I concur that protection is vital, you got that one right, but you got your facts backward yet again, and again. Manning had the better protection and by a lot, over 50% better.<quoted text>BVery subjective. Welker had the ability, but wasn't properly utilized before coming to NE. He also very good pass protection his entire career which buys him time to find open receivers. If a team can't protect the QB, the best receivers in football won't be of much help. The offensive line is every bit as important as the receivers for the passing game.
Do any of you Peyton lovers ever do your homework, or do you just make it up as you go?
Since all the high IQ guys can see the facts point to Brady, I can only assume that leaves slim Pickens in the brain department for Manning lovers.
Manning has been sacked 252 times in 14 years. That's 252/14=18 sacks er year.
Brady has been sacked 303 times in 11 years. That's 303/11=27.5 sacks per year.
Brady is sacked 52.78% more than Manning.
How in the world is that better protection?
Yet another Manning fan who doesn't know the facts,
And that's the only way you can lift Manning to Brady's level.
When you make the numbers up in your head and disregard the facts, yeah, Manning IS better.
And I'm just a bar tender. What's your excuse or puting your brain on hold?