Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍
Man, this entire post is nothing but speculation. Nothing here supports that the Colts would have ever gone 16-0 other than well speculation. The only team that has done that in the last 20 years was the Pats led by Tom Brady who threw 50 TD's who also happens to have two more rings than Manning. Manning has also lost more of their head to head match ups in the post season. And in both of their SB losses BRady's defense gave the game away when his offense had it clinched while Manning threw it away himself with a pick to the other team for a TD. Lets not let facts get in the way of this speculated argument though.
Hmmm, if Brady's offenses had the victories "sewn" up, then why was Adam Vinatieri on the field late in games kicking FG's for the win in 2 of their SB's & 1 of their AFC championship games? That's ST's my friend not offense.
Aside from that, here's another fact, SB's & playoff victories are team accolades not individual accolades & i don't blindly give credit to qb's for winning them all by themselves most people do.
& yeah, i do believe it is an actual fact that Manning was forced to sit out the last game against the Broncos in 2004 & It's not a stretch at all to say that he'd likely still have the record today if that doesn't happen & he plays that entire game.....Especially when he comes back the next week against the exact same team and absolutely destroys them in the playoffs for 4 TD's.
The same thing goes for him being forced to sit by the coaching staff in 2007 in what was the 2nd to last game of the year (last game against the bills i believe). Especially when he comes back 2 weeks later in the playoff & leads his team over that exact same jets team. Anyone who thinks that the Colts weren't going to go 16-0 that year is fooling themselves.
Brady's a HOFer for sure, but isn't a lynchpin to a teams success like Manning is; without him, the Colts are Texans status. I could care less if you agree or not.
Hmmm, if Brady's offenses had the victories "sewn" up, then why was Adam Vinatieri on the field late in games kicking FG's for the win in 2 of their SB's & 1 of their AFC championship games? That's ST's my friend not offense.
NFL's Most Clutch Quarterbacks
Topping the list is the New England Patriots' Tom Brady, who has converted 21 of 33 comeback opportunities (64%) in his 10 years in the NFL.
--------------------
The Colts' Peyton Manning may have better career numbers than his younger brother, Giants' QB Eli, but Eli trumps Peyton in clutchness. Eli, third on our list, has converted 13 comebacks in 27 opportunities (48%) to Peyton's 29 in 65 (45%).
Brady's a HOFer for sure, but isn't a lynchpin to a teams success like Manning is; without him, the Colts are Texans status. I could care less if you agree or not.
There's some truth to what Mr. Tex is saying. When Brady went down in '09 with a season ending injury, Matt Cassel stepped in and kept the train a running. IIRC, they barely missed the playoffs that year but had a winning record. I don't think anyone on here would disagree that Mannings backup could lead that team as well as Cassel did. That actually points to the Pats just being a better over all team but also shines light on the fact that Manning is much more critical to his teams success than Brady is to the Pats. And that's a good indicator of why the Pats have 3 SB wins in 4 tries and the colts only have 1 in 2 tries.
There's some truth to what Mr. Tex is saying. When Brady went down in '09 with a season ending injury, Matt Cassel stepped in and kept the train a running. IIRC, they barely missed the playoffs that year but had a winning record. I don't think anyone on here would disagree that Mannings backup could lead that team as well as Cassel did. That actually points to the Pats just being a better over all team but also shines light on the fact that Manning is much more critical to his teams success than Brady is to the Pats. And that's a good indicator of why the Pats have 3 SB wins in 4 tries and the colts only have 1 in 2 tries.
Ease up on the manlove dude. Y'all read way more into that than I was trying to say. I think Manning might be the best QB to ever play the game, but that doesn't trump winning championships. Football is a team sport and it takes a lot more than one phenominal player to win SB's. Ask Dan Marino or Dan Fouts.Statistics are there to compare between Brady and Manning. It could be argued that Brady elevates those around him more than Manning does. Manning has had HoF WRs and Pro-Bowl RBs on his offense, which is not the case for Brady. So yeah, "team" is the concept, and Brady has clearly shown he's the slightly better leader of a team.
On the bolded and the Cassel discussion, I think some folks are underestimating the genius of Bill Belichick. He changed the game plan to accommodate Cassel. He kept the passing game short and put Cassel into situations to succeed. Of course the Patriots were a great team. Any SB champion, much less multiple, is obviously a great team.
And Manning won that SB all by himself, too, right? Threw the ball, caught the ball, ran with the ball, and even played defense. Freeney and Sanders were irrelevant....riiiiight.
I've got no problem with folks elevating Manning. I just take exception to haters that try to denigrate Brady. It's the same, tired arguments from the '80's when talking about Montana vs. Marino. Some folks focus so much on statistics that they are unable to comprehend the intangibles like leadership and the ability to inspire those around them to achieve greater things than they might otherwise with another QB.
I guess some folks think Steve Young is better than Joe Montana, too. Why, Young just stepped in and won a Super Bowl, so he's clearly a better QB on a team that carried Montana to four championships. That's what it sounds like when I hear the Cassel discussion.
And like Tex said, Cassel is a good QB. It could easily be argued that he'd succeed with Reggie Wayne, Austin Collie, Joseph Addai, Dallas Clark, etc., on his offense (not to mention Jeff Saturday!). To act like these guys had nothing to do with Manning's success just disrespects them completely....and it's pure speculation clouded by manlove.
Ease up on the manlove dude. Y'all read way more into that than I was trying to say. I think Manning might be the best QB to ever play the game, but that doesn't trump winning championships. Football is a team sport and it takes a lot more than one phenominal player to win SB's. Ask Dan Marino or Dan Fouts.
The main point I was trying to make is that if Manning goes down, so do the Colts. It all goes through him. When was the last time we saw a DOMINANT Indy running game? At least 4 years. The Colts simply can't reload and go like the Pats. I'm a HUGE Brady fan, but the Pats can adjust. The Pats, thanks to Belichik, are greater than the sum of their individual parts.
I was just playin' with ya' about the 'manlove'. That's why I put the winky-dude in there.
I think Manning is in the top 5 all time QBs in the NFL, so I'm not diminishing who he is by any means.
However, I think a case could be made that with all the weapons at his disposal, another QB could win with that team. It's not like his teammates are chopped liver. Just look at his offensive weapons. Cassel could win with that team, and I think it's overstating Manning's case to act like it's a slam dunk that nobody else could win with the Colts.
Just like it overstates Brady's case that he's better b/c his team has won 3 superbowls when those SB teams were primarily anchored by belichick's defense not Brady & the offense.
Ask yourself, could Manning have been as successful with the no-name teams that Brady took to the Super Bowls? Brady did not have a HoF-calibur WR like Marvin Harrison for a large chunk of his career.
And let's face it, Brady did not have the luxury of playing the Texans twice a year, much less the weak division that is the AFC south.
yeah, he's had the Buffalo Bills & the Miami Dolphins to beat up on regularly.
With regards to the Colts running game, part of that is on Manning. He calls the plays, so it's obvious that he leans toward the passing game, which is a bit more self-serving than an OC would call it.
As far as Brady, just look at his stats. Youngest QB to make it to 100 wins, enough come-from-behind victories that would rival any QB out there, his offensive stats often surpass Manning, so I tend to think something is clouding judgement when folks refuse to admit that he's a top 5 QB in NFL history, as well. (Not specific to you, but just in general with a lot of the over-the-top hate I see toward Brady.)
Never said he wasn't top 5 in history, my argument is simply that manning is better.
And in the end, NFL players agree with me and Tex. They recognize Brady's greatness, which is a lot more powerful statement than the often biased opinions of fans and media.
This isn't indicative at all because Matt Cassell has shown that he's a damn good QB period. Did you miss last season with the Chiefs? He just led a team that had been in disarray to the playoffs and helped to make Bowe one of the best WR's in the NFL last season. Matt Cassell was a very good QB that no one knew about that happened to get his shot and capitalized off of it.
I was just playin' with ya' about the 'manlove'. That's why I put the winky-dude in there.
I think Manning is in the top 5 all time QBs in the NFL, so I'm not diminishing who he is by any means.
However, I think a case could be made that with all the weapons at his disposal, another QB could win with that team. It's not like his teammates are chopped liver. Just look at his offensive weapons. Cassel could win with that team, and I think it's overstating Manning's case to act like it's a slam dunk that nobody else could win with the Colts.
Ask yourself, could Manning have been as successful with the no-name teams that Brady took to the Super Bowls? Brady did not have a HoF-calibur WR like Marvin Harrison for a large chunk of his career.
And let's face it, Brady did not have the luxury of playing the Texans twice a year, much less the weak division that is the AFC south.
With regards to the Colts running game, part of that is on Manning. He calls the plays, so it's obvious that he leans toward the passing game, which is a bit more self-serving than an OC would call it.
As far as Brady, just look at his stats. Youngest QB to make it to 100 wins, enough come-from-behind victories that would rival any QB out there, his offensive stats often surpass Manning, so I tend to think something is clouding judgement when folks refuse to admit that he's a top 5 QB in NFL history, as well. (Not specific to you, but just in general with a lot of the over-the-top hate I see toward Brady.)
And in the end, NFL players agree with me and Tex. They recognize Brady's greatness, which is a lot more powerful statement than the often biased opinions of fans and media.
Kind of like Brady with the Bledsoe deal, huh? Hmm, maybe they have a system of developing good QBs, while other teams just hope to get one in the draft.
& C'mon DB, the list had Romo & Mcnabb on it. 1 of those guys didn't even finish the 2011 season & the other was terrible last year. The list isn't anymore credible than 1 generated by fans & media....especially when it wasn't even clear how guys casted their vote (for career or just the 2011 season on its own).
So Mcnabb has one questionable year on a new team with a coaching staff he didn't get along with and he's all of a sudden chopped liver? I don't think so. Mcnabb's been one of the best QB's over the entire decade. He's routinely taken the Eagles to the playoffs year after year and won a lot of playoff games with a revolving door of WR's there.
Romo has been a pretty good QB in Dallas as well. His numbers have been right on par with Schaub the last two seasons other than his injuries. He may not be elite by any means, but he's a back of the top ten type of QB or at least has been. Saying that Romo isn't any good would be similar to saying that about Matt Schaub.
There are a lot of things I don't agree with on this list, but to discount it is silly. It's by the players and they play against these guys.
Yeah, but again, it still calls into question how guys voted. It appears that some guys voted out of respect for a guys career in totality while others voted strictly on 2011 performance; you can tell that just by the voting of players like eric berry, brandon lloyd, arian foster being on the list where they are & then seeing Ray lewis being a top 5 player & greg Jennings being so low.
I've got no dispute with Brady being #1 if it's strictly on what he did in 2011 b/c he was the better of the 2..that year. But if we're talking about body of work career wise, Then that's where i disagree.
Where or how does that prove anything? Drew Bledsoe had also been a very good QB on the Patriots long before BB and his staff ever got there. He had already had several seasons where he threw for over 4,000 yards under an entirely different coaching staff, so I'm not even sure why you felt bringing up Bledsoe had to do with anything. Bledsoe hardly even played under Bill Billicheck and Charlie Weiss. BB didn't become HC of the Patriots until 2000. He then hired Weiss as well. They were never some offensive juggernut right away either. Brady went into the starting role and immediately won a SB. That Pats weren't favorites by any means that year. Brady came in there and immediately changed that franchise. 3 SB's out of 4 years and then multiple playoff appearances after that where they typically were the favorite.
You're making my point for me.
Belichick took over a team with a very good QB, and he drafted a 6th rounder that no one expected to do anything. They developed him.
When Bledsoe went down, Brady stepped in. So it's just the greatness of Brady, right? Well, not so fast. They drafted Cassell, who never saw the field in college. They developed him. So when Brady went down, Cassell led them to a record of either 10 or 11 wins, and they still missed the playoffs, which is crazy.
So either they've had this incredible lightning-strikes-twice thing of hitting on successive QBs from nowehere, or they kinda know what they're doing up there.
Personally, I think Manning is a better QB, but I think the Pats are an all-around better organization with better coaching and personnel management, and those things have led to more team success.
Of course, this is all picking nits, because two Super Bowl appearances and a win by the Colts is nothing to sneeze at.
Manning should have two rings but that pick by Tracy Porter cost him another one.
Some of this is true and I didn't agree with Berry or Foster's place either. I terribly disagreed with AP's spot at #3, but then again I'm not the guy trying to tackle that dude, so as a fan I might not have any idea of how hard it is to play on a defense and attempt to shut down AP all game long. He's definitely a lot harder to tackle than CJ and Jamal Charles and right now I'd put both of them over AP, but maybe as defensive player it's an entirely different perspective when facing AP who is a lot stronger and impactful and also has great speed as oppose to two great speed demons who can pick their spots and take off like a rocket.
He's had a better career than Manning. He's got more rings and has beaten Manning in the post season more as well where he didn't throw epic picks to end his team's chances like Manning has on the biggest stage. This is starting to sound more and more like the same debate that used to take place with Marino and Joe Montana when people tried to bring up all of the talent that Joe had to work with in San Fran and act like Marino was better. At the end of the day Joe just had that clutch gene and poise that was better than anyone in that era. He could control the offense and did only what was needed to win which made him great. Brady has been the same type of guy.
Manning still might win another one or two though.He also did the same thing against the Patriots years ago in the playoffs where he threw like three picks to Ty Law alone. He also threw an epic pick to end his team's chances against the Steelers in their first SB win to Troy Polumolu that got over turned which became the worst NFL call I had ever seen. Troy Polumolu sealed the game with this INT and hit the ground rolled a few times and than let go of it. He had possession for a while and it should have never been overturned. That was 3 post season games right there where Manning threw epic picks to lose the game in Brett Favre type fascion. Does that make him a QB that isn't one of the best of all time? Certainly not, but Tom Brady hasn't had near the amount of game crushing picks like that in the clutch that Manning has. It's why he has 3 rings and Manning has one.
Mr teX said:Just like it overstates Brady's case that he's better b/c his team has won 3 superbowls when those SB teams were primarily anchored by belichick's defense not Brady & the offense.
Mr teX said:yeah, he's had the Buffalo Bills & the Miami Dolphins to beat up on regularly.
Mr teX said:Never said he wasn't top 5 in history, my argument is simply that manning is better.
& C'mon DB, the list had Romo & Mcnabb on it. 1 of those guys didn't even finish the 2011 season & the other was terrible last year. The list isn't anymore credible than 1 generated by fans & media....especially when it wasn't even clear how guys casted their vote (for career or just the 2011 season on its own).
Stats say what rings suggested: Brady is better than Manning
"Better stats" no longer a Manning defense
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.
Brady, as of this week, is No. 5 on the career passer rating list (94.94); Manning is No. 6 (94.93).
Yes, it's a statistical dead heat. But you can argue Brady's numbers are the more impressive, coming as they have by playing in one of the NFL's worst-weather arenas. Manning has had the benefit of playing more than half of his career games in stat-inflating domes.
Manning still has much greater volume numbers than Brady, but volume numbers are important only in fantasy football, not in the real football played on Sundays. Remember: the last guy to lead the league in passing yards and win a championship was Johnny Unitas back in 1959.
No, winning in the NFL is all about passing the ball efficiently, no matter how often you pass it. And in the area of efficiency it's obvious that Brady has consistently done more with less and against tougher conditions.
Brady: Incredible production, few mistakes
There are three major measures of efficiency that we use at Cold, Hard Football Facts.com because they have such a high correlation to success: TD-INT ratio, passing yards per attempt and passer rating.
Here's how the two quarterbacks stack up over the course of their careers in all three indicators.
Player TD/INT ratio YPA Rating
Brady 2.49/1 7.37 94.94
Manning 2.01/1 7.62 94.93
Passer rating, as noted above, is a statistical dead heat, while Manning has a quarter-yard advantage in average per attempt. The one big difference is in TD-INT ratio, which Brady dominates.
TD-INT ratio is critical because it indicates a passer who produces points while limiting those killer interceptions.
The importance of points is obvious. The importance of avoiding INTS is not as obvious, but critically important. Keep in mind that every pick decreases a team's chances of winning by a full 20 percentage points. There are few plays in sports more devastating. And Brady's ability to avoid them throughout his career is one of the underappreciated secrets to his success.
Manning, though, has been victimized by critical INTs many times in his career, and threw 11 picks in the space of three games this year. It was the worst period of football in his career. And the Colts lost all three of those games, thanks largely to those mistakes. His four INTs against the Patriots in the 2003 AFC title game cost the Colts a shot at the Super Bowl. And he blew a chance to win the Super Bowl last year with a fourth-quarter pick-six against the Saints.
Brady, for his part, has never thrown more than 14 INTs in an entire season. He's currently in the middle of a period of nearly 300 attempts since his last pick -- dating all the way back to Oct. 17. (He has thrown a few passes into the hands of defenders in recent weeks that were dropped.)
His 31 TDs and 4 INTs this year put Brady on pace for the best single-season TD-INT ratio in history (7.75 to 1), surpassing his 50 and 8 in 2007.
Brady's last three seasons (2007, 2009-10), meanwhile, represent perhaps the best three-season performance by a quarterback in history:
1,068 of 1,592 (67.1 percent), 12,765 yards, 8.02 YPA, 109 TD, 25 INT, 107.68 rating.
His '07 season already stands as the second-most efficient in NFL history, with a 117.18 passer rating (behind Manning's 121.11 in 2004).
And with a 109.92 passer rating in '10, Brady is on pace for the seventh-highest rated season in history. Brady will, in all likelihood by season's end, be the only quarterback in history to produce two of the 12 most efficient seasons in history.
One wonders what the numbers might have looked like had Brady not missed essentially all of '08 with a catastrophic knee injury.
I try to avoid using the Super Bowl wins for comparison. It's too much of a team accomplishment to give all the credit to one man (a perspective that seems lost on Manning fanboys who seem to think he single-handedly won his Super Bowl).
I look at what each QB did during their Super Bowls and careers, and it is very clear that Brady was clutch when it mattered the most. The Pats were not winning any of those Super Bowls if Brady did not nut up at the end.
He is also statistically as good as or better than Manning in many key areas for QBs. Those stats are earned, not passed out like Halloween candy.
Well, this is true. They still don't suck as bad as the Texans, but it's close to a draw.
By your logic, Marino is better than Montana, yeah? Montana had Jerry Rice and an awesome defense, not to mention one of the greatest coaches in the history of the league. So it's obvious that any QB could have won those four rings with the 49ers...
You can argue about who and who should not be on the list, but this is about two players who clearly should be at the top. There is no argument that neither Manning nor Brady should be on the list.
So it comes down to which QB the players chose over the other. That's a simple question and the players have spoken.
Ray Lewis will go down as one of the greatest LBs in NFL history, and he was pimping Brady. C'mon, man, you know that says a lot. He's faced both of those cats on multiple occasions, including playoffs, and I can't dismiss his perspective because the poll might be flawed at the bottom.
And one last thing, from Joe Cool himself about Tom Brady:
"I never like to say the greatest of all time, but when he is done, he will be the best one who ever played."
~ Joe Montana
Personally I think Manning and Brady both suck. So there!!
Your example of Bledsoe was dead wrong because he excelled way before BB ever even got there and hardly even played under BB when he became HC in NE.
*sigh* There's nothing dead wrong about my example, because I didn't claim anything with regard to Bledsoe. I was merely using him as a reference point in time. How is that dead wrong? Better yet, what did you think I was asserting about Bledsoe?
I'm not even sure what the hell you're disagreeing with me about.
Actually, never mind. Carry on with the thread. It's supposed to be about AJ anyway.
And let's not forget one QB has played his entire career in a dome while the other plays his home games in a severe-weather influenced outdoor northern stadium.
In spite of that dome advantage, Brady still takes the lead in many key QB stats:
They also weren't winning any if Vinatieri gets a bad case of the shanks either. Brady could've driven them down to the 1 inch line & if Vinatieri Mike Vandejagt's any one of those kicks, the pats fall short, it's just as simple as that.
& Lol, Ray Lewis was just pimping Manning coming in at # 8 in the "greatest players in the history of the NFL" list that the NFL network made. Plenty of current & former players spoke on that as well. What's your point?
Mr teX said:My man db i see you conviently neglected to highlight this below in the article:
His '07 season already stands as the second-most efficient in NFL history, with a 117.18 passer rating (behind Manning's 121.11 in 2004).
Still doesn't tell you anything if you don't watch how these guys operate. 1 guy is dumping it off 5 yds & under & letting his WR's YAC it up for him as part of the offense....The other is constantly challenging you down field. The guy throwing it downfield.......& having success is more impressive.
eriadoc said:Actually, never mind. Carry on with the thread. It's supposed to be about AJ anyway.
If we have a season, we have a very good chance to settle the Manning vs. Brady debate. Manning has no idea when he'll be ready to play after off-season neck surgery.
My man db i see you conviently neglected to highlight this below in the article:
His '07 season already stands as the second-most efficient in NFL history, with a 117.18 passer rating (behind Manning's 121.11 in 2004).
Still doesn't tell you anything if you don't watch how these guys operate. 1 guy is dumping it off 5 yds & under & letting his WR's YAC it up for him as part of the offense....The other is constantly challenging you down field. The guy throwing it downfield.......& having success is more impressive.
I agree but there's really not a lot else to talk about.I don't see how one season would solve this debate considering the fact that both players will most likely go on to play another 4 or 5 years at least. Their bodies of work will be determined when they both retire.
My man db i see you conviently neglected to highlight this below in the article:
His '07 season already stands as the second-most efficient in NFL history, with a 117.18 passer rating (behind Manning's 121.11 in 2004).
Still doesn't tell you anything if you don't watch how these guys operate. 1 guy is dumping it off 5 yds & under & letting his WR's YAC it up for him as part of the offense....The other is constantly challenging you down field. The guy throwing it downfield.......& having success is more impressive.