The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Well ladies and gentlemen, there you have it. Irrefutable proof that Peyton Manning is a considerably better and more important Quarterback than Tom Brady. The absolute thrashing the Colts took, and appear likely to continue taking while Manning is out leaves no doubt on this topic.

In 2008, Brady went down with a knee injury in the opening game of the season. On comes Matt Cassell, who almost nobody outside of his own family had ever heard of (he had 39 pass attempts in his career before replacing Brady) and the Patriots go 11-5, making the playoffs. Cassell had a QB rating of almost 90 that season (89.4). That tells me one thing... Brady is a SYSTEM Quarterback. You can plug anyone you want in there and so long as they understand the system, you're going to get results.

Today, on the other hand, the Colts offense was non-existant. I had the opportunity to hear the first half on the radio as I drove into Boston, and Kerry Collins couldn't even get the team lined up and the plays off, nevermind be at all successful. Manning is obviously a much more vital part of that team, and more talented, to reach the level of success he has while having to do a lot more.

The Colts entire offense is designed around Peyton. You can't say the same for the Pats and Brady. Not saying that Peyton isn't greater, just that it's apples and oranges. Besides, some would say you measure that by the number of rings.

Deadskins wrote:The Colts entire offense is designed around Peyton. You can't say the same for the Pats and Brady. Not saying that Peyton isn't greater, just that it's apples and oranges. Besides, some would say you measure that by the number of rings.

In an era when the Arizona Cardinals and Tampa Bay Buccaneers can be Super Bowl participants, I don't think rings mean ANYTHING.

Manning would be a GOD in the New England offense. Brady would be LOST in the Colts offense.

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:

Deadskins wrote:The Colts entire offense is designed around Peyton. You can't say the same for the Pats and Brady. Not saying that Peyton isn't greater, just that it's apples and oranges. Besides, some would say you measure that by the number of rings.

In an era when the Arizona Cardinals and Tampa Bay Buccaneers can be Super Bowl participants, I don't think rings mean ANYTHING.

Manning would be a GOD in the New England offense. Brady would be LOST in the Colts offense.

Rings mean a lot, but football is a team sport. Brady has had a better supporting cast.

yupchagee wrote:Brady has had a better supporting cast.

Which simply supports my contention that he's not as good a QB as Manning is.

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:

yupchagee wrote:Brady has had a better supporting cast.

Which simply supports my contention that he's not as good a QB as Manning is.

Playing with an inferior cast does not automatically make him a better QB, but I'm not disputing your point.

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:In an era when the Arizona Cardinals and Tampa Bay Buccaneers can be Super Bowl participants, I don't think rings mean ANYTHING.

The Cardinals lost, and the Buccs were one hit wonders. Brady won three in four years, and guided his team to a 19-0 record (setting the record for most TDs in a season) before losing in his fourth. Manning is only 1 and 1 over a longer career. I actually think Manning is the better pure QB, but Brady definitely has "it," but nothing you've presented makes me think Peyon is better, just more valuable to his team.

Good point deadskins

Cassel and the Pats did not make the playlets at 11-5.

I happen to be a Peyton fan - I'm NOT a Tom Brady fan but he's one of the best QBs to EVER play the game



I understand your point but this is a team game and the Colts are not as prepared to handle the offense without their QB as the Patriots

The Colts defense did not do a very good job yesterday

Comparing the results of their replacements really isn't an accurate measurement as to who is the better player. Manning got replaced by a man called out of retirement who hasn't been good for years while Brady got replaced by a young QB that has turned out to be a quality starting QB.

That being said I think Manning, talent wise, is the better QB. Brady however is better in the clutch. Either way they are both 2 of the best QBs of all time.

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:Well ladies and gentlemen, there you have it. Irrefutable proof that Peyton Manning is a considerably better and more important Quarterback than Tom Brady

Tom Brady has three rings, Peyton Manning has one. That's proof Brady is better. It's a better argument then you just made.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Tom Brady has three rings, Peyton Manning has one. That's proof Brady is better. It's a better argument then you just made.

Rings mean nothing in this era. They haven't in almost 20 years.

I would assume that by your logic Mark Rypien is a better quarterback than Fran Tarkenton?

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Tom Brady has three rings, Peyton Manning has one. That's proof Brady is better. It's a better argument then you just made.

Rings mean nothing in this era. They haven't in almost 20 years.

I would assume that by your logic Mark Rypien is a better quarterback than Fran Tarkenton?

I think his point is when you are comparing very similar QB's use rings as a measuring stick. Tarkenton and Rypien aren't even in the same class, Brady and Manning are.

MDSKINSFAN wrote:

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Tom Brady has three rings, Peyton Manning has one. That's proof Brady is better. It's a better argument then you just made.

Rings mean nothing in this era. They haven't in almost 20 years.

I would assume that by your logic Mark Rypien is a better quarterback than Fran Tarkenton?

I think his point is when you are comparing very similar QB's use rings as a measuring stick. Tarkenton and Rypien aren't even in the same class, Brady and Manning are.

Manning and Brady play in the same era. Rypien and Tarkenton didn't. It's always apples and oranges with you.

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Tom Brady has three rings, Peyton Manning has one. That's proof Brady is better. It's a better argument then you just made.

Rings mean nothing in this era. They haven't in almost 20 years.

I would assume that by your logic Mark Rypien is a better quarterback than Fran Tarkenton?

Nope, I didn't think you'd get it even though I explained it to you in the post...

I don't know how all of you can argue about anything on such a beautiful Victory Monday!

LOL. Atleast Peyton Manning didn't need spygate to win a Super Bowl.

rings mean EVERYTHING.
would you rather have the greatest qb of all time with 1 ring or another pretty good qb who gets you multiple rings?

Brady had nicer stats than Manning this last weekend, didn't he?

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:

Deadskins wrote:The Colts entire offense is designed around Peyton. You can't say the same for the Pats and Brady. Not saying that Peyton isn't greater, just that it's apples and oranges. Besides, some would say you measure that by the number of rings.

In an era when the Arizona Cardinals and Tampa Bay Buccaneers can be Super Bowl participants, I don't think rings mean ANYTHING.

Manning would be a GOD in the New England offense. Brady would be LOST in the Colts offense.

Brady was unbelievable this week. But I don't hate the Patriots, I like them. Michigan QB and we lived in New England many years. It's too bad that Manning's career is in jeopardy, so I'm not going to dump on him.

One of the themes of all your accounts, you always hate the Patriots Pods. While you've never cared for the Redskins, I concede you don't hate them like you hate the Patriots. I suppose once your LuckRocks56 account is deleted you'll be back posting on this one regularly, see you Monday...