Enough is enough. Peyton Manning is the greatest QB of all time.

[Deviant]

Why do people bring up that Nick Harper play? The game was OVER when Peyton threw that pick to Polamalu in all actuality. The NFL tried to bail Peyton out and still couldn't do it, because instead of Manning try to move his team closer and closer to a touchdown or better FG range he kept throwing bombs into the endzone to Wayne and not go underneath to James and Stokley who were consistently wide open. Jeezus. And yes, they were down "3", although never should have gotten to that point.

If you're going to mention the Polamalu pick, don't talk about Brady and how great he is. Tuck rule. That's a game Brady doesn't deserve to win. Funny how you don't mention that.

I just don't see how anyone could ever say Manning > Brady...

When Brady has owned the head to head playoff games, has the rings, has an MVP of his own, has the TD record in a single season taking it AWAY FROM PEYTON, has most TDs in a single quarter, has put up good numbers his whole career with less then ideal weapons, multiple SB rings, and is a guy who is always getting his team to the post-season and being a clutch king. Makes no sense. Manning has career numbers on him, mainly being the beneficiary of better weapons his entire career, and a DOME to play in.

I immediately considered Brady the best QB in the league after he hung up 42 on the Steelers #1 ranked 2005 D, and went on to win his 2nd SB in a shoot-out. He's the man.

He got his TD record throwing deep bombs to Randy Moss and screen passes to Wes Welker and running up the score unnecessarily. Also, Peyton broke Marino's record in 15 games. Peyton took only one possession in their last game. Brady needed all 16 games, every single possession that he took, to break that record. Peyton actually gets pulled out of games that are blowouts. Also, Peyton's 49 was much more impressive. 1,000 yards and 10 TDs to three different receivers (something that has never been done in NFL history).

How can you do head-to-head match-ups? This ISN'T basketball. Does Peyton play defense on Brady? No. So, how can you talk about QB match-ups in playoff games?

Wow... he has the most TDs in a quarter against an injured secondary that was leaving receivers 20 yards open. I'm impressed.

Also, Tom Brady consistently has the/one of the best defenses in the league in his championship runs. Remember, "defense wins championships"? If Brady were really the best QB in the league and the most clutch QB, he sure knew how to blow it in what should have been the biggest victory in NFL history to go 18-1.

Beneficiary of his weapons? Now, you're making excuses. If anyone was a beneficiary of his weapons, it was Brady in 2007. He hasn't had Reggie Wayne, Brandon Stokley, Anthony Gonzalez, and Dallas Clark his entire career. Remember when Marcus Pollard was one of the biggest pass-catching TEs in the league? Funny how he disappeared off the face of the earth when he went to Detroit and they expected huge things out of him. In fact, Peyton's putting up BETTER numbers than ever before working with two new guys: Pierre Garcon and Austin Collie. They're quickly becoming huge names.

When you're Tom Brady and have the best defense in the league, you don't need to put up monster numbers or have great weapons. In fact, I dare say that Tom Brady "Trent Dilfer'd" his first Super Bowl run. At no moment did Tom Brady ever have to be great and he benefited from the "Tuck Rule", Drew Bledsoe (who had as many TDs as Brady did in the playoffs that year), and that tenacious defense. No one ever talks about that though and instead talks about how great Brady was to take this team to their first of three Super Bowls.

[JeremyHight]

How could this even be true? You could make a legit argument for both.

Can you make an argument for both? Sure, but Montana beats both handedly and it isn't even close. Montana is a better post-season QB than both of them and Montana's career per game numbers in all games are on par with Manning's and better than Brady's.

[Bear Pand]

Can you make an argument for both? Sure, but Montana beats both handedly and it isn't even close. Montana is a better post-season QB than both of them and Montana's career per game numbers in all games are on par with Manning's and better than Brady's.

All games including playoffs

Montana:

63.12%
5.19 TD%
7.56 Y/A
2.61 INT%
231 yards / game
92.7 QB Rating

Manning:

64.45%
5.49 TD%
7.67 Y/A
2.76 INT%
263 yards / game
94.6 QB Rating

Brady:

63.10%
5.26 TD%
7.17 Y/A
2.26 INT %
237 yards/game
92.7 QB Rating

I bolded the best number in each category. You can't say his per game numbers are on par with Manning and better than Brady. His numbers are closer to Brady's. I'm not trying to say that any of these QBs are better or worse than another based on this, just Brady and Manning are def. in the conversation.

[celtsxpatsxsox]

He got his TD record throwing deep bombs to Randy Moss and screen passes to Wes Welker and running up the score unnecessarily.

So Brady's is less impressive cause he got to throw to Moss and Welker but Manning's is more even though he got to throw to Harrison and Wayne? Also lol at mentioning the running up the score. Those defensive player are getting payed a lot of money and it is the job to stop them.

Also, Peyton broke Marino's record in 15 games. Peyton took only one possession in their last game. Brady needed all 16 games, every single possession that he took, to break that record.

Brady also threw less interceptions in more games and more attempts than Manning did so the imo makes Brady's season more impressive.

Wow... he has the most TDs in a quarter against an injured secondary that was leaving receivers 20 yards open. I'm impressed.

So can we disregard Manning's stats in the two games that he gets to play the Titans?

Also, Tom Brady consistently has the/one of the best defenses in the league in his championship runs. Remember, "defense wins championships"?

I have always hated that saying. Defense doesn't put points on the board (sometimes). Thats the offenses job. IMO Defenses can keep you in games or they can lose games but they dont go out and "win" games.

If Brady were really the best QB in the league and the most clutch QB, he sure knew how to blow it in what should have been the biggest victory in NFL history to go 18-1.

Brady did not blow the superbowl. He put the Patriots in a situation to win and it was the defenses inability to make plays on the final drive which ended up costing us the game.

Beneficiary of his weapons? Now, you're making excuses. If anyone was a beneficiary of his weapons, it was Brady in 2007. He hasn't had Reggie Wayne, Brandon Stokley, Anthony Gonzalez, and Dallas Clark his entire career. Remember when Marcus Pollard was one of the biggest pass-catching TEs in the league? Funny how he disappeared off the face of the earth when he went to Detroit and they expected huge things out of him. In fact, Peyton's putting up BETTER numbers than ever before working with two new guys: Pierre Garcon and Austin Collie. They're quickly becoming huge names.

What if (what ifs are dumb but this whole thread is full of em so) Brady had hall of fame receiver or a consistent receiving core his whole career instead of having David Givens, David Patten, Deion Branch, and lets not forget that horrible receiving core in 2006 in which he almost took to the superbowl. He finally got a HOF caliber receiver in 07 and he proved what he can do.

As for Marcus Pollard. He had his third best season in Detroit yards wise so you can't say he didn't do shit after he left Indy.

When you're Tom Brady and have the best defense in the league, you don't need to put up monster numbers or have great weapons. In fact, I dare say that Tom Brady "Trent Dilfer'd" his first Super Bowl run. At no moment did Tom Brady ever have to be great and he benefited from the "Tuck Rule", Drew Bledsoe (who had as many TDs as Brady did in the playoffs that year), and that tenacious defense. No one ever talks about that though and instead talks about how great Brady was to take this team to their first of three Super Bowls.

I will be the first to say Tom Brady Trent Dilfer'd it in his first playoff run up until his game winning drive.

I also don't why you mentioned Drew Bledsoe unless you are just another one of the people that says if Bledsoe didn't get injured then Brady wouldn't of started even though Belichick admitted that Brady was going to eventually be the starter that year because he didn't think he could win with Bledsoe.

[Warner2BruceTD]

It took 25 pages, but here we are, in yet another thrilling installment of Manning vs. Brady.

Close the thread. Everyone made their points (multiple times). Nothing new can be added, and nobody needs Brady vs. Manning.

[KoRnStARr]

lol @ not reading the message because it's Bob Kravitz. Pathetic. He makes legit points and isn't a homer.

The Colts are the Atlanta Braves of the NFL. All regular season glory, hardly anything to ever show for it.

Deviant, you can't compare the tuck rule and the Polamalu pick for multiple reasons. One, they got the Brady call right by definition of rule. Two, they got the Polamalu call by definition of wrong and the NFL had to apologize for it. Three, Brady actually won the game. Four, Peyton still didn't win the game.

[Esjay]

lol @ not reading the message because it's Bob Kravitz. Pathetic. He makes legit points and isn't a homer.

The Colts are the Atlanta Braves of the NFL. All regular season glory, hardly anything to ever show for it.

Deviant, you can't compare the tuck rule and the Polamalu pick for multiple reasons. One, they got the Brady call right by definition of rule. Two, they got the Polamalu call by definition of wrong and the NFL had to apologize for it. Three, Brady actually won the game. Four, Peyton still didn't win the game.

You're a moron. Brady didn't win shit, and Peyton didn't lose shit. The Patriots won and the Colts lost. Get that through your thick fucking skull.

Mannings numbers aren't as good in the playoffs as they are in the regular season. We get it. He's still the best I've ever seen and nothing Kornstar of all people says is going to change that. Same dude who tried to tell me Hines Ward was a better WR than Marvin Harrison .. definitely somebody you go to when looking for NFL knowledge. LOL

[Bear Pand]

lol @ not reading the message because it's Bob Kravitz. Pathetic. He makes legit points and isn't a homer.

The Colts are the Atlanta Braves of the NFL. All regular season glory, hardly anything to ever show for it.

lol @ you writing a disclaimer when you posted those articles cause you already know what the deal is with Kravitz.

He knows it pays more to write negative articles about the Colts since everyone else has mostly positive things to say.

[FirstTimer]

this is about QBs alone.

Ok, so if it's about QB's alone then why does margin of win play into the equation since the QB's own defense has just as much to say about that as the QB and the offense?

Brady is not one of the greats because he got bloated stats in a weak parity ,free agency period in football.

So did Favre but you are all over his nuts.....

They will be forgotten 10 and 20 years from now for whomever the new breed QBs will be

Maybe by dolts like you but plenty f people remember guys like Starr, Graham, Unitas, etc.


Until you have a clue please don't post here.

[ram29jackson]

Ok, so if it's about QB's alone then why does margin of win play into the equation since the QB's own defense has just as much to say about that as the QB and the offense?





So did Favre but you are all over his nuts.....


Maybe by dolts like you but plenty f people remember guys like Starr, Graham, Unitas, etc.


Until you have a clue please don't post here.

You are ignorant in your remarks. Favre did play a majority of time when things still had more balance and better competition unlike Brady etc whos careers are during the worst matchups in history.


no, they only remember them by name. No , one here ever saw them play nor cares about their numbers. its just a statement in fact. I remember them from history too but they dont matter in the now. Like I said , there is no such thing as best ever, only best for now.

your statements are childish fodder, clueless in every way.

[Bear Pand]

no, they only remember them by name. No , one here ever saw them play nor cares about their numbers. its just a statement in fact. I remember them from history too but they dont matter in the now. Like I said , there is no such thing as best ever, only best for now.

combination of most of us not being alive when they played, and there not being an easy method to go back and watch their games. Who's really gonna go dig up black and white Unitas game tapes? This same thing won't apply to current players later on down the road.

[ram29jackson]

combination of most of us not being alive when they played, and there not being an easy method to go back and watch their games. Who's really gonna go dig up black and white Unitas game tapes? This same thing won't apply to current players later on down the road.

yes it will. theres plenty of footage of plenty of players from the 50s 60s and 70s at NFL films and other places and no one on a mass level has ever seen it. NFL films should really dig deep year 'round to show us old football stuff but they regurgitate the same stuff every year. By now I would expect to see countless full games from 30 years ago. when you get older it will be the same thing . it will be more talk than visualization.

[FirstTimer]

You are ignorant in your remarks. Favre did play a majority of time when things still had more balance and better competition unlike Brady etc whos careers are during the worst matchups in history.

Ha! More balance? Favre played when the Cowboys dominated, the Broncos won back to back then when the Patriots dynasty took over. Don't forget the Steelers being a constant player either. The Rams made back to back Super Bowls. The Bills made 4 straight(2 straight with Favre in the league)....all during Favre's era.

STFU and learn about the game.

no, they only remember them by name. No , one here ever saw them play nor cares about their numbers. its just a statement in fact. I remember them from history too but they dont matter in the now. Like I said , there is no such thing as best ever, only best for now.

your statements are childish fodder, clueless in every way.

Shut the hell up. I'm willing to bet there is more film of Eric Metcalf then there is of Unitas out there.

Also I love how you abandoned your idiotic "margin of victory" idea once it was blown up.

combination of most of us not being alive when they played, and there not being an easy method to go back and watch their games. Who's really gonna go dig up black and white Unitas game tapes? This same thing won't apply to current players later on down the road.

Ding ding ding.

[ram29jackson]

(((([QUOTE=Firsttimer;868485]Ha! More balance? Favre played when the Cowboys dominated, the Broncos won back to back then when the Patriots dynasty took over. Don't forget the Steelers being a constant player either. The Rams made back to back Super Bowls. The Bills made 4 straight(2 straight with Favre in the league)....all during Favre's era.

STFU and learn about the game.)))))


read between the lines you simpleton. There was better quality of play even 15 years ago than there is now. Regardless of what really good teams there were, the teams beneath them werent as bad as they are now.





(((((((Shut the hell up. I'm willing to bet there is more film of Eric Metcalf then there is of Unitas out there.)))




I never said there wasnt. Point being you wont see much of either.




((((Also I love how you abandoned your idiotic "margin of victory" idea once it was blown up.)))))


I have no idea what the hell your talking about you obsessive freak? If it had anything to with me, remembering stuff you typed on a site is really unimportant I may have forgotten more than I abandoned anything.

Get a life, please.

[Bear Pand]

yes it will. theres plenty of footage of plenty of players from the 50s 60s and 70s at NFL films and other places and no one on a mass level has ever seen it. NFL films should really dig deep year 'round to show us old football stuff but they regurgitate the same stuff every year. By now I would expect to see countless full games from 30 years ago. when you get older it will be the same thing . it will be more talk than visualization.

have you ever heard of things like youtube?