Why Does Peyton Manning Get the Tebow Treatment Every Year?

[Bigdaddyburch]

All nonsense apart, good luck to your son.

Thanks.

[Quinnsanity]

Before I get into this, I just want to say that I'm done with this argument after this post. It started as a fun debate, it's now gotten to the point where it's just a waste of my time. I've just spent way too much time on this, and somewhere between you saying I was "vexed" and using draft position as an indicator of which QB was better I realized you're either a troll or you just don't know what you're talking about. Based on what other people seem to be saying, I'm leaning troll. But anyway, here we go.

2008: Brees and Rivers among QB's were better, there was also a good amount of defenders ahead of all three.

2009: Rivers and Rodgers both better and assorted defenders as well.

2003: #1 QB, but not #1 player, more like #5

2004: Clear winner.

Out of that, I count 1 for sure, perhaps 2, not 4. Subjective belief/popularity does not stand up to reality.

First of all, let's talk defenders. Only two of them have won MVPs (Alan Page and Lawrence Taylor) and they were all time greats at their absolute peak. That's how the MVP works. There's a reason QBs win it most years, they are by far the most important person on the field. You also have to account for era. It might have made sense for defenders to win when Page and Taylor did, because football relied more on defense and the running game. Now it's entirely a QB's game. For a defender to win in ANY year they have to have a legendary season AND have no deserving QBs OR RBs. For a defender to win in today's day in age that would have to happen to some ridiculous degree, like getting 25 sacks for a 14-2 team with the 30th ranked offense or something. It's just common sense. Defenses are made as units, no one player can completely carry one. Offenses can, as we've seen several times, be carried by a great quarterback. At the very least, the QB means significantly more than any individual defender, but I guess you could argue exactly how much that difference is. That means there would have to be a MASSIVE statistical gap for a defender to top a QB. Now let's go year by year.

2009: Rivers and Rodgers weren't his competition for that award, Brees was, and I've already detailed my argument for Manning in against him. But I'll talk Rivers and Rodgers. Manning beat Rivers in yards, TDs, completion percentage QBR (ESPN's passer rating) and record. Rivers won INTs (albeit by a decent amount) and passer rating. The Colts also had a harder schedule (13th vs. 17th), a worse defense (16th vs. 18th), and I'd argue Manning had a worse supporting cast as Wayne and Clark are essentially cancelled out by Vincent Jackson and Antonio Gates, but Rivers had a better line (this was when they still had guys like Dielman and Marcus McNeil, and Hardwick was younger). I see the argument for Rivers, but Manning beats him in my mind.

As for Rodgers, Manning beats him in yards, TDs, completion percentage, QBR, passer rating and record. Rodgers only beats Manning in INTs. Combine that with the fact that Rodgers had the league's 2nd ranked defense and 3rd easiest schedule and I'd say Manning has him beat by a decent margin.

2008: Didn't mention 2008, but nobody really touched him in the eyes of the voters and they shouldn't have. You could make an argument for Rivers I guess, but their stats were similar (yards were only a difference of 7 so that's negligible) Manning won completion percentage and QBR, Rivers won TDs and INTs (both by 1) and passer rating. However, Indy went 12-4 and San Diego went 8-8 despite massive differences in defense (San Diego was 8th, Indy 22nd) and schedule (San Diego had 3rd easiest, Indy had 2nd hardest). So let's close the case on this one.

2004: Agreed.

2003: More like #5? you admit he was the #1 QB so we can throw McNair out. The only other guy who had an argument was Jamal Lewis, who ran for 2000 yards. However, that feat was made easier by the fact that Lewis had the 4th best offensive line in the NFL (as rated by football outsiders, who do this statistically), and had the benefit of playing with the league's 3rd ranked defense compared to Indy's 11th ranked defense. I am by no means trying to disparage what Lewis did because it was a remarkable accomplishment, but in terms of value to the team I think Manning provided more. Lewis has a legitimate argument though.

Just for the record, here are their MVP finishes by year starting with 2001 (Brady's first year as a candidate).

Manning: N/R, N/R, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, N/R, 1st, 1st, N/R, N/R (2011, missed season).

Brady: N/R, N/R, 3rd, N/R, 3rd, N/R, 1st, N/R (2008, missed season), N/R, 1st, N/R.

If you're wondering where those N/R's come from, the NFL only has 1st place MVP votes, but just to point this out, there were two years since '03 that neither won it but both played, and Manning finished ahead of Brady in both of them. Just worth noting.

By the way before I move on I've talked a lot about Manning's offensive lines later in his Indy tenure. Just so you guys have some numbers to back that up, they were ranked 23rd, 23rd, and 22nd by football outsiders in 2008-10. In those same years, New England was ranked 3rd, 5th and 1st.

In a league that attaches huge value to top picks, it means that the cost to obtain Manning was much higher than Brady. If Manning was picked with pick #199, the Colts would have had been able to choose a likely great player with the #1 pick. If you fail to see value in that, it's not my problem.

In a league with a strict salary cap, the price paid for players is crucial. BB's religion is cutting ties with aging players not worth the money, UDFA's for cheap, and not giving out big contracts except to the critical few. If Brady cost as much as Manning did relative to the cap in 2000-2004, how many titles do the Pats have? Not likely 3.

Than add the whole Indy had the highest budget spent on any offense in the decade of the 2000's - in particular before 2009. Money is critical and has to be factored in.

It was anything BUT slight before 2004, it was massive, and has remained on average more than a few million in Mannings favor all along since that time.

The Denver Broncos were making under the table payments to Elway and 1 or 2 other players to the tune of several million in their Championship years. This means that they could and did upgrade several positions falsely under the cap. Can we be sure that they did not win one of those titles for those reasons? They fined and docked draft picks twice for it. The difference between Manning and Brady's pay is multiples of that over the years - and more than a few. I'm really surprised you never realized this before.

Sorry, your numbers are well below what the facts are, as is your soft pedaling of the impact of the money on the conduct/roster of the respective teams.

Ok let's start with draft position. First of all, this isn't a conversation about which player has been more valuable to their team over their careers. It's a conversation about which has been a better quarterback. To be honest, I'd actually argue that draft position hurts your case.

Why? Think of where both QBs were coming into the league. Peyton Manning was a Heisman finalist, Maxwell/O'brien winner and All American. Brady had to fight for a starting job for much of his career with Drew Henson and put up good but not great stats at Michigan. This shows that Manning was a better college QB. And Brady wasn't Russell Wilson, someone with an awesome career who had a physical drawback (height). Brady had NFL size and arm strength, the knock on him was that he did everything, both physically and mentally, too slowly. This isn't my opinion, Brady is quoted as saying that he read this in a coach's notebook during his rookie training camp (in the america's game documentary on the '01 pats). Still, we know that in college Brady wasn't close to on Manning's level, yet in the pro's they're very similar. What changed? The answer is Bill Belichick, and to a lesser extent Drew Bledsoe. Now I'm not naive, I fully understand Brady's greatness and am by no means calling him a system QB because he's not, he's awesome no matter where he goes. But you have to recognize the variable here. At Michigan he was good, in New England he was great. Belichick was that variable. He played a very large part in helping Brady become the QB he is. To a lesser extent Drew Bledsoe did as well, because Brady got to learn from him as a backup as a rookie and also have him as a mentor when he took over in '01. Peyton didn't have those luxuries, he was the starter from day one without a quarterback close to Bledsoe's level as a veteran backup to help him, and he had Jim Mora as his coach. See the difference? Belichick, no matter what degree you think he did, obviously played a big part in helping Brady make the leap, you have to imagine he could have done similar things for the much further along at that point Manning.

Now let's talk salaries. We obviously can't talk rookie contracts because they were negotiating from completely different points, and also it doesn't make much difference as Manning's rookie contract was reasonable anyway. Their "main" deals (as in, the deals in which they spent their primes) were as follows: 7 years, 99 million for Manning, 6 years, 60 million for Brady. Broken down by year, that's 14.1 million per year for Manning, 10 million per year for Brady. Obviously that 4.1 million dollar difference means something, but how much did it actually effect the Colts? Not that much. 4.1 million dollars per year, on the open market, is worth either one slightly below average starter on defense (which would have helped Indy, but not too much) or two below average veterans. In other words, at best Manning's contract cost the Colts one average starter relative to Brady's. You make it seem like he crippled their entire team.

Finally, let's talk team budgets. Are you familiar with the law of diminishing returns? It states that, once you reach a certain point, investing more money into a single entity (in this case, Indy's offense) will yield less and less for every unit (dollar out of the salary cap) spent. This means that Indy spending more money on their offense was actually hurting their team because they were receiving less value for their money. New England on the other hand was spending close to even amounts on both sides of the ball, which is the most effective way to spend your money (with a slight lean being acceptable). This shows that the Patriots were simply better managed than the Colts. You don't need a calculator to prove this, any football fan can you tell you. Since I know you're big on rings, you have to wonder how many rings Peyton and Brady would have if their roles were reversed.

Bogus excuses. Brady has seldom had a decent running game. The fact is given the opportunities that they were given, Manning as he has through most of his career has thrown more picks - by total and by rate.

In Bradys top 6 ATT years, he has averaged 568.7 ATT.

At a 5.7% career TD rate that would be 32.4
At a 2% Int rate that would be 11.4

In Bradys top 6 ATT years, he has averaged T is 592.2 ATT

At his 5.7% TD rate that would be 33.8 TD's on average
At his 2.7% career Int rate, that comes to 16 Ints

32.4/11.4 > 33.8/16

Hmm, only a bit more than one ATT a game in their prime years throwing a lot. Manning is ahead in TD's due to more ATT's, but, that's a whopping difference in Int's.

Manning is ahead in TDs because of attempts, but they throw TDs at largely the same rate (5.57% for Manning, 5.64% for Brady). Pretty much the same happens with yards (7.6 Y/A for Manning, 7.5 Y/A for Brady), but Manning has a decent edge in completion percentage (65.2 to 63.9, large considering the sample size) to go along with Brady's edge in INT% (2.7 for Manning, 2.0 for Brady). One more note since I know you're big on turnovers, Manning has averaged .267 fumbles per game, Brady has averaged .4559 fumbles per game. However, you're ignoring a very important point. Manning's per game numbers are better. Why is this significant? This has something to do with attempts. Those added attempts show that Manning's team relied on him more than Brady's team did him. It's not a large amount, but it has to mean something that a larger statistical burden was placed on Manning. It's easier to be efficient with a smaller number of attempts (something we see often in basketball as well), so you'd have to imagine Manning's efficiency would get a slight bump if his number of attempts went down to Brady's and Brady would see a slight fall if his attempts were raised to Manning's.

Now as to carrying the offense, this is the yardage rank of the running game in the six years of Brady with the most pass att's: 20, 28, 12, 12, 24, 27 - on average that's 20.6/32 on average. So as similar to Manning in his ATT years, the weight of the offense fell on Brady. Hard to call him a systems QB considering that.

Also despite this reputation as being a "dink and dunker", Brady has seldom thrown to his backs - with a few nice years of Kevin Faulk mixed in, but no match for Indy's James. Also Brady did not throw to TE's very much either until 2010. So the offense went through the WR's.

Adjusting sample sizes are we? Here are the team breakdowns of yards per carry for each QB since '01 (with their missed seasons ignored):

New England: 23rd, 26th, 30th, 17th, 29th, 18th, 11th, 19th, 10th, 21st, 14th.

Average: 19.82

Indianapolis/Denver: 4th, 29th, 26th, 11th, 24th, 16th, 18th, 32, 30, 25th, 24th.

Average: 21.73

Interesting...

Surprisingly (since I thought Edgerrin James would skew these stats), this shows that on a per carry basis Tom Brady has gotten more help from his running game than Peyton Manning. But just to be safe, let's look at total rushing yardage:

New England: 13th, 28th, 27th, 7th, 24th, 12th, 13th, 12th, 9th, 20th, 7th.

Average: 15.64

Indianapolis/Denver: 7th, 26th, 19th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 18th, 31st, 32nd, 29th, 20th.

Average: 21

That edge in rushing help just increased by a bit. This is at the very least a recognizable gap that shows that over the course of his career Brady has simply had a better rushing attack. On a smaller scale, these stats show that Brady should be commended more for his work in '02, '03 and '05, and Manning should really get recognized for the little help he received in '08-'10.

As for the dink and dunk thing, it's a ridiculous notion as we all know that Brady can throw the deep ball, but Peyton has done it more. I don't have stats on this for every year, but Manning has generally had higher air yards per attempt. Just to use the years the other was out as a barometer, Peyton averaged 4.3 AY/A in '08 while Brady averaged 4.1 AY/A in '11. I don't have this for every year, but every year I can remember has been in Manning's favor. This is partially because of Brady's style (he's always favored the short pass), but also has to do with his receivers. Randy Moss was a great deep threat, but otherwise he's had guys like Wes Welker. Possession guys. I'd say Brady is more of a dink and dunker than Manning, but it's not like either is close to being considered one.

Few recognize that 2006 was one of Brady's greatest years. Take a look at his primary receivers. Mannings 2010 is probably the closest he had to Brady's 2006 in terms of offensive talent at WR/TE/RB, and it was still much better, although his running game was poor - like a number of Brady's years.

I absolutely agree with this. Brady's performance in 2006 was remarkable and obviously deserves recognition. It's one of the many reasons he's a hall of famer.

I didn't leave anything out, I was stating my case. Manning seems to have forgotten these lessons in his later years. So what I gave for his prime years, you agree with, right? Because that's what you have actually said if you'd bother to parse it out.

Brady's QB Rating is better head to head with Manning in Domes and outdoors both. What do I have to hide? Y/A and Completion % are both key stats, but as QB Rating shows the damage Manning does to himself and his team with Int's seems to negate those advantages right into being lesser then Brady as an overall package.

A poster who calls me stupid and insists - even with facts against you is really nobody I look forward to communicating with. I thought you being a stat guy might make it interesting, but alas perhaps it's another strident Manning fan that can't/won't face the truth.

I've already done the stat argument, so just look above for that.

As for calling you stupid, you based a large amount of your argument around things that both I and other deem ridiculous.

January 2004 and 2005 is NOT early in his career. He was in his prime was he not? Don't we both agree?

I hear a lot more from the media than I do from players. BTW, when was the last thing about Brady that you heard that indicated he was a hysteric?

2004 was his 6th year in the league. Given his current trajectory, let's say he plays 18 years (that would be 5 years with Denver). 2004 would be the end of the first third of his career. At a later point than that in his career (1991, year 7) Michael Jordan punched one of his teammates (Will Perdue) in practice. It wouldn't be the only time he did this, he punched Steve Kerr in 1996. Are you going to say Michael Jordan wasn't a good leader? Guys make mistakes. It happens in the heat of the moment when you're frustrated. I've done it and I'm sure you have. If you listen to the way teammates talk about Peyton you can tell that he's probably a great leader, at least to the extent that we can understand things like that. We don't know what goes on in the locker room, so honestly we don't know what kind of leaders these guys are, but based on what people say (Mike Vanderjagt excluded, as he has an IQ of 9) you can tell that Manning is very respected as a leader. I feel the same way about Brady, I fully expect that he's a great leader as well.

I'm a serious of fan of baseball from every angle as well. Stats especially offensive ones are quite accurate. Football is not. The fact is we have to judge players outside of the stat window. Do you know who Otto Graham is? His stats for his time are great. His 10 years in the Championship Game with 7 wins, will never be seen again. It's easy to place him at the top of the QB pyramid, or at least in the top 3 off of both things.

Manning makes funny commercials, he's well liked. Great. Brady has a rich and hot wife. Great. Who cares. Winning? I care. Choking? I care. And they matter. Obviously with Manning as your idea of a great QB, you have to downplay the playoff record, because it's poor. He's probably top 5 all time in playoff games played? 9-10 is pretty weak stuff on ones resume, no? Even worse his conduct was a disgrace at key times.

It's nothing like that, easily the worst analogy from a PSD poster I can remember.

Good god, it's NOT THE RINGS - that's the goal. It's what was done with the opportunity in the playoffs. It's the conduct of player, the leadership. In those ways Brady > Manning - it's axiomatic

To a Manning fan, yes. What about career regular season records? Not so good for Manning either.

Talk about a Manning fan posing as a metrics guy. Hahha, laugh this post off.

Career regular season record for Manning: 151-70, 68.3 winning percentage.

Career regular season record for Brady: 134-38, 76.1 winning percentage.

Brady has the edge, but Peyton hasn't exactly done poorly for himself. Let's see how much help each has had from their defense since '01. I'm going to use scoring defense since this is strictly on the basis of wins, not statistical performance by the QB, and wins rely solely on points scored.

Patriots: 6th, 17th, 1st, 2nd, 17th, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 15th, 12th.

Average: 8.1

Colts/Broncos: 31st, 7th, 20th, 19th, 2nd, 17th, 1st, 7th, 8th, 23rd, 4th.

Average: 12.6

Don't you think those defensive numbers might have something to do with Brady's higher winning percentage? After all, it is easier to win when you don't have to score as many points.

As for playoff performance. I recently stumbled on to something interesting. Look at the defensive rankings of the teams Peyton has lost to ('99 Titans, '00 Dolphins, '02 Jets, '03 Patriots, '04 Patriots, '05 Steelers, '07 Chargers, '08 Chargers, '09 Saints, '10 Jets)

Ranks: 15th, 3rd, 14th, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 15th, 20th, 6

Average: 8.4

Is it at all possible that Peyton has played poorly in playoff losses because he's had to face an incredible string of defenses? It's not exactly easy to light up opponent's like that. In a give week you have a 9% chance of playing a top 3 defense, yet Peyton has in 40% of the playoff games he's lost. Those numbers go up to 19% and 60% when we expand to top 6. Just something to consider.

As for Otto Graham, we can't judge him on the same terms that we judge Manning and Brady. When Graham retired there were 12 teams in the NFL. It was an era with far less passing. So in an era where it was approximately 60% easier to win a championship and relied far less on passing, how can we judge that era's best quarterbacks against today's? It makes no sense.

I agree that we have to judge players outside of the stat window, but that doesn't mean we should use flawed statistics. We should use a combination of the statistics we know to be meaningful and our own eyes. We know rings are a flawed stat. Look at the defensive and running stats I've posted, don't you think those might have something to do with Brady's extra rings? And look at circumstance, if the Tuck rule is called correctly Brady has 2 rings to Manning's 1, and to the general public the argument swings in Manning's direction. That's my point. It's ridiculous to judge quarterbacks for something 53 players, several coaches, dozens of scouts and an owner are all responsible for.

As for me being a Manning fan boy and a fake metrics guy, I'm pretty sure the wide array of stats I've posted show that I know my numbers fairly well. I don't have a horse in this race. I'm a Jets fan who has the upmost respect for Brady, but I'm also a sports writer and stat junkie who has studied this and has come to the conclusion based on my research and what I've seen that Manning is better.

Back to Cassel v Brady:

2007 Pats beat teams with records of: 13-3 (twice), 11-5 (once), 10-6 (thrice), and removing the Pats games the teams they played were 120-120.

2008 Pats played 4 teams at 10 wins or over: 11-5 (L), 12-4 (L), 11-5 (W), 12-4 (L) with an aggregate record minus the Pats of: 112-128.

So 2007 average schedule, win out, and break single season scoring record.

2008, below average schedule, 3 out of 4 loses to 4 best teams they played. Miss playoffs.

If we're brining Cassel back into this, I'll bring out my old numbers and show you a new set:

Brady pythagorean winning % 2007: .822
Cassel pythagorean winning % 2008: .637
Difference in %: .185
Difference in pythagorean wins: 3

Peyton pythagorean winning % 2010: .557
Painter/Orlovsky pythagorean winning % 2011: 242
Difference in %: .315
Difference in pythagorean wins: 5

2007 Patriots offensive DVOA: 42.8%
2008 Patriots offensive DVOA: 14.6%
Difference: 28.2%

2010 Colts offensive DVOA: 16.6%
2011 Colts offensive DVOA: -12.5%
Difference: 29.1%

I used offensive DVOA because total DVOA accounts for defense and special teams as well, and really we're looking more for offense. DVOA measures how much better than average a team or individual unit is, on a per play basis, than the rest of the league. It IS adjusted for strength of schedule. The absence of Manning meant .9% more to the Colts than the absence of Brady. Over the course of a full season that is very significant. I've already explained the pythagorean side of this.

[truevision]

Before I get into this, I just want to say that I'm done with this argument after this post. It started as a fun debate, it's now gotten to the point where it's just a waste of my time. I've just spent way too much time on this, and somewhere between you saying I was "vexed" and using draft position as an indicator of which QB was better I realized you're either a troll or you just don't know what you're talking about. Based on what other people seem to be saying, I'm leaning troll. But anyway, here we go.



First of all, let's talk defenders. Only two of them have won MVPs (Alan Page and Lawrence Taylor) and they were all time greats at their absolute peak. That's how the MVP works. There's a reason QBs win it most years, they are by far the most important person on the field. You also have to account for era. It might have made sense for defenders to win when Page and Taylor did, because football relied more on defense and the running game. Now it's entirely a QB's game. For a defender to win in ANY year they have to have a legendary season AND have no deserving QBs OR RBs. For a defender to win in today's day in age that would have to happen to some ridiculous degree, like getting 25 sacks for a 14-2 team with the 30th ranked offense or something. It's just common sense. Defenses are made as units, no one player can completely carry one. Offenses can, as we've seen several times, be carried by a great quarterback. At the very least, the QB means significantly more than any individual defender, but I guess you could argue exactly how much that difference is. That means there would have to be a MASSIVE statistical gap for a defender to top a QB. Now let's go year by year.

2009: Rivers and Rodgers weren't his competition for that award, Brees was, and I've already detailed my argument for Manning in against him. But I'll talk Rivers and Rodgers. Manning beat Rivers in yards, TDs, completion percentage QBR (ESPN's passer rating) and record. Rivers won INTs (albeit by a decent amount) and passer rating. The Colts also had a harder schedule (13th vs. 17th), a worse defense (16th vs. 18th), and I'd argue Manning had a worse supporting cast as Wayne and Clark are essentially cancelled out by Vincent Jackson and Antonio Gates, but Rivers had a better line (this was when they still had guys like Dielman and Marcus McNeil, and Hardwick was younger). I see the argument for Rivers, but Manning beats him in my mind.

As for Rodgers, Manning beats him in yards, TDs, completion percentage, QBR, passer rating and record. Rodgers only beats Manning in INTs. Combine that with the fact that Rodgers had the league's 2nd ranked defense and 3rd easiest schedule and I'd say Manning has him beat by a decent margin.

2008: Didn't mention 2008, but nobody really touched him in the eyes of the voters and they shouldn't have. You could make an argument for Rivers I guess, but their stats were similar (yards were only a difference of 7 so that's negligible) Manning won completion percentage and QBR, Rivers won TDs and INTs (both by 1) and passer rating. However, Indy went 12-4 and San Diego went 8-8 despite massive differences in defense (San Diego was 8th, Indy 22nd) and schedule (San Diego had 3rd easiest, Indy had 2nd hardest). So let's close the case on this one.

2004: Agreed.

2003: More like #5? you admit he was the #1 QB so we can throw McNair out. The only other guy who had an argument was Jamal Lewis, who ran for 2000 yards. However, that feat was made easier by the fact that Lewis had the 4th best offensive line in the NFL (as rated by football outsiders, who do this statistically), and had the benefit of playing with the league's 3rd ranked defense compared to Indy's 11th ranked defense. I am by no means trying to disparage what Lewis did because it was a remarkable accomplishment, but in terms of value to the team I think Manning provided more. Lewis has a legitimate argument though.

Just for the record, here are their MVP finishes by year starting with 2001 (Brady's first year as a candidate).

Manning: N/R, N/R, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, N/R, 1st, 1st, N/R, N/R (2011, missed season).

Brady: N/R, N/R, 3rd, N/R, 3rd, N/R, 1st, N/R (2008, missed season), N/R, 1st, N/R.

If you're wondering where those N/R's come from, the NFL only has 1st place MVP votes, but just to point this out, there were two years since '03 that neither won it but both played, and Manning finished ahead of Brady in both of them. Just worth noting.

By the way before I move on I've talked a lot about Manning's offensive lines later in his Indy tenure. Just so you guys have some numbers to back that up, they were ranked 23rd, 23rd, and 22nd by football outsiders in 2008-10. In those same years, New England was ranked 3rd, 5th and 1st.



Ok let's start with draft position. First of all, this isn't a conversation about which player has been more valuable to their team over their careers. It's a conversation about which has been a better quarterback. To be honest, I'd actually argue that draft position hurts your case.

Why? Think of where both QBs were coming into the league. Peyton Manning was a Heisman finalist, Maxwell/O'brien winner and All American. Brady had to fight for a starting job for much of his career with Drew Henson and put up good but not great stats at Michigan. This shows that Manning was a better college QB. And Brady wasn't Russell Wilson, someone with an awesome career who had a physical drawback (height). Brady had NFL size and arm strength, the knock on him was that he did everything, both physically and mentally, too slowly. This isn't my opinion, Brady is quoted as saying that he read this in a coach's notebook during his rookie training camp (in the america's game documentary on the '01 pats). Still, we know that in college Brady wasn't close to on Manning's level, yet in the pro's they're very similar. What changed? The answer is Bill Belichick, and to a lesser extent Drew Bledsoe. Now I'm not naive, I fully understand Brady's greatness and am by no means calling him a system QB because he's not, he's awesome no matter where he goes. But you have to recognize the variable here. At Michigan he was good, in New England he was great. Belichick was that variable. He played a very large part in helping Brady become the QB he is. To a lesser extent Drew Bledsoe did as well, because Brady got to learn from him as a backup as a rookie and also have him as a mentor when he took over in '01. Peyton didn't have those luxuries, he was the starter from day one without a quarterback close to Bledsoe's level as a veteran backup to help him, and he had Jim Mora as his coach. See the difference? Belichick, no matter what degree you think he did, obviously played a big part in helping Brady make the leap, you have to imagine he could have done similar things for the much further along at that point Manning.

Now let's talk salaries. We obviously can't talk rookie contracts because they were negotiating from completely different points, and also it doesn't make much difference as Manning's rookie contract was reasonable anyway. Their "main" deals (as in, the deals in which they spent their primes) were as follows: 7 years, 99 million for Manning, 6 years, 60 million for Brady. Broken down by year, that's 14.1 million per year for Manning, 10 million per year for Brady. Obviously that 4.1 million dollar difference means something, but how much did it actually effect the Colts? Not that much. 4.1 million dollars per year, on the open market, is worth either one slightly below average starter on defense (which would have helped Indy, but not too much) or two below average veterans. In other words, at best Manning's contract cost the Colts one average starter relative to Brady's. You make it seem like he crippled their entire team.

Finally, let's talk team budgets. Are you familiar with the law of diminishing returns? It states that, once you reach a certain point, investing more money into a single entity (in this case, Indy's offense) will yield less and less for every unit (dollar out of the salary cap) spent. This means that Indy spending more money on their offense was actually hurting their team because they were receiving less value for their money. New England on the other hand was spending close to even amounts on both sides of the ball, which is the most effective way to spend your money (with a slight lean being acceptable). This shows that the Patriots were simply better managed than the Colts. You don't need a calculator to prove this, any football fan can you tell you. Since I know you're big on rings, you have to wonder how many rings Peyton and Brady would have if their roles were reversed.



Manning is ahead in TDs because of attempts, but they throw TDs at largely the same rate (5.57% for Manning, 5.64% for Brady). Pretty much the same happens with yards (7.6 Y/A for Manning, 7.5 Y/A for Brady), but Manning has a decent edge in completion percentage (65.2 to 63.9, large considering the sample size) to go along with Brady's edge in INT% (2.7 for Manning, 2.0 for Brady). One more note since I know you're big on turnovers, Manning has averaged .267 fumbles per game, Brady has averaged .4559 fumbles per game. However, you're ignoring a very important point. Manning's per game numbers are better. Why is this significant? This has something to do with attempts. Those added attempts show that Manning's team relied on him more than Brady's team did him. It's not a large amount, but it has to mean something that a larger statistical burden was placed on Manning. It's easier to be efficient with a smaller number of attempts (something we see often in basketball as well), so you'd have to imagine Manning's efficiency would get a slight bump if his number of attempts went down to Brady's and Brady would see a slight fall if his attempts were raised to Manning's.



Adjusting sample sizes are we? Here are the team breakdowns of yards per carry for each QB since '01 (with their missed seasons ignored):

New England: 23rd, 26th, 30th, 17th, 29th, 18th, 11th, 19th, 10th, 21st, 14th.

Average: 19.82

Indianapolis/Denver: 4th, 29th, 26th, 11th, 24th, 16th, 18th, 32, 30, 25th, 24th.

Average: 21.73

Interesting...

Surprisingly (since I thought Edgerrin James would skew these stats), this shows that on a per carry basis Tom Brady has gotten more help from his running game than Peyton Manning. But just to be safe, let's look at total rushing yardage:

New England: 13th, 28th, 27th, 7th, 24th, 12th, 13th, 12th, 9th, 20th, 7th.

Average: 15.64

Indianapolis/Denver: 7th, 26th, 19th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 18th, 31st, 32nd, 29th, 20th.

Average: 21

That edge in rushing help just increased by a bit. This is at the very least a recognizable gap that shows that over the course of his career Brady has simply had a better rushing attack. On a smaller scale, these stats show that Brady should be commended more for his work in '02, '03 and '05, and Manning should really get recognized for the little help he received in '08-'10.

As for the dink and dunk thing, it's a ridiculous notion as we all know that Brady can throw the deep ball, but Peyton has done it more. I don't have stats on this for every year, but Manning has generally had higher air yards per attempt. Just to use the years the other was out as a barometer, Peyton averaged 4.3 AY/A in '08 while Brady averaged 4.1 AY/A in '11. I don't have this for every year, but every year I can remember has been in Manning's favor. This is partially because of Brady's style (he's always favored the short pass), but also has to do with his receivers. Randy Moss was a great deep threat, but otherwise he's had guys like Wes Welker. Possession guys. I'd say Brady is more of a dink and dunker than Manning, but it's not like either is close to being considered one.



I absolutely agree with this. Brady's performance in 2006 was remarkable and obviously deserves recognition. It's one of the many reasons he's a hall of famer.



I've already done the stat argument, so just look above for that.

As for calling you stupid, you based a large amount of your argument around things that both I and other deem ridiculous.



2004 was his 6th year in the league. Given his current trajectory, let's say he plays 18 years (that would be 5 years with Denver). 2004 would be the end of the first third of his career. At a later point than that in his career (1991, year 7) Michael Jordan punched one of his teammates (Will Perdue) in practice. It wouldn't be the only time he did this, he punched Steve Kerr in 1996. Are you going to say Michael Jordan wasn't a good leader? Guys make mistakes. It happens in the heat of the moment when you're frustrated. I've done it and I'm sure you have. If you listen to the way teammates talk about Peyton you can tell that he's probably a great leader, at least to the extent that we can understand things like that. We don't know what goes on in the locker room, so honestly we don't know what kind of leaders these guys are, but based on what people say (Mike Vanderjagt excluded, as he has an IQ of 9) you can tell that Manning is very respected as a leader. I feel the same way about Brady, I fully expect that he's a great leader as well.



Career regular season record for Manning: 151-70, 68.3 winning percentage.

Career regular season record for Brady: 134-38, 76.1 winning percentage.

Brady has the edge, but Peyton hasn't exactly done poorly for himself. Let's see how much help each has had from their defense since '01. I'm going to use scoring defense since this is strictly on the basis of wins, not statistical performance by the QB, and wins rely solely on points scored.

Patriots: 6th, 17th, 1st, 2nd, 17th, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 15th, 12th.

Average: 8.1

Colts/Broncos: 31st, 7th, 20th, 19th, 2nd, 17th, 1st, 7th, 8th, 23rd, 4th.

Average: 12.6

Don't you think those defensive numbers might have something to do with Brady's higher winning percentage? After all, it is easier to win when you don't have to score as many points.

As for playoff performance. I recently stumbled on to something interesting. Look at the defensive rankings of the teams Peyton has lost to ('99 Titans, '00 Dolphins, '02 Jets, '03 Patriots, '04 Patriots, '05 Steelers, '07 Chargers, '08 Chargers, '09 Saints, '10 Jets)

Ranks: 15th, 3rd, 14th, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 15th, 20th, 6

Average: 8.4

Is it at all possible that Peyton has played poorly in playoff losses because he's had to face an incredible string of defenses? It's not exactly easy to light up opponent's like that. In a give week you have a 9% chance of playing a top 3 defense, yet Peyton has in 40% of the playoff games he's lost. Those numbers go up to 19% and 60% when we expand to top 6. Just something to consider.

As for Otto Graham, we can't judge him on the same terms that we judge Manning and Brady. When Graham retired there were 12 teams in the NFL. It was an era with far less passing. So in an era where it was approximately 60% easier to win a championship and relied far less on passing, how can we judge that era's best quarterbacks against today's? It makes no sense.

I agree that we have to judge players outside of the stat window, but that doesn't mean we should use flawed statistics. We should use a combination of the statistics we know to be meaningful and our own eyes. We know rings are a flawed stat. Look at the defensive and running stats I've posted, don't you think those might have something to do with Brady's extra rings? And look at circumstance, if the Tuck rule is called correctly Brady has 2 rings to Manning's 1, and to the general public the argument swings in Manning's direction. That's my point. It's ridiculous to judge quarterbacks for something 53 players, several coaches, dozens of scouts and an owner are all responsible for.

As for me being a Manning fan boy and a fake metrics guy, I'm pretty sure the wide array of stats I've posted show that I know my numbers fairly well. I don't have a horse in this race. I'm a Jets fan who has the upmost respect for Brady, but I'm also a sports writer and stat junkie who has studied this and has come to the conclusion based on my research and what I've seen that Manning is better.



If we're brining Cassel back into this, I'll bring out my old numbers and show you a new set:

Brady pythagorean winning % 2007: .822
Cassel pythagorean winning % 2008: .637
Difference in %: .185
Difference in pythagorean wins: 3

Peyton pythagorean winning % 2010: .557
Painter/Orlovsky pythagorean winning % 2011: 242
Difference in %: .315
Difference in pythagorean wins: 5

2007 Patriots offensive DVOA: 42.8%
2008 Patriots offensive DVOA: 14.6%
Difference: 28.2%

2010 Colts offensive DVOA: 16.6%
2011 Colts offensive DVOA: -12.5%
Difference: 29.1%

I used offensive DVOA because total DVOA accounts for defense and special teams as well, and really we're looking more for offense. DVOA measures how much better than average a team or individual unit is, on a per play basis, than the rest of the league. It IS adjusted for strength of schedule. The absence of Manning meant .9% more to the Colts than the absence of Brady. Over the course of a full season that is very significant. I've already explained the pythagorean side of this.

in the 2009 mvp race chris johnson did not even get a vote. Johnson ran for over 2000 yards and set the yards from scrimmage record. For him to not even get a vote others to get very clearly is wrong. Manning played very, very well in 2009 but not that much better than the other players if at all in the mvp race. That clearly is a travesty. Farve had one of the best years of his career. Brees threw for 5000 sand set the completion percentage record and won the superbowl yet manning won mvp. the 2009 mvp. At a minimum the 2009 mvp should have been shared by 2 players.

[Quinnsanity]

in the 2009 mvp race chris johnson did not even get a vote. Johnson ran for over 2000 yards and set the yards from scrimmage record. For him to not even get a vote others to get very clearly is wrong. Manning played very, very well in 2009 but not that much better than the other players if at all in the mvp race. That clearly is a travesty. Farve had one of the best years of his career. Brees threw for 5000 sand set the completion percentage record and won the superbowl yet manning won mvp. the 2009 mvp. At a minimum the 2009 mvp should have been shared by 2 players.

Sharing the MVP is very rare, I imagine nobody would bring it up if it didn't happen the first time Manning won the award. To me Favre is out because he had AP, an awesome offensive line and an awesome defense (ranked 6th in the league). No one player was that important to that Vikings team, Manning did more for the Colts. As for CJ, I probably should have mentioned this with Jamal Lewis, but I'm personally against running backs winning MVPs. Their performance relies so heavily on the offensive line, and even though CJ's wasn't great in '09 they still obviously gave him a bunch of help. The other thing with CJ is that people seem to forget that the Titans went 8-8 in '09, and they also had another capable RB in LenDale White. If you remove CJ from the equation I think he's worth around 2 wins, maybe 3. Take Manning away from the Colts and he's worth 5 (mathematically founded with the pythagorean formula). As for Brees, I've already outlined my reasoning there.

[HILLBILLYBLACK]

Remember, Peyton didn’t ask for this.

Yes he did. He was groomed his whole life for it. So was Eli.

[Quinnsanity]

Yes he did. He was groomed his whole life for it. So was Eli.

Missing the point. Neither Peyton nor Brady has ever claimed publicly to be better than the other or even acknowledged the rivalry in any kind of meaningful way. There's no bitterness between them like Russell and Chamberlain and there's no bragging rights between best friends pushing them like Bird and Magic. To be honest it seems like the only people who don't care about the rivalry are Peyton and Brady. If Peyton really cared about it he would have signed with the Jets or Dolphins to play Brady twice a year or the 49ers to give him the best chance to beat them.

[truevision]

Sharing the MVP is very rare, I imagine nobody would bring it up if it didn't happen the first time Manning won the award. To me Favre is out because he had AP, an awesome offensive line and an awesome defense (ranked 6th in the league). No one player was that important to that Vikings team, Manning did more for the Colts. As for CJ, I probably should have mentioned this with Jamal Lewis, but I'm personally against running backs winning MVPs. Their performance relies so heavily on the offensive line, and even though CJ's wasn't great in '09 they still obviously gave him a bunch of help. The other thing with CJ is that people seem to forget that the Titans went 8-8 in '09, and they also had another capable RB in LenDale White. If you remove CJ from the equation I think he's worth around 2 wins, maybe 3. Take Manning away from the Colts and he's worth 5 (mathematically founded with the pythagorean formula). As for Brees, I've already outlined my reasoning there.

How can it be reasoned that chris johnson in 2009 wasn't great? He had one of the best seasons ever for a running back in nfl history and he set the yards from scrimmage record all without a good passing game. This is a feat that marshall faulk accomplished and won the mvp with in addition to his other accomplishments. faulk had more help around him than chris johnson (albeit he was the driving force behind the rams). chris johnson didn't even get a vote. to do what he did and not get a vote is ludicrous.

[bagwell368]

First of all, let's talk defenders. Only two of them have won MVPs (Alan Page and Lawrence Taylor) and they were all time greats at their absolute peak. That's how the MVP works. There's a reason QBs win it most years, they are by far the most important person on the field. You also have to account for era.

The fact that defenders do not win the MVP often, does not mean Manning wasn't outplayed by a number of defenders the years I listed.

Ok let's start with draft position. First of all, this isn't a conversation about which player has been more valuable to their team over their careers. It's a conversation about which has been a better quarterback. To be honest, I'd actually argue that draft position hurts your case.

Why? Think of where both QBs were coming into the league. Peyton Manning was a Heisman finalist, Maxwell/O'brien winner and All American. Brady had to fight for a starting job for much of his career with Drew Henson and put up good but not great stats at Michigan. This shows that Manning was a better college QB. And Brady wasn't Russell Wilson, someone with an awesome career who had a physical drawback (height). Brady had NFL size and arm strength, the knock on him was that he did everything, both physically and mentally, too slowly. This isn't my opinion, Brady is quoted as saying that he read this in a coach's notebook during his rookie training camp (in the america's game documentary on the '01 pats). Still, we know that in college Brady wasn't close to on Manning's level, yet in the pro's they're very similar. What changed? The answer is Bill Belichick, and to a lesser extent Drew Bledsoe. Now I'm not naive, I fully understand Brady's greatness and am by no means calling him a system QB because he's not, he's awesome no matter where he goes. But you have to recognize the variable here. At Michigan he was good, in New England he was great. Belichick was that variable. He played a very large part in helping Brady become the QB he is. To a lesser extent Drew Bledsoe did as well, because Brady got to learn from him as a backup as a rookie and also have him as a mentor when he took over in '01. Peyton didn't have those luxuries, he was the starter from day one without a quarterback close to Bledsoe's level as a veteran backup to help him, and he had Jim Mora as his coach. See the difference? Belichick, no matter what degree you think he did, obviously played a big part in helping Brady make the leap, you have to imagine he could have done similar things for the much further along at that point Manning.

Brady was a better college QB then Henson. Henson was heavily recruited, and younger (meaning the Coach thought he could do better with him for longer). Also, Henson was in danger of being drafted by MLB and being lost to the program - which was a prime motivator.

Your memory is faulty re: Brady's scouting report. He was dinged for being skinny, and not having a strong arm for deep throws. Brady put on the needed weight, and was making deep throws as early as 2002 to put a lie to that report. The point is he overcame obstacles, ones Manning never faced.

Brady achievements given the lesser length of his career have outstipped Manning. In winning. In QB Rating outdoors and inside a Dome. If Brady and Manning are adjusted the same env., then Brady goes ahead by a about 7 QB Rating points over Manning. If anything, this is a disadvantage for Manning. All the advantages, fancy college records, chosen 198 picks higher in his draft, the most expensive offense in the league for most of his time - and what did he do for the fans of the Colts? 9-10 in the post season. Just imagine, if he had been drafted at #199 and paid what Brady was paid, maybe he too could have exceeded his expectations as Brady has so completely.

Brady showed up as the 4th QB on depth chart as a rookie. He won immediate attention within the Pats team by winning the #1 parking spot that was awarded to the hardest working player on the roster in his rookie year.

Belichick had come to the conclusion by early 2001 as he later said, that Bledsoe was "shell shocked", and that Brady was going to get the starting job, not at the end of 2001, but within a game or two of Bledsoe being injured. The closeness between Bledsoe and Brady after the injury was PR for the cameras. Bledsoe has since admitted that this period that he lost his job to Brady was very difficult, and that they were not close. So we have the 199th draft pick playing for the league minimum in his 2nd year, with no fanfare, who takes over a 2-2 team, and goes 12-3 and leads his team to the SB past the AFC Championship team the next year, the mighty heavily favored Steelers and the even more favored Rams. Yet somehow you want to propose that the prior QB or his Coach should get all, most or even much of the credit. Poppycock.

Now let's talk salaries. We obviously can't talk rookie contracts because they were negotiating from completely different points, and also it doesn't make much difference as Manning's rookie contract was reasonable anyway.

This is false. You refuse to address it not because it isn't fair, but because Manning cannot compete with Brady when this is factored into the equation. After all if you want to trumpet all of Manning's great feats in college. Guess what? There is a cost. The first cost is a draft pick, the 2nd is salary. In a league without drafts or a salary cap, it makes no difference. The NFL as we know it, has both. A strict cap, and almost neurotically intense examination of players to choose the best ones earliest.

Their "main" deals (as in, the deals in which they spent their primes) were as follows: 7 years, 99 million for Manning, 6 years, 60 million for Brady. Broken down by year, that's 14.1 million per year for Manning, 10 million per year for Brady. Obviously that 4.1 million dollar difference means something, but how much did it actually effect the Colts? Not that much. 4.1 million dollars per year, on the open market, is worth either one slightly below average starter on defense (which would have helped Indy, but not too much) or two below average veterans. In other words, at best Manning's contract cost the Colts one average starter relative to Brady's. You make it seem like he crippled their entire team.

You need to check your understanding of the salary cap - in particular in earlier years when it was less. $4.1 is enough to improve an average ILB, and slightly below average DT to a very good ILB and a good DT. In addition, you've skipped over the recent deals where Manning has earned more than $4.1M over Brady.

Of course in earlier years the difference was much larger then $4.1M. Strange how for a self claimed statistics fan with no horse in this race you only focus only on information from one slice of time that supports your POV, and avoids others. This seems much more like an advocate at work to me.

Since I know you're big on rings, you have to wonder how many rings Peyton and Brady would have if their roles were reversed.

With all the extra money for the Colts and less for the Pats it could be quite a bit.

Manning is ahead in TDs because of attempts, but they throw TDs at largely the same rate (5.57% for Manning, 5.64% for Brady). Pretty much the same happens with yards (7.6 Y/A for Manning, 7.5 Y/A for Brady)

I have been talking rate stats, not counting stats, what is this for?

but Manning has a decent edge in completion percentage (65.2 to 63.9, large considering the sample size) to go along with Brady's edge in INT% (2.7 for Manning, 2.0 for Brady). One more note since I know you're big on turnovers, Manning has averaged .267 fumbles per game, Brady has averaged .4559 fumbles per game. However, you're ignoring a very important point.

In terms of QB Rating the advantage Manning holds in completion % is more than obviated by Brady's advantage in Int%.

Really? Ignoring? In this very thread I said Brady's fumbles were an issue to me. Perhaps you should do more checking and less ***uming.

Surprisingly (since I thought Edgerrin James would skew these stats), this shows that on a per carry basis Tom Brady has gotten more help from his running game than Peyton Manning. But just to be safe, let's look at total rushing yardage

That edge in rushing help just increased by a bit. This is at the very least a recognizable gap that shows that over the course of his career Brady has simply had a better rushing attack.

During the '01, '02, '03, '05 seasons Mannings Colts gained more yards then Brady's Patriots. Outside of the '09, '10, and '12 seasons the numbers were not that different in the other years. Since Manning passed more, it would make sense that the bad weather Patriots would have a bit more of emphasis on the running game.

I don't understand why you want to ding Brady for getting help from a better running game on one hand, but also want to ding him for passing less than Manning. It doesn't make sense - unless of course you have an agenda to defend since you've already reached a conclusion prior to these posts.

Let's see how much help each has had from their defense since '01. I'm going to use scoring defense since this is strictly on the basis of wins, not statistical performance by the QB, and wins rely solely on points scored.

Patriots: 6th, 17th, 1st, 2nd, 17th, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 15th, 12th.

Average: 8.1

Colts/Broncos: 31st, 7th, 20th, 19th, 2nd, 17th, 1st, 7th, 8th, 23rd, 4th.

Average: 12.6

Don't you think those defensive numbers might have something to do with Brady's higher winning percentage? After all, it is easier to win when you don't have to score as many points.

BTW, ranking can be quite inaccurate, later on I'll calculate the numbers on a per game basis, and post it. So with ranking, the Pats are 13.7% better. Better to have a better D, but it's not like we are talking major top of the league and bottom of the league - more like end of the top 1/4 vs the end of 2/5's of the league.

Earlier in this thread I published the list of pro bowl/all pro listing on Manning and Brady's offensive teams. It shows a very solid advantage for Manning. Did you try to factor that in?

As for Otto Graham, we can't judge him on the same terms that we judge Manning and Brady. When Graham retired there were 12 teams in the NFL. It was an era with far less passing. So in an era where it was approximately 60% easier to win a championship and relied far less on passing, how can we judge that era's best quarterbacks against today's? It makes no sense.

All you can do is look at players in their own time. Look at his OG's Rate+ better then Brady or Manning. Graham was the all time leading QB in QB Rating from his retirement in 1955 until Montana retired in 1994. He averaged over 225 yards of passing per game in 3 different seasons. Given that in his time he led the league in passing Y/G 5 times, QB rating 4 times, yards 5 times, comp % 4 times - it seems unlike others before him, he can be judged as the first modern QB.

I agree that we have to judge players outside of the stat window, but that doesn't mean we should use flawed statistics. We should use a combination of the statistics we know to be meaningful and our own eyes. We know rings are a flawed stat.

I've been talking about playoff performances. 19 games. Manning is 1-9 in season ending games. Brady 3-6. That doesn't matter?

Game winning drives? It's 6 to 1 for Brady > Manning. It's only 22 for Brady > 19 in games.

The issue here is you discount or undersell every advantage Brady has and over compensate to boost your arguments for Manning. This has nothing to do with stats, it has everything to do with trying to prove your subjective belief. For all of my arguing over Brady, I have never named him the best QB of all time. All I maintain is that he is ahead of Manning - which can be demonstrated from almost every angle.

Look at the defensive and running stats I've posted, don't you think those might have something to do with Brady's extra rings?

The defenses give Brady an edge, but not by factors, or even an 1/8. Same with the running game. Now explain all the advantages Manning had prior to 2007 re: WR/TE?

The Pats playoff foes were not weak, in fact since on average they went deeper then the Colts, they faced more great teams than the Colts did. The way to judge playoff teams is not just D but O+D, including how they did in the playoffs lest the '07 Giants be overly down rated by in year stats.

And look at circumstance, if the Tuck rule is called correctly Brady has 2 rings to Manning's 1

I can't even believe this. It was called correctly for the way it was in the rule book for that year. The refs looked at it, and it stood. The league also made a statement that it was a correct call. Yet somehow you in your "statistic" based reality claim to know it is false. I wonder what you would have said if it was Manning instead of Brady?

Individual judgement OK, let's see?

QB Rating ranked by seasons Brady in Red, Manning in Blue (> 100.0):

121.0
117.2
111.0
105.6
104.2
104.1
104.0
101.0

So Brady has more great peak seasons than Manning.

Dome: TB > PM
Outdoors: TB > PM

Int%: TB > PM

QB Rating: TB > PM

Y/C: TB > PM

AY/A: TB > PM

Yeah, I think you're right.... let's look at this way.

If we're brining Cassel back into this, I'll bring out my old numbers and show you a new set:

Brady pythagorean winning % 2007: .822
Cassel pythagorean winning % 2008: .637
Difference in %: .185
Difference in pythagorean wins: 3

Peyton pythagorean winning % 2010: .557
Painter/Orlovsky pythagorean winning % 2011: 242
Difference in %: .315
Difference in pythagorean wins: 5

2007 Patriots offensive DVOA: 42.8%
2008 Patriots offensive DVOA: 14.6%
Difference: 28.2%

2010 Colts offensive DVOA: 16.6%
2011 Colts offensive DVOA: -12.5%
Difference: 29.1%

Sorry, those are not your numbers.

Also you are somehow equating Cassel with the 3 Stooges the Colts used in 2010. If you don't account for the rather large difference between them your numbers are unusable - unless you don't mind presenting biased "data".

[bcc]

I'm too lazy to argue with people that won't give one of the greatest of all time credit, or puts more credence into maybe 4 bad games in a sample of 17 than literally a few hundred others. It's ****ing insane, especially given that Peyton has a better QB Rating in the playoffs than Playoff God Tom Brady, who has had much better defenses in his career. Do people honestly think playoffs are won by one man?

Dan Marino sure must have sucked too.

It's one thing not to like a guy, it's another to overlook and not appreciate greatness. The latter is just ****ing annoying.

This is like debating with a 12 year-old.
Yeah, Dan Marino sucked, that's the point.
Clown.
Either way, keep cursing...cuz that really helps make your point.

[bcc]

And look at circumstance, if the Tuck rule is called correctly Brady has 2 rings to Manning's 1
---------------------------------------------
THE most mind-numbingly stupid and pointless statement thus far....and that's really saying something.
If Brady and the Patriots don't knock off the best team in the NFL (Chargers) in San Diego in the '06 postseason, Manning has zero rings. I'd give Indy about a 5% chance of winning that game, w/ Tomlinson, Michael Turner and Darren Sproles all running wild and in their prime.

[RateSports]

Nice throw Manning.... Again.

[Hangtime]

honestly. I have my own feelings about the guy, which i'm sure you can pick up by my user name.

To answer your questions,

the truth is he's the golden boy. He is the perfect face of the nfl. The nfl loves players like peyton and sulk in it. He's more than a qb. He abides by the rules, student of the game, coaches pet, book worm, gym rat, work ethic like no other, well respected human being amongst his peers (including owners, coaches, teammates, opposition teammates, corporate level etc.), he has the blood line in the nfl, he handles the media excellent, he says all the right things, he's been fortunate enough to not have hc’s or other payers with their own storylines. The list goes on.

The nfl of course jumps on the "poster boy" image. It sells the brand.

Remember, peyton didn’t ask for this.

More direct, look at his wr corps in the beginning of the year. Look how sloppy it was. Just watch the first 3 games of the year. Look at them now. It's remarkable how much he works with these guys. It's a well-oiled machine, fluid. He increases everyone's play around him. Hence, making a winning team. Hence, the nfl loves winning.

qft...

[Gritz]

he sucks

[bagwell368]

And look at circumstance, if the Tuck rule is called correctly Brady has 2 rings to Manning's 1
---------------------------------------------
THE most mind-numbingly stupid and pointless statement thus far....and that's really saying something.
If Brady and the Patriots don't knock off the best team in the NFL (Chargers) in San Diego in the '06 postseason, Manning has zero rings. I'd give Indy about a 5% chance of winning that game, w/ Tomlinson, Michael Turner and Darren Sproles all running wild and in their prime.

Look at it this way. The league looked at it, and confirmed the call made at the game. So much for that theory. LOL.

Personally I am going to wait until the season is over for Brady before I'll comment broadly in these threads. If he's meh against Houston, and they lose - than he's gained no ground here this year.

[Alpha Dog]

I know every Bronco/Colt fan will not pay any attention to what I am about to say, but thats fine.

Why does Peyton Manning consistently receive more credit for doing exactly what other QBs do?

I am speaking of :

• Audibles at the line of scrimmage
• Being a good student of the game

and his on-field play :

• Brady has done everything Peyton has… and more
• His lack of postseason success
• Rodgers, Brees have just as many rings

I am NOT saying Peyton is overrated because he is one of the best QBs of all-time. I am just curious as to why the media (ESPN and so forth) continue to praise him for doing things that plenty of QBs do.

Brady, Rodgers and Brees audible just as much as Manning does but no one seems to notice.

Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Ben, Eli, Ryan are all studying game film religiously and receive zero credit.

I feel like if Manning has a good season (in today's case, great season) he will ALWAYS be the front-runner for MVP even if he is outperformed (look up his last MVP and tell me who really deserved it).

The neck surgery recovery is incredible and it is an amazing story but it isn't the reason he is receiving as much praise as he is getting. He was praised and worshipped every single year before that.

Don't sell yourself short, Recruit. It isn't just Bronco and Colt fans who won't pay attention to what you have to say, it's all fans of all teams. Everywhere. Since forever.