Peyton's had the #1 seed many times (typically the indicator of best team) and failed to even win a game in the playoffs. Belichick was 36-44 before he got to NE, and his legacy was built the day Brady became his quarterback. If your best argument in the Manning v Brady argument is Belichick, then I can play the card that Brady is much better in big games. Neither really have much to back them except opinion.
The point that I'm trying to make that as is Brady only trails Manning by a small margin in a per game basis, all while playing with an indisputably poorer supporting staff. Top that off with a much better playoff record, and two more Super Bowls. Brett Favre has a lot of bulk stats. Is he the greatest of all time?
I dunno. The Colts were pretty sh**ty for quite a few years before Manning got there. Then instantly became a playoff team with him.
Yeah, plus there's the whole Curtis Painter/Matt Cassel line of evidence. Colts drop to 2-14, Pats go 11-5.
Holy sh#t you're ridiculous. I'm not going to take the time to look it up, but a couple weeks ago I heard that in Peyton's playoff losses, his offenses have only scored an average of 16 or 17 points. If that's accurate, then it blows your statements out of the water.
Of course we'll never know, but I wonder if things would've been different if Peyton played for the Pats and Brady for the Colts/Broncos?
This would be the ultimate experiment. Would love to have a universe simulator and run that simulation a couple million times to find out.
I agree. But something that's missing from this discussion is the quality of teams that Manning and Brady have played on. Hint, hint, Tom Brady has been on the better team moreso than Manning.
I think Manning would actually be more valuable to bad teams. Sure he'd be great on a good team. But he made a bad team much better. Like having a coach right on the field. His audibles heal a lot of offensive deficits. IMO.