PDA

View Full Version : Best QB in the game?


TheTim5125
03-08-2005, 09:15 PM
Manning or Brady

my friend and I have had this discussion on numerous occassions.... I say manning because of his stats and what he has done for the colts.. now my friend says brady because of the rings... now remember we are talking about best qb in the game not best offensive coordinator or team... best qb

Rosusu
03-08-2005, 09:21 PM
Manning is a better quarterback. You could say that Brady is a better leader, but just being a qb throwing the ball Manning is no arguement better than Brady.

infantrycak
03-08-2005, 09:39 PM
Manning is a better quarterback. You could say that Brady is a better leader, but just being a qb throwing the ball Manning is no arguement better than Brady.

The thing is you can't pull out just throwing the ball or it might be some undrafted free agent 4th stringer--it is the whole game that counts. Manning certainly has the better stats, but Brady gets it done when it counts.

Anyone else curious what Manning would look like behind a bad OL? I am not talking just OK, but bad. My impression from the few times you do see him pressured/sacked is he does not react to it well. Not talking about reading blitzes etc. to avoid contact but actually sustaining contact.

Piece of trivia for you--in 7 years in the league Manning has been sacked 1 less time than David Carr has in 3 years.

gg no re
03-08-2005, 09:48 PM
Tough call.

Manning beats Brady in every aspect of being a QB, except for a willingness to take hits.

I mean, if Manning had at least half the testicular fortitude of Brady, it might be unaniminous..... but until he does, it's a tie......

Fortitude goes a loooong way.

Ihategeeks
03-08-2005, 09:51 PM
Vick

----Every person that bashes Vick after this post has back pimples------

WWJD
03-08-2005, 11:30 PM
Manning. :hmmm:

TEXANS84
03-08-2005, 11:34 PM
I'd take Brady any day over Manning...with the Pats defense.

Now if Manning had the Pats D, and Brady had the Colts D....then we would see who the best QB is.

Fiddy
03-08-2005, 11:47 PM
I'd take Brady any day over Manning...with the Pats defense.

Now if Manning had the Pats D, and Brady had the Colts D....then we would see who the best QB is.Exactly.

Manning is the better QB, Brady plays on the better team and better teams win championships. That's why Brady has 3 rings and Manning zero.

infantrycak
03-09-2005, 12:00 AM
Now if Manning had the Pats D, and Brady had the Colts D....then we would see who the best QB is.

So by definition if you take the best O and best D the QB must be the best? Doesn't seem like the right test. How about just swap QB's on the teams?--is there some reason not to give Brady the benefit of the other Colts' offensive players if you are going to stick him with the Colts' D?--of course that still leaves the coaching issue. Too many variables--this is one of those unanswerable questions that just comes down to personal preference.

DOCTOR24
03-09-2005, 10:38 AM
Tough call.

Manning beats Brady in every aspect of being a QB, except for a willingness to take hits.

I mean, if Manning had at least half the testicular fortitude of Brady, it might be unaniminous..... but until he does, it's a tie......

Fortitude goes a loooong way.

Maybe so, but Brady beats him in the most important aspect of being a QB and that's championships!!

In a big game, give me someone like Tom Brady or Joe Montana.....they just know how to win.....period!

Fiddy
03-09-2005, 11:34 AM
Maybe so, but Brady beats him in the most important aspect of being a QB and that's championships!!What wins championships, teams or a single QB???

Teams win championships. The better team will win and Brady plays on the better team.

DOCTOR24
03-09-2005, 12:08 PM
What wins championships, teams or a single QB???

Teams win championships. The better team will win and Brady plays on the better team.

I will never argue that it takes a team to win a championship, but make no mistake about it, quarterbacks have to make big plays as well as do the little things to make a team successful. IMO, Tom Brady is the best big play QB in football.

Huge
03-09-2005, 12:33 PM
Is Trent Dilfer a better QB than Dan Marino?

Trent - 1 Lombardi
Dan - 0 Lombardi's

Trent > Dan ?

gg no re
03-09-2005, 12:34 PM
I would disagree with the statement of Brady being a big play guy..... you don't see a lot of highlight reels of Brady compared to more flashy QBs like Vick, Favre, and such.

However, I do acknowledge that Brady can make big plays, like burning the Steelers for those 2 long bombs to Branch. But for the most part, he makes good reads and throws no matter the situation.

Big play guy? No. Big game guy? Yeah.

That said, if Manning and Brady swap teams, the Colts will finally afford that defense they need, and the Patriot dynasty can finally end. XD

Bayern
03-09-2005, 12:45 PM
How about this? versatility

Brady has proven he can perform anywhere anytime.

Manning is not the player Brady is when he's in the cold throwing an ice cube. Not just in Foxboro against the Pats either.

TheOgre
03-09-2005, 02:44 PM
I would disagree with the statement of Brady being a big play guy..... you don't see a lot of highlight reels of Brady compared to more flashy QBs like Vick, Favre, and such.

1. He brought the Pats back against the Raiders to win in the divisional round in 2001. Sure he had "The Tuck Rule" to thank but he did lead them to 10 last minute points.

2. In 2002, when they had a bad defense, he finished the season with a bang. They came back from an 11 point deficit against the Dolphins in the season finale to send the game into OT. They won it. They lost out on the playoffs due to a tiebreaker (with the Jets and Browns).

3. In his first two Super Bowls, he led his team to last second FG's to win the game.

The guy doesn't put up gaudy stats but he is a "gamer". I haven't seen a "gamer" like him since Joe Montana.

Brady is more like Montana and Manning is more like Marino.

DOCTOR24
03-09-2005, 02:49 PM
1. He brought the Pats back against the Raiders to win in the divisional round in 2001. Sure he had "The Tuck Rule" to thank but he did lead them to 10 last minute points.

2. In 2002, when they had a bad defense, he finished the season with a bang. They came back from an 11 point deficit against the Dolphins in the season finale to send the game into OT. They won it. They lost out on the playoffs due to a tiebreaker (with the Jets and Browns).

3. In his first two Super Bowls, he led his team to last second FG's to win the game.

The guy doesn't put up gaudy stats but he is a "gamer". I haven't seen a "gamer" like him since Joe Montana.

Brady is more like Montana and Manning is more like Marino.

Well put! My points exactly. Another point in favor of Brady is the fact that he won his second Super Bowl with a pass oriented offense (before Dillion) when everyone knew he had to throw! Like him or now, the man is a winner and makes everyone around him better!

DOCTOR24
03-09-2005, 02:52 PM
Is Trent Dilfer a better QB than Dan Marino?

Trent - 1 Lombardi
Dan - 0 Lombardi's

Trent > Dan ?

Absolutely not! And, surely you are not comparing Tom Brady to Trent Dilfer? Very bad analogy, Huge!

Fiddy
03-09-2005, 03:11 PM
Absolutely not! And, surely you are not comparing Tom Brady to Trent Dilfer? Very bad analogy, Huge!I dont think Huge is comparing Dilfer to Brady but he is using some peoples train of thought to explain that Super Bowls alone dont decide who is a better QB.

Blake
03-09-2005, 03:14 PM
Huge was making a point that rings dont make you the better QB.

My take is that Manning is slighty better than Brady. Manning makes quick decisions, accurate throws, and has the smarts to know where the best option is.

Manning 49 TD's, 10 INT's
Brady 24 TD's, 14 INT's

Im not saying this stat means everything. Just showing that 49 TD's with 10 INT's is unbelieveable.

gg no re
03-09-2005, 04:15 PM
The guy doesn't put up gaudy stats but he is a "gamer".
That's what I said.... -_-

Gamers are different from players, as I thought I had pointed out.....

[to further reinforce... randy moss=player, but not gamer... reference Redskins and Eagles game....]

infantrycak
03-09-2005, 05:58 PM
I dont think Huge is comparing Dilfer to Brady but he is using some peoples train of thought to explain that Super Bowls alone dont decide who is a better QB.

Still silly to pick that example. A better one would be Aikman 3 vs. Kelly 0 or Marino 0. Superbowls alone don't decide who is better, but you know what--neither do stats. Brady has something Aikman had that doesn't show up in any record book other than the W-L columns--his game rises in the post-season. May not be flashy, may not make the highlight films (can't believe Vick even got mentioned in this discussion) but at the end of the season there are lots of W's and several rings. No of course it isn't all to the QB's credit, but neither are Peyton's stats--those are fluffed by a team willing to only play one half of the game.

TheOgre
03-09-2005, 07:16 PM
He wasn't trying to compare apples to apples. He was trying to show you that Super Bowl wins is an overrated statistic when comparing QB's.

If Super Bowls were THE statistic, then consequently, Dilfer > Manning. I don't think you will find anyone other than Dilfer's Mom that would agree with that.

infantrycak
03-09-2005, 08:06 PM
He wasn't trying to compare apples to apples. He was trying to show you that Super Bowl wins is an overrated statistic when comparing QB's.

If Super Bowls were THE statistic, then consequently, Dilfer > Manning. I don't think you will find anyone other than Dilfer's Mom that would agree with that.

I understood he wasn't comparing apples to apples--it is always easier to belittle an extreme example rather than an appropriate or close one. My point is both stats and wins are overrated when comparing QB's. Of course SB's aren't THE statistic, but are TD's--then Manning is better than any QB ever--sorry, not buying that--JMO. Fact is wins, yards, SB's, TD's are just crutches for not really evaluating the QB. Manning and many another great QB would have raised the perennial crud teams of their times to a degree, but great as they were they wouldn't have made them into SB teams single handed and wouldn't have put up the same stats either--but they still would have been great QB's.

Huge
03-10-2005, 12:33 PM
My intention of using that extreme example was to illustrate just how stupid the "QB X has won more SBs than QB Y so QBX is the better QB" argument. If it came across as silly, good...it was intended to do so. Sometimes it takes a silly comment to show just how blatantly obvious it is.

My thinking is that SB trophies are irrelevant. So what do you base "QB greatness" on? How they perform in the "big game"? A QB can only deliver the ball. His teammates still have to catch it. If anybody saw this past AFC Championship game, they saw how much help Manning received from his teammates.

I think any of the "great QBs" are too close in abilities to form an argument on which is better. Some are just more fortunate to be placed in an environment that allows them to achieve more success than what they normally would have (see Troy Aikman and Tom Brady). Then there are the others on the flip side of that (see Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, Fran Tarkenton).

z0rpAn
03-10-2005, 01:15 PM
1. He brought the Pats back against the Raiders to win in the divisional round in 2001. Sure he had "The Tuck Rule" to thank but he did lead them to 10 last minute points.

2. In 2002, when they had a bad defense, he finished the season with a bang. They came back from an 11 point deficit against the Dolphins in the season finale to send the game into OT. They won it. They lost out on the playoffs due to a tiebreaker (with the Jets and Browns).

3. In his first two Super Bowls, he led his team to last second FG's to win the game.

The guy doesn't put up gaudy stats but he is a "gamer". I haven't seen a "gamer" like him since Joe Montana.

Brady is more like Montana and Manning is more like Marino.


#1- No Brady didnt bring the pats back against the Raiders, Bledsoe did. That is why I hate the Pats with a passion due to the fact that bledsoe got them through the playoffs into the big game and then just got the damned bench the entire game.

gg no re
03-10-2005, 01:18 PM
Makes you wonder where we would be if Bledsoe became senile a few years faster, or if the tuck rule had never existed.

DRIFTAWAY
03-10-2005, 01:26 PM
i would say out of manning's 49 td's at least 15 of them came while he was running up the score in 4th quarters of games.

DOCTOR24
03-10-2005, 01:31 PM
I think any of the "great QBs" are too close in abilities to form an argument on which is better. Some are just more fortunate to be placed in an environment that allows them to achieve more success than what they normally would have (see Troy Aikman and Tom Brady). Then there are the others on the flip side of that (see Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, Fran Tarkenton).

I think you just helped make my point. Are you arguing that the "environment" that Marino, Kelly, and Tarkenton was in is really that much different that what Aikman and Brady has? The former three, have had good enough "environments" to get to a collective 7 Super Bowls between them and have lost all seven. In fact, in those Super Bowls their teams were favored to win 4 of them. In most cases, it was their performance that led to their teams defeat. What seperates Aikman and Brady is that their outstanding performance in big games was multiple over time and that their play contributed to the wins rather than to loses. Dilfer, on the other hand, managed the game "not to lose" and to allow his teams other strenghts to win it for them.

But, to further complicate things, you have to understand that the best teams do not always win the big games. I have just sited a few examples, but how many Super Bowls has been played that the underdog won!

DOCTOR24
03-10-2005, 02:36 PM
#1- No Brady didnt bring the pats back against the Raiders, Bledsoe did. That is why I hate the Pats with a passion due to the fact that bledsoe got them through the playoffs into the big game and then just got the damned bench the entire game.

Actually, Brady did bring the Pats back against the Raiders. You are thinking about the AFC Championship game where Bledsoe replaced an injured Brady to beat the Steelers. But, let's not forget that Brady replaced and injured Bledsoe when the Pats started the season 1-4 and got them into the Super Bowl, where he brought them back again to defeat the favored Rams!!

Huge
03-10-2005, 07:30 PM
I think you just helped make my point. Are you arguing that the "environment" that Marino, Kelly, and Tarkenton was in is really that much different that what Aikman and Brady has? The former three, have had good enough "environments" to get to a collective 7 Super Bowls between them and have lost all seven. In fact, in those Super Bowls their teams were favored to win 4 of them. In most cases, it was their performance that led to their teams defeat. What seperates Aikman and Brady is that their outstanding performance in big games was multiple over time and that their play contributed to the wins rather than to loses. Dilfer, on the other hand, managed the game "not to lose" and to allow his teams other strenghts to win it for them.

But, to further complicate things, you have to understand that the best teams do not always win the big games. I have just sited a few examples, but how many Super Bowls has been played that the underdog won!

That's 7 Super Bowls in 46 years of combined experience.

Aikman - Super Bowl XXVIII - 19 of 27, 207 yards, 0 TDs, 1 INT
Aikman - Super Bowl XXX - 15 of 23, 209 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT

"Outstanding"

Dilfer - Super Bowl XXXV - 12 of 25, 153 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT

"Played not to lose"

Is there a big difference between Aikman and Dilfer's performance? Sure Aikman had an outstanding SB XXVII. But do you think he's the reason they won 52 - 17 or just part of the equation (or from my point...the environment)?

Or how about some other 1 time wonder SB QBs:

Doug Williams - Super Bowl XXII - 18 of 29, 340 yards, 4 TDs, 1 INT
Kurt Warner - Super Bowl XXXIV - 24 of 45, 414 yards, 2 TDs, 0 INT
Mark Rypien - Super Bowl XXVI - 18 of 33, 292 yards, 2 TDs, 1 INT
Jim McMahon - Super Bowl XX - 12 of 20, 256 yards (no TDs but look at that average)
Phil Simms - Super Bowl XXI - 22 of 25, 268 yards, 3 TDs, 0 INT

So do those guys belong amongst the best because they shined their brightest on the biggest stage for one game?

Was Elway a flop before he won his first Super Bowl? And you'd have every reason to say he caused his team many a loss. Or do you think after Mike Shanahan arrived in Denver and developed a running game and gave them a defense that Elway was finally placed in an environment that allowed him to reach the pinnacle?

Dan Marino - 29 of 50, 318 yards, 1 TD, 2 INTs, Dolphins lose 38 - 16. Yeah, hang that one on Marino. And since this was his only appearance in 17 years, would you say he was placed in an environment that didn't allow him to get back or do you feel he just wasn't a good enough QB to get back?