2014 NFL Season Thread

[tBBP]

All else being equal, here's the thing that separates Manning and Brady in my mind:

Brady gets injured, misses entire season...Patriots still finish 10-6. Manning gets injured, misses entire season...Colts barely scrape together two wins.

Now there's lots of ways one can dissect that--either the Colts were super-shortsighted in finding a capable backup (which for the most part they were), or a proportionate part of Brady's success came via the Pats' offensive system (and we all saw what Cassel amounted to as a starter in KC)...but what that tells me is a/ each QB's value to his respective team and b/ just how good/not good of a team they had around them. And when I look at it that way, Manning gets the edge there--he made a team that probably overacheived more than their talent level should've allowed a near-perennial contender (speaking of his last 2-3 seasons in Indianapolis).

All that being said, I've always likened Brady/Manning of this generation to Montana/Marino of the '80s/90s...one had the defense, the running game and the championships; the other had the big stats but barely much else of a supporting cast (although Manning does have his one Super Bowl ring in addition to one other appearance, to match Marino's lone appearance--and Dungy did have that defense playing at a top level for a few years while he was there, so there's that). As to which one is better? I don't know that one can draw such a clear-cut line when so many other factors can come into play...that said, only because of the one difference I noted earlier, I think Manning has (okay, had) more of an impact on the game and obviously his team, but Brady has probably been a bit steadier and more consistent.

Like it matters...both of them already have an order of bronze set aside in northeast Ohio from which to sculpt the likeness of their respective heads once the time comes for it.

[worcat]

All else being equal, here's the thing that separates Manning and Brady in my mind:

Brady gets injured, misses entire season...Patriots still finish 10-6. Manning gets injured, misses entire season...Colts barely scrape together two wins.

Now there's lots of ways one can dissect that--either the Colts were super-shortsighted in finding a capable backup (which for the most part they were), or a proportionate part of Brady's success came via the Pats' offensive system (and we all saw what Cassel amounted to as a starter in KC)...but what that tells me is a/ each QB's value to his respective team and b/ just how good/not good of a team they had around them. And when I look at it that way, Manning gets the edge there--he made a team that probably overacheived more than their talent level should've allowed a near-perennial contender (speaking of his last 2-3 seasons in Indianapolis).

All that being said, I've always likened Brady/Manning of this generation to Montana/Marino of the '80s/90s...one had the defense, the running game and the championships; the other had the big stats but barely much else of a supporting cast (although Manning does have his one Super Bowl ring in addition to one other appearance, to match Marino's lone appearance--and Dungy did have that defense playing at a top level for a few years while he was there, so there's that). As to which one is better? I don't know that one can draw such a clear-cut line when so many other factors can come into play...that said, only because of the one difference I noted earlier, I think Manning has (okay, had) more of an impact on the game and obviously his team, but Brady has probably been a bit steadier and more consistent.

Like it matters...both of them already have an order of bronze set aside in northeast Ohio from which to sculpt the likeness of their respective heads once the time comes for it.

You know Manning has been in three super bowls right? not two...

He's 1 for 3 (1-1 with colts, 0-1 with broncos)

[tBBP]

^That's right...completely forgot about last year. Probably because I didn't watch the SB, or much of the rest of last postseason, either.

(Then again I'm sure Peyton himself would also like to forget about that game, too....)

[Kramerica Industries]

I always hate when the rings argument comes up with Brady vs. Peyton, as if to say that the 2001, 2003, and 2004 Patriots, the latter two teams especially which were stacked, would have fallen short if Peyton was their QB, because Peyton was their QB and not Brady.

I'm the kind of party pooper who doesn't like to answer the "who would I rather have" question because if you have either one of them, then you're in a pretty damn good position (trust a Bucs fan on this; read the final section of this column). If you reverse their teams for their careers, I'm just as sure that Peyton would be the 3/5 QB (or thereabouts) and Brady would be the 1/3 QB. Guess what? The QB position is vital but it's still a team sport. Furthermore, I've always found it strangely amusing how Brady's Super Bowl wins all came before Tom Brady, from a statistical standpoint, morphed into the Tom Brady as we know him today; the 4,300+ yardage with a 6:1 TD:INT ratio machine of a QB. And it's not because the Patriots were some brilliant running team back in the early '00's; their #1 RB in 2001 and 2003 was Antowain Smith for g-d's sakes.

[IceCap]

Rings aren't the be-all-end-all, but they can't be dismissed. At the end of the day? Brady has the post-season success. Manning doesn't. Not really.

We're already seeing Peyton slow down. What happens if the Broncos don't win it all? How many times does Manning need to flame out before we can all agree that, yeah, Tom Brady was/is better?

On that note...I find it funny how Manning fans CANNOT accept that. As if saying their favourite generational talent is only the second greatest QB of his era is somehow an injustice that cannot stand.

[CS85]

But dammit is Manning charming. His "aw shucks" demeanor and SNL shenanigans sure satisfy my yokel caucasian funnybone.

[tBBP]

Rings aren't the be-all-end-all, but they can't be dismissed. At the end of the day? Brady has the post-season success. Manning doesn't. Not really.

We're already seeing Peyton slow down. What happens if the Broncos don't win it all? How many times does Manning need to flame out before we can all agree that, yeah, Tom Brady was/is better?

On that note...I find it funny how Manning fans CANNOT accept that. As if saying their favourite generational talent is only the second greatest QB of his era is somehow an injustice that cannot stand.

Not that I'm a "loyalist" fan of either, but it's worth mentioning, even if only marginally, that Manning does have three seasons as a starter on Brady. And, whatever the context may have been at the time this was said, there's this exerpt...

"To me, he's the greatest of all time. He's a friend of mine, and someone that I always watch and admire, because he always wants to improve, he always wants to get better, and he doesn't settle for anything less than the best. So, when you watch the best and you're able to learn from the best, hopefully that helps me get better."

Tom Brady, on Peyton Manning.

(I'm sure if one searches the web deep enough, a similar exerpt from Manning on Brady could be found as well.)

That said...whatever the divide may be between the two, ultimately I really don't see it as definitively conclusive either way. Rather, I just appreciate both for the quarterbacking greats that they are, and after it's all said and done will be remembered for.

[Sport]

Rings aren't the be-all-end-all, but they can't be dismissed. At the end of the day? Brady has the post-season success. Manning doesn't. Not really.

We're already seeing Peyton slow down. What happens if the Broncos don't win it all? How many times does Manning need to flame out before we can all agree that, yeah, Tom Brady was/is better?

On that note...I find it funny how Manning fans CANNOT accept that. As if saying their favourite generational talent is only the second greatest QB of his era is somehow an injustice that cannot stand.

But you say this as if Brady hasn't also flamed out in the playoffs. It's been ten years since he won a Super Bowl.

It's really hard to win a Super Bowl and you have to count on a lot of things outside your control going right and your teammates helping you out. Brady's came through for him more often than Manning's. If their teams were reversed I firmly believe Manning would have at least four rings.

I find it funny how if you like one guy that means the other is terrible. Not saying that at all. This is clearly a 1a/1b debate. I would take Peyton Manning ahead of Brady. That's all.

[Still MIGHTY]

Swap Manning and Brady between the Colts and the Patriots, and it'd Peyton with the rings and Brady with the weight around his neck.

Peyton Manning is a better quarterback than Tom Brady. Tom Brady has had better teams than Peyton Manning.

[See Red]

Hell, you could just swap Vanderjagt and Vinatieri for those years and the ring count would probably look a little bit different.

[BBTV]

Doesn't Peyton call all his own plays like he's the OC? If so, while that sounds like something to give him an award for, maybe he's just not that good at it when it counts, and if you did swap Brady for Manning, Peyton would have struggled in NE because either he'd have to play in somebody's system, or not make all the right calls when it counts. We'll never know - which is why arguing about it is kinda fun.

I like Peyton Manning. 5 years ago I probably woudl have said I thought he was a big douchebag, but I don't know if it's SNL, or the commercials, or whatever, but I find him likeable now. Either way - I'm taking Tom Brady.

[JayMac]

I always hate when the rings argument comes up with Brady vs. Peyton, as if to say that the 2001, 2003, and 2004 Patriots, the latter two teams especially which were stacked, would have fallen short if Peyton was their QB, because Peyton was their QB and not Brady.

I'm the kind of party pooper who doesn't like to answer the "who would I rather have" question because if you have either one of them, then you're in a pretty damn good position (trust a Bucs fan on this; read the final section of this column). If you reverse their teams for their careers, I'm just as sure that Peyton would be the 3/5 QB (or thereabouts) and Brady would be the 1/3 QB. Guess what? The QB position is vital but it's still a team sport. Furthermore, I've always found it strangely amusing how Brady's Super Bowl wins all came before Tom Brady, from a statistical standpoint, morphed into the Tom Brady as we know him today; the 4,300+ yardage with a 6:1 TD:INT ratio machine of a QB. And it's not because the Patriots were some brilliant running team back in the early '00's; their #1 RB in 2001 and 2003 was Antowain Smith for g-d's sakes.

This is my exact thought on this subject. It is TEAM game and the QB doesn't win the rings. If you want to be technical, Vinatieri won all 3 of those Patriots superbowls. I'm more of a Manning guy but Tom Brady has become more of a HOF QB while NOT winning any superbowls. He was somewhat pedestrian back in 01-04.

[See Red]

Doesn't Peyton call all his own plays like he's the OC? If so, while that sounds like something to give him an award for, maybe he's just not that good at it when it counts, and if you did swap Brady for Manning, Peyton would have struggled in NE because either he'd have to play in somebody's system, or not make all the right calls when it counts. We'll never know - which is why arguing about it is kinda fun.

I like Peyton Manning. 5 years ago I probably woudl have said I thought he was a big douchebag, but I don't know if it's SNL, or the commercials, or whatever, but I find him likeable now. Either way - I'm taking Tom Brady.

I don't actually know. I've read things that make it seem like he's completely in control, I've seen others that suggest that while he has more control than any other QB, it's not all him. It probably falls somewhere in between. The offenses he runs in Denver seem to be more conservative and run more in situations like third and short and late in games than what I remember seeing them do in Indy, which would definitely be a result of John Fox's conservative style. It's usually to their detriment.

One interesting read, though, if you have an interest in football strategy, is an article by Chris Brown, who runs a website called Smart Football, that basically explains how Manning's Colts teams, despite how complex we always think NFL offenses are, ran only a handful of plays over the course of about a decade. There was about three or four different run plays, and ten core passing plays -- and the majority of the time, it was one of three different passing plays, sprinkling the other ones in, at most, once or twice a game. According to his backup Jim Sorgi, defenses mostly knew exactly what plays they were running, it was just a matter of execution. I'm not adding this as part of the "who's better?" discussion, I just find it to be an interesting piece.

[IceCap]

Rings aren't the be-all-end-all, but they can't be dismissed. At the end of the day? Brady has the post-season success. Manning doesn't. Not really.

We're already seeing Peyton slow down. What happens if the Broncos don't win it all? How many times does Manning need to flame out before we can all agree that, yeah, Tom Brady was/is better?

On that note...I find it funny how Manning fans CANNOT accept that. As if saying their favourite generational talent is only the second greatest QB of his era is somehow an injustice that cannot stand.

But you say this as if Brady hasn't also flamed out in the playoffs. It's been ten years since he won a Super Bowl.

It's really hard to win a Super Bowl and you have to count on a lot of things outside your control going right and your teammates helping you out. Brady's came through for him more often than Manning's. If their teams were reversed I firmly believe Manning would have at least four rings.

I find it funny how if you like one guy that means the other is terrible. Not saying that at all. This is clearly a 1a/1b debate. I would take Peyton Manning ahead of Brady. That's all.

Yeah, Brady's flamed out too. He's also won three rings. The fact that he's flamed out doesn't take those championships off the table. As for Manning? Yeah, winning a Super Bowl is something that an entire team needs to contribute. Yet in two of Brady's three wins he led late-game drives to put his team in a position to win the game (the third, against Philly, was a monkey stomping from start to finish).

Manning? The Saints sealed their win after a Manning interception. The Seahawks? They had a defensive game plan Manning failed to adjust to. Yes, it takes more then a quarterback to win a championship. Let's not pretend that Manning's loses came despite his efforts though. He was, to the determent of his "legacy," central to his teams' two Super Bowl loses.

[JayMac]

Rings aren't the be-all-end-all, but they can't be dismissed. At the end of the day? Brady has the post-season success. Manning doesn't. Not really.

We're already seeing Peyton slow down. What happens if the Broncos don't win it all? How many times does Manning need to flame out before we can all agree that, yeah, Tom Brady was/is better?

On that note...I find it funny how Manning fans CANNOT accept that. As if saying their favourite generational talent is only the second greatest QB of his era is somehow an injustice that cannot stand.

But you say this as if Brady hasn't also flamed out in the playoffs. It's been ten years since he won a Super Bowl.

It's really hard to win a Super Bowl and you have to count on a lot of things outside your control going right and your teammates helping you out. Brady's came through for him more often than Manning's. If their teams were reversed I firmly believe Manning would have at least four rings.

I find it funny how if you like one guy that means the other is terrible. Not saying that at all. This is clearly a 1a/1b debate. I would take Peyton Manning ahead of Brady. That's all.

Yeah, Brady's flamed out too. He's also won three rings. The fact that he's flamed out doesn't take those championships off the table. As for Manning? Yeah, winning a Super Bowl is something that an entire team needs to contribute. Yet in two of Brady's three wins he led late-game drives to put his team in a position to win the game (the third, against Philly, was a monkey stomping from start to finish).

Manning? The Saints sealed their win after a Manning interception. The Seahawks? They had a defensive game plan Manning failed to adjust to. Yes, it takes more then a quarterback to win a championship. Let's not pretend that Manning's loses came despite his efforts though. He was, to the determent of his "legacy," central to his teams' two Super Bowl loses.

Brady wasn't? He was especially awful in the last Patriots Super Bowl appearance against the Giants. IIRC, he does possess the dubious distinction of throwing his way to a Giants safety.

[IceCap]

Oh, he totally melted in that second game against the Giants. That doesn't erase his late-game heroics against St. Louis and Carolina. That's my point. Brady's post-season production may of slowed down but Manning's never really got started.

I find it funny how if you like one guy that means the other is terrible. Not saying that at all. This is clearly a 1a/1b debate. I would take Peyton Manning ahead of Brady. That's all.

I wanted to touch on this point specifically.

It's sports fandom. The reasons why people don't like Tom Brady have been expanded upon. If you don't like him for those reasons then it's human nature to assume that sort of person you don't like really isn't great, despite all evidence to the contrary.

And yeah, I'm the same way in reverse. To me Peyton Manning's the embodiment of the NFL (or more precisely, the NFL quarterback) "good ole' boy" culture. I won't pretend for a moment that Tim Tebow was the better choice at the quarterback position but I firmly believe that Peyton fit in so well in Denver because he was someone Elway "understood" as "belonging" under centre in the NFL.

He's whitebread. He's the establishment with the family legacy. The guy "football guys" like. That rubs me the wrong way. Like someone who finds Tom Brady annoying because of the supermodel wife I tend to look at a guy like Peyton Manning and downplay him in comparison to someone I honestly believe is better. Is it "fair" to Manning that I do that? No, but then again it's not like I have a Hall of Fame vote or anything. I'm just a schmuck on the internet. So I don't feel too bad about it

At the end of the day? Call Tom Brady a "golden boy" all you want. That title's more apt for Manning, considering each player's histories. Brady was a guy the football establishment didn't expect to make it. Yet he did. Manning was always expected to be great, and was. Forgive me if I find the former to be the more interesting narrative.

EDIT- On the "Brady hasn't won a ring in ten years" argument...we're quickly approaching that number for Manning. Just food for thought.

[BBTV]

Doesn't Peyton call all his own plays like he's the OC? If so, while that sounds like something to give him an award for, maybe he's just not that good at it when it counts, and if you did swap Brady for Manning, Peyton would have struggled in NE because either he'd have to play in somebody's system, or not make all the right calls when it counts. We'll never know - which is why arguing about it is kinda fun.

I like Peyton Manning. 5 years ago I probably woudl have said I thought he was a big douchebag, but I don't know if it's SNL, or the commercials, or whatever, but I find him likeable now. Either way - I'm taking Tom Brady.

I don't actually know. I've read things that make it seem like he's completely in control, I've seen others that suggest that while he has more control than any other QB, it's not all him. It probably falls somewhere in between. The offenses he runs in Denver seem to be more conservative and run more in situations like third and short and late in games than what I remember seeing them do in Indy, which would definitely be a result of John Fox's conservative style. It's usually to their detriment.

One interesting read, though, if you have an interest in football strategy, is an article by Chris Brown, who runs a website called Smart Football, that basically explains how Manning's Colts teams, despite how complex we always think NFL offenses are, ran only a handful of plays over the course of about a decade. There was about three or four different run plays, and ten core passing plays -- and the majority of the time, it was one of three different passing plays, sprinkling the other ones in, at most, once or twice a game. According to his backup Jim Sorgi, defenses mostly knew exactly what plays they were running, it was just a matter of execution. I'm not adding this as part of the "who's better?" discussion, I just find it to be an interesting piece.

When I hear about guys like Andy Reid who came in to Philadelphia with a play book bigger than a phone book (remember those?) and had to listen to how his system was so complex that it took receivers 2 years minimum to understand all the idiosyncrasies of it, I used to think "hey, remember when Joe Gibbs was winning Super Bowls every year? Did he have a "system"? Or were they just good?" I think the same way with the "genius" Chip Kelly. I have come to the conclusion that for the most part, a fancy "system" only helps to compensate for not being good enough. The Coughlin Giants, Roethlisburger Steelers, Gibbs-era Washington, Aikman-era Dallas, etc. didn't need "systems" - you knew what they were doing, you just couldn't stop it. I guess the argument would be Bill Walsh, but was "throw a slant to Jerry Rice" really a "system"? Maybe there was more to it than that (I was young then) but it seems like the best thing to do is just get the best players and execute. You're a godsdamned football coach - not a scientist. "Run Left", "Run Right", "Throw it deep" should essentially be the only plays you need - not "‘shift to halfback twin right open, swap 72 all-go special halfback shallow cross wide open" (that's an actual Andy Reid play - and the reason his teams snap the ball with 1 second on the clock all the time and can't audible.)

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs/article866082.html#storylink=cpy

[See Red]

Rings aren't the be-all-end-all, but they can't be dismissed. At the end of the day? Brady has the post-season success. Manning doesn't. Not really.

We're already seeing Peyton slow down. What happens if the Broncos don't win it all? How many times does Manning need to flame out before we can all agree that, yeah, Tom Brady was/is better?

On that note...I find it funny how Manning fans CANNOT accept that. As if saying their favourite generational talent is only the second greatest QB of his era is somehow an injustice that cannot stand.

But you say this as if Brady hasn't also flamed out in the playoffs. It's been ten years since he won a Super Bowl.

It's really hard to win a Super Bowl and you have to count on a lot of things outside your control going right and your teammates helping you out. Brady's came through for him more often than Manning's. If their teams were reversed I firmly believe Manning would have at least four rings.

I find it funny how if you like one guy that means the other is terrible. Not saying that at all. This is clearly a 1a/1b debate. I would take Peyton Manning ahead of Brady. That's all.

Yeah, Brady's flamed out too. He's also won three rings. The fact that he's flamed out doesn't take those championships off the table. As for Manning? Yeah, winning a Super Bowl is something that an entire team needs to contribute. Yet in two of Brady's three wins he led late-game drives to put his team in a position to win the game (the third, against Philly, was a monkey stomping from start to finish).

Manning? The Saints sealed their win after a Manning interception. The Seahawks? They had a defensive game plan Manning failed to adjust to. Yes, it takes more then a quarterback to win a championship. Let's not pretend that Manning's loses came despite his efforts though. He was, to the determent of his "legacy," central to his teams' two Super Bowl loses.

But Brady's Super Bowls also came when he wasn't the central element to his teams success. Those early Brady-Patriots teams were built to win games defensively and run the ball offensively. As the team has shifted to become more reliant on the Brady-led offense, they haven't won a Super Bowl. Nothing against Brady, he's accomplished what he's accomplished, but I agree with those that say if you swap the two, the rings argument goes the other way.

Also, that Broncos team wasn't making a game of that Super Bowl regardless of who their QB was. The defense was decimated by injuries to key players, they lost their LT for the season and the offensive line played atrocious, and even if they had been healthy, the Seahawks were just way better and came into that game with way more intensity. And even beyond all that, Seattle played a defensive style that the Broncos just didn't match up well against.

[Sport]

Oh, he totally melted in that second game against the Giants. That doesn't erase his late-game heroics against St. Louis and Carolina. That's my point. Brady's post-season production may of slowed down but Manning's never really got started.

I find it funny how if you like one guy that means the other is terrible. Not saying that at all. This is clearly a 1a/1b debate. I would take Peyton Manning ahead of Brady. That's all.

I wanted to touch on this point specifically.

It's sports fandom. The reasons why people don't like Tom Brady have been expanded upon. If you don't like him for those reasons then it's human nature to assume that sort of person you don't like really isn't great, despite all evidence to the contrary.

And yeah, I'm the same way in reverse. To me Peyton Manning's the embodiment of the NFL (or more precisely, the NFL quarterback) "good ole' boy" culture. I won't pretend for a moment that Tim Tebow was the better choice at the quarterback position but I firmly believe that Peyton fit in so well in Denver because he was someone Elway "understood" as "belonging" under centre in the NFL.

He's whitebread. He's the establishment with the family legacy. The guy "football guys" like. That rubs me the wrong way. Like someone who finds Tom Brady annoying because of the supermodel wife I tend to look at a guy like Peyton Manning and downplay him in comparison to someone I honestly believe is better. Is it "fair" to Manning that I do that? No, but then again it's not like I have a Hall of Fame vote or anything. I'm just a schmuck on the internet. So I don't feel too bad about it

At the end of the day? Call Tom Brady a "golden boy" all you want. That title's more apt for Manning, considering each player's histories. Brady was a guy the football establishment didn't expect to make it. Yet he did. Manning was always expected to be great, and was. Forgive me if I find the former to be the more interesting narrative.

EDIT- On the "Brady hasn't won a ring in ten years" argument...we're quickly approaching that number for Manning. Just food for thought.

Food for thought. I brought up that Brady hasn't won in ten years because it seems Tom Brady fans harp on Manning's playoff failures while ignoring Brady's.

None of that matters to me. I don't care about the narrative or where each player was drafted or that Peyton Manning is Archie's son or a traditional NFL QB while Brady isn't (but he pretty much is) or that Peyton is a hardcore republican (something I normally wouldn't get behind). It's that I've watched these guys through their whole careers and I'd take Peyton Manning because I believe he is better at the position than Tom Brady, who is also very good.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

You know how Mike Tyson said "everyone has a plan until they're punched in the mouth"? I feel like that's the key difference between Manning and Brady. Brady can take a punch and still come back; he's done it time and again and with generally less talent than Manning. I don't think Manning can; he is the original Manning face after all.

It was super clear in the Seahawks/Broncos game, especially after the record-breaking season the Broncos had last year. The Broncos gave up a safety right away, and that essentially felt like the ball game. Manning was prepared to Omaha his way to a Super Bowl MVP, but instead he got out of sorts and had the biggest meltdown of the year.

Say what you will about the Patriots, but they generally don't lose the way Manning's Broncos did against the Seahawks. Before Super Bowl 48, Manning was 1-1 in the big game. Now he's got a losing record in a way that I think says a lot about his legacy.

I agree that they're both great quarterbacks, but given the choice, I'd rather have Brady, Aaron Rodgers or Russell Wilson in a playoff game. Or for that matter, Colin Kaepernick (the good one). I have more faith in all of those guys to come back in a playoff game that doesn't go their way than I do Manning, especially late-career Manning.