that Peyton is a better QB. Brady is great at what he does, but his team is always in the best position to succeed because Belichick is the greatest coach of all-time.
Tonight didn't show me anything new or special about Brady. He had great protection, his guys were open, they all made plays, and his defense shut down the Steelers so the team was always in control.
Since Brady became the starter, the Patriots are 14-6 in games with backup QBs. That's slightly better than going 11-5 over the course of a season. For comparison, Eli and the Giants have done that only 3 times over the 12 full years of his career. Brees has done that 5 times in 15 years. Marino? 4 times in 13 seasons. Rodgers? 4 of 8.
Teams win games and championships. Brady is the perfect QB for the Patriots, but I think much of the credit goes to Belichick and the way his team is prepared ever week. They've shown year after year with how willing they are to part with stars that they are bigger than any one player.
The guy has made it happen with little at wide receiver for most of his career. The one time he got a real threat on the outside, he broke records. BB is a genius? Name one HOF coach in the modern era that earned his reputation without a great quarterback at the helm. It goes both ways.
For me, I've come to this conclusion about Brady versus others:
Most consistently great QB over the longest period of time ever.
Now as far as pure elite best ever ability, I find it hard to put him above Joe Montana and a few other QBs. Montana had far superior footwork and mobility, and ability to extend plays. People like to mention if Brady had mobility he'd be insane, and forget that Montana had mobility that was only eclipsed by a handful of QBs. 59 yards rushing in a single Super Bowl is #3 all time by Kap & McNair.
The '80s was very rough on QBs. Brady would not have liked the treatment they got back then if he complains about the minor hits he gets now. There's no way in hell a 39 year old man is playing QB at a high level back in the day, let alone starting.
Also, the whole Montana played with Rice & Taylor argument gets subsided a lot when you look at his career '81-'84 and '93-'94 in KC.
But after it's all said and done, being available as a pro bowl QB up to age 40 is remarkable. It's like the Jerry Rice definition of greatness when he recorded two 1000 yard seasons past age 40.
If Brady gets a 5th ring, you just might have to give it to him.
how an argument could be made against him being the best of all time.
I always found the well he's not undefeated in Super Bowls like Montana is.
So Montana lost more before getting to the actual Super Bowl than Brady has and we're supposed to use that against Brady?
4-2 in Super Bowls is better than 4-0. Yet people act like 4-0 is better than 4-2
Well it was tougher to get to the SB for an old school NFC QB, while it was harder to win it outright for modern QBs of either conference. The 1984 season says it all: win grind it out games against Giants & Bears then slays the Marino led Dolphins after his historic season.
I do think that 49er fans themselves would be the first to question Montana's greatness if he lost twice to a team in the Super Bowl that wasn't a better all around team. Cincinnati was essentially the best AFC opponent to the Niners and kept it tight in both games, and didn't win either.
When the Giants beat the Niners in '85, '86, '90, they were on the same level or better. Every year had a more or less predestined champion.
It's one of those things that can be argued either way. Brady had better QB competition in his conference, but overall team and HC, he had a nice edge.
When the Ravens and Steelers brought a complete package, they created problems for Brady.
is 30 years from now, nobody but football historians will be talking about Montana & Brady probably.
The names will be known just like Unitas, Tarkenton, Starr, Staubach, etc. are for most real football fans, but how many of us can compare those guys the way we can compare the modern day guys?
You have the very same issue for the most part comparing Formula One racers from the '50s to modern day, and that's just ONE person, LOL.
7 sb's in 17 years.
If he was a Giant, we would build a monument to him.
What he has done from a skinny 6th Rd pick to now is amazing.
I have nothing but respect for him.
This has been an amazing run by that franchise.
I do love that the Giants are the only team to get the best of them during this run.
how an argument could be made against him being the best of all time.
I always found the well he's not undefeated in Super Bowls like Montana is.
So Montana lost more before getting to the actual Super Bowl than Brady has and we're supposed to use that against Brady?
4-2 in Super Bowls is better than 4-0. Yet people act like 4-0 is better than 4-2
Well it was tougher to get to the SB for an old school NFC QB, while it was harder to win it outright for modern QBs of either conference. The 1984 season says it all: win grind it out games against Giants & Bears then slays the Marino led Dolphins after his historic season.
I do think that 49er fans themselves would be the first to question Montana's greatness if he lost twice to a team in the Super Bowl that wasn't a better all around team. Cincinnati was essentially the best AFC opponent to the Niners and kept it tight in both games, and didn't win either.
When the Giants beat the Niners in '85, '86, '90, they were on the same level or better. Every year had a more or less predestined champion.
It's one of those things that can be argued either way. Brady had better QB competition in his conference, but overall team and HC, he had a nice edge.
When the Ravens and Steelers brought a complete package, they created problems for Brady.
Brady for most of his career had one of the 3-4 best QB's of all time in his conference, so spare me how much harder it was to get to the Super Bowl in the 80's. It wasn't. It's a lot harder to keep a team together and be a dynasty now than it was in the 80's
Around him. And maybe I be if it happens without Bill B. Who again in the SB era and maybe ever is the best coach ever
He traded away his two best players on D and they abused Pitt. A team who ran over our D. One in the middle of the year. He's so far above every other coach right now it's not even close. Brady at 39 is playing at a level higher than everyone except a few guys.
Cruzin is 100% correct. QB's before the late 70's had to play against DB's that could hack WR's all down the field...no 5 yard rule. Totally different game.
IMO Unitas is #1. Called his own plays, was lethal at the end of games, and could pass as well as anyone today. Played in the 50's, but could still go toe to toe with Namath in the early 70's (I watched him through most of the 60's into the 70's). If Johnny U. was playing with today's rules, it would be a joke...think Warner accuracy with Luck tools.
I wish I had seen Unitas playing to have a better feel for this question. The problem is that these debates are beatin' to death by the talking heads and they tend to live in the now; which doesn't offer up a good comp. I have always leaned towards Montana over Brady, but while I wanted to give Unitas the nod it's hard if you've never seen him play.
To the debate of 4-0 vs. 4-2 and 80's play vs. 2000's, I'd definitely lean on the undefeated SB record as more advantageous and I do think it is easier to play QB nowadays than the 80's. But I have given into to the notion of Brady being the best of my generation (watching football since '76).
I don't know. But if we were choosing up sides and I got him
But its debatable. The fact that he is still so good at age 39 says a lot about him. I would add that it is difficult to compare guys across different eras. How does Marino fare in the pass friendly NFL? I never saw Unitas play but he had some crazy stats and was a big winner during another era.
He's playing as well as he ever has at 40, unreal. The thing that's always amazed me about Brady is how good he is with UDFA, undersized WR's. Yes I get that he's had Moss, Branch and Gronk, but he's doesn't miss beat with Welker, Edelman and now Hogan. And people wonder how the Pats can be this dominate while remaining in great cap shape, that's how.
Our emphasis on being "the best" goes too far. Posting great stats and besting comparisons aren't anyone's goal: winning is. Tom Brady win alot. Deservedly so. He gets all my respect, and I enjoy watching him play at his best. The rest doesn't matter
Everybody in the NFL should kiss Eli & TC's asses forever
since Brady took over in New England, the Patriots win with Brady and they win without him. Sure, they dominate with Brady, but it just shows how incredible of a situation he is in.
Patriots back-ups have the same winning percentage as Peyton and Montana, and a better winning percentage than Elway, Marino, Unitas, Favre, and Rodgers.
A QB is the most important position in the sport and maybe in any sport. But he is only on the field for ~40% of the game and during that 40%, he still requires the cohesive functionality of 10 other players.
QBs are influential, but teams win games and teams win championships.
I think he's better than Montana, as he's one SB's with far less talent than Montana's 49ers had. I think Rodgers is more talented, but games like yesterday don't help his cause for GOAT.
for reasons pointed out - eras, teams - too many variables to be able to effectively rule one great player as better than another.
That said, if I had to pick a best, I don't see how I could skip over Brady. The amount of success he's had is incredible. Just makes those two SBs all that much more satisfying.
the guy threw 50 TD's in a season, which was the most ever until Manning took it back.
The guy's playoff record: 24 - 9, is equivalent to two full regular seasons, but in the playoffs. That's insane. He's thrown for 8600 yards and 61 TD's in those games.
He's played under the best coach and surrounded by the best coached team every year.
So did Montana.
I've always had Montana first, but after this year I am prepared to let Brady move ahead. He is incredible.
Me too, and I feel like most of the friends I have my age that have been watching since childhood did too. And I may be wrong, but I don't remember Montana ever getting dinged for having Walsh.
Nice reminder that two of the greatest teams of all time, the 1990 49ers and 2007 Patriots were thwarted by our Giants.
Look, there are a lot of all time greats. There's got to be something that separates them somewhere, and that's where Championships come in to play. That's what did it for Montana, and that's what now does it for Brady, to me.
You can certainly put others in the conversation, but I don't see how you can make a clear case for anyone being better than him looking at the stats and the accomplishments.
He has made it impossible to not consider him in the top 3-5
But, in the "pick a QB in his prime" to start a franchise, I wouldn't pick him unless I could select Belichick as coach. That's the only modifier to best ever that seems not totally inappropriate.
Peyton getting to the Super Bowl with four different head coaches, two different franchises and completely different rosters is more impressive and it gives me more confidence in individual greatness and influence than consistent domination with the same franchise and head coach whom I consider the best of all-time.
Peyton getting to the Super Bowl with four different head coaches, two different franchises and completely different rosters is more impressive and it gives me more confidence in individual greatness and influence than consistent domination with the same franchise and head coach whom I consider the best of all-time.
I think the argument could be made that Peyton did little more than ride the wave to his last Superbowl. I don't know if what he did during that Denver run was "impressive".
is also easily discounted because other teams had much stronger defenses and the rules were completely different as well.
That's what makes these cross-era comparisons so useless. If you could drop ship prime Montana to today's NFL, I'm pretty sure he'd put up much more ridiculous numbers than what he cranked out back then.
As far as quarterbacks that I watched the entire duration of their career, up until recently I would've even said Peyton was better. Peyton changed the game, and did it with two different teams under several head coaches, none of which were the caliber of Belichick. However, making 7 Super Bowls and winning 4/5 of them is something that cannot be discounted. Not to mention that Brady has never had long periods of time with guys like Harrison or Wayne to throw to. For me, it's a toss up between Peyton and Brady, but the edge has to go to Brady at this point, especially if he wins and is 5-2 in Super Bowls vs. 2-2 for Peyton (when one of those Super Bowls he was carried by the Denver defense).
I feel like both have surpassed everyone else including Montana.
Im not sure how to distinguish between the two when you take the totality of their careers and accomplishments into account as well as the eyeball test on the field and at varying points in their career.
Brady has had the advantage of one franchise with one head coach and basically one system his entire career. Football is all about the HC/QB combo and Belichick is the best of all time.
Mannng has never had that. He had so many HCs and went to 4 Super Bowls with 4 different coaches and is the first ever to win with 2 different franchises. He even reversed his fortunes against Brady and NE later in his career.
Its just so close, to me. Between the 2. I think they are far and away above everyone.
Peyton rode that defense because he was broken down, further showing how much the sport is a team game. But when he was healthy and went to Denver in a completely new situation, he smashed records.
Peyton rode that defense because he was broken down, further showing how much the sport is a team game. But when he was healthy and went to Denver in a completely new situation, he smashed records.
I'm just saying that that really is a stat padding Superbowl for him.
2-2 in Championship games does look considerably better than the 1-2 that he would have retired with without it. Peyton for a loooooooong time was labeled a big game choker. Tom Brady has NEVER had that label.
Peyton Manning played pretty bad in the Superbowl he actually won. Tom Brady got his team the lead with under 2 minutes in both Superbowls he lost. As somebody else said, Tom Brady is two Eli Manning miracles away from having 6 rings right now, working on 7. As great as Manning was, he just doesn't have that and something needs to separate guys.
Especially his first title. That was a defense, run game team. He didn't even finish the AFC Championship game vs Pitt, Bledsoe did. He was out early in the 2Q of a 7-3 game. In all honesty, they didn't even beat the Raiders in the divisional game, the Tuck Rule was the biggest gift ever. He was a game manager that season. He threw 1 Touchdown in that entire postseason. His passer rating was 77.
Im not trying to take anything away from him. I just find it amusing that people love to deconstruct Peyton Manning and find all sorts of ways to take away from his accomplishments but never Tom Brady.
I find it equally fascinating that people do the same to Eli Manning but never Ben Roethlisberger.
Peyton rode that defense because he was broken down, further showing how much the sport is a team game. But when he was healthy and went to Denver in a completely new situation, he smashed records.
I'm just saying that that really is a stat padding Superbowl for him.
2-2 in Championship games does look considerably better than the 1-2 that he would have retired with without it. Peyton for a loooooooong time was labeled a big game choker. Tom Brady has NEVER had that label.
Peyton Manning played pretty bad in the Superbowl he actually won. Tom Brady got his team the lead with under 2 minutes in both Superbowls he lost. As somebody else said, Tom Brady is two Eli Manning miracles away from having 6 rings right now, working on 7. As great as Manning was, he just doesn't have that and something needs to separate guys.
Peyton rode that defense because he was broken down, further showing how much the sport is a team game. But when he was healthy and went to Denver in a completely new situation, he smashed records.
I'm just saying that that really is a stat padding Superbowl for him.
2-2 in Championship games does look considerably better than the 1-2 that he would have retired with without it. Peyton for a loooooooong time was labeled a big game choker. Tom Brady has NEVER had that label.
Peyton Manning played pretty bad in the Superbowl he actually won. Tom Brady got his team the lead with under 2 minutes in both Superbowls he lost. As somebody else said, Tom Brady is two Eli Manning miracles away from having 6 rings right now, working on 7. As great as Manning was, he just doesn't have that and something needs to separate guys.
Big game choker analysis on Peyton/Mr. Clutch is really such an interesting discussion. Remember the AFC Championship game with the Big Ben tackle to save the game? Remember what followed that tackle? Peyton driving his team into FG range in the clutch and his idiot kicker missing. Thus continued his "choke" legacy while Viniatieri drilled the same kicks for Brady. Completely random and unrelated to relative skill set of the two QBs. And how about the game for Brady against the Chargers where he literally threw the game losing interception only to have them inexplicably fumble it back to the Pats? These random moments are just a snipper of why looking just at stats or big game results is such an imperfect measure.
Tonight didn't show me anything new or special about Brady. He had great protection, his guys were open, they all made plays, and his defense shut down the Steelers so the team was always in control.
Since Brady became the starter, the Patriots are 14-6 in games with backup QBs. That's slightly better than going 11-5 over the course of a season. For comparison, Eli and the Giants have done that only 3 times over the 12 full years of his career. Brees has done that 5 times in 15 years. Marino? 4 times in 13 seasons. Rodgers? 4 of 8.
Teams win games and championships. Brady is the perfect QB for the Patriots, but I think much of the credit goes to Belichick and the way his team is prepared ever week. They've shown year after year with how willing they are to part with stars that they are bigger than any one player.
Little Bill is the best coach i have ever seen. AND he is so much better then the 2nd best coach that it's not even funny.
For me i would say montana and peyton are above him.
Elway and Marino right there
And Rodgers is coming up fast
For me, I've come to this conclusion about Brady versus others:
Most consistently great QB over the longest period of time ever.
Now as far as pure elite best ever ability, I find it hard to put him above Joe Montana and a few other QBs. Montana had far superior footwork and mobility, and ability to extend plays. People like to mention if Brady had mobility he'd be insane, and forget that Montana had mobility that was only eclipsed by a handful of QBs. 59 yards rushing in a single Super Bowl is #3 all time by Kap & McNair.
The '80s was very rough on QBs. Brady would not have liked the treatment they got back then if he complains about the minor hits he gets now. There's no way in hell a 39 year old man is playing QB at a high level back in the day, let alone starting.
Also, the whole Montana played with Rice & Taylor argument gets subsided a lot when you look at his career '81-'84 and '93-'94 in KC.
But after it's all said and done, being available as a pro bowl QB up to age 40 is remarkable. It's like the Jerry Rice definition of greatness when he recorded two 1000 yard seasons past age 40.
If Brady gets a 5th ring, you just might have to give it to him.
I always found the well he's not undefeated in Super Bowls like Montana is.
So Montana lost more before getting to the actual Super Bowl than Brady has and we're supposed to use that against Brady?
4-2 in Super Bowls is better than 4-0. Yet people act like 4-0 is better than 4-2
I always found the well he's not undefeated in Super Bowls like Montana is.
So Montana lost more before getting to the actual Super Bowl than Brady has and we're supposed to use that against Brady?
4-2 in Super Bowls is better than 4-0. Yet people act like 4-0 is better than 4-2
Well it was tougher to get to the SB for an old school NFC QB, while it was harder to win it outright for modern QBs of either conference. The 1984 season says it all: win grind it out games against Giants & Bears then slays the Marino led Dolphins after his historic season.
I do think that 49er fans themselves would be the first to question Montana's greatness if he lost twice to a team in the Super Bowl that wasn't a better all around team. Cincinnati was essentially the best AFC opponent to the Niners and kept it tight in both games, and didn't win either.
When the Giants beat the Niners in '85, '86, '90, they were on the same level or better. Every year had a more or less predestined champion.
It's one of those things that can be argued either way. Brady had better QB competition in his conference, but overall team and HC, he had a nice edge.
When the Ravens and Steelers brought a complete package, they created problems for Brady.
The names will be known just like Unitas, Tarkenton, Starr, Staubach, etc. are for most real football fans, but how many of us can compare those guys the way we can compare the modern day guys?
You have the very same issue for the most part comparing Formula One racers from the '50s to modern day, and that's just ONE person, LOL.
If he was a Giant, we would build a monument to him.
What he has done from a skinny 6th Rd pick to now is amazing.
I have nothing but respect for him.
This has been an amazing run by that franchise.
I do love that the Giants are the only team to get the best of them during this run.
Quote:
how an argument could be made against him being the best of all time.
I always found the well he's not undefeated in Super Bowls like Montana is.
So Montana lost more before getting to the actual Super Bowl than Brady has and we're supposed to use that against Brady?
4-2 in Super Bowls is better than 4-0. Yet people act like 4-0 is better than 4-2
Well it was tougher to get to the SB for an old school NFC QB, while it was harder to win it outright for modern QBs of either conference. The 1984 season says it all: win grind it out games against Giants & Bears then slays the Marino led Dolphins after his historic season.
I do think that 49er fans themselves would be the first to question Montana's greatness if he lost twice to a team in the Super Bowl that wasn't a better all around team. Cincinnati was essentially the best AFC opponent to the Niners and kept it tight in both games, and didn't win either.
When the Giants beat the Niners in '85, '86, '90, they were on the same level or better. Every year had a more or less predestined champion.
It's one of those things that can be argued either way. Brady had better QB competition in his conference, but overall team and HC, he had a nice edge.
When the Ravens and Steelers brought a complete package, they created problems for Brady.
Brady for most of his career had one of the 3-4 best QB's of all time in his conference, so spare me how much harder it was to get to the Super Bowl in the 80's. It wasn't. It's a lot harder to keep a team together and be a dynasty now than it was in the 80's
He traded away his two best players on D and they abused Pitt. A team who ran over our D. One in the middle of the year. He's so far above every other coach right now it's not even close. Brady at 39 is playing at a level higher than everyone except a few guys.
Cruzin is 100% correct. QB's before the late 70's had to play against DB's that could hack WR's all down the field...no 5 yard rule. Totally different game.
IMO Unitas is #1. Called his own plays, was lethal at the end of games, and could pass as well as anyone today. Played in the 50's, but could still go toe to toe with Namath in the early 70's (I watched him through most of the 60's into the 70's). If Johnny U. was playing with today's rules, it would be a joke...think Warner accuracy with Luck tools.
I wish I had seen Unitas playing to have a better feel for this question. The problem is that these debates are beatin' to death by the talking heads and they tend to live in the now; which doesn't offer up a good comp. I have always leaned towards Montana over Brady, but while I wanted to give Unitas the nod it's hard if you've never seen him play.
To the debate of 4-0 vs. 4-2 and 80's play vs. 2000's, I'd definitely lean on the undefeated SB record as more advantageous and I do think it is easier to play QB nowadays than the 80's. But I have given into to the notion of Brady being the best of my generation (watching football since '76).
He's a great QB. The end
Otherwise, an already-insane argument of who is the best would reach epic proportions...
Patriots back-ups have the same winning percentage as Peyton and Montana, and a better winning percentage than Elway, Marino, Unitas, Favre, and Rodgers.
A QB is the most important position in the sport and maybe in any sport. But he is only on the field for ~40% of the game and during that 40%, he still requires the cohesive functionality of 10 other players.
QBs are influential, but teams win games and teams win championships.
So did Montana.
I've always had Montana first, but after this year I am prepared to let Brady move ahead. He is incredible.
That said, if I had to pick a best, I don't see how I could skip over Brady. The amount of success he's had is incredible. Just makes those two SBs all that much more satisfying.
The guy's playoff record: 24 - 9, is equivalent to two full regular seasons, but in the playoffs. That's insane. He's thrown for 8600 yards and 61 TD's in those games.
Those numbers are staggering.
Quote:
He's played under the best coach and surrounded by the best coached team every year.
So did Montana.
I've always had Montana first, but after this year I am prepared to let Brady move ahead. He is incredible.
Me too, and I feel like most of the friends I have my age that have been watching since childhood did too. And I may be wrong, but I don't remember Montana ever getting dinged for having Walsh.
Nice reminder that two of the greatest teams of all time, the 1990 49ers and 2007 Patriots were thwarted by our Giants.
Look, there are a lot of all time greats. There's got to be something that separates them somewhere, and that's where Championships come in to play. That's what did it for Montana, and that's what now does it for Brady, to me.
I think the argument could be made that Peyton did little more than ride the wave to his last Superbowl. I don't know if what he did during that Denver run was "impressive".
That's what makes these cross-era comparisons so useless. If you could drop ship prime Montana to today's NFL, I'm pretty sure he'd put up much more ridiculous numbers than what he cranked out back then.
I feel like both have surpassed everyone else including Montana.
Im not sure how to distinguish between the two when you take the totality of their careers and accomplishments into account as well as the eyeball test on the field and at varying points in their career.
Brady has had the advantage of one franchise with one head coach and basically one system his entire career. Football is all about the HC/QB combo and Belichick is the best of all time.
Mannng has never had that. He had so many HCs and went to 4 Super Bowls with 4 different coaches and is the first ever to win with 2 different franchises. He even reversed his fortunes against Brady and NE later in his career.
Its just so close, to me. Between the 2. I think they are far and away above everyone.
I'm just saying that that really is a stat padding Superbowl for him.
2-2 in Championship games does look considerably better than the 1-2 that he would have retired with without it. Peyton for a loooooooong time was labeled a big game choker. Tom Brady has NEVER had that label.
Peyton Manning played pretty bad in the Superbowl he actually won. Tom Brady got his team the lead with under 2 minutes in both Superbowls he lost. As somebody else said, Tom Brady is two Eli Manning miracles away from having 6 rings right now, working on 7. As great as Manning was, he just doesn't have that and something needs to separate guys.
How many Superbowls do you think Brady wins having to go through Peyton and the Belichick coached Pats? More, less, the same amount?
My answer to that question is why I always answer NO to Brady as the GOAT (or even better than Peyton).
Especially his first title. That was a defense, run game team. He didn't even finish the AFC Championship game vs Pitt, Bledsoe did. He was out early in the 2Q of a 7-3 game. In all honesty, they didn't even beat the Raiders in the divisional game, the Tuck Rule was the biggest gift ever. He was a game manager that season. He threw 1 Touchdown in that entire postseason. His passer rating was 77.
Im not trying to take anything away from him. I just find it amusing that people love to deconstruct Peyton Manning and find all sorts of ways to take away from his accomplishments but never Tom Brady.
I find it equally fascinating that people do the same to Eli Manning but never Ben Roethlisberger.
I'd probably still put Montana slightly ahead - I think the era was a tougher one to play in for a QB IMO.
n comment 13336605 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Peyton rode that defense because he was broken down, further showing how much the sport is a team game. But when he was healthy and went to Denver in a completely new situation, he smashed records.
I'm just saying that that really is a stat padding Superbowl for him.
2-2 in Championship games does look considerably better than the 1-2 that he would have retired with without it. Peyton for a loooooooong time was labeled a big game choker. Tom Brady has NEVER had that label.
Peyton Manning played pretty bad in the Superbowl he actually won. Tom Brady got his team the lead with under 2 minutes in both Superbowls he lost. As somebody else said, Tom Brady is two Eli Manning miracles away from having 6 rings right now, working on 7. As great as Manning was, he just doesn't have that and something needs to separate guys.
Quote:
Peyton rode that defense because he was broken down, further showing how much the sport is a team game. But when he was healthy and went to Denver in a completely new situation, he smashed records.
I'm just saying that that really is a stat padding Superbowl for him.
2-2 in Championship games does look considerably better than the 1-2 that he would have retired with without it. Peyton for a loooooooong time was labeled a big game choker. Tom Brady has NEVER had that label.
Peyton Manning played pretty bad in the Superbowl he actually won. Tom Brady got his team the lead with under 2 minutes in both Superbowls he lost. As somebody else said, Tom Brady is two Eli Manning miracles away from having 6 rings right now, working on 7. As great as Manning was, he just doesn't have that and something needs to separate guys.
Big game choker analysis on Peyton/Mr. Clutch is really such an interesting discussion. Remember the AFC Championship game with the Big Ben tackle to save the game? Remember what followed that tackle? Peyton driving his team into FG range in the clutch and his idiot kicker missing. Thus continued his "choke" legacy while Viniatieri drilled the same kicks for Brady. Completely random and unrelated to relative skill set of the two QBs. And how about the game for Brady against the Chargers where he literally threw the game losing interception only to have them inexplicably fumble it back to the Pats? These random moments are just a snipper of why looking just at stats or big game results is such an imperfect measure.
Bottom line? The two best QBs of all time were drafted in the 6th and 3rd round..😎
Bottom line? The two best QBs of all time were drafted in the 6th and 3rd round..😎
To me, Peyton tops em both. Have always felt that way.