Stampede Blue: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:





Pats Pulpit: Manning v. Brady

Tommasse, SB Nation Patriots blogger over at Pats Pulpit, is doing a three part series dedicated to proving that Tom Brady is a better quarterback than Peyton Manning. Yes folks, three parts. I'd offer some words of wisdom to Tommasse, like how if your argument needs three entire stories dedicated to it then it is probably not a very strong argument. Sadly, Tommasse will likely not accept that advice.

His first part focuses on the two player's stats. Before getting to the stats, Tommasse offers us his insightful opinion on the debate. Tell us Tommasse, who is better:

The answer is Brady. No question. Unfortunately, as hard to believe as it is, there are some misguided and misinformed heathens out there.

I don't know that we can change that, but here upon the Pulpit, I give you in back-and-while and red-white-and-blue is the gospel truth. In Part I of our testimony, we discuss The Stats.

Yes, we know it's hard to believe that most of the intelligent civilized world (New England and ESPN excluded because neither are neither civil or intelligent) thinks Peyton Manning is better than Tom Brady, the heathens that we are. But hey, don't let what everyone else who knows football affect your opinions, New England fans. For years, many of you Patriots fans (Tommasse included) claimed Manning was a goat-faced choker who would never beat the Patriots in the playoffs and would never win a Super Bowl.

Looks like us heathens were right, again.

If Patriots fans ever wonder why no one listens to them, maybe it's because their outlandish statement are often proven dead friggin' wrong time, and time, and time again. Also, if you are making an argument and using stats to back it up, it helps the integrity of your argument if your stats start off as factually correct. Peyton is 31 years old, not 33 as Tommasse's stat sheets claims he is at the very top of the list:

Oops!

So, where were we? Oh yes! The stats. Basically, Tommasse attempts to use statistics to prove Brady is better. Like any one-sided evil Patriots fan, Tommasse tries to sweep under the rug stats that measure things like touchdowns (Manning 275, Brady 147), yards (Manning 37,586, Brady 21,564), and completion percentage (Manning 64%, Brady 61%). Yes, yes, yes, all these are just meaningless stats that don't paint the "full picture." The full picture is Manning throws lots of picks compared to Brady.

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Yes, Brady has only thrown 78 INTs to Manning's 139. Forget the fact that Manning throws the ball more than Brady does (Manning 4,890, Brady 3,064), and played in more games than Brady (Manning 144, Brady 96). Such pesky details simply muddy the waters. Per Tommasse's suggestions, in order to get a better idea of who is better, we should do what any credible analyst or scientist would do when evaluating data to make an argument.

We should average.

Oh, and along the way, we should ignore all those pesky stats and other factors that might muddy the argument, like regular season stats. I mean, the regular season means nothing, right? It's the playoffs that matter. Heck, why even measure stats in the regular season! Why even have it, period!

The basic crux of Tommasse's statistical argument is Brady has more wins in the playoffs, and has better stats in the playoffs than Manning. He also has more Super Bowl wins. Therefore, Brady is better. Oh, and all those regular season stats; you know, the ones where Manning blows Brady out of the friggin' stratosphere, all those were as result of Manning having better offensive talent around. Oh, and Manning plays weaker competition more consistently than Brady does. Thus, he pads his stats. Thus, his stats are better than Brady. Oh, and George Bush intentially caused 9/11, the devil walks among us, and Dick Clark is actually one of those Highlander immortals from that movie with Sean Connery (Cue the Queen song: "Who wants to live foreverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!").

See how easy it is to make unsupported statements.

It's the same old dull pathetic argument Patriots fans have used since this all began. The funny thing about Tommasse's stats argument is that those polled it don't even buy it.

Hmmm, don't think they bought it.

Listen, a Manning v. Brady argument is always fun. But using selective stats and then averaging them only makes you look like a dim-witted fool. Obviously, I'm going to have a different opinion on the whole thing, and unlike Tommasse I don't need to cherry pick stats and average them to back it up. What often bothers me whenever some vindictive Pats fans makes a Manning v. Brady argument is that nowhere in the entire argument is there the following statement:

"I think Peyton Manning is a great player, but Tom Brady is better and here's why."

With Patriots fans, it is a never-ending battle to "discredit" Manning and expose him for the "fraud" he supposedly is. Whenever I make a Manning v. Brady argument, I make certain to give Tommy Terrific his due. No question, he's a great player. He's just not better than Manning. He just isn't. You very rarely see Colts fans rant and rave about how Brady stinks. Patriots fans NEVER give Manning his due. He throws 49 TDs in one season, they call it stat-padding. He breaks Steve Young's single season QB rating, they call it luck. He throws all over the Patriots and helps Indy beat them three straight times, they make excuses (injuries, bad officiating, sun spots, you name it). What I find funny in Tommasse's new argument is that prior to last season whenever Colts fans used statistics to prove Manning is better than Brady, Patriots fans (Tommasse included) were quick to respond with this familiar line:

"Stats are for losers. Brady wins championships. Manning hasn't won anything."

Now that Manning has his ring (and smoked the Patriots like a pack of Kools twice along the way), Pats fans are now reduced to doing what "losers" do to make an argument: They're using stats (badly, I might add). For parts two and three of Tommasse's argument that Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning, check out Pats Pulpit. Rest assured though, for every fact that Tommasse overlooks (intentionally or not), Stampede Blue will be there to set the record straight, heathens that we are.

0 recs | Comment 26 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

Give them Hell Blue
Maybe we should try to recruit Matt to be a Colt's fan for a day or two just to get some good bashing in, lol.

by MarkV0327 on Jul 9, 2007 2:08 PM EDT   0 recs

I hate both quarterbacks
though I grudgingly admit that it's pretty clear Peyton Manning is the superior QB. The stats show that conclusively.

If a compelling argument for Brady over Manning exists, it depends on comparing their supporting casts, though even this has its own limitations. You can't easily build a quarterback up by explaining their relative failure away through personnel. It's a good way to put two competing careers into context, perhaps to give an edge to one over equal production. But Brady and Manning don't have equal production, Peyton is clearly better. Also, personnel comparisons beg the chicken/egg argument: is Peyton Manning a HoFer because of Marvin Harrison or is Marvin Harrison a HoFer because of Peyton Manning?

Also, I am not personally swayed at all by arguments that depend on gross overemphasis on playoffs or Super Bowls, as the sample size on those two is necessarily and dramatically smaller than regular season. Super Bowl rings don't make the regular season statistics meaningless.

by Skin Patrol on Jul 9, 2007 2:09 PM EDT   0 recs

Does anyone remember.....
that this dude wasn't even the best QB on his team in college?  He got benched his senior year for a guy who went on to fail at 2 professional sports!   I can't wait for the "where are they now" Drew Henson edition from SI ;)

And I hate the "Manning has more weapons" crap.  A QB can compensate for lack of talent on his side of the ball by calling the right plays and making the right reads.  You could consider Brady's defensive counterparts a more valuable asset since the QB can't control what happens on that side of the ball. I'd like to see Brady try to beat his own defense in the playoffs (in the snow) sometime.....

by rudy0498 on Jul 9, 2007 3:27 PM EDT   0 recs

What I posted over there
So a difference of 3.06 attempts/stat is pretty close (line 6), a difference of 4.1 attempts/stat is decisive edge (line 7) and then a difference of 2.09 attempts/stat  is a big edge (line 20), now I'm confused.

Also the conclusion that more rushing attempts means a QB is doing everything they can to win seems like a bit of a jump/stretch. I would say it means there were more plays where the QB couldn't find a open receiver or had designed run, but I would probably have just left that stat alone.

Finally, weak competition is used to try to explain away Manning's stats. Over their careers as starters Manning's division rivals have had a better record than Brady's. 8.13 wins/season to 7.45. (didn't forget that 1998-2001 had different division alignments). So Manning's regular season competition is not weaker than normal.

by shake n bake on Jul 9, 2007 3:53 PM EDT   0 recs

3 points
  1. Tuck Rule
  2. Adam Vinatieri
  3. Defense
3 things that helped Brady win and you can argue that without them, Brady would have 1, maybe even 0 rings.

by Colt4Life on Jul 9, 2007 5:46 PM EDT   0 recs

and...
Probably the most important, #3, Peyton has never had consistently.

by Colt4Life on Jul 9, 2007 5:47 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Thank God for the NFL and their referees!
They helped get my poor son a Super Bowl victory. He and his team would never have won the AFC Championship without their help. Without this victory the Brady-Manning debate cannot even be seriously discussed. Now with the one Super Bowl win my sons over rated regular season stats can be made to look like he is comparable to Tom Brady. All we Manning fans are trembling in our shoes over the fact that Brady finally has an offense that compares to ours and and he will probably win a fourth Super Bowl this year. We only have eight months left to make this ridiculous arguement before it is again rendered moot.

by ArchieManning on Jul 9, 2007 8:26 PM EDT   0 recs

haha
I love it when you Pats fans complain about officiating.  Watch the 03 and 04 Colts/Pats playoff games and see how good the officiating is.  If you need another reference, check out the Pats/Raiders game.

by the21eraser on Jul 9, 2007 9:42 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

HeeHee
I love it when Colts fans compare one Super Bowl victory to three Super Bowl victories.
P.S. Please pray for Eli.

by ArchieManning on Jul 9, 2007 9:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Aww...
How cute, a little blind boy.  I didn't compare Super Bowl rings.  Read the post.

by the21eraser on Jul 9, 2007 10:02 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The 03 and 04
Pats/Colts playoff games were correctly called according to the rules at that time. The rules had to be changed due to constant complaining of Colts team officials on the competition committee.

by ArchieManning on Jul 9, 2007 10:30 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Aha
The old "the rules were changed" argument. This is not only false (the rules were in place for quite some time, just not enforced consistently), but has been debunked so many times on this and other sites that it seems absurd to even link.

Have you Pats fans ever even thought about how ridiculous your arguments sound? According to you, apparently the Colts have so much pull that the league is willing to change the rules to appease them. Seriously, does anybody outside of New England believe that this is the case?

Look, it's simple: Brady is an excellent QB. He's smart, clutch, and has rings. But Peyton is a freak. Nobody outworks Peyton, and nobody has his numbers (at least at this point in time and at this point in his career). Assuming that neither has his career cut short by injury or loss of desire, Brady will be in the Bradshaw/Starr/Aikman class of great QBs with multiple championships, and Peyton will be in a class all by himself.    

by ctnyc on Jul 9, 2007 11:01 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The "rules changed"
arguement is admitted to be correct on the Colts own website by Bill Polian. Exerpted and followed by the link.
Q: What happened on the holding penalty against (cornerback) Jason David that nullified the interception?

A: Jason has outside position there. He knows that (safety) Antoine (Bethea)'s inside him. All he has to do is funnel him to the inside. What he did was grab the jersey - albeit probably inadvertently. But a jersey grab is a jersey grab and it's a foul. I led the charge to have it made a foul on the NFL Competition Committee. What I said was, `If you grab a jersey in the school yard in the eighth grade, it's a foul. Why isn't it a foul in the National Football League?' The answer is it is. You shouldn't grab jerseys. We teach not to do it. He did and he got a flag on it and it changed the game dramatically. But you learn from it and you move on. There were years in the mid-1990s and even into the early part of this century when the officiating department said, `Well, it's OK to grab a jersey and we'll decide how great the restriction is.' As a result, guys were going out there with longshoreman's hooks and grabbing receivers and you heard, `No, no, there isn't any restriction there.' Restriction meant you yank him off of his feet. That's no way to play the game.
http://www.colts.com/sub.cfm?page=article7&news_id=67340ae2-81b5-466c-9dbc-c5d7779f7821

by ArchieManning on Jul 10, 2007 6:57 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Weak argument
Nice try. Interfering with a receiver beyond five yards from the line of scrimmage has been a penalty for years now. In this very passage you quote, Polian says: "Why isn't it a foul in the National Football League?' The answer is it is."

It is true that the refs for a while let it slide and took it upon themselves to decide whether or not individual incidents merited a flag. In other words, they were lax in enforcing the rule. When given an inch, many players will take a mile. This led to the muggings of the Colts receivers by the Patriots. When the Colts pointed this out, the refs realized that they had gone too far and that the situation had gotten out of hand. It's one thing to let players play and let minor, inconsequential infractions slide. The debacle of the Colts/Pats playoff game is quite another thing; it clearly influenced the outcome of the game. So the referees decided to crack down and enforce the rule that was already on the books. In fact, going into the following season there were all kinds of stories in the media about the game and how because of it the refs had been instructed to enforce the rule more diligently.

What still cracks me up is the conspiracy theory that so many Pats fans subscribe to. As I said in my earlier post, does anybody outside of New England really believe that the Colts got the rules changed? Here's a franchise that had not won a Super Bowl since the early '70's, caused a lot of bad sentiment by moving from Baltimore, endured years of terrible teams and miserable attendance, and had just started to become a perennial playoff contender. And yet Pats fans apparently believe that the franchise has so much pull that when they complain a little, the league jumps to attention and changes the rules to appease them. Unbelievable. I only wish it were true.

Nice try though...

by ctnyc on Jul 11, 2007 9:33 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

If the rule wasn't changed
why is Polian taking credit for changing it?

by ArchieManning on Jul 11, 2007 6:54 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

not a new rule
He's taking credit for getting the rule already in the book enforced the way he felt it should be.

by shake n bake on Jul 11, 2007 7:26 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Polian's exact quote
"I led the charge to have it made a foul on the NFL Competition Committee." He says "made" not "enforced".

by ArchieManning on Jul 11, 2007 8:00 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

rules
This is the way I understand the situation: Polian tried to and got a point of emphasis on that rule by a vote of either the owners on the Competition Commitee or the full 32 owners (no idea which). A point of emphasis tells the refs we want you to know and apply this rule as it is in the rule book.

If you can find NFL rulebook info on this it would prove it one way or the other.

Either way the change was approved by the right NFL procedure so it don't really matter if it was changed because enough of the owners agreed with Polian.

by shake n bake on Jul 11, 2007 9:29 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

This is my understanding as well
I've been doing some internet searching to try to find Rules Committee reports from various years, but have so far been unable to find anything before 2005-6 (which mention nothing about this topic). If anyone can find a definitive link to end this debate, it would be much appreciated.

In the meantime, I will trust my memory on this. The Colts were up in arms after the playoff game not because rules didn't exist to stop the muggings, but because the rules were not enforced. You don't complain to the league about officiating because referees are not enforcing non-existent rules, you complain because they are not enforcing rules that are on the books. To me, this just seems like common sense. Of course, given many Pats fans' insistence that Brady's numbers prove he's better than Peyton, I'm not sure common sense is in great supply in New England.

As for Polian's quote, it doesn't prove anything definitively either way (unless you believe that his word is final). I like Polian as a GM very much, but accept the possibility that he has been misinterpreted, misquoted, self-promoting, or flat wrong in his memory. So unless you believe that Polian's word is law and is omnisicent, I'm not taken in by the argument.  

by ctnyc on Jul 12, 2007 12:02 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

This post...
should get bonus points for mentioning Highlander.
Go Colts!

by Marked Hoosier on Jul 10, 2007 10:21 AM EDT   0 recs

Highlander
There can be only one... Peyton.
Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.

by BigBlueShoe on Jul 10, 2007 10:53 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

a better way to compare
"1) Tuck Rule"

How about faceguarding?  Talk about a phantom rule that was not even in the books anymore

"2) Adam Vinatieri"

Funny you would want to bring that one up.  He seems to have been pretty damn crucial to the Colts run last year

"3) Defense"

Ummm...Maybe we are not talking about the same Colts team, but the Colts D really stepped it up and carried the team through the playoffs.

"3 things that helped Brady win and you can argue that without them, Brady would have 1, maybe even 0 rings."

Let me correct this statement "Three things that helped Manning win, and you can argue that without them, Manning would not have a ring.

If you are going to bash Brady and the Pats, make sure the same reasons you give dont apply to the Colts as well.  

This is fundamentally a flawed comparison due to completely different philosophies practiced by the two teams.  

The Pats have a system where the offense and defense are relatively balanced, a defense capable of a strong bend and don't break philosophy.  Give up yards, but don't let them score.  Its not as flashy of a D like San Diego, or the Ravens, but its highly complicated, and highly effective.  The Offense is designed to eat up the clock, sustain long drives and get first downs, and wear out the opposing D. Pats fans loved Clock Killin Corey Dillon for this exact reason, when he was healthy, he was a monster in the offense, a key portion of the game plan for the 21 game win streak.  Basically, neither side of the ball had to win the game on their own, when the O needed help, the D could step it up and vise versa.  

The Colts seem to have a system predicated on the offense scoring and the D just slowing down the opposition just enough.  Where the Colts really shined it seems is where the O could rack up an early lead, and unleash their pass rushers, like Freeney, and their excellent defensive backfield.  The O, loaded to the gills with talented players, and HOF'ers and near HOF'ers (Manning, Harrison, Wayne(in time it seems), Edge, Faulk, their O line) seemed designed to put other teams in a position where they could not afford to run out the clock, and had to score and score fast, the Colts D was tailor made to rip the guts out of an opposing O that was starting to feel the pressure to score fast.  

Each QB seems to be tailor made to the system they play in.  Manning racks up amazing numbers in a system where that is the goal. Brady puts up great numbers in a system where that is the goal.  

The fundamental argument should be less about which QB is better, but what system  is better, and how those QB's succeed in that system compared to the ultimate goal of each team of winning a SB.  

by CGM on Jul 10, 2007 12:05 PM EDT   0 recs

Part 2
Check out part 2. Even in an area where he has an arguement he tries so hard to prove Brady is better he stretches the facts clearly and obviously. He includes RBs with 8 carries for the Patriots while leaving off 11 Colts RBs with more including Mungro with 100+

by shake n bake on Jul 11, 2007 5:35 PM EDT   0 recs

Interesting
I find it interesting that no Colts fan is willing to discuss the fact that the two QB's play in fundamentally different systems using different styles of play that render comparisons of stats relatively meaningless.  

by CGM on Jul 12, 2007 11:33 AM EDT   0 recs

Tom Brady and Heath Shuler
played in fundamentally different systems. I suppose that means comparisons of stats are meaningless.

It's a wash! Go Shuler!

by Skin Patrol on Jul 12, 2007 11:47 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

LOL
Nice comeback.
Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.

by BigBlueShoe on Jul 12, 2007 2:33 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the Indianapolis Colts, 2006 NFL Champions!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Zaofuneralofgod_small
Why the Colts?

Recent FanPosts

Small
Anyone have the video/audio of Manning's 49th TD?
Zaofuneralofgod_small
Colts at Texans
Ind_small
Relive the Memories
Small
Pacemates Tryouts
Small
Indy Star feature on Lucas Oil Stadium today
N13714177_36086017_61_small
Peyton Having Knee Surgery
Untitled_small
Colts Season Summary: 1948
P1_freeney2_small
Vikings/Colts
Cowofpain_small
Manning vs. Brady - on the same team

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini


Site Meter