Montana had the best coach / GM combo of his era. Same can be said for Brady. Bill Walsh was simply a step ahead in terms of scheme and player evaluation in the 80s. The Patriots find guys nobody else even looks at and turns them into system successes. That doesn't take away from the success Montana had in Super Bowls. But the 49ers had a down seasons too, especially later in Montana's career (early 90s) when they had no answer for the Cowboys. Peyton? Yes, they had Marvin Harrison there waiting for him when he got there, and they often drafted offensive players in the first round who fit. Edgerrin James was not Marshall Faulk, but he was pretty damn good for half a decade, which is about all you can expect from a workhorse back these days. As Donny pointed out, those Colts teams always had a lot of holes on the defensive side of the ball, despite having a few stars. Winning the ball game was always dependent on Peyton putting up points. Now if we're talking about judging these QBs based on ROI... It is Brady without question. He didn't have any pressure on him coming out of college. He was holding the clipboard for Brian Griese in the Big House. 6th round draft pick. Unreal.
Let's be very clear: I haven't denied Bill Belichick an ounce of credit; here, I'm specifically torpedoing your assertion that Brady "likely has 2 less Super Bowls" without Bill Belichick – I think that’s generally silly and especially silly when you cite a game in which Tom Brady literally led the team to the game-winning points – which were necessary, btw, because the defense coughed up a late lead (which is a recurring theme running through New England’s six Super Bowl appearances under Belichcik). Bill Belichick has exactly 0.0 Super Bowl rings/appearances in six seasons without Tom Brady. And an overall regular season losing record. Great. Whenever you stumble upon someone dumb enough to think Bill Belichick isn’t a great coach, be sure to cite these two things as they’d be very impactful. In a discussion in which you’re trying to give “the bulk of the credit for the Pats glorious run of success” to Bill Belichick, while slighting Tom Brady’s enormous impact, they are 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% irrelevant. Yes; he’s a great coach. Bravo. Let’s break this down: the defense was “directly responsible” against Seattle for making the game-winning play but the Patriots’ offense was not “directly responsible” for making the game-winning play against the Rams? That’s how we’re going to play? And you’re going to give all the credit to Belichick’s defense for stopping the Rams’ high-powered offense but no credit to Brady for shredding the Seahawks’ high-powered defense? And that doesn’t strike you as desperately, almost comically convenient? OK. Doesn’t matter; Brady handed Belichick late leads in both games and Belichick’s defense was unable to stop Eli Manning. You give Belichick credit for making the game-winning play against the Seahawks; pffffftttt the idea of Belichick twice *not* making the game-winning play against the Giants. It doesn’t feel like we’re playing on a level playing field here. Gary Kubiak has three Super Bowl rings; he coached Steve Young to one of the greatest single-season QB performances of all-time in 1994. Regardless, the point is that all those rings combined are irrelevant to this discussion about Belichick/Brady. First of all, I never, ever, not once said Brady was “more impactful than Belicheck” - I’m simply dumbfounded someone would argue Brady was puppet to Belichick’s master. Specific to Manning, I’m heading off you inventing a narrative in which poor Peyton Manning has been stuck with coaching dregs throughout his career. He spent 8 prime years with one of the best coaches of all-time; a coach that, rings aside, measure up very favorably to Bill Belichick. Oh, well – I didn’t realize you had conducted an in-depth survey… Tell us, what were the results? BTW, put me down for Brady/Belichick; hope that doesn’t skew your results… Yeah; just one of the greatest. BTW, Manning’s record under Mora? 32-32. Dungy? 85-27. And, remind me: what is Belichick’s record without Brady? How many times has he been carried off the field as a head coach when Brady wasn’t his starting QB? Peyton Manning has an iron-clad argument as the greatest QB of all-time (not my choice but it’s an obviously legitimate one); he doesn’t need anyone to denigrate Tom Brady to elevate his claim.
Eh... I think that's a tad overblown. Manning has always been surrounded by top-flight playmakers: Harrison, James, Wayne, Clark, Addai, Thomas... I think all of those guys are better having played with Manning - but they were all first round picks and likely would have had nice careers with... '08 Matt Schaub as their imaginary QB. Brady, OTOH, has truly been saddled with journeymen/UDFAs for much of his career that he's made household names. I mean, Wes Welker is probably going to the Hall of Fame because he played with Tom Brady. Edleman, Amendola, Vereen, Woodhead, Faulk... When the Pats won back-to-back Super Bowls in '03-'04 (going a combined 28-4 in the regular season), Brady's leading rushers were Antowain Smith and a (30-year old) Corey Dillon and his leading receivers were Branch/Faulk and Givens/Patten. Manning, in his one Super Bowl win, had Addai, Harrison, Wayne and Clark - all #1s.
Fair point, but you do realize that New England had one of the best offensive lines in the league. They also had one of the leagues, best defense year end and out. Corey Dillion??? The 4x Pro Bowler, 6 consecutive 1,000 yard seasons, who had career high 278 rushing yards, and rushed for over 1,600 yards in his first season with the Pats. OL *regulars* - Matt Light, Dan Koppen, Logan Mankins, and Nate Solder. For about the last five season, they've arguably the best TE in NFL history. Let's not pretend Brady was playing on a JV NFL team, that Pats had pro-bowlers on both sides of the Bowl in given years. It's a collective effort.
Actually, I think he has zero Super Bowls, and doesn't get the same opportunity/career-arc without Belichick. First 3 years in the NFL Brady was actually pretty pedestrian (by his standards) as he ran a more balanced attack offense, with short/ball-controlled type offenses. He's gotten better and better with more experience (and or rule changes), and credit the coaching schemes and him for executing it perfectly. But this is all the direct result of a team and Belichick-specific evaluation system giving him a chance, when no other NFL team had him on a radar. But who knows... Romo was another example of a late round/undrafted player that eventually got a chance (ironically under Parcells, who saw something in him... similar to what BB saw in Brady). Maybe Brady on another team gets a random chance to excel like Romo got... but it would have still been a long-shot (and likely required some sort of Parcells/Belichick disciple to see whatever it is that they value in QB's that allowed them to unearth two of the most rare/out-of-nowhere QB's in NFL history). Its the perfect matchup... yes, Belichick hadn't won anything as a head coach yet... but given what everybody unanimously has said about his time in Cleveland (where he laid the foundation for what eventually became the Ravens extended great run), and his hands-on defensive gameplans that won the Giants Super bowls, odds are that Belichick didn't just allofasudden figure it out once he got Brady.
He's also been surrounded by UDFAs and journeymen that he has made into household names. Marcus Pollard Brandon Stokley Austin Collie Jacob Tamme Eric Decker Emmanuel Sanders One being true does not make the other false. Hell, I'd even argue that the virtue of being a running back on the same team as PManning is a huge career booster. (Brady has done the same thing, FWIW) Nobody on the Patriots offense, including Brady, was any great shakes before 2006. Corey Dillion and Deion Branch were about it. The defense absolutely carried those teams. After Brady exploded, his main weapons have been Edleman (7th round), Vereen (2nd round), Ridley (2nd round), Dobson (2nd round), White (4th round), Hernandez (4th round), Gronk (2nd round). Not to mention significant investments in the OL (Solder, Vollmer, etc). Then you've got guys they didn't draft like Moss and Branch (2nd stint). So, if you're going to hold guys like Clark and Wayne against Manning, you have just as much ammo in that argument against Brady. As an aside; the heart of this argument was that Manning 'made the Colts cater to him' by drafting/signing high end offensive talent, which simply isn't true and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
The GOAT can't have less rings than his brother. And yes I wish him the best against Carolina, but Carolina is just a better football team. Manning's mind might be sharp, but his body is done. Manning is the football equivalent of Lebron James. Brady is the closest thing to Jordan on the football field... He was an extra point away from playing an OT game, and most likely representing the AFC for Superbowl 50.
How many rings would Peyton Manning have if his career hadn't coincided with the rise of the Patriots dynasty?
Eh... I think you're being fairly liberal with the term, "household name," IMO. Those guys (minus Decker and Sanders) were never his primary targets/weapons. They were secondary guys. Pollard had a few nice years - but he was no Dallas Clark. Sanders seems to have absolutely blossomed into a full-blown threat with Manning. But Decker just dropped 80/1,027, 12 with Ryan Fitzpatrick as his QB. a) no one is holding anything against anyone (well, except Nick and Brady); b) let's take a quick look at your Patriot list again (which excluded the undrafted Welker, Woodhead and Amendola, for some reason): Notice anything missing?... During Manning's tenure ('99-'10*), the Colts used 6 (of 10) 1s on offensive players. During Brady's tenure ('02-'15), the Pats used 5 (of 14) 1s on offensive players. * I didn't include '11, even though Manning was still, technically, part of the team. They took an OL that year, which would make it 7/11 They (wisely) built around Manning (something I used to always rail the Texans for not doing with Carr way back in the day) - doesn't lessen his accomplishments but it does, IMO, make what Brady is doing look more impressive. (Having said that, Manning has never played with singularly dominating force like Gronkowski, who may very well be the greatest tight end in league history. That guy...... man.)
That would resonate better if he lost every year to the Patriots. But New England was rarely the author of all those one-and-dones; in fact, I don't think they ever were.
This conversation will completely end when Brady wins another superbowl or two. If they just had an offensive line the Patriots would have won it all again this year.
If Brady ends up with more longevity and 1 or 2 more Championships, he'll pass Manning. Brady doesn't have to have the passing records as long as his numbers end up in the same ballpark, then all of his championships will carry far more weight. People think Montana is one of the greatest of all time and he doesn't own any records either.
Brady led the league in TDs in 2002. NE was the #7 offense in 2004 & 2005. From 2001-2015 (Brady's Career), the Patriots only failed to have a top 10 scoring offense 1 time, they ranked 12th in 2003.
That's a salient point. He flat out sucked in the playoffs to begin with. They went one and done 3 years in a row with losses to Tennessee, Miami, and the Jets. Then Peyton finally won a playoff game and then they lost the AFC title game in New England back to back years in 03-04 and they made him look terrible. Those games were the reason the NFL started tightening up illegal contact and PI rules. So then he finally wins the Super Bowl. Then they get ousted in the first round the next two years to San Diego. Then another Super Bowl appearance (loss) then another one and done to the Jets.
He's 5th in yards, 3rd in TDs, 6th in Passer rating (.1 behind Manning). Only Rodgers has a lower interception% in league history. For the most part, his numbers are already in the ballpark. The only thing people can do to try and argue otherwise is that he had the GOAT head coach.
That's not even that big of a negative... Brady has become the greatest QB of this generation. Manning is still in the discussion, but Brady put it away with last year's SB combined with Manning's body aging 20 years over the last 2 (while Brady looks like he'll be viable to elite for at least another 3-5 years, barring major injury). He is as great as his numbers and teams have been... my only question was does he get that great as an undrafted free agent elsewhere, without the early exposure to a successful organization, or simply without BB all these years? (and before somebody comes in with a 3 page dissertation about how he would have been... its a question that really cannot be proven).
Brady was pretty much a noodly armed game manager until 2005. He really started coming into his own then. Check his QBR and YPA compared to the big guns of the day. It's really amazing how well the Patriots and Brady took advantage of the 2006-07 rule changes. They are like the min-maxers of the NFL.
Funny thing is, for those who hang their hat on Brady's playoff resume in this argument, PManning is now 3-2 vs Tom "Commander Clutch Playoff God GOAT" Brady in the playoffs.
