Yes the title is off the VY files, it's just about Brady. It's not that I don't like him... Well that's not being truthfull I cringe everytime some main stream media guy sucks up to Brady. He does not just magically become better in the playoffs, and I'll show how.
Just as a baseline, I'll show both Manning and Brady's stats for playoffs. Keep in mind they have both played 19 games. The stat order goes, rating, Wins, losses, comp, attempt, TD, INT, yards, and YPA.
88.4 Peyton Manning 9 10 435 692 28 19 5164 7.5
85.7 Tom Brady 14 5 424 682 30 16 4407 6.5
Here are some observations.
Manning has a whole yard more YPA. That's a lot once you add up all the throws. While Brady's is a pitifull 6.5.
Manning has almost 700 more yards.
Manning does have 3 more picks and 2 less TDS, but in all those amounts of throws, Manning would throw an INT on average every 36 throws, while Brady would throw one about every 41. It's not that big of a diffrence, at all really concidering the amount of throws.
Manning averages 271.79 yards per game, while Brady averages 231.95. Thats almost 40 yards less per game.
Looking at the stats, you might not see a big diffrence. Some people would give Brady the edge, and they could, if they just looked at the ordinary stats. Let's look at a huge part of the game, Field Position.
When you look at field position, common sense tells you the closer you are to the endzone, the better chance you have to score. To this, I give you this link. It is FO great article on playoff QBs.
Just a few highlights of the article if you don't want to read it.
Manning has the worst field position of any QB since 1980.
About 40% of Manning's drives start behind the 20 yard line.
Manning has only one TD drive of 40 yards or less in his playoff carrer. Rothlisburger and Brady have 8 each.
The best field position QBs? Rothlisburger and Brady are pretty close. Rothlisburger's average TD drive is less than 60, while Brady's is a little over 60. Manning's is more than 70, 2nd longest in history.
When the vast majority of your drives start around the 20, should we expect to score more than 17 points a game? Usually against better competition?
Random facts, excluding the Jets game, the last 3 playoff losses, the Colts D has allowed 65 points in the 2nd half. That's rediculous.
Since 2005, Manning is 75-21(updated through week 6, and includes playoffs) in games decieded by 8 points or less. Brady is 59-21. Rothlisburger? 56-27.
Manning is the best at winning close games, by a large margin. That you can't deny.
As to winning playoff games, it's rediculous that QBs get that stat. Is it Manning's fault if he can't get any field position? Or that his D consistently blows 4th quarter leads? Or that in the SB the Colts D forced 2 3rd downs in the second half. The best argument I can come up with for the idiotic stat that is playoff wins, is Terry Bradshaw. He had the Steel Curtain, yet he's given credit for being one of the best playoff QBs in history. In carrer passer rating for the playoffs, he is 20th. Brady is 12th, and Manning is 8th. He played in 4 SBs. Being a non factor in one, throwing 3 picks with 2 TDs with the other, and the other two playing well. He wasn't asked to play great for that reason, he threw almost as many picks as he did TDs. They let their D do a lot of the work. I'll give him credit, he played good in one, and 4TDs and 1 pick in another. But he was not the reason he won. Football is a team sport, and as Pats fans just realized, you need a D to win. The idea though that Brady or anyone else really besides Joe Montana(11TDs, 0INTS in SBs he played in) becomes better is rediculous. All have drops in their passer rating, Brady more than Mannings, but that is because you play better teams. I'm not taking anything away from Brady towards his rings, but he was not the sole reason they won, or even more than 3% more deserving of the blame/glory.
QBs get too much credit and blame for losses, I think I've shown that Brady and Manning are not duds in the playoffs, but Manning always has had a bad D with us, and Brady til awhile ago always had a great D. If you wonder why the Steelers won 4 super bowls in a decade, it's because they had an outstanding D. Putting up 40 points means nothing if your D lets them get 45. But, a D can completly shut down the other D, and consistantly give the O great field position and even points. This is what happened with Brady for the first few year. The comeback against Carolina in the SB? When he made that drive for Vinny to kick the winner? The Panthers kicker kicked the ball out of bounds, and Brady got the ball at the 40. He didn't have to go far, and to his credit did pull it off. Without that field position, who knows they win? To say that QBs deserve even more than 5% of the blame or glory when they win, is rediculous. But, they are likely the MVP of the team, and probably deserve the most blame or glory when they win out of any player, but that's all depending on the circumstances. Manning is a better playoff QB than Brady, but Brady early in his carrer wasn't asked to carry the team on his shoulders. They would probably would have been happy with him if he didn't turn it over. Manning though has to carry the team on his shoulders, and Brady is too. If you ask me which is more important, D or O in the playoffs. It's easily D. Defence wins championships, O is entertaining, but you need a D that can cause turn overs and good field position, which Manning hasn't ever had besides the year we won the SB. Coincidence?