and responded to one of the posters over at Pats Pulpit. I tried not to, but well, you know this debate has always pushed my last nerve button.

For all of the reasons you mentioned, and have mentioned time and time again, BSPN is beyond ridicules (I can’t even smile about that now)

I mean sure, more rings means better, right? Cause why in the world would we want to judge a QB on his actual production…it makes much more sense to judge a QB on his team’s production, right? Cause like, you know, he lines up for the defense too. Rat bastahds.

I have noticed how Kuharsky’s coverage in the AFC South is slanted toward Tennessee. More stories etc. I thought I was just imagining it.

That along with blatant cheating, NE’s D was stacked the first couple years and were mainly responsible for at least 2, if not all three of those victories. Well, I guess that kicker they had who was pretty good bailed the team (esp. the QB) out every time, too. Wonder what he’s up to nowadays. Not only do rings not make the QB, but Brady being given credit for those rings is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Brady was as responsible as Trent Dilfer or Brad Johnson for those wins. He is a rich man’s Dilfer/Johnson. Yes, he is obviously better than those two ever were, but ESPN is so anti-Manning, pro-Brady, it is sick. They honestly think he is single handedly responsible. He is not. even. close.

yawn

Is it September yet?

I can’t believe a company can be so bias. The man just came back from a serious knee, and yet the media (ESPN especially) believes he’s still in form from the 2007 season. Hell, ESPN even doubted Tiger Woods when he came back from his surgery, but the golden boy is just fine because he said so.
  
Didn’t they watch the Super Bowl? The NY Giants destroyed the golden boy. Don’t get mean wrong, Brady is definitely is an elite QB, but the best this decade? Um….no. Like BBS said, this decade isn’t even over!

But what really pisses me off is Herm’s comment. “…[Brady] has won Super Bowls and was a sixth-round pick.” In a way Herm demeans Peyton for being the #1 pick. I always thought that it was great being the # number 1 overall in a draft. He says that as if every # 1 NFL draft pick is successful which isn’t the case.

So if the argument is based on the number of rings those two have, then Terry Bradshaw was a better quarterback than Johnny Unitas, right. I mean Terry has 4 rings to Unitas’ 1 ring; he’s cleary the better QB. I mean the Steelers defense in the 1970s was okay, but Bradshaw really won those Super Bowls because of his terrific play just like the Pats won because of Brady during the teams’ first 2 SB wins.

I just don’t get ESPN. In the NBA, they love to glorify top picks that succeed (i.e. Lebron James); but when it comes to the NFL, they don’t do that for Peyton, Eli, or McNabb. It seems that they love rooting for the underdog (i.e. Brady and Favre).

The only thing I’ll watch on ESPN for now on is P.T.I., and I’ll probably stop watching next month since Kornheiser and Wilbon will be on vacation.

Montana vs. Marino
Marino has all the stats, but Montana has the rings.
I consider Montana to be a better QB because he has come through when it counted most.

Peyton has had his share of chances to re-write history. In 99, we had a home playoff game against Tennessee that could have sent us to the AFCCG in Jax. If we won that game, and went on to the Super Bowl, history is different right there. Brady, on the other hand, took his underdog team on the road and won the AFC, then upset the heavily favored Rams in the Super Bowl. Don’t argue cheating because you still have to play and win the game.

In 03 and 04, we lost to the better team, which had Brady at QB.

In 05, we had the most dominant team in the league and did absolutely nothing for 3 quarters in our HOME playoff game a the #1 SEED. Don’t apologize for Peyton in that game because he and Tom Moore could have made a couple simple adjustments to neutralize the Pittsburgh blitz early in that game. Instead, they kept trying to get the middle to deep routes and didn’t succeed in that until the score was 21-3 and the game was already won. If Peyton completes that comeback, or the Colts show up that day, history is different.

In 07, we had another home playoff game against a team that lost its starting QB and RB during the game. The game went back and forth throughout but Billy Volek of all people completed his TD drive in the 4th quarter and Peyton had 1st and Goal towards the end of the game with a chance to send us to Foxborough but turned it over on downs. If we finish that game and go on to upset the Pats, history would be much different.

It comes down to this….stats are great, but the measure of greatness is about winning, and you don’t always have to win by throwing the ball a million times. In that first and goal against the Chargers in 07, we ran on 1st down and then threw the ball 3 straight times from the 5 yard line. THIS WAS THE YEAR AFTER WE RAN THE BALL 3 TIMES TO SCORE AND SEND US TO THE SUPER BOWL. Let the rest of the team do the job too. Brady doesn’t have all the stats because those Patriots teams knew that winning wasn’t all about one person, but every player doing his job. That’s what makes teams Champions.

The only year that the Colts won the Super Bowl was the year that Peyton had probably his worst playoff run statistically. The rest of the players did their job and Peyton understood that he didn’t have to do it all during the Super Bowl because we were running all over the Bears all game. Stats don’t matter, winning does.

to not argue. I think Manning’s better and time will tell. I liked #7’s all-around game. Elway had about 4 more seasons in his bag (let’s put it this way: at this point in his career, he was 0-3 in the SB), so Manning has some room to work. Also, I am not the first to point out that Elway only won the SB when he had a 2,000 yd rusher next to him.

Bradshaw was good and I am not throwing him into the 18 vs 12 debate. I am just saying that he won because of his stacked team and that does not make him great. I also said that maybe 5 or 6 other QBs of his vintage would have had the same success in Pittsburgh—that means to me they were just as good QBs as Terry. (are we picking the “QB of the decade” or the “QB of the team of the decade”?)

Look at it this way, if you put Manning, Trent Green, Kurt Warner, McNabb, Gannon, or Culpepper on the 2003/2004 Patriots teams, do they all win the SBs as well? Probably. So how can you use the SB wins as a definitive argument in favor of 12’s greatestness (new word—I may have to trademark it)? When a handful of other guys, in his shoes, would also make (what you consider to be legit) a claim to greatest?

Kuharski is just poking the hornet’s nest here. Patriots Nation will enjoy this for a bit : ) : ) but it all means about as much as those NFL Network’s ridiculous “Who’s better Brady or Manning?” specials that seem to come on right before our matchup in November. As you can guess, the winner of those “specials” was always Manning. Guess the league isn’t big enough for two outstanding quarterbacks… even though the two of them seem okay with it themselves.

nitro-burning funny-car dragsters versus the Prius

50 yrs. from now no one will be reading what ESPN wrote in 2009. Their opinions just don’t matter. They can say anything they want about Brady being the QB of the decade, that doesn’t make it so. It’s just an opinion. Frankly, they’re both great. But I believe that time will tell, that Peyton is the best QB to EVER play the game.

When Brady had it, he won three super bowls. When Manning had it (at least in the playoffs), he won a super bowl. Sure, in 01-04 the Pats owned the Colts, but the Pats had the better TEAM. Not the better QB, but the better team. They had a defense that was light year’s better than teh Colts’s. In 05-08, Manning is 4-1 against NE (3-1 against Brady), with one more super bowl ring. The Pats were a dynasty (although one with the specter of cheating surrounding it), but it is over. It has been over four calendar years since they last one a super bowl. How can Brady be the best QB in the decade, when for the last four years he was the third best QB, behind Manning and Roethlisberger.

Also, the most BS part of the ESPN argument was that Brady gets more credit since he was a sixth-round pick. Why the hell should Manning get hurt because he was actually amazing in college while BRady was so average and insecure that he needed to hire a sports psycologist?

This isn’t the first shot ESPN has thrown toward the Colts/Peyton Manning, and it sure isn’t the last. On NFL Live, the staff claimed that Peyton Manning’s “best days” were behind him, and that he was no longer “in his prime.” They also mentioned that the Colts’ window was closing, okay, seriously? ANYWAYS. Look, Tom Brady may have three rings, but I don’t give a fly. If I was starting a NFL franchise based on players from this decade, my quarterback would be Peyton Manning, hands down, period, the end, etc. They say Brady’s clutch, but Manning has more fourth quarter comebacks and just about everything else. Who cares if Brady threw 50 TD passes. I don’t remember the exact numbers, but it took Brady more games/attempts to get there. If people haven’t realized it yet, ESPN is full of biased, moronic, “analysts.” Half of them do not know what they are talking about, so, just ignore the crap they come up with. Also, to the whole draft value thing, yeah. Brady never had high expectations to amount to, Manning did. Manning embraced those expecations and became one of the greatest PLAYERS the NFL has ever had.

Peyton has one.

You can’t argue with that.

As a Steelers fan, I can’t believe that you debated this much over a simple fact. The battle of Manning vs Brady will always be won by Manning for the simple fact that he never cheated and deserves all the credit, while the other guy benefited a lot by his team’s cheating.
Without cheating AFC Championships of 2001,2003, 2004 and 2007 would’ve been represented by Steelers and Colts.