Manning or Brady

[Crash 105]

I put them even with each other. I don't really like the talk about how great Brady was with no talent around him except a top 5 defense and a great running game. He was nothing more then a 3000 yard passer and a passenger on their way to those superbowls. Vinateri won them 2 of those superbowls so without him Brady would be 1-4 in the Super Bowl which is why I don't put him on a pedestal. They both have had great talent come and go, Brady has never really had the WR manning has had and manning as a colt never had a defense that Brady had during those Super Bowl years. Manning is the better overall QB with better overall numbers but they are both 2 of the greatest ever

[Crash 105]

I created a separate thread with my spreadsheet and top 21 QBs. You can debate me there, if you wish. Here's the link and a preview of the list broken into their tiers:

 

http://www.thegridironpalace.com/forums/index.php?/topic/65901-zacks-top-21-qbs-of-all-time/

 

01. Joe Montana

02. Aaron Rodgers

03. Drew Brees

04. Tom Brady

05. Bart Starr

 

06. John Elway

07. Otto Graham

08. Ben Roethlisberger

09. Kurt Warner

10. Steve Young

 

11. Eli Manning

12. Roger Staubach

 

13. Brett Favre

14. Peyton Manning

15. Dan Marino

16. Warren Moon

17. Johnny Unitas

 

18. Jim Kelly

19. Terry Bradshaw

20. Fran Tarkenton

21. Ken Anderson

I can't see how that's even close. I really can't

[Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014]

I can't see how that's even close. I really can't

 

Then debate it in my thread. Too many NFL fans simply accept what the general consensus is without looking into it themselves, and when someone does dig a bit and comes up with different results, they are simply told, "no, you're obviously wrong" without the other party even making an attempt at an argument.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I put them even with each other. I don't really like the talk about how great Brady was with no talent around him except a top 5 defense and a great running game. He was nothing more then a 3000 yard passer and a passenger on their way to those superbowls. Vinateri won them 2 of those superbowls so without him Brady would be 1-4 in the Super Bowl which is why I don't put him on a pedestal. They both have had great talent come and go, Brady has never really had the WR manning has had and manning as a colt never had a defense that Brady had during those Super Bowl years. Manning is the better overall QB with better overall numbers but they are both 2 of the greatest ever

 

Just wow.

 

So Brady marching the Pats down the field to set up Vinatieri doesn't count for anything? It's not like he hit these really long field goals, they were both inside of 45 yards.

 

Not to mention, Vinatieri had already been blocked by Julius Peppers earlier in the Panthers Superbowl. Saying Vinatieri won Brady two SBs is one of the most asinine things you've said on these boards yet.

[Dutch 874]

Just wow.

 

So Brady marching the Pats down the field to set up Vinatieri doesn't count for anything? It's not like he hit these really long field goals, they were both inside of 45 yards.

 

Not to mention, Vinatieri had already been blocked by Julius Peppers earlier in the Panthers Superbowl. Saying Vinatieri won Brady two SBs is one of the most asinine things you've said on these boards yet.

 

I don't know. I don't think anything can top him saying Jerry Rice would struggle against Nnamdi..

[Thanatos 2,847]

"One of." Not "The most." That was definitely the most.

[Crash 105]

Just wow.

 

So Brady marching the Pats down the field to set up Vinatieri doesn't count for anything? It's not like he hit these really long field goals, they were both inside of 45 yards.

 

Not to mention, Vinatieri had already been blocked by Julius Peppers earlier in the Panthers Superbowl. Saying Vinatieri won Brady two SBs is one of the most asinine things you've said on these boards yet.

No Brady should get a good amount of the credit but not all of it like he usually does, it's not like he drove them 99 yards and throw a touchdown pass to win the game. He got them 40-50 yards and vinateri got them the win. I just don't think all of the credit should go to Brady who was on a overall talented team

Edited July 10, 2013 by Crash

[Crash 105]

I don't know. I don't think anything can top him saying Jerry Rice would struggle against Nnamdi..

Really? 4 years ago Nnamdi was the best man press corner in the NFL and was a consensus top 3 corner in the league. I never said Nnamdi is a beast now but if you took him in his prime and allowed him to physically abuse WR it would be hard to get open against him no matter who you are

[KempBolt 498]

Really? 4 years ago Nnamdi was the best man press corner in the NFL and was a consensus top 3 corner in the league. I never said Nnamdi is a beast now but if you took him in his prime and allowed him to physically abuse WR it would be hard to get open against him no matter who you are

 

You're claiming that a guy who was top 5 in his generation would be able to beat a guy who is the best of all time.

 

And Nnamdi was overrated anyways. He played exclusively RCB (the less targeted boundary corner) and the rest of his secondary was typically garbage, meaning teams never had to target him. The Chargers challenged him with regularity and Rivers got the better of him nearly every time they faced off.

 

And that's the guy you're saying would win against Jerry Rice. Lol.

[Crash 105]

You're claiming that a guy who was top 5 in his generation would be able to beat a guy who is the best of all time.

 

And Nnamdi was overrated anyways. He played exclusively RCB (the less targeted boundary corner) and the rest of his secondary was typically garbage, meaning teams never had to target him. The Chargers challenged him with regularity and Rivers got the better of him nearly every time they faced off.

 

And that's the guy you're saying would win against Jerry Rice. Lol.

Their were a handful of guys i brought up who i think would be able to give jerry a hard time given oldschool rules and Nnamdi was at the bottom of that list.

 

I'm not saying Nnamdi is the greatest thing since sliced bread but this new fad of bashing the guy because of the garbage coaching in Philly just bugs me. I also don't care that he "only" plays on the right because that just means he plays to his strengths, he is physically stronger on that side and his jab is better so he should mainly stay on that side. This is the same arguement with countless players in the NFL and all I try to do is see a guy for what he is and not inflate it, Nnamdi was nothing more then a man press corner and he lost his swager and respect because Philly were a bunch of idiots and if you take his strengths and then allow him to be even more physical it would only make since that he would be better in the 80's. this argument has already been had about what I think Jerry rice is and do I think he is one of the greatest of all time? Yes. Do I think he would be as dominate now? Idk maybe, the physical talent is incomparable between generations, our talent now crushes past generations so its hard to say. Old school players I don't think could be half as good as they were in they're day if they played in today's game, it's almost a waste of a conversation to think how some of these guys could even try to play today's game

Edited July 10, 2013 by Crash

[KempBolt 498]

Their were a handful of guys i brought up who i think would be able to give jerry a hard time given oldschool rules and Nnamdi was at the bottom of that list.

 

I'm not saying Nnamdi is the greatest thing since sliced bread but this new fad of bashing the guy because of the garbage coaching in Philly just bugs me. I also don't care that he "only" plays on the right because that just means he plays to his strengths, he is physically stronger on that side and his jab is better so he should mainly stay on that side. This is the same arguement with countless players in the NFL and all I try to do is see a guy for what he is and not inflate it, Nnamdi was nothing more then a man press corner and he lost his swager and respect because Philly were a bunch of idiots and if you take his strengths and then allow him to be even more physical it would only make since that he would be better in the 80's. this argument has already been had about what I think Jerry rice is and do I think he is one of the greatest of all time? Yes. Do I think he would be as dominate now? Idk maybe, the physical talent is incomparable between generations, our talent now crushes past generations so its hard to say. Old school players I don't think could be half as good as they were in they're day if they played in today's game, it's almost a waste of a conversation to think how some of these guys could even try to play today's game

 

 

I didn't even mention Philly.

[Crash 105]

I didn't even mention Philly.

I wasn't saying that about you. Most people think Nnamdi sucks because of his 2 years in Philly but in reality I am a better coach then the ones they had in philly

[Dutch 874]

Their were a handful of guys i brought up who i think would be able to give jerry a hard time given oldschool rules and Nnamdi was at the bottom of that list.

 

I'm not saying Nnamdi is the greatest thing since sliced bread but this new fad of bashing the guy because of the garbage coaching in Philly just bugs me. I also don't care that he "only" plays on the right because that just means he plays to his strengths, he is physically stronger on that side and his jab is better so he should mainly stay on that side. This is the same arguement with countless players in the NFL and all I try to do is see a guy for what he is and not inflate it, Nnamdi was nothing more then a man press corner and he lost his swager and respect because Philly were a bunch of idiots and if you take his strengths and then allow him to be even more physical it would only make since that he would be better in the 80's. this argument has already been had about what I think Jerry rice is and do I think he is one of the greatest of all time? Yes. Do I think he would be as dominate now? Idk maybe, the physical talent is incomparable between generations, our talent now crushes past generations so its hard to say. Old school players I don't think could be half as good as they were in they're day if they played in today's game, it's almost a waste of a conversation to think how some of these guys could even try to play today's game

 

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the nonsense you said. So, what about all the plays that Nnamdi got beat when he was in press man coverage?

Edited July 10, 2013 by dutchff7

[oochymp 2,393]

No Brady should get a good amount of the credit but not all of it like he usually does, it's not like he drove them 99 yards and throw a touchdown pass to win the game. He got them 40-50 yards and vinateri got them the win. I just don't think all of the credit should go to Brady who was on a overall talented team

I don't typically hear people give Brady all of the credit, certainly a lot, and often more than he should, but most people who know football by any measure know that the Patriots had a great defense in the early 2000s and one of the best coaches in the league (I don't want to get into a Bill Belichick debate, so I'm leaving the qualifier somewhere that everyone can agree with) to give Vinatieri, or any kicker, full credit, or even a lot of credit, for winning a Super Bowl is absurd, in Super Bowl XXXVI, which the Patriots won 20-17 after a Vinatieri kick at the end (first note that the game would have gone to OT if he'd missed, they wouldn't have lost) Vinatieri took two field goals and two extra points, meaning he was on the field for four offensive plays (assuming you count PATs as offensive plays) the Patriots ran 58 offensive plays (25 run plays, 29 pass plays, and Vinatieri's 4 kicks) meaning Vinatieri was on the field for roughly 7% of the Patriots' offensive plays, Brady was on the field for the other 93%, can you really look at that and say that Vinatieri had a bigger impact on that game than Brady?

 

Also worth noting: in the second Super Bowl Vinatieri supposedly won for Brady, Vinatieri missed two kicks early in the game from inside 40 yards, hard to give him that much credit for winning a game when he went 1-3

[KempBolt 498]

I wasn't saying that about you. Most people think Nnamdi sucks because of his 2 years in Philly but in reality I am a better coach then the ones they had in philly

 

I think you're too quick to make excuses for their players. But I guess that's you M.O. now that DRC is a Bronco and you want to argue that his poor play was all Philly's fault.

 

But all that aside, Nnamdi was overrated while he was still in Oakland. Still a top 5 guy at one point, but not as good as the media made him out to be. And certainly not a guy that could have handled Jerry Rice.

[Crash 105]

I think you're too quick to make excuses for their players. But I guess that's you M.O. now that DRC is a Bronco and you want to argue that his poor play was all Philly's fault.

 

But all that aside, Nnamdi was overrated while he was still in Oakland. Still a top 5 guy at one point, but not as good as the media made him out to be. And certainly not a guy that could have handled Jerry Rice.

C'mon. Philly had a offensive line coach coaching their defense and completely used their players the wrong way. I don't blame any of those players from that Philly defense, that had A LOT of talent on that side of the ball

[Crash 105]

I don't typically hear people give Brady all of the credit, certainly a lot, and often more than he should, but most people who know football by any measure know that the Patriots had a great defense in the early 2000s and one of the best coaches in the league (I don't want to get into a Bill Belichick debate, so I'm leaving the qualifier somewhere that everyone can agree with) to give Vinatieri, or any kicker, full credit, or even a lot of credit, for winning a Super Bowl is absurd, in Super Bowl XXXVI, which the Patriots won 20-17 after a Vinatieri kick at the end (first note that the game would have gone to OT if he'd missed, they wouldn't have lost) Vinatieri took two field goals and two extra points, meaning he was on the field for four offensive plays (assuming you count PATs as offensive plays) the Patriots ran 58 offensive plays (25 run plays, 29 pass plays, and Vinatieri's 4 kicks) meaning Vinatieri was on the field for roughly 7% of the Patriots' offensive plays, Brady was on the field for the other 93%, can you really look at that and say that Vinatieri had a bigger impact on that game than Brady?

 

Also worth noting: in the second Super Bowl Vinatieri supposedly won for Brady, Vinatieri missed two kicks early in the game from inside 40 yards, hard to give him that much credit for winning a game when he went 1-3

Like I said vinateri deserves a little credit, not all and every conversation held about Brady is that he was HOF with no talent around him but he had A LOT of talent around him. Brady is great but just not as good as some people talk about, like he's a football god.

 

Not to take anything away from Brady but he did win 3 superbowls with vinateri, a top 5 defense and a great running game, then has 0 Super Bowl wins with just a high powered passing offense. I just think there are other pieces of that Super Bowl team that deserve just as much credit if not more then brady

Edited July 10, 2013 by Crash

[Thanatos 2,847]

Like I said vinateri deserves a little credit, not all and every conversation held about Brady is that he was HOF with no talent around him but he had A LOT of talent around him. Brady is great but just not as good as some people talk about, like he's a football god.

 

Not to take anything away from Brady but he did win 3 superbowls with vinateri, a top 5 defense and a great running game, then has 0 Super Bowl wins with just a high powered passing offense. I just think there are other pieces of that Super Bowl team that deserve just as much credit if not more then brady

 

Wait you're saying it takes a team to win a Super Bowl? Kinda like how the defense of the Colts during their Super Bowl run made up for Peyton's abysmal play during the playoffs?

 

Gee whillickers. I never knew that you needed a team to win a Super Bowl. I thought Tom Brady could win the game if he was the only person on the field. He'd play defense too.

 

It's not like the stat that the passing leader in the regular season *has never won the Superbowl* should maybe have told me that just having a great offense isn't going to be enough anymore. Nor is it at all impressive to me that Brady won the AFC and was two hail marys away from winning the SB *despite the fact that he was carrying that team* and that this makes him better than Peyton who regularly goes one and done in the playoffs and only was able to win a Superbowl when he was against Rex Grossman.

 

Nope. None of that means anything. You're completely correct. Clearly the fact that Brady has no defense and is unable to win the Superbowl by himself means that Peyton is the better QB and that Brady was getting too much credit. Clearly.

[KempBolt 498]

C'mon. Philly had a offensive line coach coaching their defense and completely used their players the wrong way. I don't blame any of those players from that Philly defense, that had A LOT of talent on that side of the ball

 

Then why were other players able to put out good seasons? And why didn't DRC and Nnamdi immediately return to form when Todd Bowles took over? They completely catered to those guys after they fired Castillo and they still sucked.

[Crash 105]

Wait you're saying it takes a team to win a Super Bowl? Kinda like how the defense of the Colts during their Super Bowl run made up for Peyton's abysmal play during the playoffs?

 

Gee whillickers. I never knew that you needed a team to win a Super Bowl. I thought Tom Brady could win the game if he was the only person on the field. He'd play defense too.

 

It's not like the stat that the passing leader in the regular season *has never won the Superbowl* should maybe have told me that just having a great offense isn't going to be enough anymore. Nor is it at all impressive to me that Brady won the AFC and was two hail marys away from winning the SB *despite the fact that he was carrying that team* and that this makes him better than Peyton who regularly goes one and done in the playoffs and only was able to win a Superbowl when he was against Rex Grossman.

 

Nope. None of that means anything. You're completely correct. Clearly the fact that Brady has no defense and is unable to win the Superbowl by himself means that Peyton is the better QB and that Brady was getting too much credit. Clearly.

Go and read some of the comments in this very thread. Brady has more super rings because he had a better team but that's the big difference between manning and Brady because if you went off of just numbers manning is way better. If it takes a team to win a Super Bowl then take Super Bowls and playoff records off the table and just talk QB numbers and tell me which ones a Better QB

[Crash 105]

Then why were other players able to put out good seasons? And why didn't DRC and Nnamdi immediately return to form when Todd Bowles took over? They completely catered to those guys after they fired Castillo and they still sucked.

I will wait to form my present judgement until the start of TC on both DRC and Nnamdi now that they have good defensive staff to coach them and if they both return to form then it will show it wasn't a lack of talent in Philly that sunk that ship. I think both can be top 5 corners if given the right coaching and right scheme

Edited July 10, 2013 by Crash