Thread: Manning-Brady Swap

The problem with the arguments made on Manning's behalf is that people are of the thought that if you took Brady and put him on the Colts he wouldnt do as well. Problem with that is we have never seen Brady play for another team so its unclear what he would do and the only argument (weak one at that) is what happened with Matt Cassell when Brady got hurt. However, if you took Manning and swapped him out with Brady and then Manning goes down with a leg injury in 2006 you still have a Matt Cassell coming in and going 11-5 because of the coach/system. Since we dont know how Brady would do on another team outside of NE its just a flat unknown as too whether he would succeed as well or not and it would be hard to say given Manning's propensity to choke in big moments how he would fair on NE despite working with a better coach. Coaches can only do so much, in the end the players have to make the plays on the field. Even if its only a 4 yd run.

Originally Posted by Northman

The problem with the arguments made on Manning's behalf is that people are of the thought that if you took Brady and put him on the Colts he wouldnt do as well. Problem with that is we have never seen Brady play for another team so its unclear what he would do and the only argument (weak one at that) is what happened with Matt Cassell when Brady got hurt. However, if you took Manning and swapped him out with Brady and then Manning goes down with a leg injury in 2006 you still have a Matt Cassell coming in and going 11-5 because of the coach/system. Since we dont know how Brady would do on another team outside of NE its just a flat unknown as too whether he would succeed as well or not and it would be hard to say given Manning's propensity to choke in big moments how he would fair on NE despite working with a better coach. Coaches can only do so much, in the end the players have to make the plays on the field. Even if its only a 4 yd run.

Yeah. I guess I wouldn't say that Brady wouldn't do as well as Manning did in Indy...but I think the difference in the Championships is coaching. Manning had Great success getting to the playoffs with his team in Indy, and Brady would have the same kind of success. I think the difference in pushing two great players 'over the edge'...is the coaching.

I believe had Elway been in San Fran instead of Montana...that Elway would have won those championships. I USED to believe that Montana was purely a product of the system, and his surrounding cast. Then he went to KC and led the CHIEFS to the AFC CHampionship game. It showed that great players can and will play great no matter what the circumstances....but coaches can be the difference when abilities are equal. For the good and for the bad.

Originally Posted by Northman

The problem with the arguments made on Manning's behalf is that people are of the thought that if you took Brady and put him on the Colts he wouldnt do as well. Problem with that is we have never seen Brady play for another team so its unclear what he would do and the only argument (weak one at that) is what happened with Matt Cassell when Brady got hurt. However, if you took Manning and swapped him out with Brady and then Manning goes down with a leg injury in 2006 you still have a Matt Cassell coming in and going 11-5 because of the coach/system. Since we dont know how Brady would do on another team outside of NE its just a flat unknown as too whether he would succeed as well or not and it would be hard to say given Manning's propensity to choke in big moments how he would fair on NE despite working with a better coach. Coaches can only do so much, in the end the players have to make the plays on the field. Even if its only a 4 yd run.

And the argument for Brady is that he makes plays but Manning chokes. I looked up those examples of great defensed Manning had. On one of those, Billy Volek led the game winning touchdown to win. But yet you have the Patriots defense getting a turnover in the Super Bowl. Maybe Billy Volek is better than Russell Wilson. Then you have the Pats having to make kicks at the end of the game to win their Super Bowls. Vanderjackoff would have missed. He did miss, in one of those examples you listed. Time after time, Brady has teammates step up to help win the game. Did you bring up 2012? When all he needed was Rahim Moore to make 1 play. Some unknown Patriot would have made that play. That's how it's always been. The Patriots are a good team.

Originally Posted by Dapper Dan

And the argument for Brady is that he makes plays but Manning chokes. I looked up those examples of great defensed Manning had. On one of those, Billy Volek led the game winning touchdown to win. But yet you have the Patriots defense getting a turnover in the Super Bowl. Maybe Billy Volek is better than Russell Wilson. Then you have the Pats having to make kicks at the end of the game to win their Super Bowls. Vanderjackoff would have missed. He did miss, in one of those examples you listed. Time after time, Brady has teammates step up to help win the game. Did you bring up 2012? When all he needed was Rahim Moore to make 1 play. Some unknown Patriot would have made that play. That's how it's always been. The Patriots are a good team.

There's no doubt that team chemistry is important, in 3 SB's Elway needed other players to step up that never did and thus the results were ugly. While i agree on the surface about Moore and his fubar the Broncos still had a chance to win that game in double OT and it was ultimately sealed by a Manning Int or did you conveniently forget about that? Of course, without Trindon's returns Denver really is never in that game to begin with.

Originally Posted by Northman

There's no doubt that team chemistry is important, in 3 SB's Elway needed other players to step up that never did and thus the results were ugly. While i agree on the surface about Moore and his fubar the Broncos still had a chance to win that game in double OT and it was ultimately sealed by a Manning Int or did you conveniently forget about that? Of course, without Trindon's returns Denver really is never in that game to begin with.

No. He didn't play a perfect game. He had 2 picks. And that great defense gave up 38 points. How many times did the Patriots give up 38 in a playoff game and still win? They gave up 330 yard passing and 130 yards rushing. All of Manning's great defense don't seem too great.

Originally Posted by Dapper Dan

No. He didn't play a perfect game. He had 2 picks. And that great defense gave up 38 points. How many times did the Patriots give up 38 in a playoff game and still win? They gave up 330 yard passing and 130 yards rushing. All of Manning's great defense don't seem too great.

As with QB's defenses can have bad games, but if the argument put up is he didnt have good defenses than that is just false. Cherry picking one game doesnt mean he had a bad defense the entire year. And for the record, even having top 10 defenses doesnt always guarantee you anything. I mean shit, we actually made the SB with a 22nd ranked defense but yet our #1 offense scored 8 pts. Maybe our offense wasnt really that great going by your logic? lol

Originally Posted by Northman

As with QB's defenses can have bad games, but if the argument put up is he didnt have good defenses than that is just false. Cherry picking one game doesnt mean he had a bad defense the entire year. And for the record, even having top 10 defenses doesnt always guarantee you anything. I mean shit, we actually made the SB with a 22nd ranked defense but yet our #1 offense scored 8 pts. Maybe our offense wasnt really that great going by your logic? lol

Where was I cherry picking exactly? I talked about the games you cherry picked. If the defense was good all year and then choked in the playoffs, maybe it has more to do with coaching.

I think everyone knows our team was completely outplayed by Seattle in that Super Bowl. El oh el.

Originally Posted by Dapper Dan

Where was I cherry picking exactly? I talked about the games you cherry picked. If the defense was good all year and then choked in the playoffs, maybe it has more to do with coaching.

I think everyone knows our team was completely outplayed by Seattle in that Super Bowl. El oh el.

I didnt cherry pick games, i selected the years in which the defenses were ranked in the top 10. Try to keep up.

Originally Posted by Northman

I didnt cherry pick games, i selected the years in which the defenses were ranked in the top 10. Try to keep up.

And I looked at those same games. Defense gave up 40+ points in one. Lost by 3 in another, after a missed fg within 50 yards. Then lost another because Billy Volek scored a late touchdown. Billy fukin Volek. A top 10 defense couldn't stop him. Then in 2012 the defense gave up 38.

I talked about the exact same games. Don't be a smart ass.

I honestly think neither QB would have been quite as successful. Manning and Belichick would have clashed over systems. Manning doesn't run just any offense. He runs one that does what he does best, which is different than Brady. Maybe Belichick is smart enough to build an offense for Manning and then just trust him to execute it without tinkering. But maybe Belichick has to show Manning who's boss and they butt heads constantly. Both seem to have immense pride and want to be top dog.

Brady, OTOH, I think is a product of Belichick. If he shows up in half the NFL camps as a low-round rookie and he's even given a chance, he's out of the league in three years and plying that University of Michigan diploma he fully believed he would be using by now. Only Tony Romo is a similar story. Almost all the starting NFL QBs are 3rds or higher.

Give Brady mad props for overcoming huge odds to be one of the best QBs in NFL history despite his low draft position but a lot of really good college QBs (heck, better college QBs) never get that opportunity much less never gets the chance to seize it the way Brady did. So give Brady to Tony Dungy, do you think Brady would have amounted to anything? I'm guessing the odds are less than 50-50.

Originally Posted by Davii

You can compare how their teams fared when they were lost for a season...

No you can't because the BB and the Pats always make sure they have a backup QB who can step in a perform, while the Colts didn't. When Manning was injured, the Colts had to sign a pedestrian free agent QB off the street shortly before the season started to start the season opener and were screwed the rest of the season.

Manning would have had the videographers and old balls, and Indy in his back yard every ******* season. Brady would still dance like a fag though.

Originally Posted by Northman

Like i said before when i agreed with SR, its hard to say because each QB brings something different to the table. Lets also not forget that Manning has played with better receivers for most of his career compared to Brady. And in the year that Brady first faced the Giants in the SB the Pats defense was ranked 15th in the NFL. Chances are with BB at the helm Manning makes it to more SB's, i think thats pretty much a given considering BB is one of the best coaches ever. However, what would be unknown is whether or not Manning would of won the same amount of SB's as Brady has with the Pats. Ive watched Manning in his career from college all the way to now and more often than not he fails in the big games compared to Brady but neither has anything to do with their teams defense but their own specific play in those games. I would look at this link when you have time, it really breaks down the difference between both QB's. One of the more interesting stats in that link is how each QB plays indoors vs outdoor and how much has done in both. Its pretty interesting actually.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com...manning/31873/

CHFF is wholly inconsistent.
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com...or-help/20867/

Manning Probably doesn't get the tuck rule so no SB in 2001 He wins in 2003 and 2004, doesn't lose to his little bro twice so wins in 2007 and 2011 but doesn't beat the Seahawks this year. So 4. Brady loses to the Seahawks but beats the Saints and Bears so 2.

I think some have mis-interpreted the question.

The question is not whether or not Manning is better than Brady, or vice-versa.

The question is merely, if they changed, who would have more super bowls. I'd have to say Manning. The Patriots organization around and with either of these two quarterbacks would produce more Super Bowls than either QB on the Colts/Broncos combination.

You could still very well make the argument that Brady is better than Manning, while still logically and rationally state that Manning on the Pats would win more Super Bowls than Brady on the Colts/Broncos.

I dont know, i think i did a good job of debating my stance on whether or not Manning would win more SB's personally. I think Manning would MAKE it too more SB's, im just not automatically convinced that he would actually win more just based on that. As i stated, two totally different players.