Peyton Manning vs. Tom Brady

[Mr. Friscus]

Let's do this. Who wants some. I say Peyton Manning all day. If you disagree, say so, and why.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

Tom Brady was clearly the best QB of all time. Peyton was really good but he's still behind Joe Montana as far as all-time greats.

What made Brady great was the way he dissected a game, it was unparalleled.
He was the ultimate game manager that could take what a defense gave him & move the ball against them all but he excelled in crunch time.
He knew when to throw the fast ball or put touch on it to lay it over a defender.
He was careful withy the ball & didn't turn it over at a high rate.
He took 10 teams to the Super Bowl & won 7 & 3 more teams to the divisional championship game.
That's 13 teams to championship games & Super Bowl victories with 2 different teams in 20 seasons.

 

[Meister]

I don't like Brady, but his stats prove himself.

 

[jehanne1431]

Cannot compare eras. QBs in the 60s and 70s called their own plays and there was not as much emphasis on passing, plus the rules favored the defenders more back then. In that group were many greats like Unitas, Tarkenton, Lamonica, Jurgenson, Brodie, Meredith, Hadl, others.
In the 80s and 90s superstars like Marino, Montana, Fouts, etc. had awesome offenses to watch.
Brady could be the greatest ever, but I think those QBs who enjoyed fantastic pass protection and had more time to throw surely benefited their passing production. So take that great advantage away and it's a different ball game. Marino could be the greatest too, be he, also, had terrific protection.

 

[citygator]

Let's do this. Who wants some. I say Peyton Manning all day. If you disagree, say so, and why.

You have to be talking about commercials? Manning is way better if that’s the case.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Tom Brady was clearly the best QB of all time. Peyton was really good but he's still behind Joe Montana as far as all-time greats.

What made Brady great was the way he dissected a game, it was unparalleled.
He was the ultimate game manager that could take what a defense gave him & move the ball against them all but he excelled in crunch time.
He knew when to throw the fast ball or put touch on it to lay it over a defender.
He was careful withy the ball & didn't turn it over at a high rate.
He took 10 teams to the Super Bowl & won 7 & 3 more teams to the divisional championship game.
That's 13 teams to championship games & Super Bowl victories with 2 different teams in 20 seasons.

I disagree.

Manning was at the helm of better offenses than Brady's most seasons. Manning was more dangerous, he just had far worse defenses than Brady did, so Brady could win average or bad games while Manning would lose.

Throughout Brady's career, the average defense of his team was 7th best in the league. Manning's was 17th. Manning often had to do way more to win games than Brady, and Brady was gifted multiple championships by happenstance (tuck rule, butler interception, his horrible game against the Rams)

Brady is an all-time great, but without all the help he got with a solid stable organization in the Patriots and great defenses.. he wouldn't have been as successful. Meanwhile, if Manning had all the privilege Brady did, he would have won a LOT more super bowls.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Cannot compare eras. QBs in the 60s and 70s called their own plays and there was not as much emphasis on passing, plus the rules favored the defenders more back then. In that group were many greats like Unitas, Tarkenton, Lamonica, Jurgenson, Brodie, Meredith, Hadl, others.
In the 80s and 90s superstars like Marino, Montana, Fouts, etc. had awesome offenses to watch.
Brady could be the greatest ever, but I think those QBs who enjoyed fantastic pass protection and had more time to throw surely benefited their passing production. So take that great advantage away and it's a different ball game. Marino could be the greatest too, be he, also, had terrific protection.

I didn't compare eras, this is comparing two QB's in mostly the same era.

What you can compare between eras is how much above the rest of the pack someone is. Guys like Tarkenton, Marino, and Manning were guys who distanced themselves from everyone else during their eras. Those are the guys who were the most dangerous QB's.

 

[jehanne1431]

I didn't compare eras, this is comparing two QB's in mostly the same era.

What you can compare between eras is how much above the rest of the pack someone is. Guys like Tarkenton, Marino, and Manning were guys who distanced themselves from everyone else during their eras. Those are the guys who were the most dangerous QB's.

very good point here, and neither was my comment really addressing either your question between the two, and your reasoning giving Manning more credit. Agreed. That is so often the case when they put all the emphasis on championships. Look at the team that surrounded them. That makes all the difference in winning championships or even getting close. Credit to Brady for rallying Tampa Bay to a Super Bowl, that has merit. But on the other hand, if Brady was stuck on Jacksonville his whole career would we think as highly of him as an individual great when his records aren't as good and playoff appearances sparse?

The other point we both brought up, the best way to compare greatness is how much a player may have surpassed other great players of his same era. Like Gretzky for instance. He was so dominant. And Jimmy Brown. He was amazing. As two of my best examples.

To

 

[Mr. Friscus]

very good point here, and neither was my comment really addressing either your question between the two, and your reasoning giving Manning more credit. Agreed. That is so often the case when they put all the emphasis on championships. Look at the team that surrounded them. That makes all the difference in winning championships or even getting close. Credit to Brady for rallying Tampa Bay to a Super Bowl, that has merit. But on the other hand, if Brady was stuck on Jacksonville his whole career would we think as highly of him as an individual great when his records aren't as good and playoff appearances sparse?

The other point we both brought up, the best way to compare greatness is how much a player may have surpassed other great players of his same era. Like Gretzky for instance. He was so dominant. And Jimmy Brown. He was amazing. As two of my best examples.

To

It's very interesting to watch the sports pundits and media institutions create the problems that they whine about.

For example, the ESPN generation has valued NBA players by seemingly championships alone. We hear it all the time by Michael Jordan disciples.. 6 rings, 6 rings, 6 rings, when discussing GOAT convos involving Magic, Lebron, Kareem (Not Bill Russell.. he won 11, so MJ disciples pretend he doesn't exist or create a narrative that players were mentally handicapped back then)...

So, since it's "championship or bust" in the culture for so long, players start to rest more to be ready for the playoffs. It makes sense.. but does it to ESPN? Nooooo. They lambast the guy, questioning his dedication and manhood.

They want their cake and eat it too. Different sports have different amounts of participation for championships as far as what can be held against them. I'd say if you're a super star on a pro sports team, you have the most influence on the outcome of your team's season in the NBA, then the NFL, followed by NHL and finally MLB. Superstars in baseball like Mike Trout can be amazing and yet tucked away on an average team that isn't in the playoffs for a decade.

Without looking it up, I'm quite certain Gretzky doesn't have the most Stanley cup championships, but out of all the sports, he has the greatest claim to be the GOAT in his sport by far.

 

[Riff Raff]

Let's do this. Who wants some. I say Peyton Manning all day. If you disagree, say so, and why.

During their 16 years of playing in the NFL together, Peyton Manning was better in every major statistical category for individual play at the quarterback position. Hands down, it is indisputable that Peyton Manning is superior to Tom Brady.

 

[The Duke]

Let's do this. Who wants some. I say Peyton Manning all day. If you disagree, say so, and why.

Brady is the GOAT! 1 more Superbowl coming up, baby!
Except 2007 when I lost $100 and the Pats were undefeated until Eli Manning used college ball tactics in the Superbowl and they worked!
I highly recommend watching that game. It was awesome!

 

[Riff Raff]

Anybody that watched Peyton Manning's command of the field during a game knew they were witnessing greatness not seen elsewhere.

 

[The Duke]

Anybody that watched Peyton Manning's command of the field during a game knew they were witnessing greatness not seen elsewhere.

Peyton and Eli are steeped in football, there's no doubt of that.

 

[themirrorthief]

Peyton and Eli are steeped in football, there's no doubt of that.

Joe Namath had the best arm i ever saw

 

[multivita-man]

Tom Brady was clearly the best QB of all time. Peyton was really good but he's still behind Joe Montana as far as all-time greats.

What made Brady great was the way he dissected a game, it was unparalleled.
He was the ultimate game manager that could take what a defense gave him & move the ball against them all but he excelled in crunch time.
He knew when to throw the fast ball or put touch on it to lay it over a defender.
He was careful withy the ball & didn't turn it over at a high rate.
He took 10 teams to the Super Bowl & won 7 & 3 more teams to the divisional championship game.
That's 13 teams to championship games & Super Bowl victories with 2 different teams in 20 seasons.

I really don't know why but I've always had a personal bias against Peyton Manning, probably because I grew up in Louisiana and had to hear about how effing great he was.

Begrudgingly, I have to agree: he was effing great. I can't tell who's better, Manning or Brady. Anyone who says one is clearly better than the other is a fool, IMO. Brady clearly has the hardware, but Brady had the benefit of working in one very solid, very well managed organization his entire career. Manning went to a franchise that was mired in mediocrity - if even that - and turned it into a perennial contender, and eventually a Super Bowl winner.

Both can say that they went and won a title with a different franchise. I think Manning might have won another SB had his neck not gotten cranked, but that's speculation.

They're both great. I'm content to leave it at that.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I really don't know why but I've always had a personal bias against Peyton Manning, probably because I grew up in Louisiana and had to hear about how effing great he was.

Begrudgingly, I have to agree: he was effing great. I can't tell who's better, Manning or Brady. Anyone who says one is clearly better than the other is a fool, IMO. Brady clearly has the hardware, but Brady had the benefit of working in one very solid, very well managed organization his entire career. Manning went to a franchise that was mired in mediocrity - if even that - and turned it into a perennial contender, and eventually a Super Bowl winner.

Both can say that they went and won a title with a different franchise. I think Manning might have won another SB had his neck not gotten cranked, but that's speculation.

They're both great. I'm content to leave it at that.

That's a respectful take that I'll mostly agree with. I'm a Peyton Manning fan through-and-through, so let me make that known. A few thoughts..

Brady benefited GREATLY from a legendary defense and scheme in his early Super Bowl Victories. He was truly a game manager back then, but I'll give him credit that while he was young he didn't make a ton of mistakes. However, he wasn't often dominating playoff games back then, and he didn't have to, as his defense didn't allow much. Brady won a super bowl without even throwing a TD pass for the entire playoff run one year. Meanwhile, he was clearly bailed out by the Tuck Rule game in another year. Yet, you heard people try to say in the early 2000's that Brady was better than Manning because Brady was winning super bowls, it was laughable but yet mentioned far too often. Troy Aikman won 3 but nobody talks about him as some all-time great QB, and probably for good reason.

Brady then developed into an all-time great QB, especially after his injury. As a Manning fan, over time I have certainly grown to appreciate and respect Tom's game, his work ethic, and just him as a person. I think it's much like a Magic vs. Bird rivalry, there's really not a true "winner". Peyton at his best was better than Tom at his best, but Peyton was more of a rhythm QB while Brady appeared to be able to be very good even during his bad games in his prime of his career, which was the middle to late.

The most important thing for me is how epic the Patriots vs. Colts games were, and as a massive Colts fan from 1996-2012, then I followed Peyton to the Broncos up until his retirement, while it was bitter to lose to the Patriots, it was so gratifying to beat them. Manning has a 3-2 edge over Brady in AFC Championships games, which is the latest each other could play their rival.

If Anyone wants to leave it at "they're both great", I'm okay with that. Of course, that's shunned by today's hot-take culture.

 

[Riff Raff]

The Patriots cheated in a game-changing way during the entire time of the Colts-Patriots Manning-Brady* rivalry, which started in Belichick's first year as coach there. The Colts offensive and defensive play signals were decoded and matched to the Patriots best counter play, then quickly relayed to the field before the play was snapped. All discussion of the rivalry between Manning and Brady* requires an asterick beside Brady's* name.

 

[basquebromance]

 

[Canon Shooter]

In the 80s and 90s superstars like Marino, Montana, Fouts, etc. had awesome offenses to watch.

You can't list Montana with the likes of Fouts and Marino. Neither of them have rings, and Montana has four of them...

 

[jehanne1431]

You can't list Montana with the likes of Fouts and Marino. Neither of them have rings, and Montana has four of them...

A number on this thread have been calling that argument weak. It cannot stand on its own. If Montana played for the Lions all his career we would not be reading about how he was among the greatest, and surely no rings.