different facilities, ad nauseam. Stats are okay for rough comparisons, but they are not the end all be all. If you cannot understand how playing in a 72 degree dome on a carpet with Marshall Faulk, Edgerrin James, Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, et al might positively affect Manning's statistics, you're too far gone to argue with.
The Dean Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 QBs do not play in vacuums. They play in different systems with different supporting casts, in different stadiums in different temperatures, with different trainers and different facilities, ad nauseam. Stats are okay for rough comparisons, but they are not the end all be all. 569021[/snapback] And neither are Super Bowl wins. If they were, you'd have to say Tren Dilfer was a better QB than Marino.
dave mcbride Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 Brady, and there should be no discussion. 569002[/snapback] here here. that being said, manning did a lot of good things today after the first quarter. he didn't have a bad game.
daquixers_is_back Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 QBs do not play in vacuums. They play in different systems with different supporting casts, in different stadiums in different temperatures, with different trainers and different facilities, ad nauseam. Stats are okay for rough comparisons, but they are not the end all be all. If you cannot understand how playing in a 72 degree dome on a carpet with Marshall Faulk, Edgerrin James, Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, et al might positively affect Manning's statistics, you're too far gone to argue with. 569021[/snapback] TheDean made a very good point about Trent Dilfer above ... check that post out first. Second of all. Tom Brady was cradled by one of the greatest offensive minds that that I believe this game has ever seen. Charlie Weiss is a straight up genius. The New England offensive line is pretty good and the receivers seem to be consistent. There is more to argue, but it is too hard because you are so incredibly biased (thanks for the spelling correction by the way)
Hollywood Donahoe Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 And neither are Super Bowl wins. If they were, you'd have to say Tren Dilfer was a better QB than Marino. True enough. A balance of success (in the form of wins) and stats is likely the best way to evaluate a player. Brady, for instance, has led his team to 3 Super Bowl wins (and has 2 game MVPs), and also owns the 6th best QB rating in NFL history. (DISCLAIMER: I say 6th because the aforementioned list is using pre-'05 stats, and Brady's post-'05 career QB rating of 88.5 is higher than Green post-'05 career QB rating of 88.3) Manning, meanwhile, has the numbers (4th best all time passer rating), but putrid playoff showings.
Hollywood Donahoe Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 TheDean made a very good point about Trent Dilfer above ... check that post out first. See my last post. Brady has the rings and the numbers. Second of all. Tom Brady was cradled by one of the greatest offensive minds that that I believe this game has ever seen. Charlie Weiss is a straight up genius. The New England offensive line is pretty good and the receivers seem to be consistent. Brady just posted his best statistical season without Weis. And New England's OL is mediocre, and their receivers are quick, but short as hell and have NEVER put up the numbers that Manning's have. To compare either unit to the ones at Manning's disposal is a joke. Manning is surrounded by HOFers. Brady isn't even surrounded by Pro Bowlers (he's the only offensive Pro Bowler on his team this year). There is more to argue, but it is too hard because you are so incredibly biased (thanks for the spelling correction by the way) It's hard because the position you're arguing is flawed. And if I'm only arguing against Manning because of my New England bias, then why are most of the Bills fans in this thread arguing against him as well?
daquixers_is_back Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 True enough. A balance of success (in the form of wins) and stats is likely the best way to evaluate a player. Brady, for instance, has led his team to 3 Super Bowl wins (and has 2 game MVPs), and also owns the 6th best QB rating in NFL history. (DISCLAIMER: I say 6th because the aforementioned list is using pre-'05 stats, and Brady's post-'05 career QB rating of 88.5 is higher than Green post-'05 career QB rating of 88.3) Manning, meanwhile, has the numbers (4th best all time passer rating), but putrid playoff showings. 569041[/snapback] Yes. But the real question is this: Does Manning have putrid playoff showings or does the Indi Offensive Line, and the opponents mugging his WR's really have the putrid playoff showings. For example, Roethlisbergers QB rating was around 95 and Mannings was around 90-91 .... so there is only a 4-5 point difference. Yet you could clearly see what team was more in control of the game. That is because even though Manning played well, the rest of his team kinda collapsed (barring, Edge and Wide Receivers).
Hollywood Donahoe Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 Yes. But the real question is this: Does Manning have putrid playoff showings or does the Indi Offensive Line, and the opponents mugging his WR's really have the putrid playoff showings. Nothing's getting through, is it? For example, Roethlisbergers QB rating was around 95 and Mannings was around 90-91 .... so there is only a 4-5 point difference. Did you factor in Manning's INT? Look, Manning hasn't won a big game in his career, and you wishing really hard isn't going to change that. Feel free to blame everyone but Manning for this unfortunate fact, but don't feel bad if the rest of us don't join you in fantasy land.
daquixers_is_back Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 See my last post. Brady has the rings and the numbers.Brady just posted his best statistical season without Weis. And New England's OL is mediocre, and their receivers are quick, but short as hell and have NEVER put up the numbers that Manning's have. To compare either unit to the ones at Manning's disposal is a joke. Manning is surrounded by HOFers. Brady isn't even surrounded by Pro Bowlers (he's the only offensive Pro Bowler on his team this year). It's hard because the position you're arguing is flawed. And if I'm only arguing against Manning because of my New England bias, then why are most of the Bills fans in this thread arguing against him as well? 569048[/snapback] Because he is in our division and we see/hear more of him. Now. What HOF'ers on Indi's offense? Marvin Harrison will most likely be and Edgerin James will most likely be. Other than that who? Reggie Wayne? Probably not. Brandon Stokely. Ugh - no. Rhodes? No. I mean come on man. That being said do Manning's receivers put up those numbers because there that good ... or do they because there QB is that good? A good QB will make average wide receivers look good and vice versa. Before Peyton Manning joined the Colts, Marvin Harrison's best year was 73 catches and 6 TD's ... one year after Peyton joined he had a 115 catch, 12 TD year. Before joining the Colts, Brandon Stokley's best year was 24 receptions and 2 TD's (or 22 receptions and 3 TDs - take your pick) ... one year after joining the Colts he posted a 68 reception, 10 touchdown year. So if anything ... I think its the cast around him that should be thanking Peyton - not Peyton thanking them. Although I do think the cast around him is very good.
daquixers_is_back Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 I'll take Hollywood for the win. 569067[/snapback] What? Are we boxing?
Grant Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 What? Are we boxing? 569073[/snapback] That'd be worth watching! "When TSWers Attack"... I'll fuggin' bet'cha FOX would pick something like that up.
daquixers_is_back Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 That'd be worth watching! "When TSWers Attack"... I'll fuggin' bet'cha FOX would pick something like that up. 569076[/snapback] In a heartbeat.
ATBNG Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 Yes. But the real question is this: Does Manning have putrid playoff showings or does the Indi Offensive Line, and the opponents mugging his WR's really have the putrid playoff showings. For example, Roethlisbergers QB rating was around 95 and Mannings was around 90-91 .... so there is only a 4-5 point difference. Yet you could clearly see what team was more in control of the game. That is because even though Manning played well, the rest of his team kinda collapsed (barring, Edge and Wide Receivers). 569056[/snapback] The great ones get it done. Jerry Rice faced double coverage on the majority of his Super Bowl snaps yet he had a huge game every time on the biggest stage there is. Peyton's current legacy is excuses. The team put around him in 2005 was built to win this year. Manning's cap figure next year jumps to 17.6 million. Will he ever get a better shot than he had this year?
Recommended Posts