PDA

View Full Version : Quarterback Question



Mutaman
01-24-2005, 12:15 PM
Anybody out there who saw yesterday's game who would still take Manning over Brady?

RedFanAlways1966
01-24-2005, 12:21 PM
Anybody out there who saw yesterdays's game who would still take Manning over Brady?

Depends on a few things....

* Inside or outside?
* If you could choose to have the rest of the Patriots team around either one, who would you take? (I think this is called apples-to-apples!).

There is no doubt in my mind who the better pure QB is... Manning.

There is also no doubt who benefits more from having a complete team and organization around him... Brady.

What do you think would happen if Peyton got to run the same Pats team? It would be downright scary!!!

Not to belittle Tom Brady at all. He serves the Pats greatly and is a good QB. Tom Brady deserves plenty(!!) of accolades. However, I don't think he is the pure QB that Peyton Manning is. I truly believe that Manning is a notch above all QBs in the NFL at this time.

Red Heeler
01-24-2005, 12:25 PM
As RFA66 said, it is comparing apples to oranges. Joe Montana is considered a better QB than Dan Marino by a lot of people due to the championships he won. Problem is that Montana played for some of the greatest teams of all time. Marino played on teams that had him, two good recievers, and nothing else at all. Montana coudn't carry Marino's undergarment as a passer, though.

Mutaman
01-24-2005, 12:33 PM
Depends on a few things....

Wrong- it just depends on the rings. Not about the rest of the team, not about apples and oranges. 41 points in subzero weather against the best defense in the NFL. 8 playoff wins in a row and counting. Did you see the first TD pass he threw? I could care less about the Patriots, but I've got to give credit where it is due- Brady is a great quarterback.

RedsBaron
01-24-2005, 12:34 PM
Comparing QBs is tough because of the different supporting casts each have, but the most impressive stat Brady has is he is undefeated in the postseason, 8-0 I believe. That is Bart Starr (9-1) territory.

CaiGuy
01-24-2005, 12:47 PM
You can't say that Payton Manning would be a lot better with the Pats. Peyton Manning has an exelent team around him. Marvin Harrison, Ederin James, Wayne...So he already has a comlete team around him. Pats do have a better D though.

RANDY IN INDY
01-24-2005, 12:50 PM
You can't say that Payton Manning would be a lot better with the Pats. Peyton Manning has an exelent team around him. Marvin Harrison, Ederin James, Wayne...So he already has a comlete team around him. Pats do have a better D though.

And that is key.

RedFanAlways1966
01-24-2005, 12:54 PM
Wrong- it just depends on the rings. Not about the rest of the team, not about apples and oranges. 41 points in subzero weather against the best defense in the NFL. 8 playoff wins in a row and counting. Did you see the first TD pass he threw? I could care less about the Patriots, but I've got to give credit where it is due- Brady is a great quarterback.

Wrong? I hate to disagree, but I totally disagree with what you have said. Do you think rings are given to individuals or to teams? Do you think individuals tend to be the deciding factor in getting that ring or teams? I doubt that the rest of the Pats would appreciate that you seem to think one guy is the reason for all those playoff wins. But... that was not your original question. Your original question was "who would you take, Manning or Brady?" My answer was Manning b/c he is a better pure QB. Put him as the Pats starter and I guarantee you that there would not be any additional losses to the Pats record of the past 4 years.

Brady is a great QB... but not as good as Peyton. And remember that all 41 points were not scored by the offense. And all 41 points were not on the board only b/c of Tom Brady.

Randy Moss may be the best WR in the game... rings? Zero.
Willie Anderson might be one of the best left tackles int he game... rings? Zero.

Team. And if I had the best team in the NFL, I'd prefer Peyton Manning at QB. And I am not a big Peyton fan. Hard to argue with what the Pats have done w/ Tom Brady, but I'd bet that most GMs in the NFL would disagree with you too.

Red Leader
01-24-2005, 12:57 PM
In my opinion, Dan Marino was the greatest QB in the history of the game, even though he doesn't have as many rings as Joe Montana, John Elway, or Tom Brady among others.

I, too, think Peyton is a better QB than Brady. That doesn't take anything away from Tom Brady, who is a great QB, it just means that Peyton is more talented and gifted than Brady. I think even Tom Brady would tell you that Peyton is a better QB.

RedFanAlways1966
01-24-2005, 01:01 PM
Pats do have a better D though.

A HUGE DIFF... as any NFL GM will tell you. As anyone who knows anything about football (pee-wee, high school, college or pro) will tell you.

So in that vein.... Manning must be better due to stats. Can't blame a QB when his defense blows a game or two. As we all know... wins and losses are not all relative to the QB and only the QB. Just ask Marino or Manning.

Brady may be the key type of QB for the Pats team. But in no way is a better pure QB than Manning. And the Indy team does not matchup well wgainst the Pats when talking 22 starters vs. 22 starters. Not even close... and the last four years show that. Brady is a great QB (don't want that lost in here), but IMO he is not as great as Manning.

Redsfaithful
01-24-2005, 01:05 PM
How many turnovers did the Steelers have yesterday?

While they certainly have a good offense, New England's defense is the reason they're headed to their third Super Bowl in four years.

CaiGuy
01-24-2005, 01:15 PM
Manning=Marino
Great quarterbacks underrated because of the tema they are on.

Cedric
01-24-2005, 01:16 PM
Tom Brady is the best qb in the NFL. In fact I don't even think it's close. The BEST QB to me means the guy that gives his team the best chance to win, and I don't see how anyone can argue against Brady.

Johnny Footstool
01-24-2005, 01:30 PM
Wrong- it just depends on the rings. Not about the rest of the team

No, it's completely about the rest of the team. Like RFA1966 said, *teams* win championships, not individual players.

Here's a question to consider: Would the Patriots be an even better team with Peyton Manning at QB instead of Brady? I think it's pretty clear that they would.

Steve4192
01-24-2005, 01:32 PM
If I was playing fantasy football, I'd choose Manning/Marino in a heartbeat. In a real game, I'd be hard-pressed to pass up Brady/Montana.

With the way the Patriots are constructed/managed, Brady often has to make big plays in pressure situations. The thing about Brady is, when his team needs a big play in the 4th quarter, he finds a way to make it happen.

Peyton rarely has to face 'pressure' situations since they Colts usually are blowing people out. However, when he does face a pressure situation, he has fallen on his face more often than not. That trend dates back all the way to his college career when he just couldn't get past Steve Spurrier's Gators.

It kind of reminds me of the old Greg Maddux versus Jon Smoltz arguments in baseball. There was no question that Maddux would put up better numbers every year and was BY FAR the superior pitcher in the regular season. But in a big game, Smoltz was the guy you wanted on the mound. Same thing goes for Andy Pettite versus the superstar starting pitcher du jour on the Yankees. Pettite was always the middle of the rotation guy until the postseason rolled around, then Clemens/Mussina/Wells all took a backseat to the unspectacular southpaw.

CaiGuy
01-24-2005, 01:40 PM
Here's a question to consider: Would the Patriots be an even better team with Peyton Manning at QB instead of Brady? I think it's pretty clear that they would.
Patriots better? :eek: Could they get any better? I hope not! I'm ready for more variety in the Super Bowl, it's getting :sleep:

wheels
01-24-2005, 01:40 PM
Indy's defense put Peyton Manning in a big hole because of time of possesion. They just couldn't get the Pats off the field long enough for the Colts offense to get on schedule. Couple that with sloppy feild conditions, and Patriots defense that seemingly becomes impregnable, Peyton had no chance.

Great players cannott win in the playoffs outside of the team concept. Peyton can't do it all, Marino couldn't do it all, and Elway couldn't do it all until changes were made to the team around him.

I love Tom Brady. He's everything anyone would want from a quarterback in that kind of system.

Plop him down in Indy, and do they even make the playoffs?

I don't think so.

I think Peyton's the best quarterback we're gonna see for quite some time, and nothing should be taken away from him, and on the other side, Tom Brady deserves all the credit he recieves. I just don't consider him to be a gun slinger like Peyton.

You could also throw Jim Kelly into this conversation. He's like a mix between the two, but never won the bigone. That's where the whole team concept thing comes in.

It's like a more extreme W/L record for pitchers.

Danny Serafini
01-24-2005, 01:46 PM
I take Manning, and don't even need 2 seconds to think about it. The Patriots don't win because of Brady. They win because of the coaching and the defense. Brady doesn't make mistakes and lose games, and there is value in that. But there's no way I can call a guy with Kitna-like numbers the best QB in the game simply because he plays on a really good team.

CaiGuy
01-24-2005, 01:46 PM
If I was playing fantasy football, I'd choose Manning/Marino in a heartbeat. In a real game, I'd be hard-pressed to pass up Brady/Montana.

With the way the Patriots are constructed/managed, Brady often has to make big plays in pressure situations. The thing about Brady is, when his team needs a big play in the 4th quarter, he finds a way to make it happen.

Peyton rarely has to face 'pressure' situations since they Colts usually are blowing people out. However, when he does face a pressure situation, he has fallen on his face more often than not. That trend dates back all the way to his college career when he just couldn't get past Steve Spurrier's Gators.

It kind of reminds me of the old Greg Maddux versus Jon Smoltz arguments in baseball. There was no question that Maddux would put up better numbers every year and was BY FAR the superior pitcher in the regular season. But in a big game, Smoltz was the guy you wanted on the mound. Same thing goes for Andy Pettite versus the superstar starting pitcher du jour on the Yankees. Pettite was always the middle of the rotation guy until the postseason rolled around, then Clemens/Mussina/Wells all took a backseat to the unspectacular southpaw.
Good point, it's talent vrs. clutch. Brady is a good fit with the Pats because he's a playoff type QB. He doesn't blow it when under pressure.

Danny Serafini
01-24-2005, 01:48 PM
Wrong- it just depends on the rings. Not about the rest of the team, not about apples and oranges. 41 points in subzero weather against the best defense in the NFL. 8 playoff wins in a row and counting. Did you see the first TD pass he threw? I could care less about the Patriots, but I've got to give credit where it is due- Brady is a great quarterback.

Kevin Faulk has 2 rings, is he the best RB in the league?

Mutaman
01-24-2005, 02:34 PM
When I say its all about the rings, I'm only talking about the quarterback position. Wide receivers and runningbacks don't dominate the game like a quarterback does. Obviously defense is key and the team, not an individual, wins games, but can you seriously argue after watching Manning two weeks ago that he could put up 41 points against Pittsburg's defense in that weather like Brady did yesterday? Its not about how many TD pasees you can throw in October in a temperature controlled dome, and its not about how "pure" a pass you throw in practice. Its about how you play in a blizard against the Steelers on 1/23/05. This kid is one game away from his third superbowl ring and hes not even 25 years old. That not all coaching and defense, not by a long shot. I'm a lifelong Packer fan and I think Starr is the most underated football player who ever lived (and if you don't believe me, watch that game winning drive against the great Dallas defense in the ice bowl). But after watching Brady at Michigan and in the NFL, he is close to Starr. Its time to give this kid his due.

Stewie
01-24-2005, 02:56 PM
When I say its all about the rings, I'm only talking about the quarterback position. Wide receivers and runningbacks don't dominate the game like a quarterback does. Obviously defense is key and the team, not an individual, wins games, but can you seriously argue after watching Manning two weeks ago that he could put up 41 points against Pittsburg's defense in that weather like Brady did yesterday? Its not about how many TD pasees you can throw in October in a temperature controlled dome, and its not about how "pure" a pass you throw in practice. Its about how you play in a blizard against the Steelers on 1/23/05. This kid is one game away from his third superbowl ring and hes not even 25 years old. That not all coaching and defense, not by a long shot. I'm a lifelong Packer fan and I think Starr is the most underated football player who ever lived (and if you don't believe me, watch that game winning drive against the great Dallas defense in the ice bowl). But after watching Brady at Michigan and in the NFL, he is close to Starr. Its time to give this kid his due.

FWIW, Brady is 27, not 24. And while Brady is good, you can't overlook the fact that the Pats defense got 4 turnovers off of Pittsburgh last night (one of which was an INT returned for a TD), which helps a lot. I'm sure it's a lot easier to succeed as an NFL QB if your defense is getting turnovers and stealing any momentum from the other team. Brady fits that system well, though. He's a smart QB who doesn't make mistakes. From a talent standpoint, though, I wouldn't say he is better than Manning.

RedsBaron
01-24-2005, 03:13 PM
I'm a lifelong Packer fan and I think Starr is the most underated football player who ever lived (and if you don't believe me, watch that game winning drive against the great Dallas defense in the ice bowl).
A few years ago the NFL celebrated its 75th anniversary with a coffee table book that included "all decade" teams. The "all decade" QB for the 1960s was Johnny Unitas and the "all decade" QB for the 1970s was Terry Bradshaw. I disagreed with both picks, and there was an inherent inconsistency in those choices.
For the decade of the 1970s, Roger Staubach had far superior passing statistics to those of Terry Bradshaw; the criteria for picking Bradshaw was apparently the fact that his team won 4 Super Bowls to the 2 won by Staubach's teams. However, if championships were to be the deciding factor, how was Unitas picked over Bart Starr as the QB of the 1960s? Unitas's passing stats for the 1960s were not better than Starr's-Johnny U. threw more often, but not any better, than Starr, and Starr lead Unitas in championships won by a 5 to 0 margin.
If Bradshaw was the QB of the 1970s, despite having poorer stats than Staubach, solely because he "won" more titles, how was Unitas the QB of the 1960s, with stats no better than Starr, especially given that Unitas won no championships that decade to the five won by Starr's teams?

CaiGuy
01-24-2005, 03:18 PM
Wide receivers and runningbacks don't dominate the game like a quarterback does.
Without at least decent WR's and a good running behind him, a really good QB looks really bad. Even though quarterback is the probably the most important role, the team around a QB dictates the QB's sucsess. The RB must get yards and WR's must make big plays. A defense that turns the ball over to allow the QB to do his work increases a quarterbacks sucsess as well. The entire team deservers credit for a QB's sucsess

wheels
01-24-2005, 03:59 PM
I'd say a brutally big offensive line will dominate a game before anything else.

What Denver Bronco running back had as much success someplace else other than Denver?

You only have to look as far as Clinton Portis to see that.

Everything's connected in football. It's a true team sport.

The offense can help the defense by controlling time of possesion, the defense helps the offense by forcing turnovers and giving the offense good field position, and good special teams can bail out both the offense and the defense.

A quarterback is extremely important, but they can't win big games all by themselves.

Manning and Brady are both great in different ways, and I'd be happy to have either one.

I happen to really like Carson Palmer alot, though.

Mutaman
01-24-2005, 04:05 PM
Without at least decent WR's and a good running behind him, a really good QB looks really bad.

I agree. But its not like Manning doesn't have decent wr's (probaly better than New England) and a good running back.

My mistake Brady is 27 years old. And he only has 2 rings (at least for the next two weeks).

Starr versus Unitis, we could argue about that all day. Bart had a big advantage- Vince. While most people would take Unitis, I could make a good arguement the other way. And which quarterbacks have the lowest turnover stats in the history of postseason play- Starr and Brady.

RedsBaron
01-24-2005, 04:09 PM
Starr versus Unitis, we could argue about that all day. Bart had a big advantage- Vince. While most people would take Unitis, I could make a good arguement the other way. And which quarterbacks have the lowest turnover stats in the history of postseason play- Starr and Brady.
Unitas had Don Shula for most of the 1960s, including 1964, when the Colts lost the NFL title game to the Browns, 27-0, and 1967, when the Colts lost the division title to the Rams, 34-10 in the final regular season game.

Roy Tucker
01-24-2005, 04:15 PM
Yeah, I don't see how you could pick between the two. Flip a coin.

With Manning, the whole team rides on his back. He's asked to outscore the other team because his defense stinks. He is surrounded by good-to-great offensive players. His coach is NFL-average.

Brady isn't asked to win the game by himself. He is surrounded by the consumate Team. Belichick is state-of-the-art NFL coach now (Why oh why couldn't he do this with the Browns? They would have never moved). The Bart Starr/Lombardi/Packers analogy is a good one. The whole is better than the sum of the parts.

I think if they switched teams, they would both perform as well. Brady would put up gaudy numbers, Manning would win with the Pats.

wolfboy
01-24-2005, 04:16 PM
Indy's defense put Peyton Manning in a big hole because of time of possesion. They just couldn't get the Pats off the field long enough for the Colts offense to get on schedule. Couple that with sloppy feild conditions, and Patriots defense that seemingly becomes impregnable, Peyton had no chance.

Great players cannott win in the playoffs outside of the team concept. Peyton can't do it all, Marino couldn't do it all, and Elway couldn't do it all until changes were made to the team around him.

I love Tom Brady. He's everything anyone would want from a quarterback in that kind of system.

Plop him down in Indy, and do they even make the playoffs?

I don't think so.

I think Peyton's the best quarterback we're gonna see for quite some time, and nothing should be taken away from him, and on the other side, Tom Brady deserves all the credit he recieves. I just don't consider him to be a gun slinger like Peyton.

You could also throw Jim Kelly into this conversation. He's like a mix between the two, but never won the bigone. That's where the whole team concept thing comes in.

It's like a more extreme W/L record for pitchers.

Be realistic. If Brady were the QB for Indy, they would make the playoffs. No doubt about that. You make it seem like we're talking about Trent Dilfer here. Brady has thrown three INT in the playoffs (career). THREE. He doesn't have an Owens, Moss, or Harrison to throw to, but the Patriots don't stink it up offensively. He doesn't put up the gaudy stats that Manning does, but put him in the Colts offense, and he wouldn't make the playoffs? Right........

Roy Tucker
01-24-2005, 04:19 PM
Oh, and I think Brady would flounder against a Belichick-designed Patriot defense just like Manning did.

Mutaman
01-24-2005, 04:44 PM
Oh, and I think Brady would flounder against a Belichick-designed Patriot defense just like Manning did.

I think he'd put up more than three points, particularly when that defense was missing Ty Law, Richard Seymour, and one other starter.

Fil3232
01-24-2005, 04:47 PM
Tom Brady has managed to post the 7th highest QB rating in the history of the NFL without ever having an All-Pro skill position player at his side. To me, thats pretty amazing. Saying Brady has Kitna-like numbers is pretty unfair. In fact, I think Brady's ability as a QB is overshadowed because NE has had so much success.

Chip R
01-24-2005, 04:57 PM
The difference I see is that if you are choosing between the two in a game with perfect conditions either inside or outdoors, it's a pick-em between Manning and Brady. Slight edge to Manning, perhaps. But if you are choosing between the two in a game where it's snowing or cold or raining, you have to go with Brady. And Brady's success isn't because of the defense or the line ofr the running game. The last two weeks he was completing passes Manning and Big Ben couldn't even dream of completing under those conditions. Peyton's the perfect QB for a Pro Bowl game in Hawaii where the defensive rules are relaxed and he has All-Pros to throw to and is playing behind an All-Pro offensive line. And perhaps he could win an AFC championship game under the right conditions. But if I want a QB to get to the Super Bowl where you may have to play under conditions which are not ideal and even horrible, I'd go with Brady. All good Bengals fans remember the Freezer Bowl in 1982 where the Bengals beat the snot out of the Chargers. The week before in Miami where it was humid but still not inclement weather Fouts had a great game. The next week, Anderson had the better game. Was Anderson a more talented QB than Fouts? Probably not but he could perform well in all kinds of conditions. And no matter how talented a QB is, he should have to win under all kinds of conditions.

Danny Serafini
01-24-2005, 05:08 PM
Tom Brady has managed to post the 7th highest QB rating in the history of the NFL without ever having an All-Pro skill position player at his side. To me, thats pretty amazing. Saying Brady has Kitna-like numbers is pretty unfair. In fact, I think Brady's ability as a QB is overshadowed because NE has had so much success.

Look at Brady's numbers from 2003 and look at Kitna's. They're nearly identical. I wouldn't put a lot of faith in the QB rating simply because the style of play has changed a lot over the years, and today's passing offenses tend to play towards creating higher ratings. If you look at the QB ratings of some Hall of Fame QBs they're terrible, but that's because they were playing in much lower percentage schemes, as opposed to today's steady diet of high percentage six yard slants.

Fil3232
01-24-2005, 05:25 PM
Oh, I agree that Kitna's numbers from 2003 are comparable to Brady's, but that has proved to be the exception for Kitna rather than the norm. Again, I think its misleading and unfair to Brady to say he puts up Kitna-like numbers.

Brady is a very good QB who has an uncanny ability to perform at his best when the stakes are highest. To me that is why he will always be better than someone like Manning. manning hasn't been able to win the big game since he took over at Tennessee.

WVRed
01-24-2005, 06:10 PM
I think he'd put up more than three points, particularly when that defense was missing Ty Law, Richard Seymour, and one other starter.

I know people may disagree with this, but the players didnt make as much of a difference in the outcome of either game as much as Bill Belicheck did.

This team is a far cry from the Baltimore Ravens and Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who had a face on defense you would recognize(Sapp and Ray Lewis).

As far as Brady/Manning, I agree with Roy. Switch the Colts and Patriots offenses, and the Patriots would still win because of their defense.

Mutaman
01-24-2005, 06:10 PM
Speaking of good quarterbacks, don't sell this guy McNab short. 4th and 26, I think about it once a day. 7 points may be too many.