Stats: Brady Better than Manning

[edinatlanta]

Those who favored Manning as the best of his generation have long had only one arrow in their quiver of arguments: Peyton puts up better stats.

But that argument was tenuous at best. It was based largely on meaningless volume stats. The far more important efficiency stats were much closer than anyone realized.

And now, as of this week, even those efficiency stats point in Brady's favor.

Quietly, Brady passed Manning -- at least for the time being -- in career passer rating during New England's 31-27 win over the Packers Sunday night.


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz18rYx7NCy

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Steve Young

 

[phreak]

Take Brady away from the Pats and they win 11 games. Belichick is far and away the best coach of this era
Take Peyton away from the Colts and they don't win 4. Caldwell? Really?

The Colts have the worst rush offense/defense. The only reason their passing D isn't terrible is because teams would rather run on them to keep the ball away from Peyton. Tamme, Blair White, or pretty much any RB not named Addai would not make the Pats. Peyton and their pass rush (sometimes) are the only pieces that work.

The only test that matters anyway is the 'eyeball' test. I'm fairly certain most non-partisans would pick Peyton throughout his career over Brady.

When the Colts win out and go 10-6 Peyton should be right there in the MVP talks, but he probably won't be.Also, it's weird how 'Coach of the Year' usually goes to a winning coach from a bad team, where MVP is usually which qb had the best year statistically.

 

[Joffrey]

Manning is my *****

 

[grundletaint]

Originally Posted by phreak

Take Brady away from the Pats and they win 11 games. Belichick is far and away the best coach of this era
Take Peyton away from the Colts and they don't win 4. Caldwell? Really?



When the Colts win out and go 10-6 Peyton should be right there in the MVP talks, but he probably won't be.Also, it's weird how 'Coach of the Year' usually goes to a winning coach from a bad team, where MVP is usually which qb had the best year statistically.


not talking about coaches. besides, dolts wouldn't lose 6 with brady. captain happy feet is good, but he's a bumbling fool a lot of the time, too.

 

[edinatlanta]

Originally Posted by phreak

Belichick is far and away the best coach of this era
His record sans Brady suggests otherwise.

Originally Posted by phreak

The only test that matters anyway is the 'eyeball' test. I'm fairly certain most non-partisans would pick Peyton throughout his career over Brady.
Really? 1 Superbowl in 12 years is superior to 3 in 10? Also, you discount Brady's leadership ability with the team. That probably counts for just as many wins as the ones secured qua player. Edit: The eyeball test suggests, as per the article, that Brady is better, as Manning has coughed up several key INTs through his career. Brady hasn't. And if we're just talking about a really superficial eyeball test, 3 in 10 is better than 1 in 12.

 

[phreak]

Originally Posted by edinatlanta

Really?

1 Superbowl in 12 years is superior to 3 in 10?

Also, you discount Brady's leadership ability with the team. That probably counts for just as many wins as the ones secured qua player.

Edit: The eyeball test suggests, as per the article, that Brady is better, as Manning has coughed up several key INTs through his career. Brady hasn't. And if we're just talking about a really superficial eyeball test, 3 in 10 is better than 1 in 12.

We can spit stats all day but in the end they're too dependent on countless variables. So yea, the 'eyeball' test is the main test for me.

What did the NFL rate them at? Peyton was 10 and Brady 20 I think? I know Peyton was higher and there was really no controversy upon release. I know that isn't the 'deciding' rankings but it is relevant.

 

[kwilkinson]

**** tom brady
yay peyton manning!

 

[Mute]

Steve Young (whom I like) had better stats than Montana. Joe was still the better quarterback.

 

[FLMountainMan]

Originally Posted by Mute

Steve Young (whom I like) had better stats than Montana. Joe was still the better quarterback.

How so?

 

[ChicagoRon]

Well - Brady never got a chance to do anythin in College, because idiot scUM fans were all crying for Drew (WHO) Henson at the time - but...

Manning - NEVER BEAT FLORIDA, NEVER WON SEC CHAMP, NEVER WON NCAA Champs - T Martin did it the next year with the same personnel.

Bellicheck is a great coach (learned from the best, IMO), but he's not that great. Brady is a HUGE part of those wins.

 

[Ambulance Chaser]

If your life depended on winning a football game, who would you choose to be your QB? Your answer is the answer to this question.

(I would choose Brady.)

 

[montecristo#4]

Originally Posted by phreak

We can spit stats all day but in the end they're too dependent on countless variables. So yea, the 'eyeball' test is the main test for me.

What did the NFL rate them at? Peyton was 10 and Brady 20 I think? I know Peyton was higher and there was really no controversy upon release. I know that isn't the 'deciding' rankings but it is relevant.

LOL, the NFL didn't rate anyone.

Fact is, you can go down the list and compare the two. In just about every statistical category, Brady leads or ties Manning. Then there are the rings. The playoff record. The fact that Manning has been surrounded by first round draft picks and Pro Bowl offenses his entire career while (with the exception of two years of Moss) Brady makes do with cast off and UDFAs.

Oh yeah, then factor in the fact that Manning plays in a climate controlled dome, so his stats SHOULD be better, but aren't.

Only a complete ******* moron would argue that Manning is unequivocally superior.

Even Bob Kravitz of the Indianapolis Star agrees with me:

Originally Posted by Bob Kravitz, Indy Star

Granted, it's like choosing between Charlize Theron and Scarlett Johansson, but if you give me one game, one drive, one got-to-score situation, I'm taking Brady 100 percent of the time.

I don't write this because I'm a hopeless contrarian -- at least not in this case.

I write this because I'm sane.

Statistically, in the regular season, Manning vs. Brady is a virtual wash. They are close in regular-season winning percentage, quarterback rating, completion percentage, interception rate and points per game. Head-to-head in the regular season, again, the numbers are similar. Keep in mind, too, Brady plays most of his games outdoors, in the elements; Manning gets at least half his games indoors, and plays in the weather-friendly AFC South.

So I go to the tiebreaker:

The postseason. When it matters most. When reputations are made and legends are built.
Brady is 14-4 in the postseason, has won three Super Bowls and would have had a fourth if not for a miraculous catch by the New York Giants' David Tyree. (OK, they got a gift on the Tuck Rule, so we're fine with three.)

Manning is 9-9, including 1-1 in the Super Bowl.

This, then, is where the world famous Indianapolis-based "Yeah, but . . ." chorus chimes in with all the timeworn arguments on Manning's behalf. My Starbucks buddy, Jeff, sang all the familiar refrains Friday when I showed him the poll results.

Not really, not in the postseason. In 18 playoff games with Brady, the Patriots defense has allowed an average of 19 points per game. In 18 games with Manning, the Colts have given up a playoff average of 21. So it's not like Brady is winning every game 10-7 while Manning needs to score 35 to beat people.

Here's more: In Manning's nine postseason losses, his team has allowed an average of 25.4 points per game; in Brady's four losses, the Patriots have allowed 28.

"Yeah, but Manning has more responsibility and has more control over this offense."

I've actually heard locals diminish Brady because he checks the chart on his wrist, unlike Manning, who just computes it all in his head. Is this a math test where you have to show your work? If you get the answer right, it doesn't matter how you got there. We're comparing wins and losses and statistics, not SAT scores.

"Yeah, but the year Brady was out with an injury, the Patriots still went 11-5. If the Colts lost Manning, they'd win four games."

All that tells us is that Matt Cassel, now a starting quarterback in Kansas City, was and is a whole lot better than Jim Sorgi and Curtis Painter put together. You don't think a Cassel-quality backup could come off the bench in Indianapolis and win games with all those Pro Bowlers on both sides of the football? We're going to diminish Brady because his team was smart enough to get him a solid backup?

"Yeah, but . . ."

People. You're running out of "yeah, buts . . ." My boy Jeff tried this one out: "Yeah, but don't you think, in terms of raw skills, if you had both guys throwing it through a tire . . ."

They aren't throwing it through tires -- although I might pay to watch that. Maybe you saw the other night when Brady, without Randy Moss and playing with a bunch of smurf receivers, dropped 39 points on the Steelers in Pittsburgh.

Have you ever stopped to wonder what kinds of statistics Brady would have amassed by now if he had Manning's weaponry?

Consider this: During the Brady era, he has had three skill-position players (Troy Brown, Wes Welker and Moss) go to a total of four Pro Bowls while they played for the Patriots. In the Manning era, six skill-position players (Marvin Harrison, Edgerrin James, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Joseph Addai and Ken Dilger) have gone to 19 Pro Bowls.

Name all the great running backs Brady has had at his disposal . . .

OK, still waiting.

Sammy Morris? Kevin Faulk? Corey Dillon? Antowain Smith? How about Laurence Maroney?
The one full year Brady had multiple Pro Bowl help, namely Moss and Welker, he broke Manning's single-season touchdown pass record and took the Patriots within one Giants drive of a perfect season.

Look, both cities are blessed to have first-ballot Pro Football Hall of Famers on their teams. But every time these teams play -- which is to say, virtually every year -- the debate rages anew and the Manning "Yeah, but . . ." chorus clears its throat and sings its familiar tune.

As always, it's off key.

http://www.indystar.com/article/201...rady?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|IndyStar.com|s

 

[ChicagoRon]

Originally Posted by Ambulance Chaser

If your life depended on winning a football game, who would you choose to be your QB? Your answer is the answer to this question. (I would choose Brady.)
Well - If I could pick anyone (in their prime) , it would be Brett Favre. Between those two - Brady is such an easy choice it's silly.

 

[kwilkinson]

Originally Posted by Ambulance Chaser

If your life depended on winning a football game, who would you choose to be your QB? Your answer is the answer to this question. (I would choose Brady.)
I would choose Peyton. That guy's pretty good... if you like 6'5" 230 lb quarterbacks with laser rocket arms.