Peyton Manning is better than any West Coast QB

[Wraith]

That is a valid point....But to keep defenses honest you have to go deep once in a while...Otherwise they will put that safety at the line of scrimmage and stop the short ones.

Because they WRs are not in the same class as a Marvin Harrison or Reggie Wayne....They can catch passes closer to the line of scrimmage, whereas may be they cannot run precise routes and grab the ball over the CB...Also Brady's short range completion % may be higher because he spreads the ball around to his RBs and TEs....and they might be better ball players than those lousy WRs.

 

The point I was trying to make here is that the short passes aren't by definition easier to catch. The majority of short passes, even by Tom Brady, happen 0 - 10 yards downfield. They are almost always made in front of linebackers waiting to deliver a hit, are almost always thrown HARD to squeeze them in between defenders, and are often times TIMING routes. I'm just questioning the assumption that a bad WR will do better with short throws than long throws.

[Dawgg]

So you are saying by virtue of the fact that the two QBs throw deep at the same rate, this implies that the Harrison and Wayne get open just as often as the likes of Caldwell and Gafney?

 

This is laughable.

 

Brady takes shots deep but that doesn't mean that his receivers create high percentage opportunities. Harrison is one of the best route runners to ever put on a uniform. To say that isn't a factor (correction: a MAJOR factor) in Mannign's success as a passer is just flat out wrong.

 

If your implication is that NE's scrub wide receivers cannot get open deep while Indianapolis's can, Tom Brady would NOT be throwing deep at NEARLY THE EXACT SAME RATE as Peyton Manning.

[Wraith]

So you are saying by virtue of the fact that the two QBs throw deep at the same rate, this implies that the Harrison and Wayne get open just as often as the likes of Caldwell and Gafney?

 

This is laughable.

 

Brady takes shots deep but that doesn't mean that his receivers create high percentage opportunities. Harrison is one of the best route runners to ever put on a uniform. To say that isn't a factor (correction: a MAJOR factor) in Mannign's success as a passer is just flat out wrong.

 

 

First off, I refuse to believe Tom Brady would throw deep at the same rate as Peyton Manning if Brady was always throwing to covered receivers and Manning was always throwing to open ones. That implies that Tom Brady either A) Can't recognize when a receiver more than ten yards down field is "open," or B) Sees a whole hell of a lot of value in throwing to covered receivers to "stretch the defense."

 

There is always value in a taking a few shots down field to open things up underneath. But why in the world would you throw down field at the same rate as the best vertical passing offense in the league (the Colts) if your receivers SUCKED at it?

 

Secondly, by down field passing, we're talking about anything over TEN yards. I'm not talking 30+ yards here. The VAST majority of the throws made in the down field range are between 10 - 20 yards down field. These aren't "stretch the field" passes. In that range, the running backs and especially the tight ends are still viable options.

[billfan63]

Now that is a good point. Fortunately they keep stats for that, too.

 

I'm doubtful that separating out the stats by indoors/outdoors will have much effect, though, because the most overwhelming range of passes included in the "down field passing" is the 10 to 20 yard pass, which is not effected by the weather nearly as much as longer throws. These longer throws happen so infrequently as to have little effect compared to the 10 to 20 yard pass. In addition, I feel a quarterback as smart as Tom Brady will throw down field less frequently when it's windy/rainy/snowy, so his numbers will not be impacted much.

The effect is multiplied by the receivers also. Ron Jaworski just made this point on Rome's show. When asked why everone

had the Saints/Bears game wrong, he said that after studying the film, the football was coming out of Brees hand tailing and the Saint's receivers were not used to the elements and were slipping and missing their cuts.

[34-78-83]

AKC, love the analogy of the System's utilization of the QB position to the point guard or point/shooting guard in basketball. That really explains it to the tee. I don't as much like the QB you chose to use for the west coast representative as I don't see the Pats as a West coast offense while they do utilize some of it's concepts. Also Brady has mastered the medium range game in the 10-20 yard region IMO, though I still don't think he's close to Montana unlike the thoughts of some.

[Wraith]

Also Brady has mastered the medium range game in the 10-20 yard region IMO, though I still don't think he's close to Montana unlike the thoughts of some.

 

It does seem that way in general, but this year that certainly wasn't the case. Passing between 11-20 yards this year, Brady went

34/81 (42%) for 635 yards (7.84 yard/attempt), 2 TD, and 3 Int, for an overall passer rating of 62.53.

[34-78-83]

It does seem that way in general, but this year that certainly wasn't the case. Passing between 11-20 yards this year, Brady went

34/81 (42%) for 635 yards (7.84 yard/attempt), 2 TD, and 3 Int, for an overall passer rating of 62.53.

 

Wow! It's strange, there are the stats for all to see but I still feel like he is one of the best at that medium range throw, especially hitting guys in stride.

[Wraith]

Wow! It's strange, there are the stats for all to see but I still feel like he is one of the best at that medium range throw, especially hitting guys in stride.

 

Well, historically, he has been good in that region, I think. But not this year. Let me see if I can put together his numbers for that region for the last five years.

 

From 2001 to 2005 (2006 excluded), Tom Brady's numbers 11 - 20 yards down field are 285/529 (54%), 5283 Yards (9.99 Yards/Attempt), 26 TD, and 16 Int, for a rating of 92.37. That's pretty decent I think. Definitely different from what he put up this year.

[Kelly the Dog]

It does seem that way in general, but this year that certainly wasn't the case. Passing between 11-20 yards this year, Brady went

34/81 (42%) for 635 yards (7.84 yard/attempt), 2 TD, and 3 Int, for an overall passer rating of 62.53.

Brady clearly had an off year this year statistically, as Losman had as good or better stats, but who is the better quarterback? Surely a lot had to do with NE's receivers he was working with. The thing is, they are both great quarterbacks if not all-time great quarterbacks. Both will likely be first ballot Hall of Famers. The average fan, as well as the serious football fan across the country, seem to be split halfway between whom he thinks is the better quarterback. That's a pretty good indication. And announcers, writers and pundits seem to me to be split right down the middle too. At least looked at overall. Most people, if not the vast majority, think that Manning is clearly the better passer and Brady may be the overall better QB. That seems pretty easy, if not obvious. And there seems to also be just as many Manning sucks because he can't win the big one clowns as there are Brady sucks because he has a great system or can't throw the deep ball jokers. All in all, it's a fun topic to argue but 100% unknowable and unprovable.

[ganesh]

Brady clearly had an off year this year statistically, as Losman had as good or better stats, but who is the better quarterback? Surely a lot had to do with NE's receivers he was working with. The thing is, they are both great quarterbacks if not all-time great quarterbacks. Both will likely be first ballot Hall of Famers. The average fan, as well as the serious football fan across the country, seem to be split halfway between whom he thinks is the better quarterback. That's a pretty good indication. And announcers, writers and pundits seem to me to be split right down the middle too. At least looked at overall. Most people, if not the vast majority, think that Manning is clearly the better passer and Brady may be the overall better QB. That seems pretty easy, if not obvious. And there seems to also be just as many Manning sucks because he can't win the big one clowns as there are Brady sucks because he has a great system or can't throw the deep ball jokers. All in all, it's a fun topic to argue but 100% unknowable and unprovable.

 

Kelly, now for adding Losman to the picture and you actually implying Manning as the other QB in comparison without explicitly referring tp him is going to get you in hot water...

[daquixers_is_back]

I will ask you 2 questions:

 

1) Does the fact that Manning has 2 1st round, Pro Bowl WRs and 1 first round Pro-Bowl caliber tight end and another first round RB have any bearing on this?

 

2) How about turnover. Manning has had the same coordinaor and the same offensive personnel surrounding him for most of his career. For Brady, it is quite the contrary.

 

In any case, nobody is going to dispute that Manning is a better and more prolific passer. I will say, however, that Brady is the better overall QB. If Reche Caldwell catches that wide open pass (which was on target and an easy TD) we wouldn't even be talking about Manning right now.

 

I find this point interesting, because pretty much every Patriot fan brings it up in every debate. They talk about the "weapons" Manning has, and thats why he is so good (as if Corey Dillon, Laurence Maroney, and Deion Branch are all nobody's). Yet I find it funny that Harrisons numbers were just "ok" before Peyton Manning 2nd year in the NFL. Before Manning's 2nd year in the NFL, Harrison averaged about 65 receptions, and 7 TD's per year for the previous three years. As I said, they were OK. After Manning's first year in the NFL, Harrison went nuts averaging 103 receptions, and 12.6 TD's per year after that. Thats a 38 reception and 5.6 TD increase per year after Manning came. Also take in the fact that Manning was having AMAZING years with JUST Harrison and Edge. Wayne didnt break out until 2003-2004. Before then he had dismal-OK years of 25-50 receptions. Then Edge in 2001 and 2002 COMBINED for 1651 (avg of only 800+ year) and 5 TD's. Thats COMBINED for TWO seasons (I believe he may have been injured). Keep in mind, that during those TWO years, Wayne wasn't doing much. In 2001, he had 27 catches and in 2002 he had 49. Not great, but OK. So now, Manning has Harrison and Himself. Dallas Clark was'nt drafted until a few years later.

 

Anyway. This is my point. Sure Manning has talent around him, but if you look at the past he has done it WITH and WITHOUT the talent. He has done it WITH Edge injured, Wayne not doing much, and Clark not even drafted yet. I just think the whole "Manning does it because of ..." arguement is

[Dawgg]

 

This is the weakest argument you could possibly make. Harrison came into the league only ONE year before Manning. Note that rookie receivers, regardless of how good they are, RARELY take the NFL by storm. It usually takes 3 even 4 years for them to develop. Same applies for QBs. Manning wasn't that great a QB as a rookie, as is the case with most rookie QBs. You're really reaching deep if you want to use that argument!

 

The bottom line is Manning has had the benefit of continuity. He had Harrison for his entire career. He has had the same offensive coordinator his entire career. They work together in the offseason and he can pretty much close his eyes and know where Harrison is going to be at any given time. Put Wayne, a Pro Bowler opposite him and a deep threat like Clark at tight end and it's not exactly rocket science to see that he has a distinct advantage over Brady in that regard.

 

Add to it that they play indoors... I'd say your argument is

 

 

I find this point interesting, because pretty much every Patriot fan brings it up in every debate. They talk about the "weapons" Manning has, and thats why he is so good (as if Corey Dillon, Laurence Maroney, and Deion Branch are all nobody's). Yet I find it funny that Harrisons numbers were just "ok" before Peyton Manning 2nd year in the NFL. Before Manning's 2nd year in the NFL, Harrison averaged about 65 receptions, and 7 TD's per year for the previous three years. As I said, they were OK.

[dave mcbride]

Vis a vis this thread topic, here's all that you really need to know:

 

Tom Brady-led teams vs. the Bills: 11-1.

 

That basically explains all of the resentment here, and why people go to such lengths to argue that he's not all that great despite the crushingly obvious fact that he is.

[Lurker]

...clear proof that shows that System Quarterbacks don’t measure up to the Downfield Passing Quarterbacks when it comes to the tasks they perform, their level of responsibility within their offense or the pressure they face as a result.

 

1. Where would Montana rate in your analysis?

[daquixers_is_back]

 

This is the weakest argument you could possibly make. Harrison came into the league only ONE year before Manning. Note that rookie receivers, regardless of how good they are, RARELY take the NFL by storm. It usually takes 3 even 4 years for them to develop. Same applies for QBs. Manning wasn't that great a QB as a rookie, as is the case with most rookie QBs. You're really reaching deep if you want to use that argument!

 

The bottom line is Manning has had the benefit of continuity. He had Harrison for his entire career. He has had the same offensive coordinator his entire career. They work together in the offseason and he can pretty much close his eyes and know where Harrison is going to be at any given time. Put Wayne, a Pro Bowler opposite him and a deep threat like Clark at tight end and it's not exactly rocket science to see that he has a distinct advantage over Brady in that regard.

 

Add to it that they play indoors... I'd say your argument is

 

Are you saying that the part you cut out of my post was a weak argument or the entire post? I wasn't sure because you cut out a goof half of my post. Just to clarify a few things, Harrison came into the league TWO years before Manning, and In my original post, I was talking about Manning's 2nd year in the NFL, as when Harrison first started to break out. Thus it was Harrison's FOURTH year in the NFL when he broke out, and Manning's second. Manning had a pretty good rookie season also. He threw a bunch of INT's, but to throw 28 TD's as a rookie, is pretty darn good. Heck, Losman doesn't have as many TD's in 3 years, as Manning had in his rookie season.

 

What I bolded in your response, really perplexes me. Wayne, didn't start doing well until around 2003-2004, and Clark didn't get drafted until 2004. So what is your excuse BEFORE 2003-2004? There were FIVE seasons before that when Manning lit it up, WITHOUT Clark and Wayne. That is what I was saying in the part of my original post that you cut out. Surely it is nice to have them now, but he didn't have them for the first 5-6 years of his career. He had himself, and Harrison.

 

Add that to they play indoors? Manning had a 93 QB rating outdoors this season. Sure he did better indoors, but its not like he is faltering to a 70-80 QB rating outdoors. LAST year (2005), Manning had a better rating OUTSIDE, than he did in the dome. In 2004, he had a 112 QB rating outside ... should I continue?

[Dawgg]

THANK YOU.

 

Add 3 Super Bowl rings to that.

 

Vis a vis this thread topic, here's all that you really need to know:

 

Tom Brady-led teams vs. the Bills: 11-1.

 

That basically explains all of the resentment here, and why people go to such lengths to argue that he's not all that great despite the crushingly obvious fact that he is.

[AKC]

Wow! It's strange, there are the stats for all to see but I still feel like he is one of the best at that medium range throw, especially hitting guys in stride.

 

I'm guessing that common, yet IMO disproved, conception comes from most of us ignoring the regular throw-aways Brady makes to the sidelines. Since his system rewards him in the short game, on any deeper drop where he gets antsy the ball with regularly goes out of bounds. I don't have a stat for his sideline throw-aways, but I'd bet he leads the league in dirt balls per downfield pass by a fairly substantial margin.

 

Once again, if any QB in a Downfield Passing Offense threw downfield balls away at the rate Brady does, they'd play for perennial cellar dwellers and the QB would live on the hot seat or the bench. In the Pat's System, the QB responsibility level to offensive strength is so low that he can afford to throw these away.

 

However anyone else might try to twist the stats, what is irrefutable when looking at Brady's lifetime downfield passing and the correlation to his offense's effectiveness versus the downfield passers in the game and their correlation between their downfield stats and their offenses effectiveness is this:

 

Downfield Passers downfield passing has a direct correlation on their team's Offensive effectiveness.

Brady's downfield ineptitude has had no clear correlation whatsoever on his team's offensive effectiveness.

 

Knowing that, for me it's hard to imagine any more solid evidence that Brady is not nearly as important to his offense as Manning is to his. The stats fully suppport this observation.

 

I also never understood the "Phantom Sack" phenomenon that Brady is building quite a record of- in a game with us this season he collapsed as whimpily as the famed "Chrisie Everett" sack that made Jim Everett a target of jokes even to this day. When I saw Brady do it again this past week I wondered how much evidence of his weaknesses will go disregarded simply because he's played with the steadiest top defense in the league his whole career? After watching Jeff Garcia jump in at Philly this year, I think it's clear that he could have quite easily matched Brady's wins in NE, and probably by a lot more than a swing of his kicker's foot. Watching a team who has won championships with great defense constantly being looked at as some kind of offensive juggernaut is almost comical.

 

1. Where would Montana rate in your analysis?

 

I always thought Montana was the better System Quarterback when compared with Brady. I don't have his downfield passing numbers but it's hard to imagine they're as god-awful as Brady's lifetime numbers. Another thing in Montana's favor was that he was the pioneer of System Quarterbacking. There had only been one QB playing in Pro Football prior to him, and Virgil Carter hardly left a plethora of film for Montana to use to help develop the footwork that forms the foundation of he and Brady's games.

[LabattBlue]

Vis a vis this thread topic, here's all that you really need to know:

 

Tom Brady-led teams vs. the Bills: 11-1.

 

That basically explains all of the resentment here, and why people go to such lengths to argue that he's not all that great despite the crushingly obvious fact that he is.

That just about sums it up. "Brady envy" runs rampant on this board.

[Mikie2times]

A player like Peyton Manning is more rare for what he does downfield then a player like Brady who gets it done in the quick passing game. Lots of vets can do some of the things in the short passing game that Brady can, very few could ever pass downfield like Peyton can. The problem is Peyton's downfield style lends itself to a higher margin for error. That higher margin for error makes it rare for a downfield QB/Team to win the Super Bowl. Players like Brady or Montana have a style that limits the margin for error, and they happen to be among the best ever at it.They use quick sharp passes, limiting sack/turnover potential and decreasing the chance of third and long. It's a better suited style for the playoffs.

 

The only reason you don't see everybody go to it is the do everything factor. Coaches look for guys that can make every throw in the draft. For whatever reason guys that go down field effectively don't usually translate to West Coast QB's. The increased velocity on the football probably has something to do with it. Many late round or late career success stories have been born from great short passers who couldn’t make all the throws, and went undrafted or in day two.

[AKC]

Tom Brady-led teams vs. the Bills: 11-1.

 

How far would the 2006 Indy team have gone this year with Brady and his 38% downfield completion rate Quarterbacking them? Keep in mind that he's lifetime only a 40% passer from 10 yards and out, even when he was working with Pro Bowl and Super Bowl MVP wide receivers over those years.