The Instigator
sllewuy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
patsox834
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
patsox834
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2009 Category: Sports
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,033 times Debate No: 9159
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

sllewuy

Pro

Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning
patsox834

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for instigating this debate.

...

<"Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning">

Well...why?

Anyway, despite the fact that my opponent hasn't backed himself, I'll show why Manning is the superior quarterback with the help of statistics.

First, an explanation of the stats I'll be using, all of which are available at www.pro-football-reference.com.

TD% (TD obviously stands for "touchdown"): <"TD% - passing TD percentage: (passing TD)/(passing attempts).">

INT% (INT stands for "interception): <"Percentage of times intercepted when attempting to pass (minimum 14 attempts per scheduled start to qualify as leader.) Interceptions/(passes attempted.)">

Y/G: <"Yards per game played (minimum half a game played per scheduled game to qualify as leader.) Passing yards/(games played.)">

Y/C: <"Yards gained per pass completion (minimum 14 attempts per scheduled game to qualify as leader.) (Passing yards)/(games played.)">

Completion percentage: <"completions/(passing attempts).">

...

All of the definitions are either explained on individual player pages, or are available in the site's statistics glossary.

Now, to see how Manning and Brady compare to each other in these areas:

TD%: Manning: 5.6%; Brady: 5.4%.

INT%: Manning: 2.8%; Brady: 2.4%.

Y/G: Manning: 259.3; Brady: 234.

Y/C: Manning: 11.9; Brady: 11.5.

Completion percentage: Manning: 64.4%; Brady: 63%.

Brady has the advantage in one category, and loses out in four, including one where Manning has a *very* significant advantage, which is yards per game played.

Of course, career statistics and averages like these can be skewed by insufficient sample sizes -- but this isn't the case, since both athletes have been playing in the NFL at a high level for roughly a decade each.

This leads well into my next point: Career totals accumulated by both Manning and Brady further evidence Manning's superiority as a quarterback.

Manning has 333 career touchdowns; Brady has 199.

Manning has 45628 career passing yards; Brady has 26446.

Manning has a 94.7 career quarterback rating; Brady's is 92.9

Lastly, I'd like to point out Manning also has an advantage in rushing. Manning has 17 rushing touchdowns, 717 total rushing yards, and averages 2.7 rushing yards per attempt; Brady has 533 total rushing yards, 5 rushing touchdowns, and averages 1.9 yards per attempt.

So, not only does the evidence point towards Manning as the more valuable passer, but it also leads us to conclude that he has been more valuable running with the ball, too.

In anticipation of my opponent's rebuttal, I'd like to point out that accomplishments such as championships are rather weak indicators of a single player's performance. Championships are a team accomplishment; they're too dependent on the whole team to hold any merit in determining how well individual players have performed.

Anyway, that's it for now.
Debate Round No. 1
sllewuy

Pro

Ok hi this is my first debate and well I read a'lot of debates and I guess I should start by thanking my opponent for his rebuttal.

Ok I will try my best to argue for Tom Brady

Peyton Manning career statistics are better than Brady's but is it because Manning is a better Quarterback than Brady or is it a result from the lack of help? Manning has been given gifted wide outs his whole career the amazing Marvin Harrison combo and now the Reggie Wayne combo both excellent wide receivers durable hands and great speed. Brady has not had a big name wide receiver in his entire career except for the recent arrival of Randy Moss. Randy Moss is the first big name Wide Receiver given to Brady and for all of you who look at the stats when Brady finally got the advantage Peyton has he...

Hit the 2nd highest QB rating in NFL history
He Topped Manning's record of 49 touchdowns in a single season which was regarded as the top season performances of all time by NFL's TOP 10 with 50!
He won the NFL MVP award and brought the patriots to one of the first undefeated seasons.

Looking at Brady and Manning I can honestly say that Brady plays with alot more heart than Manning could.
I will prove this by telling their stories.
Peyton Manning was a first overall pick by the Colts with all the potential and abilities that showed to be a great QB which he met. He went in and was given the starting job and was raised to be the top Quarterback he is today.

Brady's qualities are measured in what doesn't show up on the stat sheet. "You can never measure how much a guy wants it" Brady who was regarded as too skinny, too weak, and too slow to make it as a NFL Quarterback. He has to fight from the minute he got to the NFL. Beating out Drew Bledsoe for the starting job and with his first start did something that Manning could never do win a Superbowl ring. After that Brady went on to win 2 more Superbowl rings.
Brady since then as been called the greatest draft steal in NFL history a 6th round pick. Brady has been called the best Quarterback in the clutch today and in the top 3 in NFL history (1.Montana 2. Elway) which has been shown with game winning drives over and over and over(3 rings). On the topic of clutch Quarterbacks I do not believe Peyton Manning can fall in that category because year after year until 2007 he has lost in the playoffs.

The Quarterback is regarded as the leader of the team. The coach of the field and Manning a man who has been consistent his entire career who almost guarantees you a 90+ QB rating can't reapply what he did in the regular season to the playoffs? (when it matters) My opponent said that the championships are a weak indication of a single performance. Well if you all can look on how the patriots won those superbowls. You will always see the words "Game winning drive" Time and time again Brady does not fault under pressure when the time comes for him to show why he is the best quarterback out there. He makes all the doubters into believers. Manning when the light shines on him he would not answer those calls. Manning lost to the Chargers 2 years ago when the odds shifted heavily to him winning when Chargers lost the former MVP Ladanian Tomlinson and their starting QB Philip Rivers.

That is the true measure of a NFL quarterback having the ability to lead your team to glory! Losing in the playoffs means wasting your teams time making them go so far and to go home with nothing but a Lower Draft Pick!
I think Championships are a team effort. But the fashion the Patriots won in was due to the ability of Brady in situations that only great players like Joe Montana (side note Montanas QB rating is 92) could win in.

"Just recently i thought Joe Montana was the greatest Quarterback to ever play the game I now reserve that right for Tom Brady. My Criteria is have you won with different people around you. Have you won in different times in your career. Have you won in different ways."-Joe Theismann Redskins QuarterBack 1974-1985

Brady leadership ability as a Quarterback and his ability to finish the job 2 more times than Manning I think proves he is a better Quarterback!

http://www.nfl.com...
http://www.nfl.com...
http://www.nfl.com...
http://www.nfl.com...
patsox834

Con

<"Manning has been given gifted wide outs his whole career">

And Brady has been given great backs, good receivers (Branch and Givens), great football minds calling plays for him, as well as a fantastic defense which constantly put the ball in his hands.

Manning? Well, he beasts without much of a running game, a mediocre defense, and he calls the plays for the offense himself, or with little assistance.

Furthermore, you're assuming that Harrison and Wayne made Manning look good -- but who's to say it's not the opposite? Manning could be partially why Harrison and Wayne are as highly regarded as they are.

<"Looking at Brady and Manning I can honestly say that Brady plays with alot more heart than Manning could.">

This is irrelevant, because such intangibles are, by definition, unquantifiable, and claims which cannot at all be substantiated doesn't constitute evidence in this case.

Assuming for a second that "heart" isn't unquantifiable (which it is; we have no evidence that points towards heart being a contributor to statistics -- we can attribute certain things to heart, but that doesn't mean it's true), if "heart" makes them play better, considering that better play means better statistics, wouldn't heart, then, show up in the stats? And, well, Manning has better stats, so even if heart *does* show up on the statsheet, he's still better.

I'd also call these "stories" nothing more than appeals to emotion.

<"The coach of the field and Manning a man who has been consistent his entire career who almost guarantees you a 90+ QB rating can't reapply what he did in the regular season to the playoffs?">

Ah, but we most remember, the amount of playoff games played by Manning don't at all constitute a sufficient sample size -- given one, what reason do we have to think Manning won't end up progressing to the mean?

Additionally, playoff games don't carry any more statistical significance over any other game.

<"That is the true measure of a NFL quarterback having the ability to lead your team to glory!">

Says who? My opponent has given no reason why this is the case. Even if many say it, that's an ad populum argument; if "experts" say it, then it's just an appeal to authority. And, well, if the majority of experts say it, then it's a little of both.

<"Losing in the playoffs means wasting your teams time making them go so far and to go home with nothing but a Lower Draft Pick!">

Just as winning a championship is a team accomplishment, losing games is the folly of the team.

<"But the fashion the Patriots won in was due to the ability of Brady in situations that only great players like Joe Montana (side note Montanas QB rating is 92) could win in.">

And if the team wasn't as good as it was, then they never would've been put in that situation.

And no, it wasn't just due to Brady. The Patriots offensive line had to be extremely helpful, the defense had to get Brady the ball back, etc.

<"Brady leadership ability as a Quarterback and his ability to finish the job 2 more times than Manning I think proves he is a better Quarterback!">

No, Brady didn't "finish the job two more times"; his team did. Again, winning games is a team accomplishment, which means winning games is a poor indicator of a team's performance. It takes the whole team to win, so in essence, wins are dependent on the aforementioned team.

Lastly, I've given statistical evidence that Manning is better than Brady. My opponent has given claims that are unquantifiable, and that wrongly credit an individual for something the whole team accomplished. I'd like it if my opponent could put forth valid evidence.
Debate Round No. 2
sllewuy

Pro

"Manning? Well, he beasts without much of a running game, a mediocre defense, and he calls the plays for the offense himself, or with little assistance."
Doesn't Joseph Addai count for a good run game. I mean he is not a bad running back. In the past 3 years he's played for the Colts he was able to gain 1000+ yardage in 2 out of the 3 years he's played for them plus a pro bowl selection to add to that. Patriots on the other hand do not have a pro bowl running back. Not to Mention the time when they had Dominic Rhodes who was able to gain 1000yrds as well with the Colts.

"And Brady has been given great backs, good receivers (Branch and Givens), great football minds calling plays for him, as well as a fantastic defense which constantly put the ball in his hands."

The colts defense is not as bad as everyone says it is. Comparing the Colts Defense to the Patriots Defense ever since Tom Brady started to start as a patriot
2002: colts defense is rated 8th best in the NFL. Patriots rated 23rd best defense
2003: colts defense rated 11th best in the NFL. Patriots rated 7th
2004: colts defense rated 29th best in the NFL. Patriots rated 9th
2005: Colts defense rated 11th best in the NFL. Patriots rated 26th
2006: Colts defense rated 21 best in the NFL. Patriots rated 6th
2007: Colts defense rated 3rd best in the NFL. Patriots rated 4th
2008: Colts defense rated 11th best in the NFL. Patriots rated 10th
The colts and patriots have both seen their shares of bad defenses and good defenses so their is still no excuse for manning to not win.

"And Brady has been given great backs, good receivers (Branch and Givens)"
"Furthermore, you're assuming that Harrison and Wayne made Manning look good -- but who's to say it's not the opposite? Manning could be partially why Harrison and Wayne are as highly regarded as they are."

Deion Branch and Givens are no where close to approaching the level that Harrison and Wayne are at. Here is a good example of that. Deion Branch in his whole career has never posted a season where he went higher than 1000 yards or even over 5 touchdowns receptions. Even after leaving the patriots branch has not shown any progress of being good as he continues his mediocrity in Seattle. Givens follows the example of Deion Branch the only difference between the two is that there is not a team that wants Givens to even be on their team at the moment. Both were not even good enough to be taken in the first round! Branch was taken in the 2nd round and Givens the 7th with no significant college history.

Harrison was prospected his whole career to be a good wide receiver in the NFL. I will prove this by showing his college career stats. "As a 3-year starter at Syracuse University playing with Donovan McNabb, Harrison set a national record with 2,718 career receiving yards and ranked second in school history with 20 receiving touchdowns to Rob Moore. Harrison graduated with a degree in retailing." Harrison is currently 36 years old and is having a lot of injury issues at the moment which is the main reason why after Colts released him no teams wanted to pick him up.

This is no different from Manning's other receiver Reggie Wayne "As a 4-year starter at the University Of Miami playing with Ed Reed, Santana Moss and Andre Johnson, Wayne set a school record 173 career catches (including 36 consecutive games with a reception) and is only one of three wide receivers in school history to post 20+ touchdowns in his career joining Michael Irvin and Lamar Thomas. His 48 receptions as a freshman were a school record."
BOTH setting school records proving they could make it in the NFL.

In sports I think it can been seen that stats do not always count for determining who is better. Lets compare Michael Jordon who is currently regarded as the best NBA player in history. Do not get me wrong Jordan has incredible stats but their is a player who has better Wilt chamberlain(the man who holds 4 of the top 5 points scored in a single game). The deciding factor amongst most experts is that Jordan had more than 3 times the amount of championships Wilt has.
Same goes for the NFL Joe Montana is regarded today as the best quarterback in the history of the league. Montana does not have the highest passer rating in history, nor does he have the records for the most touchdown passes in a season or in a career. If having to compare Joe Montana to another Quarterback like Dan Marino who held the NFL record for Touchdowns in a season and has two times more touchdown passes than Montana. Unanimously all the sports analysts and experts will say Joe Montana is the best. (or at least better than Marino)

That is proof that winning is a major deciding factor on who is a better player. When comparing two players careers championships are always a main deciding factor especially for Quarterbacks the leaders of the team. My opponent keeps pointing out the fact that manning has better stats than Brady and with that he expects you all to vote for his side because of this reason. Well its not enough in the world of sports to compare in this way. I have already proven that the patriots and colts had both seen a significant amount of bad defenses in their franchises with Brady and Manning. I have shown you the history and here is a little more history the Colts have topped the patriots in the offensive game every single year except for the year Brady acquired Randy Moss. I do not know but If the colts can become the top 5 highest ranked offense in the NFL almost every year in the last decade speaks wonders about their offensive line. Significant names on that line were Tarik Glenn pro bowl offensive tackle and Jeff Saturday pro bowl center.

So with all these advantages Manning could only win once while Brady has won 3 times. My opponent still will point out winning does not show anything about the individual efforts. Well I am trying to point out the differences in the two teams the colts and patriots have not been very different sure SOME years the Pats have a better defense than the Colts. But every year the Colts have a better offense and in some years having a good defense.

Tom Brady has broken Peyton Manning's Touchdown record in a single season and goes undefeated when given a excellent wide receiver. Which shows how good his help was the past few years with branch and givens which was mediocre.

My opponent has pointed out that maybe it is Peyton Manning who makes Wayne and Harrison as good receivers. But maybe it is the other way around maybe Wayne and Harrison make Peyton look good. It would not be the first time this kind of relationship is demonstrated. Terrell Owens is a good example of a wide out who makes a Quarterback's career and when leaving, the quarterback never experiences the same amount of success. Football is a team sport and everything a Quarterback does depends on his team. A quarterback is not going to be good without a strong offensive line and great receivers which I have proven Manning has had in the course of his career.

Brady is a better quarterback than Peyton Manning his stats are the results of mediocre receivers. His MVP season of 50 touchdown passes is a result of him obtaining a star receiver. Brady's cool attitude in the clutch is superior to Manning, after 3 game winning drives in the Superbowl. Brady with 3 superbowl rings and the NFL touchdown record in a single season beating out Manning's greatest achievement in statistics shows Brady is better than Peyton Manning.

Please Vote for Tom Brady as the better Quarterback!

http://www.nfl.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

P.S Brady has a hotter Wife than Manning. Proving Brady is better On and OFF the field! (I am
patsox834

Con

"In the past 3 years he's played for the Colts he was able to gain 1000 yardage in 2 out of the 3 years he's played for them plus a pro bowl selection to add to that."

And despite this, here's where the Colts have ranked in rushing for the past three years:

2008: 31st.
2007: 18th.
2006: 18th.

Even with Addai, who isn't bad, though isn't spectacular, either, the Colts have been below average to outright horrid with the running game.

Here's how the Colts ranked in the passing game over the last three years:

2008: 5th.
2007: 6th.
2006: 2nd.

Despite having a mediocre running game, the Colts' passing game was still among the best in the NFL. They had a one-dimensional offense, which means that the defenses played the Colts to pass, and even with that, they *still* managed to rank as highly as they did. This really helps to show just how valuable Peyton Manning is.

"The colts defense is not as bad as everyone says it is. Comparing the Colts Defense to the Patriots Defense ever since Tom Brady started to start as a patriot"

I believe your comparison to be flawed. Overall defense isn't always telling, because a team can be mediocre in one aspect, and good in another, which eventually balances out the overall defensive statistics.

The Colts' run defense is what I'm referring to. It has been pretty unremarkable for a long time. Here's how the Colts' run defense has ranked from 2002 to last season:

2002: 20th.
2003: 20th.
2004: 24th.
2005: 16th.
2006: 32nd (last in the NFL.)
2007: 15th.
2008: 24th.

The Patriots, in comparison, have been much, much better in this regard:

2002: 31st.
2003: 4th.
2004: 6th.
2005: 8th.
2006: 5th.
2007: 10th.
2008: 15th.

The Patriots were in the top ten five times; the Colts never were. The Patriots were in the bottom half of the league once; the Colts were six times.

"The colts and patriots have both seen their shares of bad defenses and good defenses"

However, in regards to their defense, there has been more than what meets the eye, as evidenced by their run defenses. The Colts have just been destroyed in the running game, though their passing defense was good. This, in essence, means their overall defense is based on an outlier, in a sense, which means looking at total defense is flawed in this case.

"Deion Branch and Givens are no where close to approaching the level that Harrison and Wayne are at."

I never, ever claimed they were, so my opponent is essentially attacking a point nobody has ever made. In fact, the whole comparison of the Colts' and Patriots' wide receivers is a fallacious argument (a straw man), because I never claimed anything resembling the following: "the wide receivers of the Patriots have been as good as the Colts'." I merely claimed that the Patriots' wide receivers were good -- just because they're not as good as Harrison and Wayne appear to be doesn't mean they're aren't good, either. If Harrison and Wayne are the standard for what constitutes a good receiver, then most players at that position wouldn't be too highly regarded.

"Lets compare Michael Jordon who is currently regarded as the best NBA player in history. Do not get me wrong Jordan has incredible stats but their is a player who has better Wilt chamberlain(the man who holds 4 of the top 5 points scored in a single game)."

Ah, but the thing is, statistics are to be taken in context. The game was completely different when Chamberlain played -- no shot clock, players could stay in the pain as long as they wanted, etc., which made points easier to come by.

Jordan's stats are simply much more impressive when you take into account league difficultly, rule changes, etc., so my opponent's analogy just doesn't cut it.

"The deciding factor amongst most experts is that Jordan had more than 3 times the amount of championships Wilt has."

This is nothing more than an appeal to authority fallacy. My opponent's logic is "experts (he didn't give any specifics) claim Jordan having more championships than Chamberlain makes him better; therefore, Jordan is better."

However, we must remember that experts are, indeed, fallible; just because they make a claim on a subject doesn't mean they're right. My opponent is essentially banking on them being right since they're in a position of authority, so clearly his argument holds no merit.

Moreover, like I said earlier, my opponent didn't give any specific experts, so how are we even to know that what he's saying is true?

"Experts claim Peyton Manning is much better than Tom Brady."

See how easy it is to claim that? Making the claim is one thing, but as the claimant, one has an onus to support themselves, which, in this instance, my opponent did not.

This all rebuts his Montana argument, too, which is making the same point as the Chamberlain one. He claims the experts agree that Montana is better than Mariano...but, uh, who? He didn't give any specifics. And he's also still committing the appeal to authority fallacy. This analogy by my opponent carries just as little validity as his other analogy.

"That is proof that winning is a major deciding factor on who is a better player."

No, it's proof that you claim that experts think that, which holds no water, due to it not being backed up, and is also assuming that supposed "experts" are right, which we've been given no reason to believe.

"Tom Brady has broken Peyton Manning's Touchdown record in a single season and goes undefeated when given a excellent wide receiver. Which shows how good his help was the past few years with branch and givens which was mediocre."

Of course, that one receiver isn't why the Patriots went undefeated. They were exceptional on special teams, had a top ten defense, a spectacular offensive line, four very good receivers, and a good running game. This doesn't show that Branch and Givens were mediocre -- it shows that the previous Patriots teams as a whole weren't as good as this one, though I don't think any team in football history was as good at the '07 Patriots.

It can show that Moss and Welker > Givens and Branch, but I fail to see how this makes Givens and Branch mediocre. Similarly to what I said earlier, just because Givens and Branch aren't as good as Moss and Welker doesn't at all mean they aren't good, either.

"His MVP season of 50 touchdown passes is a result of him obtaining a star receiver."

No, it's a result of the team being built perfectly.

"Brady's cool attitude in the clutch is superior to Manning, after 3 game winning drives in the Superbowl."

This is an unfair penalization of Manning. I don't know why Brady should hold an advantage over Manning because the Patriots got to the Superbowl more often than the Colts did -- these are *team* accomplishments...not individual ones.

Moreover, Manning actually has more 4th quarter comebacks in his career than Brady does. Manning has 31 (1); Brady has 27, so my opponent's claim that Brady is more "clutch" than Manning doesn't at all coincide with the stats (of course, in the context he's using the word "clutch.") (2)

(1) = http://www.stampedeblue.com...

(2) = http://www.patriots.com...

<"Brady with 3 superbowl rings and the NFL touchdown record in a single season beating out Manning's greatest achievement in statistics shows Brady is better than Peyton Manning.">

Superbowl rings, again, are irrelevant. They're extremely dependent on contributions from the whole team; therefore, they don't carry much merit in individual player evaluation.

As for one season, yeah, so? Despite that one season, Manning's stats are still better, as I've shown. Besides, individual seasons are more susceptible to being fluky.

Anyway, I've sufficiently rebutted my opponent's claims, and allowed my own rationale to stand. So my opponent has not met his burden. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by sllewuy 7 years ago
sllewuy
LOL good job man i thought i got a free round win too
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
Submitted with less than 50 seconds to go....
Posted by sllewuy 7 years ago
sllewuy
hi im new at this
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
sllewuypatsox834Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06