The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2011 Category: Sports
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,248 times Debate No: 16069
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)




Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning, and yet Peyton has had all-star wide receivers since he started. Tom has only had one since 2007, and look how his stats lit up. 18-1 (best record in nfl history) 50 passing touchdowns in a season (most in a season, also he had to pas Peyton for that record). Peyton has five seasons on Brady. Two for when Brady was in college. Two for when Brady was benched and one for when Brady got hurt for a season, with only 76 passing yards.


I can certainly agree with you, Tom Brady is an excellent quarterback who deserves the accolades he has won in his career. Indeed, he may even become a top 20 player of all time before he is done. However, before you get a swollen head, remember that Peyton Manning is already a top 10 player of all time in numerous rankings.

Let me first show you that your claims are irrelevant at best and downright inaccurate at worst. You state that Peyton Manning has been throwing to all-star receivers during his entire career. Of course, I have to concede the fact that Peyton had Marvin Harrison at the beginning of his career, an excellent receiver. However, in recent years, Tom Brady has had far better receivers come to him. In the past couple of years, Tom has received both Deion Branch and Randy Moss, receivers that had made their names before they arrived in Boston. He was also blessed with Wes Welker, a player widely regarded as one of the most sure-handed players in the league. Peyton Manning has taken no-name receivers such as Reggie Wayne, Pierre Garcon, and Anthony Gonzalez and made them great thanks to his amazing abilities to read defenses.

On another note, NFL experts recently named the New England Patriots the #1 offensive line in the NFL, while only one Colt (Jeff Saturday) received any commendation. Grey Ruegamer once claimed that the "game is won in the trenches", and the Patriots make that obvious. Before Tom Brady earned a chance to play, the Patriots were already considered contenders for the Super Bowl under star Drew Bledsoe. Tom Brady took a team with high expectations and reached those expectations. On the other side, the Colts had not been contenders since the early 1980's when they were in Baltimore. Indeed, Peyton Manning came to a team which was 3-13 in their first season to 13-3 their second. He is a game changer, raises the abilities of his teammates, and has been and will remain a much better Quarterback and player than Tom Brady.
Debate Round No. 1


I would Like to point out your mistakes in stats. Yours are opinions not facts.
1) A year before Peyton came into the colts, they went 3-13. The year he started, they went 3-13 AGAIN. *then the year after that he turned it around to 13-3. Tom, on the other hand, came into a franchise that was most definently not a favorite pick for the super bowl
1996= 11 games. (W's)
1997= 10 games. (W's)
1998= 9 games. (W'S)
1999= 8 games. (W's)
2000 (year before Brady) 5 games. (W'S)
Brady came into the franchise with a 0-2 record. His very first win was against Peyton Manning. Two weeks later beat Peyton Again. Then went on to win the super bowl. This is all in his first (unexpected) season.

2) Patriot's offensive line didn't come together until 2004. Where they drafted: Matt Light, Dan Koppen, Stephen Neal a few others, then a year later (2005) got Logan Mankins. So basically we are down to Tom's talent as Deon Branch, Wes Welker, and Randy Moss.

3) Randy didn't come till 2007, same with (undrafted) Wes Welker.

Deon Branch didn't come till Brady's second season. The only way Deion had his name 'known' would be from college. He had no big awards, except for some impressive stats. But they've been seen from other wide receivers. His stats with patriots:
With only 489 receiving yards.
Then next season 803, the year after that 454.
The year after that (2005) he had his best season yet with 998 (let me point out they did not go further then divisional playoffs). Then the year after that left to the Seattle sea hawks with a total of 725.
2007 he had 343. Deon's stats drop without Mr. Tom Brady. Either way Marvin Harrison's stats from 1999-2006 were all OVER 1,100 yards.

4) Reggie Wayne and Anothy Gonzalez are anything but 'no namers'. They both were drafted earlier than Deion.

Tom Bray vs Peyton Manning (Pats vs Colts)
Brady is winning 8-5. With more super bowl wins. Even though Peyton has more talent surrounding him, than Brady has had.


Ah, it seems my opponent does not read carefully enough. I stated that "Peyton Manning came to a team which was 3-13 in their first season to 13-3 their second." I also stated that the Patriots were considered "contenders" for the super bowl. Everyone knows the Rams were the favorite. But the Patriots had been consistent in the years under Drew Bledsoe, with the obvious exception of 2000.

Normally, in debates I would simply refute all of your arguments one by one, I would like to thank you for saving me the trouble this time. You see, in the first round, which was of course all I had seen at that time, you only used Tom Brady's statistics from the 2007 season. My argument stands. You just confirmed that Tom Brady had his excellent offensive line and receivers in place by that time.

I fail to see what draft order means to NFL fame. Jamarcus Russel and Ryan Leaf both were drafted higher than any of these receivers. They are still "no-namers" because the NFL awards players on merit in the system, not some elementary draft order. That is why we are able to have this conversation considering Brady's place in the draft.

Do not get distracted, our debate has nothing to do with who wins against the other or even super bowl wins. Both of those are team efforts, and the Patriots would have fewer Super Bowl wins without Adam Vinatieri.

Please take the time to read this web link, focusing on the statistics

How is it that Peyton Manning has surpassed Tom Brady in all major statistics nearly 75% of the years they have played in the same league if he is not the superior player?

Peyton has played longer than Brady, yes, but considering they are close in age, it is irrelevant. Tom Brady cannot average 4,796 yards, 34 touchdown passes, and 3 rushing touchdowns every year. He has already lost that competition. Peyton is the most productive QB in history statistically.
Debate Round No. 2


Let me break it down as much as possible because my opponent seems to be confused.
My mistake, you did say 13-3. But either way, Brady won the super bowl his first season.
The Patriots were not "consistent under the years of Drew Bledsoe". Did you not see them losing wins by the year? They were not consistent. It was up and down. 1999 was a career low for him, and then in 2000. The are not consistent. Both teams came into a bad recorded team. Brady did more with his. Yes Brady had talent around him in 2007? You sound like Peyton did not? Marvin Harrison, Dallas Clark, Edgerrin James and Tarik. They both had talent. Peyton had more *offensive talent longer than Brady has.
^^proves everything I'm trying to tell you.

About the draft, you said Deions name was known before Boston. I was proving that (I think everyone agrees) people drafted earlier than people later in the draft have their names already bigger.
^^Takes a better look at both of their careers stats.

<"Peyton has played longer than Brady, yes, but considering they are close in age, it is irrelevant."> so just because Brady is the same age, he should have the same career stats as Peyton? Peyton. Has. Had. Five. Seasons. On. Brady. That why Peyton's stats are so volumized.

My last point is you say super bowls are a team effort so you cant count that. Seriously? Teams get quarterbacks to win super bowls. They want someone that can lead them to 'the ring'. It doesn't matter if you have MVP every year. If you can't win a super bowl, then frankly you should get a better quarterback. Either way does passing and (QB) rushing not have to do with a team effort? You need a line, and good wide receivers and running backs. None of this is a one man job. Team is involved in everything, Brady uses his better.

*Vote Pro*


I really wish I had the characters to refute all of the claims made in your links, but I do not, so let me simply tell our audience one simple fact. Both of the links my opponent just put up are written by the exact same man, editor of the cold hard football facts, Kerry J. Byrne. Honestly, you can make any claim from man not landing on the moon, the Holocaust being fake, or even Tom Brady being the better player. All ridiculous claims, but you can find at least one other person who shares your view.

No, but it stands to reason the better player will be remembered by his stats and accomplishments. Tom Brady cannot catch Peyton Manning, especially considering Peyton has higher stats nearly 75% of the time. I was simply remarking that stats are a poor point of contention for you considering that Peyton has the advantage in it by a mile.

Yes, Peyton wins many MVP awards, the most in history in fact. He has been named the best player in the country more than any other person in the history of the sport. I disagree with your logic about Super Bowls. Even the best quarterback cannot win a super bowl without a great supporting cast. By your logic, you are saying that Len Dawson, Terry Bradshaw, and Bob Griese are all head and shoulders above players such as Dan Marino. I doubt you'll find much support in that argument.

Let me quote a final link for you.

NBC reporters asked the 20 living Hall of Fame Quarterbacks who they would start between Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. The Quarterbacks voted for Peyton Manning by an enormous margin, 13�-2�, with four abstaining.

Now, I think of myself as a very knowledgeable fan. However, my football knowledge pales in comparison to these 20 men. The greatest quarterbacks of all time voted in a landslide for Peyton Manning. That, in addition to Peyton's recent ESPN ranking as the third best QB of all time proves my point. Tom Brady is excellent. But Peyton Manning is the best.

Thank You.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stebo 5 years ago
Peyton Manning is an overall better QB. He does not need a stacked team to win
Posted by Stebo 5 years ago
Peyton Manning is an overall better QB. He does not need a stacked team to win
Posted by wittetye 6 years ago
Brady is way beter than Manning.
Posted by lifesaglitch911 7 years ago
Brady is way better
Posted by sami55 7 years ago
How did nobody bring up their playoff records?
Posted by Mr.Black 7 years ago
Agreed but stats (recorded documents) come before opinion (someones individual thinking). And second that just shows that Brady wants it more than Peyton. Peyton had it so he sat out. Brady couldve sat out with a tie but he wanted to be on top.

But honestly, thank you for commenting on this debate.
Posted by cwalke3408 7 years ago
how come no one have mention peyton has won a championship
and the 50 td record is misleading for manning had 49 td's and sat out the last game b/c they had the number 1 seed wrap up, while brady had the number 1 seed wrap up but still played just to beat manning record.

cons soures had many stats in his first source while the pro had a few
the way I look at Pros second source I look at the Hall of Famers QBs as experts in the field of quarterback in the NFL. Just like in court when an expert is called to the stand in a case.
Posted by MontyKarl91 7 years ago
Not really. I proved that stats went entirely in my favor in my second post. That Peyton had an insurmountable lead in those statistics. That was the end of it. I felt it was a nice final note to mention that the most knowledgeable people about the position alive felt that Peyton was the better player. It may be opinion, as this debate is (you cannot determine what is more valuable, statistics and MVPs or superbowls), but their opinion carries much more weight than either of ours.
Posted by Mr.Black 7 years ago
Loserboi-- I couldn't agree with you more.

Plus Con- your link has more opinion than mine. Yours is what hall of famers think. Mine is pure stats. Yours could be Peyton Sucks and shouldn't be in the same sentence as tom. or vice verse. But we all know that Tom is the better player. You don't count super bowls, but you count his 13-3 record? You go back on a lot of things that you point out for me. ^Like up top for the opinion thing.
Posted by Loserboi 7 years ago
I don't like these kinds of debates in general because everyone tends to vote for Peyton Manning. They want to completely ignore Peyton Manning's failures to bring his team to the championships but they want to give him full credit for winning 13 games a year and putting up big numbers but no blame for him losing in the playoffs. Peyton Manning has 4 MVPs because the colts have built their team to have sufficient offensive weapons. Peyton Manning's receiving corps is considered to be the top ten in history. Peyton Manning has played with a decent run and excellent pass blocking O-line. Just look at how often Manning gets sacked every year he gets sacked like 5 times at most in a year. Tom Brady has never played with a consistent run game, or a stable receiving corp. Tom Brady turns the ball a lot less than Manning, and Tom Brady's defense in the past like 3 years have been mediocre at best. I predict a win for Con but that is only because people refuse to listen to a Tom Brady argument
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was stronger on fact, higher clarity in argument and more to the point. This was almost in reverse with Pro trying to refute Con, a fairly dominating performance.