Why Peyton Manning Is Better Than Tom Brady

It is, perhaps, the most popular debate in Pro Football. They are considered by most to be the top two quarterbacks in the game and of their generation. The storied history between these two players dates back all the way to 2001. The question of who is the better quarterback is the topic of discussion in this article.

I will explain in detail, both sides of the argument. Highlighting the key points that most people use when declaring one of the players as better then the other. I will now begin with the points made in Peyton Manning's favor and explain why these factors contribute to him being a better quarterback then Tom Brady.

I will begin with the rebuilding of the Indianapolis Colts. Manning was drafted No. 1 overall in the 1998 NFL Draft. The 1997 Colts were a 3-13 team that was the weakest power in professional football.

When Manning took over in 1998, they were not much better. The team struggled and again finished with a 3-13 record. Manning however was the shining star of the team and went on to break several rookie passing records for most completions, yards, and touchdowns. He finished second in the Rookie of The Year voting.

1999 was a year of major success as Manning's leadership and production took what was a 3-13 team the year before, and finished with a 13-3 record in 1999. To this date, it is the largest turn-around in NFL history. Manning, within one year, was able to take the worst team in Pro Football and turn them into an NFL powerhouse.

Manning had to help transform the weakest team in the game into the Colts that most people know them for today.

That struggle of having to rebuild is not something that Tom Brady ever had to face. When he took over the Patriots in 2001, he was part of a very good team. Some might argue that since the Patriots were 0-2 before Brady replaced Drew Bledsoe, that Brady was the main factor in them finishing 11-5. I'm sure he helped, but he wasn't alone.

The Patriots had the sixth ranked defense in the league in 2001 as opposed to the Colts who had the 29th ranked defense in 1998. Essentially, Manning was not getting the help on the other side of the ball that Brady was.

To prove my point, Brady was able to defeat the very powerful St. Louis Rams in Super Bowl XXXVI by completing only 59 % of his passes for 145 yards and 1 TD. This earned him Super Bowl MVP honors! Do you think the Colts would have beaten the Bears in Super Bowl XLI had Manning produced that little? That was the kind of backing that Tom Brady had during his career. Not every game, but certainly enough to make it so he was under far less pressure then Manning was more often then not.

The next point that illustrates Manning's superiority is the high statistical production. Simply put, Brady has not been as productive as Manning. The term "big numbers guy" gets unfairly used in derogatory fashion when talking about Peyton Manning as if being productive is somehow a bad thing. Bottom line is that Manning has done more for his team then Brady has done for his. If you don't believe me, look at the numbers...

Peyton Manning: 44,194 yards, 323 TD's, 162 INT's, 94.2 QB Rating

Tom Brady: 26,446 yards, 196 TD's, 86 INT's, 92.9 QB Rating

True, Manning has played longer (51 more games), but even if Brady posted his career averages for that amount of games, he would still not be as productive as Manning. The fact that he did not excel in college like Manning did is the reason he missed starting his rookie season.

Since Manning was far more productive in the NCAA then Brady was, he earned the right to become the starter at a very young age. Your production in the college ranks will have an effect on your NFL career and this was the case with both Manning and Brady as well.

Let's be even more technical when it comes to the statistics. Manning has posted a season QB rating higher then 90.0 in seven seasons. Brady has only done so in three seasons. Manning has thrown for over 4,000 yards in eight seasons (now on pace for a ninth) as Brady has only done so twice. Manning has thrown over 30 TD's in four seasons; Brady has done so only once.

As a matter of fact, Brady had never even thrown for over 28 TD passes until Randy Moss came along. Many make the poor argument that Brady has not had anyone good to throw to. I feel that is not giving the Patriots receivers enough credit. He has had some good wide receivers like Troy Brown, Deion Branch, David Patten, and David Givens but they never evolved and produced exceptionally well under Brady's leadership.

Take a look at a guy like Chad Jackson. He was a second round draft pick and a star in college. What did he do when he was drafted by New England? Nothing, because Brady has never been able to make his receivers better the way Manning has.

Rather, he needed players who were already proven productive prior in their careers in order for him to put up Manning-like numbers.

People say that the reason Manning has been so productive is because he's had players like Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne his whole career. This is another false statement. He has had Marvin every year of his career but he played four years without Reggie Wayne or any other notable receiver.

Can you name one single receiver in Indianapolis who was even slightly productive before or after they came to the Colts? Don't worry, I can't either. So please don't say Brandon Stokely because he caught a touchdown in the Super Bowl with the Ravens.

His career high in Baltimore was 357 yards and two TD's. With Peyton Manning, he received for 1,077 yards and 10 TD's being the third string receiver.

People say Marvin Harrison is the biggest reason Manning was productive, but Harrison's production was more a result of Manning then anything else. Before Manning came to Indianapolis, Marvin was averaging 850 yards a year and six to seven TDs a season. Then he was injured in Manning's rookie year and missed games.

What happened in his first full-year with Peyton?

115 catches for 1,663 yards and 12 TD's. What a coincidence.

He then went on to go to eight straight Pro Bowls and became a future Hall of Famer.

Reggie Wayne? He did not become a top-tier receiver for four years. During his first three seasons he put up pedestrian numbers before elevating his game to become a real threat. He was not like a Jerry Rice or Randy Moss tearing up the league from Day one. Peyton's first six seasons did not have a 1,000-yard receiver besides Harrison.

So the argument that Manning has always had "weapons" is a very poor one. Peyton was able to turn receivers into superstars. Brady was never able to do that like Manning has. The only time receivers looked really good under Brady were those receivers who were already good on other teams before hand. 

So don't use Wes Welker as an example either. He was good on a very horrible Dolphins team. The reason he's been so productive in New England is more because his teammate Randy Moss takes the coverage away then it is Brady making him better. Welker is doing very well with Matt Cassel of all quarterbacks. That's because Moss is the big factor in Welker's production, not Brady.

Randy Moss is the one who turned Tom Brady into a superstar. Kind of the opposite situation of what was happening in Indianapolis. Moss has always made his QBs look good.

He helped Randall Cunningham reach the Pro Bowl in 1998. He made Jeff George look dangerous and become the NFL's Comeback Player of The Year in 1999. He helped Daunte Culpepper go to multiple Pro Bowls. Culpepper has never been successful since he stopped playing with Moss. Technically speaking, he's been atrocious. Culpepper's career stats are actually close to Brady's, take a look...

Daunte Culpepper: 22,733 yards, 143 TD's, 93 INT's, 89.4 QB Rating

That is how productive he had been with Randy's aid. Moss was able to take a QB like Culpepper and make him nearly as Productive as Tom Brady. Then when Culpepper stopped playing with Moss he went from his career QB rating being over 90.0, to having 72.0, 77.0, 78.0, and 56.8 seasonal ratings. That is also no coincidence.

Moss was injured for a lot of his time in Oakland but still had a 1,000-yard year in 2005. Before his injury, he was on pace to receive for over 1,800 yards that year, look back and calculate the numbers if you don't believe me.

In 2007, Moss caught 43 percent of all Tom Brady's 50 TD passes. He also hogged up so much of the coverage that it let Brady spread the ball around to other places. Brady averaged 24.5 TD passes a season and it was no coincidence that he suddenly doubled his average when Moss, Stallworth, and Welker came into town.

Another area that many people are not very knowledgeable in is Peyton's post season performance. Far too many people are under the false impression that he had been mostly a "choke-artist" in those games. Truth be told, he was anything but. That train of thought is rather an inaccurate exaggeration. I'll break it down for you.

He has a 7-7 record in the post-season. So I'll analyze those 7 losses for you. The first came in 1999 when the Colts lost by only 3-points to the Titans. Manning threw for 227 yards, no touchdowns and no interceptions. He ran for a score in this losing effort. Not exactly a choke-job by any means

The next year in 2000 he threw for 193 yards, 1 touchdown and no interceptions against the Dolphins. Not so bad either.

2002 is one of the few games you could say he played poorly in. He threw for 137 yards, no touchdowns and 2 interceptions in a 41-0 loss. Even so, it wasn't Manning who allowed the Jets to score 41 points, was it?

In 2003 he lost in the AFC Championship game to the Patriots. Can't really blame him for losing to a team that good in bad weather. It's not like other teams were beating them either. Then again, isn't that the game where the Patriots were so rough with the Colts receivers that they had to change the pass-interference rules? Yes, I remember Marcus Pollard being mauled and having no flag thrown at all. Thus was the flavor of that game.

Suspicious? We are talking about the Patriots after all. Not to mention they had the benefit of knowing Manning's signals in that game. Same was the case in their 2004 post-season matchup with the Colts. Even though Peyton didn't play well in either of those games vs. the Patriots, that's only a total of only 3 post-season losses where Manning looked poor.

When the Colts lost to the Steelers in 2005, they lost by only 3 points because of a field goal their kicker missed. Manning had 290 yards, 1 touchdown and no interceptions with a QB rating of 90.9, not exactly the mark of a choke-artist.

The only other game he lost was last year to San Diego. Even so, he threw for over 400 yards and posted a QB rating of 97.7, yet he still takes the blame for the loss? I recall the final play by the Colts being a dropped ball by Dallas Clark.

Anyway, what you can see is a very incorrect perception of Peyton's post-season performance. People also fail to recognize that he is one of only 4 quarterbacks to post a perfect QB rating in a playoff game (vs. Denver in 2003), has thrown for more yards then any QB in post-season history in a single game (vs. Denver in 2004), won the only punt-free game in post-season history (vs. Kansas City in 2003), led the greatest comeback in Championship Game history (vs. New England in 2006), and won the Super Bowl MVP (vs. Chicago in 2006).

That brings his career post-season QB rating to 84.3. To put that into perspective, it is almost identical to Brett Favre's career QB rating of 86.0. Not so bad for the alleged choke-artist, is it?

Now back to the other quarterback in the debate. When you talk about Tom Brady, the same points always come up for why he is so great. Truth be told, Tom Brady is and has been a very good QB for a decent period of time now. I'm not trying to take anything away from him, he has been an impressive football player. 

People discuss his ability to come through in the clutch. What more people do not know is the logic surrounding that concept. Think about it.

One QB throws three TD passes and one INT in a game. The one INT comes in the first quarter and the other TD's come later in the game with the final one being on the game-winning drive. People call this QB clutch.

Now let's say another QB throws three TD's and one INT in a game. The three TD's come throughout the game but the one INT comes on the team's final drive as his team loses. Those same people call this QB a choke-artist.

Why?

In that theoretical scenario, the "choking" quarterback's defense allowed the other team to score enough points to be ahead. Had the defense held the opposing team to fewer points, you wouldn't call him a choke-artist but would rather say he played a good game. My point is that it doesn't matter when the points and production come in a game.

Brady's comeback drives are often remembered as he's viewed to be clutch. If he wasn't down in the first place we'd just say he played a good game. Why are Brady's Super Bowl's viewed as more impressive with the "clutch-factor" than Manning, who won his Super Bowl outright?

Simply because people get too caught up in the heroics. Since Brady won many games in exciting fashion he's viewed to be clutch. I'm not saying that he isn't, my point is that it doesn't matter when the production comes in the game.

A touchdown counts as a touchdown, whether it's in the first quarter or the fourth quarter and in the production department, Manning has done more then Brady.

Another huge argument in Brady's favor is that he has won three Super Bowls to Manning's one. The use of Super Bowl victories to judge greatness is the worst argument people usually make.

By that standard, Doug Williams and Trent Dilfer are better then Dan Marino because they won one Super Bowl and Marino didn't win any. Or perhaps Jim Plunkett is better than Brett Favre or Steve Young because he won two Super Bowls to their one. Same is the case when comparing Brady to Manning.

Tom Brady happened to be the quarterback on the best team in Pro Football during those three Super Bowl wins. His team always had a top-tier defense (which is 50 percent of the game) where as the Colts almost always had one of the worst.

This logic is lost on too many people. If your defense is ranked at the bottom of the league, your team gives up points that leads to you losing games. That also puts more pressure on your offense to produce so you can hopefully out-score your opponents and win.

This means that Peyton Manning has usually had to overcompensate for a poor defense, play in more pressure situations, and have to be highly effective in order to win. Tom Brady has had the luxury of a top-tier defense to back him up. That means he did not have to be highly effective as often for his team to win (look at Super Bowl XXXVI). The amount of pressure was different for Manning then it was for Brady.

When being put in this perspective, it's hard to believe that Manning has been so much more productive then Brady when having to do more for his team to win. Where Brady has in fact done less for his team to win (look at his statistics) yet has won more often.

Then of course you have to consider the infamous legacy of Spygate. I hear the same arguments in defense of the Patriots every time.

'Everyone does it."

Yet, in the NFL's 89-year history, not one single team has ever been caught doing it besides the Patriots. You'd figure something within 89 years of history would turn up.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Patriots are the only team to have ever cheated, but I do believe they are the only team to ever cheat to that extent. Trying to read lips has been around forever, but incorporating technology takes it to an entirely different level. As you can see, the Patriots certainly reaped the benefits from doing so.

I love how another defense I also hear for Spygate is that the Colts have pumped artificial crowd-noise into the RCA dome. This is also yet another wildly false accusation. The story originated from a Boston reporter (who certainly couldn't be biased) who claimed that a person who worked inside the RCA dome told him the Colts' big secret.

Let's face it, "if" the Colts were doing such a thing it would be kept on the low-down. So to believe this fairy-tale, you have to believe that the Colts organization would leak their biggest secret to a random RCA dome worker. Furthermore, they'd be willing to share such information with a worker who's so trustworthy as to tell a Boston reporter for no reason.

That story was as fishy as it sounds. We later found out that the "CD-skipping sound" heard on TV was not heard at the live game, and CBS took full responsibility for the error in the broadcast. So as you can see, that argument is simply the Patriots poor attempt to make other organizations look as dirty as they are.

The next Spygate excuse is that the videotaping was of little to no advantage. Interesting thought but also incorrect. The Patriots if nothing else are a brilliant organization. They'd have to be to get away with cheating for six seasons. Bill Belichick and that organization would not risk all they risked for an advantage that wasn't worth-while.

If they could have won all three Super Bowls without the aid of illegal videotaping, they wouldn't have bothered. You also have to keep in mind that each of their three Super Bowl victories were only won by three-points. I think it's safe to say that they wouldn't have won those games without the advantage they possessed.

Then people say that the evidence that the Patriots didn't need cheating can be found in success of the 2007 season. They say the fact the Patriots went 18-1 is proof enough that they didn't need to cheat to win. Think again.

Imagine the plethora of knowledge acquired during all of those cheating seasons. Brady saw a side of defenses that most 15-year veterans probably didn't see. The Patriots also acquired a stacked roster filled with top-tier players who came from other teams.

Players like Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Donte Stallworth, Rodney Harrison, Adalius Thomas, Junior Seau, and Corey Dillon come to mind. Players who wanted to become part of a "winning-tradition". I do not believe that winning-tradition would have been what it was had the Patriots not cheated in prior years.

So what you had in 2007 was a team of stacked superstars who were led to a winning organization that might not have been as successful without illegal aid. I could be wrong about this but I have to think that if they could have done as well without cheating, they wouldn't have bothered.

Regardless, Peyton Manning would be better than Tom Brady had the Patriots never cheated a day in their lives. Think about all of the points made and decide for yourselves. This is a debate that has raged on for years and will continue to be debated.

I can certainly say without a shadow of a doubt that Peyton Manning is better then Tom Brady. Tom Brady has had a very successful career, no doubt about it. I do feel however when it's all said and done, Peyton Manning is in a league of his own.

A quarterback who has been more productive, rebuilt a far weaker team, improved the players around him, and done more as an individual to contribute to his team winning has to be considered the favorite in this one.

I know that there are a lot of Manning and Brady supporters out there so lets hear it...

Who's better, Peyton Manning or Tom Brady?

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?