Which qb to start a franchise?

[SkinsFTW]

Originally posted by HeHateMe

I know its been said before, But I truly believe if the two were switched, Manning would enjoy the same amount of championship success that Brady has and is.

And I'm also sure that Brady wouldnt have any rings, just the same, if he was in Indy.

You have to be joking.

The Patriots defense isnt that good against the other 31 teams in the league. If Brady can pick apart the Steelers defense and every other higher ranked defense I dont see why you think he cant do the same thing to New Englands.

Rookie Ben Roethlisberger went 12/24 2tds 0ints against them this year.

AJ Feeley went 22/35 1td 0ints this year too but somehow Brady cant?

Heres the facts. Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Brandon Stokley, Edgerrin James etc along with Manning put up 3 against the Pats. That says it all without mentioning anything else. That has nothing to do with the Colts defense and the Pats were missing 1/2 of their secondary in that game. Manning is way overrated and cant win big games while Brady has yet to lose one. He has never lost one, Manning has never won one. You really think Manning would do better with the Pats offense than he does with his own offense full of all pros?

[theposse]

I voted Brady, but enough with the hating on Manning.

The Patriots D is a ton better than the Colts D - and if you think otherwise, you're kidding yourself.

They are both great QBs, and Brady is better under pressure, but Manning is very good too. And his postseason "choking" is way overblown. He's played 8 playoff games - his team has been favored in 3 out of the 8 games, and they've won 3 out of the 8 games. To me that means - they pretty much have done what's expected of them. The QB is the team leader - but unlike in the NBA - one guy can't pull his team to victory over a better overall team.

Both Manning and Brady have great surrounding offenses, but Brady has a much better D and much better coaching on his side. And - the NE coaches and D seem to have the Colts number in particular.

[SkinsFTW]

Originally posted by theposse

I voted Brady, but enough with the hating on Manning.

The Patriots D is a ton better than the Colts D - and if you think otherwise, you're kidding yourself.

They are both great QBs, and Brady is better under pressure, but Manning is very good too. And his postseason "choking" is way overblown. He's played 8 playoff games - his team has been favored in 3 out of the 8 games, and they've won 3 out of the 8 games. To me that means - they pretty much have done what's expected of them. The QB is the team leader - but unlike in the NBA - one guy can't pull his team to victory over a better overall team.

Both Manning and Brady have great surrounding offenses, but Brady has a much better D and much better coaching on his side. And - the NE coaches and D seem to have the Colts number in particular.

Youd have a point if the Pats were winning games with scores like 31-27 or something but Manning and his great offense put up 3 points. He averaged over 3 touchdown passes a game during the season but 3 points is all he can put up? ANd no, Bradys offense is no where near as good.

[Novato]

the cheaper one, LOL.

[theposse]

Originally posted by SkinsFTW

Youd have a point if the Pats were winning games with scores like 31-27 or something but Manning and his great offense put up 3 points. He averaged over 3 touchdown passes a game during the season but 3 points is all he can put up? ANd no, Bradys offense is no where near as good.

Well - if you looked at more than one game - you'd see the games from this year and last year between the Pats and Colts were:

Pats 20-3

Pats 27-24

Pats 24-14

Pats 38-34

So - although the Colts only scored 3 in this last meeting (when receivers kept dropping balls or getting the ball stripped - not Manning's fault) - the Colts offense actually put up some decent points in the other games.

And as for surrounding talent - why are the rest of the Colts offense better than the rest of the Patriots? I'd personally rather have Dillon than James, but we can call that a wash. Nobody on the Patriots is as good as Harrison, but they have Deion Branch, David Givens, David Patten, and Troy Brown - all solid guys - and Branch and Givens may be quite good - it's just hard to tell because the ball is spread around so much.

Do you really think Wayne and Stokely are that great? Or are they mostly the beneficiaries of Manning being that great and Harrison always getting the D's attention?

And at TE - I don't think Dallas Clark or Pollard are any better than Daniel Graham.

The Patriots put up 357.6 yards/game and 27.3 points/game this year. I know that's not as much as the Colts, but it's still a great offense. Do you know how many games the Redskins would have won this year if they'd averaged 27 points/game on offense?

[Gamebreaker]

Originally posted by Dirk Diggler

HHM

Brady is better than Manning in just about every way you can measure a QB besides overrated statistics like TD passes and yards.

Head to head? Brady, not even close.

Reg Season W/L? Brady

Post Season Record? Brady, not even close.

Rings? Brady, soon to be 3-0.

Every way you measure it, it points to Brady. It's so simple to just say, well - one has a great staff and you can just switch them and their outcomes will be reversed. Really. Why is that? How can you make that assumption? Oh that's right, you can't.

Don't forget, there was a Bill Belicheck before Brady. And he was a failure in Cleveland with a great defense and so-so QB play by none other than Vinny Testeverde. Maybe Brady has a little more to do with the success of New England than simply being a product of the system?

You keep bringing up wins and losses, and championships, as if a quarterback can influence all of that all by himself. Brady doesn't take over games the way Manning does. Brady doesn't call his own plays, Brady doesn't have the work ethic and dedication of Manning. Should I take Mark Rypien over Manning because he went to the Superbowl? Brady without that coaching staff is an average quarterback.

Just because we won't be able to see Brady without Belicheck in the near future doesn't mean someone can't make that assumption. I wish someone would've made that assumption when it came to signing Jeremiah Trotter, because he was certainly a product of the Eagles' defense. We've seen what happens to Brady's W/L record when the rest of the team isn't on top of it's game('02), they didn't win in the playoffs and they didn't win any championships. People forget football is a team sport, and no one player really influences the game enough to will them to a championship all by himself. Having a great coaching staff, a running game, and a damn good defense is what is needed to be consistently good and that is what Brady has. Brady is a Top 5 QB in the league, but he is not the best, please jump off the hype bandwagon. He's just the most fortunate QB in the league to be drafted by New England.

[RedDawg36]

LOL @ theposse. Manning's team was only favored in 3 and he won those 3. Does that excuse the other 5 chokes?

The only thing you can do for Manning is make excuses. BLAH BLAH BLAH. Heard it all before. Brady gets it done on Sunday. Manning chokes like he's got an apple stuck in his throat.

ROFL @ Tom Brady has "great" surround talent. What a joke. Manning has great surrounding talent. Brady has mediocre/good talent. The word you used "solid" defines it. Harrison and the rest of that crew are 5 times better than solid.

I fail to see why this is even an argument. Brady wipes the floor with Manning's head when it comes to clutch postseason QB play. We all know that. What some people fail to realize that aside from all that, Brady is a devastating QB. Did you see some of the sick throws he made against Pittsburgh - the best D in the country?

The best defense Manning faced all year was AT HOME against Baltimore. He did just as well as Brady, no better. So that's not saying much.

[RedDawg36]

Originally posted by Gamebreaker

Brady doesn't call his own plays, Brady doesn't have the work ethic and dedication of Manning.

Please don't make factually incorrect and quite frankly pathetic statements to aid your already weak argument.

That is the biggest BS i've read in this entire thread. How do you know he doesn't study film just as much if not more?

You wouldn't think so in Manning's results, would you?

Does he never watch film on the Pats? Or is he too busy over at www.nfl.com/stats.

Please.

[bubba9497]

Ramsey

[Dirk Diggler]

Gamebreaker

I asked for facts, not fallacy.

First, how can Brady be an average QB in one breath and top 5 in the next? Is that all due to coaching? I suppose he should fall flat on his face once his OC leaves for Notre Dame and go back to being an average QB? Let's revisit this next season.

Next, Cleveland had the same great coaching staff in Cleveland but didn't win jack. In fact, they only visited the playoffs once in 5 seasons with said great staff (Jim Bates, Kirk Ferentz, and Nick Saban, oh my) and a great defense. The problem? Inconsistent QB play. Why couldn't they just find an average QB like Brady and coach him up? Strange.

Let me guess your age? You're 14 and your momma let you on the computer for a few minutes this afternoon? :laugh:

[Gamebreaker]

Originally posted by SkinsFTW

Youd have a point if the Pats were winning games with scores like 31-27 or something but Manning and his great offense put up 3 points. He averaged over 3 touchdown passes a game during the season but 3 points is all he can put up? ANd no, Bradys offense is no where near as good.

Yet somehow, the fate of the WHOLE OFFENSE falls on Manning's shoulders. I guess the OL, recievers, and backs aren't getting any blame.

There is an obvious bias in this debate. When Manning's achievements come into play(TD record), all of a sudden people begin to mention Edge, Harrison, and Wayne as if that is a big reason for his success. Yet when he fails in the postseason, none of them mention the weak defense, or the fact that Dungy has never coached well in the playoffs.

Yet Brady is the sole beneficiary of his success and very few people want to mention the great gameplans that Belicheck and staff have concocted to help towards that success. Was it Brady that decided to load the defense full of cornerbacks aganist the Rams in '01? Was it Brady who decided to put Troy Brown in on nickel and dime packages in obvious passing downs? Coaches develop and get better over time too, so bringing up Belichick's previous coaching mishaps doesn't change any of the brillant accomplishments he's done since then.

Instead of using a TEAM achievement to define whether an INDIVIDUAL is better than another, and dealing out insults to people as if that would make your opinion any more valid, how about actually using some facts that actually this player is better than another and not his team. That is like someone saying Deion Branch is a better reciever than Randy Moss because he hasn't lost yet in the playoffs, and Moss' team can't win big games. Do you see how insignificant an observation that is?

[Gamebreaker]

Originally posted by RedDawg36

Please don't make factually incorrect and quite frankly pathetic statements to aid your already weak argument.

That is the biggest BS i've read in this entire thread. How do you know he doesn't study film just as much if not more?

You wouldn't think so in Manning's results, would you?

Does he never watch film on the Pats? Or is he too busy over at www.nfl.com/stats.

Please.

Your condescending attitude is the only thing on this thread that I find pathetic. It has been well documented how much time Manning spends in the film room. Manning calls his own plays, none of the coaches send them in to him. Can you prove that Brady does the same? I'm sure he spends time in the film room, every NFL QB does, but is he as dedicated as Manning.

Furthermore, you never in disproved my argument. Does one game aganist the Patriots eliminate the other 15 defenses he absolutely destroyed last season?

Your argument is as weak as that tired ass :puke: you spew in every post. Where do stats come from? They aren't randomly picked out of the air, production on the field is what makes them. To ignore stats, a more individual achievement than win/loss record, is conceding your bias and unwillingness to even be objective in this debate.

[Gamebreaker]

Originally posted by Dirk Diggler

Let me guess your age? You're 14 and your momma let you on the computer for a few minutes this afternoon? :laugh:

Not only was that a tired, weak diss that has been around since the dawn of the internet, but I am not troll, or drive by flamer, and for as long as if I've been posting here didn't deserve such disrespect from another long time member. I expected alot more from you, maybe I expected too much.

As far as my inconsistencies in my previous post. I'll admit I made in mistake in saying Brady was average, I really don't feel that way at all. I think he's among the best in the league. Yet New England's success has had alot less to do with him, than others on this thread would like to believe.

You're right on one account. We'll see how well he plays without his OC next year.

[the big slim]

I go with Peyton Manning to build a franchise....That is exactly what the Colts did.....Tom Brady is just a piece of the puzzle in New England.(Not saying he's not a great qb)

[SkinsFTW]

Originally posted by the big slim

I go with Peyton Manning to build a franchise....That is exactly what the Colts did.....Tom Brady is just a piece of the puzzle in New England.(Not saying he's not a great qb)

Hello, the Pats were 5-11 the season before Brady started and 0-2 when Bledsoe got injured and then they started winning and won a SB that year. I really dont see how Belichick was so great when he was a career loser before Brady. That and the fact that Dungy got to the playoffs every year he coached without Manning and the 3 points against the Pats in the playoffs, welll Manning is overrated.

[SkinsFTW]

Originally posted by Gamebreaker

You keep bringing up wins and losses, and championships, as if a quarterback can influence all of that all by himself. Brady doesn't take over games the way Manning does. Brady doesn't call his own plays, Brady doesn't have the work ethic and dedication of Manning. Should I take Mark Rypien over Manning because he went to the Superbowl? Brady without that coaching staff is an average quarterback.

You must be Mannings agent. This super prepared guy who you say takes over games has lost everytime he has faced the Pats while Brady was QB and put up 3 whole points this last time. I'd hate to see what he could do if he wasnt so dominating. Even AJ Feely put up 29 points on the Pats this year. I have yet to see Manning take over any playoff game that wasnt against Denver.

You know its bad when the Colts own defense was bad enough that they influenced Manning into only getting 3 on the board against the Pats.

[HeHateMe]

Originally posted by Dirk Diggler

HHM

Brady is better than Manning in just about every way you can measure a QB besides overrated statistics like TD passes and yards.

Head to head? Brady, not even close.

Reg Season W/L? Brady

Post Season Record? Brady, not even close.

Rings? Brady, soon to be 3-0.

Every way you measure it, it points to Brady. It's so simple to just say, well - one has a great staff and you can just switch them and their outcomes will be reversed. Really. Why is that? How can you make that assumption? Oh that's right, you can't.

Don't forget, there was a Bill Belicheck before Brady. And he was a failure in Cleveland with a great defense and so-so QB play by none other than Vinny Testeverde. Maybe Brady has a little more to do with the success of New England than simply being a product of the system?

DD,

Troy Aikman vs. Brett Favre

Head to head? Aikman, not even close.

Reg Season W/L? Aikman 8 wins / Favre 1 win

Post Season Record Head to head? Aikman 3 wins / Favre 0 wins

Post season record winning percentage? Aikman, not even close

Rings? Aikman 3 /Favre 1.

Super Bowl losses? Aikman 0 / Favre 1.

Super Bowl losses when being a heavy favorite? Aikman 0 / Favre 1.

Youve told me in the past that you'd take Favre over Aikman without thinking twice.

But here you take Brady over Manning without thinking twice. :whoknows:

[RedDawg36]

Gamebreaker, give me a break. Stop calling everyone "weak" like some kind of 11-year old surfer fan of South Park, and try and work on your own argument, which is based around the idea that stats are more important and are a better measure of a QB than wins.

LOL. You take your stats, i'll take the world championships.

[RedDawg36]

Originally posted by the big slim

I go with Peyton Manning to build a franchise....That is exactly what the Colts did.....

Yeah, and how far did that get them?

[RedDawg36]

Originally posted by Gamebreaker

To ignore stats, a more individual achievement than win/loss record, is conceding your bias and unwillingness to even be objective in this debate.

Stats are just as team-orientated as wins. You need a QB to throw you the ball. You need WRs to catch it (and all those 5/10 yard TDs). That's a joke if you think Manning did more for his stats than Brady did for his wins.

And yes, my bias. Good going Sherlock, i'm a Brady fan. You figured me out.

(Which makes you a Manning fan, clearly, and obviously biased too).

[wickedwitch]

Where's Brunell?

[Dirk Diggler]

HHM

It's important to take note of the time of these conversations which was about 5 or 6 years ago. You speak of this as if it was yesterday. But that's typical you.

Favre has blemished his place in my eyes by hanging on for as long as he has. I think he would have been smart to hang em up a few years back rather than go after the record books but that's just my opinion. That means that Aikman has closed the gap some by simply doing nothing. However, we can still look at the time that Aikman played before Arrington sent him into retirement vs. Favre from about 92-03.

NOTE: I believe you left out reg season winning % which is probably very close though I would guess that Favre has the edge.

If you consider each QB's first 9 or 10 seasons when they were both "in their primes" I think the nod still goes to Favre. Why?

1) Not only was Favre the only player to win 3 straight MVPs, but he finished off the job by winning a Super Bowl and at least getting to another. Manning supporters would have a lot more ammo if Manning had a title or at the very least an appearance in the Super Bowl to stand on. In fact, he's never even come close except for last season.

2) Favre did not have anywhere near the talent Aikman had around him. Not even close. That would have a lot to do with their head to head record. No one can argue that the Pats are more talented. In fact, it would be easy to argue the reverse being that only 2 Pats made the Pro Bowl and I know that you consider that the best way to evaluate players.

Back to the mid 90s - A vast majority of those wins came when Dallas was clearly the better team and it happened to also be the time before GB started to put it all together from 96-98.

Hey, Aikman shouldn't have to apologize for having an all-star team around him. He also shouldn't have to apologize for not being the focal point of the offense - Emmitt was. He came through with titles and that's all you can ask for. But so did Favre as mentioned.

It's also notable that as soon as the players around Aikman started to decline, so did he. He was never able to elevate those around him like Favre is/was so famous for. Aikman was the all-time best bus driver. When things were great, he was great. When things weren't so great - he wasn't able to get it done unlike Favre.

3) Favre has never had a losing season. Not once. And only once did they finish 8-8. That's 12 winning seasons in 13. By comparison, Aikman had 4 losing seasons in 11 years.

4) Often a QB's job is to rally his team from behind and Favre is considered the best at this in history along with Joe Montana. Aikman has never been thought of like that. You'll say it's b/c he was always in front and never had to play from behind but that's BS. Joe Montana had a better winning % and he was thought of as a comeback king. No one ever said he never had to play from behind. When he did, he came through. Aikman rarely did.

5) Aikman could never play in bad weather. Whenever he did, his team had no chance. Favre is considered among the best bad weather QBs ever.

6) Last but certainly not least is durability. Maybe the most important characteristic of all. Aikman had his share of injuries while Favre is the all-time iron man.

Thanks for coming out HHM. Maybe we can focus things back on Manning vs. Brady which is what this thread is all about.

Try to actually support your boy this time.

[HeHateMe]

1) The one year Favre won the SB, the Packers had the number one D in points allowed. Favre also had plenty of weapons and the number one O in points scored. So he had as much help as Aikman did in Dallas. He didnt win MVP either. Aikman did. Too bad he could only win the big one once, losing as a heavy favorite his 2nd time around.

2) Based on your argument of Favre hanging around too long, isnt it also the same that hes had more opportunities too get to the playoffs, advance in the playoffs and so on?

3) As good as he's been bringing his teams from behind, he's been just as bad leading them to lose. Eagles/Packers last season. Vikings/Packers this season. Sure that goes to him hanging on too long, but Aikman was never the main reason they lost in the playoffs. Aikman never choked. He never threw awful passes that led to INTs and ultimately his teams demise. 6 INTS in one playoff game too? NFL record. Ouch!

4) You point out that when the talent around Aikman declined, he did too. Fair enough. But when the talent was maintained in Green Bay, Favre declined. All Pro O Linemen year in and year out and probably the best O Line the last 5 years. As well as a top 5 RB and solid WRs and TEs. So while GB did the most they could do supporting Favre, he didnt hold up his end of the bargain.

5) I'll take 3-0 in the Super Bowl over 1-1 in the Super Bowl and 3 MVPs any day of the week. Brady is never going to end up winning MVP, but he will have his 2, and hopefully 3 rings at a minimum when its all said and done. Manning meanwhile, will have multiple MVPs and who knows how many rings, but I'd wager right now, he will get at least one. And youre supporting Brady arent you?

6) Aikman couldnt play in the cold? Fair enough. Favre couldnt and cant play on the rug or in the dome. His numbers and winning percentage on the rug/in the dome are awful compared to anywhere else.

7) And the durability? Well, the last couple of seasons thats done more to hurt him than help him. So that means nothing to me. Aikman was on the field when he was in his prime and hardly ever missed time. He was there when it counted, and thats whats important.

8) And you speak of all those winning seasons he had. What did those get him in the long run besides a lower pick in the draft for GB? Sure, his regular season winning percentage is great, but whats that do for anyone in the playoffs? Where it counts.

IMO, I'm not sure who is better.

Heres what it comes down to.

Would Favre be just as successful if he were switched with Aikman?

Simple answer.

As for this thread though, the arguments you use to support Brady as better than Manning get reversed when you support Favre over Aikman.

You can have it both ways if you want, but youll lose credibility in the meantime.

Its all you. Run with it. And have fun doing so.

[SkinsFTW]

I dont know why were comparing Aikman and Favre now but you cant be possibly comparing Aikman to Brady in anyway and saying Aikman is better or anything. Brady has no where near the talent on that team and Aikman was much less a factor in the Dallas offense. Pats offense would be comparable if they had Ladanian Tomlinson, Terell Owens and an all pro OL, which they havent. Brady got his first 2 SB wins with Antuan Smith at RB and players that went 5-11 the year before when he didnt play. That offense wasnt good when they faced the Rams but they won the game. BTW, Aikman passed much less than Brady, never had more than 3300 yards, had 20 TD's once in his career while Brady has over 3600 yards each of his full seasons played and averages over 25tds in those seasons. Brady may not put up Manning numbers but his are pretty good and he steps up in the post season, the exact same things could be said when comparing Marino and Montana.

Excusing Mannings play in the playoffs year after year is saying that the other 52 players fall apart while Manning still has good games. Before this latest game between them I may have defended Manning but there is no reason to anymore. He's this picture you see in Webster's next to the definition for "Overrated"

[Aikmans Killer No.56]

Am I the only one who's not that impressed when Manning shreds a crappy defense like the Bears?