That may be true, but...
drothgery said:
The Pats have won more games than the Colts because they have an above-average offense and defense; the Colts have a great offense and bad defense. Manning does not play defense.
This would be a reasonable contention if the Colts lost big games because of their defense. But take last year's AFC Championship game as a classic example - the Colts were in the game and the only thing that took them out of the game was Manning and his inability to figure out a Belicheck defense. Anything else is simply revisionist history...
Again, Manning is a great individual player (albeit aided by a great trio of receivers, an awesome tight end in Clark, and a great RB to set up the pass) with great individual statistics.
But, having said all that, if you think he is going to occupy the same halls of history as other QBs who were great in their own right (Montana, Elway, Star, Unitas) AND who won the big game and sometimes more than once, then I will have to politely disagree.
It's not about just winning the Super Bowl. This is a straw man argument that no one but the opposition is making. Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer are not and were not great quarterbacks and will not be remembered as better QBs than Marino despite the fact that they were in, and won, the Super Bowl. But in and among quarterbacks who are legitimately great by any standard (of which Manning is assuredly one and Jermaine Jackson is decidedly not), there are tiers and guys who win it are on a different one than guys who didn't...
And while I have refrained from talking about Manning v. Brady, I will say this...as a Bostonian, I am more than comfortable having Brady and leaving you guys to take Peyton...and if I misspelled anything in that sentence, you'll forgive me...I can't see what with the reflection of all the football and baseball bling-bling of the past three years.
Hey, in the end, we're all on the same page when it comes to knowing the best hobby in the world and that's what counts!
-matt
