Shop for Indianapolis Colts gear at Fanatics.com

Why The 2004 Peyton Manning Is Better Than The 2007 Tom Brady

There’s many debates in the National Football League. Some debate why Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning or why Tom Brady is better than Peyton. Here’s a little blurb opinion from myself on this topic.

Peyton Manning can play up until he is like 43 years of age and he has nine years to win a couple more championships. Can we say that he can win at least one or two more Super Bowls? Yes. Can we say he can surpass Brett Favre in statistics? Definitely.

Tom Brady, after being hit by that injury in 2007, now seems like he can play up until he is like 37 now. His career will fall short soon. Can he win a couple more Super Bowls? Maybe. Can he surpass in statistics? Definitely not.

Manning can easily surpass Brady in Super Bowl wins, and that will not take much. Many have already been saying that Manning will be the number one quarterback of all-time in a few years. Manning is a four-time MVP while Brady is only a one-timer. Brady would not have had those stats if it weren’t for his supporting cast on both sides of the ball.

And that is why we get into this debate of why Manning’s 2004 season was better than Brady’s 2007 season.

First of all, Peyton Manning did not have a good supporting cast. The Indianapolis Colts’ defense ranked 19th in the NFL. It was all Manning when you looked at it. He was the one that truly helped this offense. He helped three receivers get 1,000 yards or more plus ten touchdowns or more.

These guys were Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, and Brandon Stokley. When you look at it, Manning helped made these receivers to what they are today. Harrison and Stokley have largely improved compared to a season before they played with Manning to the season they finally did play with Manning.

Manning also had only one Pro-Bowl offensive lineman that year with Tarik Glenn. All-in-all, the Colts finished with a 12-4 record while Manning had 49 touchdowns and ten interceptions.

As for Tom Brady, the New England Patriots were stacked everywhere. The Patriots were ranked number one in total offense like the Indianapolis Colts in 2004. But the Patriots, however, ranked fourth in total-defense. Tom Brady had everything you could ask for with Randy Moss, Wes Welker, and Donte Stallworth. Now I do have to give Brady credit for making Welker what he is today, but Stallworth and Moss were already known as one of the top receivers coming to New England.

I recall that the Patriots also had more than one offensive lineman making it to the Pro Bowl. If it weren’t for the Patriots running up the score towards the ending of games, Brady probably wouldn’t have had 50 touchdowns. Manning got it the right way and earned it. Brady didn’t. They ran up the score towards the end as they kept passing and passing and passing. Manning helped Edgerrin James get 1,000 yards rushing while the Patriots didn’t have a single 1,000-yard rusher.

Many also say Brady made David Givens and Reche Caldwell. I have to give the credit for Brady with Givens and Deion Branch. But Caldwell? Seriously. I hear from many Patriots’ fans that Brady helped Caldwell get 60 catches. The only reason why is because Caldwell played a full-16 games. Before coming to New England, he never played 16 games total. You can’t give Brady all the credit. It’s like saying that Mark Sanchez deserves all the credit for the New York Jets’ successful run in the 2009-10 season.

All-in-all, Manning got it the right way and the well-earned way. I know there are going to be many disagreements, so let the hating begin. Patriots’ fans, let your hate begin.


Enjoyed this post?
Subscribe to Colts Gab via RSS Feed or E-mail and receive daily news updates from us!

Submit to Digg  Stumble This Story  Share on Twitter  Post on Facebook  Post on MySpace  Add to del.icio.us  Bark It Up  Submit to Reddit  Fave on Technorati

One Response to “Why The 2004 Peyton Manning Is Better Than The 2007 Tom Brady”

Leave a Reply