Tom Brady is Overrated

Tom Brady is Overrated

There are 10098 comments on the Dr. U story from Jan 14, 2006, titled Tom Brady is Overrated. In it, Dr. U reports that:

Tom Brady of the New England Patriots is the most overrated quarterback in the NFL.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Dr. U.

Dave

Lehigh Acres, FL

#10235 Jul 23, 2013
Certainly Buffalo and and Cardinal fans don't have to worry about anyone being over rated..
Visiting From Europa

La Palma, CA

#10236 Jul 23, 2013
It seems very strange to those of us not from America how you select your top sports heroes. A footballer, one Mr. Aaron Rodgers, is selected from his skill level, then you turn around when it comes to selecting your best basketball player and you pass over on those with the best skills for the man your press celebrates the most, one Mr. Michael Jordan or my guess now its Mr. LeBron. From a purely outsiders view, why not take the celebrity of Mr. Manning as your best footballer and the top skill level of Mr. Oscar Roberson for basketball. This seems equally absurd, mixing your critical credentials.
However you Americans decide to do it, should not there be a similar standard with which to guide you, or are you Americans going to be willy nilly in everything you do.

TMD

“Look! Up in the sky!”

Since: Dec 06

Columbus, Ohio

#10237 Aug 1, 2013
Mensa7 wrote:
Depends on how you define overrated. If you mean less capable than reported or appraised too highly, then the winner of the overrated trophy goes to Peyton Manning.
That wasn't the question. The question was "is TOM BRADY overrated?". Why is it that so many Brady fans can't talk about him without bringing up, and slamming, Manning. If you have to qualify every Brady accomplishment (or lack thereof) by comparing him to Manning, then you are admitting that his accomplishments do not stand on their own merit, and that he IS overrated.

.
Peyton has 4 MVP awards and for 2 of them he clearly wasn't even in the top 5 statistically.
Not in the top 5 statistically? Which statistics are you speaking of? Clearly you are not talking about:
attempts and/or
completions and/or
yards and/or
completion percentage and/or
TDs and/or
Passer Rating/QBR.

.
Sports Writers also were talking about giving him the award a fifth time in the year he was sidelined to injury because of the inability of the Colts to play without him. What they failed to mention was that it was Manning himself that demanded no money be spent on a backup so he could maximize the offensive starters. Funny how that gets overlooked.
Sports writers don't mention anything about this "demand" you claim was made because it never happened. You just made it up. It's quite clear that Polian/Irsay, not Manning, decided ALL personnel moves/salaries.

.
Manning also played in a dome so his figures should be 8-11% higher but they are not. Couple in his massive failures when it comes postseason/legacy time and one has to wonder why the writers are in love with the guy.
Should be 8-11% higher than what? And why 8-11%? Is that just another number you pulled out of thin air?

The Colts play in a dome at least 8 games of the year. So what. Many teams do. Their QBs don't have numbers even approaching Manning's.

And, please don't get me started on the whole post-season/legacy failures. Tom Brady is no better than Manning in this regard. Look at the numbers from the past 6-7 years if you don't believe me.

.
Then there is Brady, plays not only outdoors but in the frigid northeast so his figures should be 5-7% down but they are not, and without any quality receivers, not demanding anything, especially not Manning type money when he deserves more. Consummate true team player.
Here you go with these "thin air" numbers again. 5-7% down from what and why that?

No quality receivers? I guess Deion Branch, Wes Welker, Brandon Lloyd, Randy Moss, Terry Glenn, and Rob Gronkowski are all just scrubs, huh?

I'm so tired of Brady fans bringing up the lame argument about the playing conditions. Brady doesn't play every home game in blizzard conditions, and he plays 8 games elsewhere. Besides that, if playing in a dome were such a huge advantage, don't you think ALL teams would play in them?

TMD

“Look! Up in the sky!”

Since: Dec 06

Columbus, Ohio

#10238 Aug 1, 2013
Mensa7 wrote:
And last year, 2012-2013 season, it was Brady that was number one in not just some, but in EVERY advanced stat category, DVOA, DYAR, Critical Yards, First Downs, Points etc. yet it was Manning that got traction as MVP candidate. A reasonable person with grey matter would wonder why.
A reasonable person would understand that the MVP award goes to the most VALUABLE player in the league, not the player with the best stats. That award goes to the Offensive/Defensive Players of the Year.

It's also worth noting, that Manning left the Colts and a system he helped develop, to turn around another struggling franchise, turning them into a top SB contender. Brady has played his entire career with a SB contending team and coach, and has not played one down on a struggling NFL team.

.
Then there is ESPN that has a magical formula nobody can see and they say it's Manning on top of their QBR Rating system. The problem with that is they revealed their bias when they reported Peyton's stats but omitted his fumbles (a negative) and ommitted Brady's rushing TDs (a positive), And still Brady had a superior TD/Turnover Ratio, yet ESPN was "marketing" Manning for greatness. He makes them more $$$. Imagine that.
Once again, it doesn't matter who had the (marginally) better stats. That's not what the MVP award is about. And, if you're saying that an average-looking, country bumpkin from Louisiana who's married to an average-looking, everyday housewife, is more marketable than Tom "Hollywood" Brady with his supermodel wife, and 3 rings, then I'd say that is Tom's fault, not ESPN's or Manning's.

.
When you talk to Manning its all about him and his TDs and where he fits in, in history. He delights in his knowledge of football history and existing records (which it is his goal to surpass). That's his thing and why sacrificing stats to win is not his thing.
More fiction. Manning answers the question put to him, and like any QB who's worth anything, he wants to win championships much more than set records.

.
But with Brady, Tom says its not about TDs but in not throwing INTs or fumbling, just maintaining control of the ball and outscoring your opponent.
Clearly he's into outscoring opponents. Up by 38 points with 3 minutes left and still throwing TD passes. Yes, he and Belichick are certainly into running up scores and setting records.

.
Clearly Brady is underrated. Obviously it's Brady who is the standard by which QBs should be measured. And we're it not for a miracle one handed helmet catch in one SB and a dropped pass by a Pats slot receiver in another, you too would know that, because the sports writers would more clearly look like the manipulators they are for passing Brady by.
And were it not for Vinatieri making those 3 field goals we would be speaking of Brady in the same terms as Jim Kelly. Woulda, shoulda, coulda...

.
Watch this year, Manning has a killer offense and killer defense. Any QB with even minimum skills should be able to win with that team, meanwhile, Brady has a bottom three defense and no wide receivers or tight ends to speak of. Miami should win the division except for one thing and it's named Brady. Bet the writers praise Manning for underachieving and fail to praise Brady or overachieving, at least that was history tells us they will do. Also look or Peyton to be billed as a runaway candidate or MVP even though Cleveland's Weeden ould win with that team. Just watch.
To begin with, you don't know what kind of defense or receivers Brady has to play with. None of us will until the season is over.

Secondly, if Denver was so easy to win with, why were Orton, Tebow, Griese, and Quinn, all, so massively unsuccessful? Obviously it's not as easy as you think. And if the Pats are so hard to win with, why was Cassel so successful with them? When he left to play for KC he was terrible. Obviously he had a LOT of help in NE...

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#10239 Aug 1, 2013
Often, A quarterback's greatness has more to do with how good is his supporting cast. Two Super Bowl wins likely have Eli Manning rated higher than he should be.

Terry Bradshaw's career stats are very ordinary for a starting QB and there are many journeyman QBs who have better lifetime passing statistics than either Bradshaw or Joe Namath, both in the Hall of Fame. It might be noted that Bradshaw had two HOF receivers to throw to during most of his career, not to mention a solid offensive line, and his stats were still rather pedestrian.

After losing Welker and Hernandez, it remains to be seen whether brady will simply be good, or whether he will continue to be great. No QB has ever gone into the HOF without great receivers to throw to and a solid line blocking for him for most or all of his career. As a previous poster pointed out, Brady never played for a struggling team.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#10240 Aug 2, 2013
With Gronkowski out for most, if not all the season and Jake Ballard still below his pre-injury form, the Pats have a huge hole at TE. They did sign Danny Amendola as a replacement for Welker, but Amendola is injury prone (played 42 games in 4 seasons) and owns only an 8.8 yards per catch average and likely will not stretch out defenses very much although he is capable of catching close to 100 passes in a season.

Brady will likely be playing with an overall so-so core of receivers. What he can do with that bunch will show us once and for all if he really is that great or whether he was mortal after all.
Prometheus

La Palma, CA

#10241 Aug 3, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
Often, A quarterback's greatness has more to do with how good is his supporting cast. Two Super Bowl wins likely have Eli Manning rated higher than he should be.
Terry Bradshaw's career stats are very ordinary for a starting QB and there are many journeyman QBs who have better lifetime passing statistics than either Bradshaw or Joe Namath, both in the Hall of Fame. It might be noted that Bradshaw had two HOF receivers to throw to during most of his career, not to mention a solid offensive line, and his stats were still rather pedestrian.
After losing Welker and Hernandez, it remains to be seen whether brady will simply be good, or whether he will continue to be great. No QB has ever gone into the HOF without great receivers to throw to and a solid line blocking for him for most or all of his career. As a previous poster pointed out, Brady never played for a struggling team.
And the only common denominator is Brady. Shouldn't take a genius to figure it out. Even when the Pats finished in the bottom of the league in defense 3 years running, it was Brady at the top of his game that made them contenders.
The cast either magnifies or minimizes the QBs greatness. If Brady had either Montana's or Peyton's receivers, then he wouldn't be seen as their equals, he would be seen as far superior, as the advanced stats already show.
Most folks are unaware that there are different types of stats.
Brett Favre is tops in the longevity stats simply because he played so long.
Manning will do likewise and beats Favre in the efficiency stats.
Brady seems to want to play for a long time as well so he could be up there in the longevity stats, but it is in the efficiency stats where he is ahead of all the greats.
Then there is the advanced stats where Brady again is ahead of all the greats.
History will recognize him as the best ever unless Rodgers, Ryan or some newcomer can match his efficiency and do it for an extended time while winning a few SBs.
Manning has an outside chance to catch Brady due to being on a great Denver team who can win at a high percentage, win a few SBs and improve his efficiency stats (which in a mile high stadium is possible), if he can just stop throwing INTs at the worst possible time. Then again, ESPN seems to praise Manning regardless of circumstance, so he may be able to ride them all the way, but history will probably discount ESPN and their QBR rating as it picked Manning last year as MVP candidate though it was Brady who led in EVERY advanced stat.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#10242 Aug 3, 2013
Prometheus wrote:
<quoted text>
And the only common denominator is Brady. Shouldn't take a genius to figure it out. Even when the Pats finished in the bottom of the league in defense 3 years running, it was Brady at the top of his game that made them contenders.
The cast either magnifies or minimizes the QBs greatness. If Brady had either Montana's or Peyton's receivers, then he wouldn't be seen as their equals, he would be seen as far superior, as the advanced stats already show.
Most folks are unaware that there are different types of stats.
Brett Favre is tops in the longevity stats simply because he played so long.
Manning will do likewise and beats Favre in the efficiency stats.
Brady seems to want to play for a long time as well so he could be up there in the longevity stats, but it is in the efficiency stats where he is ahead of all the greats.
Then there is the advanced stats where Brady again is ahead of all the greats.
History will recognize him as the best ever unless Rodgers, Ryan or some newcomer can match his efficiency and do it for an extended time while winning a few SBs.
Manning has an outside chance to catch Brady due to being on a great Denver team who can win at a high percentage, win a few SBs and improve his efficiency stats (which in a mile high stadium is possible), if he can just stop throwing INTs at the worst possible time. Then again, ESPN seems to praise Manning regardless of circumstance, so he may be able to ride them all the way, but history will probably discount ESPN and their QBR rating as it picked Manning last year as MVP candidate though it was Brady who led in EVERY advanced stat.
Brady never played for a team that was struggling offensively. Lets see what happens when he has a far less talented core of receivers to work with. If he can still produce at a very high level, he could be considered as a candidate for the greatest of all time. Personally, if I could choose between Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady while in their late 20's I would choose Rodgers. They are both very close in passing ability and performance. The tiebreaker is Rodger's far superior mobility (Brady's mobility is below average and Rodgers' is above average). And don't forget Brady's failures in two different Super Bowls where the Pats were highly favored vs. the Giants.

In 1963, Y.A. Tittle was the NFL MVP at age 37 who had a great group of receivers to work with (including 1st team All Pro, Del Shofner) and a very solid offensive line with Rosey Brown (1st team All Pro and Darrell Dess who played in the Pro Bowl).

Next year, Brown, Dess and Shofner missed a lot of playing time due to injuries and illness and only one starter on the offensive interior line stayed healthy for the entire season. Tittle's success swindled sharply as the Giants dropped from 11-3 the year before to 2-10-2.

TMD

“Look! Up in the sky!”

Since: Dec 06

Columbus, Ohio

#10243 Aug 3, 2013
Prometheus wrote:
<quoted text>
And the only common denominator is Brady. Shouldn't take a genius to figure it out. Even when the Pats finished in the bottom of the league in defense 3 years running, it was Brady at the top of his game that made them contenders.
Care to tell us what years you're talking about?

There is no doubt that Brady makes the Pats better, just how much better is the question. In the past, the MVP voters have felt that Manning made his teams better than Brady has made his.

.
The cast either magnifies or minimizes the QBs greatness. If Brady had either Montana's or Peyton's receivers, then he wouldn't be seen as their equals, he would be seen as far superior, as the advanced stats already show.
Most folks are unaware that there are different types of stats.
Most serious football fans are aware of most of the stats you keep speaking of, they just don't share your opinion of their meanings. And it doesn't really matter anyway, because that has nothing to do with who is the MVP.

.
Brett Favre is tops in the longevity stats simply because he played so long. Manning will do likewise and beats Favre in the efficiency stats.
Brady seems to want to play for a long time as well so he could be up there in the longevity stats, but it is in the efficiency stats where he is ahead of all the greats. Then there is the advanced stats where Brady again is ahead of all the greats. History will recognize him as the best ever unless Rodgers, Ryan or some newcomer can match his efficiency and do it for an extended time while winning a few SBs.
You seem to like talking about numbers even though you never post any to support all these claims you keep making. Regardless, the main underlying factor you keep forgetting is VOLUME. It's much easier to complete 7 of 10 passes, rather than 70 of 100. The sheer volume for Manning and Favre negate almost any efficiency stats Brady may produce simply because he has thrown (or been in the position to throw) so many fewer times. As he gets older and the numbers start to catch up, his efficiency ratings will drop back to the same levels as the other QBs you keep comparing him to.

.
Manning has an outside chance to catch Brady due to being on a great Denver team who can win at a high percentage, win a few SBs and improve his efficiency stats (which in a mile high stadium is possible), if he can just stop throwing INTs at the worst possible time.
I don't know where you're getting this "great" Denver team from. It's a good team, but far from "great". And Brady is the one who will fall back to the same stats as the other QBs you mentioned as the volume in his career increases.

.
Then again, ESPN seems to praise Manning regardless of circumstance, so he may be able to ride them all the way, but history will probably discount ESPN and their QBR rating as it picked Manning last year as MVP candidate though it was Brady who led in EVERY advanced stat.
ESPN, most sports writers, and other football academia praise Manning because he has proven, more than once, that he can take struggling football teams and make them SB contenders. That's something Brady has never done. As a matter of fact, his post-season performances have fallen back in the past 6 years, to the same levels as Manning's. The more ordinary a team Brady plays on, the more ordinary his numbers become.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#10244 Aug 3, 2013
TMD wrote:
<quoted text>
Care to tell us what years you're talking about?
There is no doubt that Brady makes the Pats better, just how much better is the question. In the past, the MVP voters have felt that Manning made his teams better than Brady has made his.
.
<quoted text>
Most serious football fans are aware of most of the stats you keep speaking of, they just don't share your opinion of their meanings. And it doesn't really matter anyway, because that has nothing to do with who is the MVP.
.
<quoted text>
You seem to like talking about numbers even though you never post any to support all these claims you keep making. Regardless, the main underlying factor you keep forgetting is VOLUME. It's much easier to complete 7 of 10 passes, rather than 70 of 100. The sheer volume for Manning and Favre negate almost any efficiency stats Brady may produce simply because he has thrown (or been in the position to throw) so many fewer times. As he gets older and the numbers start to catch up, his efficiency ratings will drop back to the same levels as the other QBs you keep comparing him to.
.
<quoted text>
I don't know where you're getting this "great" Denver team from. It's a good team, but far from "great". And Brady is the one who will fall back to the same stats as the other QBs you mentioned as the volume in his career increases.
.
<quoted text>
ESPN, most sports writers, and other football academia praise Manning because he has proven, more than once, that he can take struggling football teams and make them SB contenders. That's something Brady has never done. As a matter of fact, his post-season performances have fallen back in the past 6 years, to the same levels as Manning's. The more ordinary a team Brady plays on, the more ordinary his numbers become.
Brady has always operated under near optimum conditions. He has never been tested under truly adverse situations with his supporting cast. Let's see if he can be among the leaders this year with what looks like it will be a below average group of receivers to throw to barring some miracle where a player (or players) come out of nowhere to emerge as star performer(s).

TMD

“Look! Up in the sky!”

Since: Dec 06

Columbus, Ohio

#10245 Aug 3, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>Brady has always operated under near optimum conditions. He has never been tested under truly adverse situations with his supporting cast. Let's see if he can be among the leaders this year with what looks like it will be a below average group of receivers to throw to barring some miracle where a player (or players) come out of nowhere to emerge as star performer(s).
Hey BadCat. It's been awhile.

I'm not convinced that Brady's team will stand "pat" with the receivers they have now. In the past, if it looked like they needed help in a certain area they always went out and found suitable talent. They've made brilliant trades (Moss, Welker) to shore up deficiencies. I think through free agency and waiver acquisitions, that's probably what will happen this year. Brady will get all the help he needs.

Did you see where the Colts picked up Ahmad Bradshaw? We'll see which one of us is right about him. Loser owes the other a beer...

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#10246 Aug 3, 2013
TMD wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey BadCat. It's been awhile.
I'm not convinced that Brady's team will stand "pat" with the receivers they have now. In the past, if it looked like they needed help in a certain area they always went out and found suitable talent. They've made brilliant trades (Moss, Welker) to shore up deficiencies. I think through free agency and waiver acquisitions, that's probably what will happen this year. Brady will get all the help he needs.
Did you see where the Colts picked up Ahmad Bradshaw? We'll see which one of us is right about him. Loser owes the other a beer...
I am a giant fan and I had mixed feelings about his release. He has taken a pounding as the number one Giant running back the last few seasons, but I am certain he still has some life left in him. He did play well last year and can play hurt and still be effective.+ Salary cap problems played a large roll in his departure and the Giants felt they had the horses to replace him with. If David Wilson's performance last year is any indication of how he will perform as a regular, he should be more than able to replace Bradshaw and is a better pass receiver as well. Andre Brown is also a very dependable runner and is very close in ability to Bradshaw. Bottom line is that Ahmad Bradshaw will likely help the Colts. Perhaps he might be more valuable as the number one back up who will give whoever starts for the Colts an occasional breather, or simply provide an occasional change of pace for the offense.
Teacher

La Palma, CA

#10247 Aug 3, 2013
TMD wrote:
<quoted text>
A reasonable person would understand that the MVP award goes to the most VALUABLE player in the league, not the player with the best stats. That award goes to the Offensive/Defensive Players of the Year.
It's also worth noting, that Manning left the Colts and a system he helped develop, to turn around another struggling franchise, turning them into a top SB contender. Brady has played his entire career with a SB contending team and coach, and has not played one down on a struggling NFL team.
.
<quoted text>
Once again, it doesn't matter who had the (marginally) better stats. That's not what the MVP award is about. And, if you're saying that an average-looking, country bumpkin from Louisiana who's married to an average-looking, everyday housewife, is more marketable than Tom "Hollywood" Brady with his supermodel wife, and 3 rings, then I'd say that is Tom's fault, not ESPN's or Manning's.
.
<quoted text>
More fiction. Manning answers the question put to him, and like any QB who's worth anything, he wants to win championships much more than set records.
.
<quoted text>
Clearly he's into outscoring opponents. Up by 38 points with 3 minutes left and still throwing TD passes. Yes, he and Belichick are certainly into running up scores and setting records.
.
<quoted text>
And were it not for Vinatieri making those 3 field goals we would be speaking of Brady in the same terms as Jim Kelly. Woulda, shoulda, coulda...
.
<quoted text>
To begin with, you don't know what kind of defense or receivers Brady has to play with. None of us will until the season is over.
Secondly, if Denver was so easy to win with, why were Orton, Tebow, Griese, and Quinn, all, so massively unsuccessful? Obviously it's not as easy as you think. And if the Pats are so hard to win with, why was Cassel so successful with them? When he left to play for KC he was terrible. Obviously he had a LOT of help in NE...
If you were one of the seven dwarfs I'd guess you were Dopey. You answered your own question and don't even know it.
You admitted that Brady has always played on a good team while Manning has not. Quess you didn't know that the quarterback is the largest determining factor in whether a team is good or not. I don't disagree that Peyton is better than 99% of all the other quarterbacks, just not better than Brady, Graham, Montana, Young and Rodgers. And maybe even Brees, Ryan and Luck. Time will tell. But if Peyton can't win with a loaded Bronco team this year, better than the one Tebow took to the AFC Championship Game, his stock will go down. And if he loses games because of his interception problem, he could damage his legacy regardless of how much the writers seem to like him.
You should listen to the tapes. Manning does want to win but he also wants to go down in history as the greatest quarterback ever. Something I teach my kids that Manning has yet to learn - When you are thinking about hitting a Home run its hard to concentrate on hitting the ball and home runs come less frequently. Focus on the task at hand and stop thinking about the future when its time to act, and the hits will come. Thinking about the future comes in the planning phase not the operational phase. Manning needs to learn to wear blinders to avoid the confusion that seems to always o him in. Applies to everything you do. When Peyton learns to do this and stops throwing interceptions, then the critical wins will come and then, and only then will he belong in the Brady, Graham, Montana conversation.
You like Manning and I get that, many of us like him, he's funny and entertining, but Manning, like Jordan is a creation of the sports writers and some people will believe what they want, facts be damned. You need to wake up. Your current position makes you look like a little girl chasing a rabbit and falling down a hole (Alice in Wonderland reference). Maybe you are not Dopey after all, you could just be Sleepy.
Teacher

La Palma, CA

#10248 Aug 3, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>Brady has always operated under near optimum conditions. He has never been tested under truly adverse situations with his supporting cast. Let's see if he can be among the leaders this year with what looks like it will be a below average group of receivers to throw to barring some miracle where a player (or players) come out of nowhere to emerge as star performer(s).
What do you consider adverse conditions? If Brady does well you will say hs receivers are great. If he does poorly you will say its because of him. your logic suggests a Manning fan and ESPN convert.
Ever consider it the other way around? If Brady does well its because he is a top notch QB. If he does not, then he lacks the support from teammates.
To find the answer, let's look at history.
Montana and Young...great, great receivers (HoFers) won 4SBs &good efficiency stats (the longevity ones come w/time). They didn't play enough games due to injury to amass them yet great for the years they played.
Manning...excellent receivers (HoFers) yet won only a single SB and only made it to two.Good efficiency stats. Will make his name in the longevity stats if he continues to play. Could pass Favre if he stays healthy.
Brady...except for Moss one year, no name receivers (and you saw what he did the only year he had a single quality wideout) yet won 3 SBs and made the game winning TD in two others except for a defense that caved in the last minute. He ddn't throw an INT to lose SB as Manning did. And his efficiency stats are far superior to Mannings, and everyone else who has played for at least ten years. And now Brady says he wants to play well into his 40s which will give him the longevity stats, if like Manning, he can stay healthy. Seems clear to the rational mind. Manning with great WRs vs Brady with not. Brady wins 3 to 1, or 5 to 1 if you are just counting offenses. Could be 6 to 0 if you slow down the tape for the Pats//Colts game that took away a Pats 1st down that would have run the clock out the year the Colts won it.
Tom Brady is a lot like Larry Bird in that his physical athleticism is far behind many others, yet they both make up for it by using omething their usn't very much of in sports, smarts. You would do well to get some. We all would.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#10249 Aug 4, 2013
Teacher wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were one of the seven dwarfs I'd guess you were Dopey. You answered your own question and don't even know it.
You admitted that Brady has always played on a good team while Manning has not. Quess you didn't know that the quarterback is the largest determining factor in whether a team is good or not. I don't disagree that Peyton is better than 99% of all the other quarterbacks, just not better than Brady, Graham, Montana, Young and Rodgers. And maybe even Brees, Ryan and Luck. Time will tell. But if Peyton can't win with a loaded Bronco team this year, better than the one Tebow took to the AFC Championship Game, his stock will go down. And if he loses games because of his interception problem, he could damage his legacy regardless of how much the writers seem to like him.
You should listen to the tapes. Manning does want to win but he also wants to go down in history as the greatest quarterback ever. Something I teach my kids that Manning has yet to learn - When you are thinking about hitting a Home run its hard to concentrate on hitting the ball and home runs come less frequently. Focus on the task at hand and stop thinking about the future when its time to act, and the hits will come. Thinking about the future comes in the planning phase not the operational phase. Manning needs to learn to wear blinders to avoid the confusion that seems to always o him in. Applies to everything you do. When Peyton learns to do this and stops throwing interceptions, then the critical wins will come and then, and only then will he belong in the Brady, Graham, Montana conversation.
You like Manning and I get that, many of us like him, he's funny and entertining, but Manning, like Jordan is a creation of the sports writers and some people will believe what they want, facts be damned. You need to wake up. Your current position makes you look like a little girl chasing a rabbit and falling down a hole (Alice in Wonderland reference). Maybe you are not Dopey after all, you could just be Sleepy.
What about Brady's failure to deliver twice in recent years in the Super Bowl vs. the Giants when the Patriots were heavily favored? Hmmmmmm!

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#10250 Aug 4, 2013
Teacher wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you consider adverse conditions? If Brady does well you will say hs receivers are great. If he does poorly you will say its because of him. your logic suggests a Manning fan and ESPN convert.
Ever consider it the other way around? If Brady does well its because he is a top notch QB. If he does not, then he lacks the support from teammates.
To find the answer, let's look at history.
Montana and Young...great, great receivers (HoFers) won 4SBs &good efficiency stats (the longevity ones come w/time). They didn't play enough games due to injury to amass them yet great for the years they played.
Manning...excellent receivers (HoFers) yet won only a single SB and only made it to two.Good efficiency stats. Will make his name in the longevity stats if he continues to play. Could pass Favre if he stays healthy.
Brady...except for Moss one year, no name receivers (and you saw what he did the only year he had a single quality wideout) yet won 3 SBs and made the game winning TD in two others except for a defense that caved in the last minute. He ddn't throw an INT to lose SB as Manning did. And his efficiency stats are far superior to Mannings, and everyone else who has played for at least ten years. And now Brady says he wants to play well into his 40s which will give him the longevity stats, if like Manning, he can stay healthy. Seems clear to the rational mind. Manning with great WRs vs Brady with not. Brady wins 3 to 1, or 5 to 1 if you are just counting offenses. Could be 6 to 0 if you slow down the tape for the Pats//Colts game that took away a Pats 1st down that would have run the clock out the year the Colts won it.
Tom Brady is a lot like Larry Bird in that his physical athleticism is far behind many others, yet they both make up for it by using omething their usn't very much of in sports, smarts. You would do well to get some. We all would.
Playing with a highly rated group of wide rivers with a very good offensive line and a good running game is optimum conditions. Playing with a team that is not strong in both categories is certainly less than optimum. Even a journeyman QB can produce very good results behind a strong line and a great cast of receivers. Remeber Norn Snead for the Giants in 1972? That year, the Giants offensive line was solid, Ron Johnson was a solid performer as a running back who also was an evvective receiver and underrated TE Bob Tucker had another fine season and their wideout. although not spectacular, were all good possession receivers who ran precise patterns and rarely dropped the ball. Snead was first team All Pro after a previously undistinguished career. Next year, injuries took its toll on the team and Snead proved that 1972 was just a fluke and would eventually yield his starting job to another journeyman QB, Randy Johnson.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#10251 Aug 4, 2013
I meant wide receivers.
Mensa4

La Palma, CA

#10252 Aug 4, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
I meant wide receivers.
Is your forgetfulness accidental or of convenience. The Pats running game never had the likes of Indy's. Marshall Faulk or Edggerin James and both are far superior to anyone the Pats have had. The best the Pats had was a couple years of Corry Dillion, not the 15 years of quality backs they had in Indy. Only last year did the Pats show any sign of a running game yet had no wideouts, while Denver had both and a top five defense to the Pats #29. And Denver then proceeded to lose to the Pats.
And even though the press blamed the CB for losing the game against the Ravens, he didn't. All he did was allow them back in the game where it was Peyton who self destructed once again throwing his normal INT to end his season.
Teacher

La Palma, CA

#10253 Aug 4, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>What about Brady's failure to deliver twice in recent years in the Super Bowl vs. the Giants when the Patriots were heavily favored? Hmmmmmm!
He did deliver. He scored what was thought to be the winning TD with little time on the clock in both games. It was the Pats defense that threw it away. Not like Manning throwing an INT in a tie game that lost it.
There is a difference between losing the way Peyton does it, throwing INTs to end the game and the way Brady does it, scoring only to see his defense lose it.
I know, Peyton's defense failed him. Yet they only let the Ravens back in the game. It was Manning himself that lost it yet he is never held accountable. The sports writers dumped on the CB instead. How nice to have the media overlook your shortfalls and praise you for things you haven't earned. If Manning screws it up with all the support he gets from the media now, can't wait to see how he handles it when they turn on him. They usually do.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#10254 Aug 4, 2013
Mensa4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is your forgetfulness accidental or of convenience. The Pats running game never had the likes of Indy's. Marshall Faulk or Edggerin James and both are far superior to anyone the Pats have had. The best the Pats had was a couple years of Corry Dillion, not the 15 years of quality backs they had in Indy. Only last year did the Pats show any sign of a running game yet had no wideouts, while Denver had both and a top five defense to the Pats #29. And Denver then proceeded to lose to the Pats.
And even though the press blamed the CB for losing the game against the Ravens, he didn't. All he did was allow them back in the game where it was Peyton who self destructed once again throwing his normal INT to end his season.
Why the insulting language. You are taking things much to seriously here.

Is Wesley Welker no wideout? Get real! They also had two of the best receiving TEs in football. The Pats running game over the years has been far from inadequate. It is also not always the best runners who actually do the most effective job. Tiki Barber had a rushing average comparable or better than some of the more highly rated runners of his time in the NFL. We can try to split hairs over the issue of what optimum is, but the plain fact of the matter is that Brady always had a better than adequate offense to work with. I wonder what he would have done if he played for the houston Texans instead of David Carr some ten years ago when Carr was always running for his life almost every time he dropped back to pass.

Last but not least, how do you explain Brady's failures in his last two Super Bowls when heavily favored against a Giant team that just barely made it into the playoffs both years? The truly great ones don't lose big games to clearly lesser teams.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

NFL Players Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colin Kaepernick 1 min COLORED BOY 58
News Tony Stewart calls Colin Kaepernick an 'idiot' 1 hr BamaMan 5
News Kaepernick decision not to stand for anthem get... Mon y 1
News Matthews, Peppers talk PEDs with NFL investigators Mon y 2
News Rams rookie receiver Pharoh Cooper out with sho... Mon y 2
News Gold Star mom on Kaepernick: I see a flag that ... Mon y 2
News Patriots QB Brady expected to make preseason debut Mon Disgusted 4
More from around the web