If they're only picking one player from each position, then this is a no-brainer. Peyton's damn good, but he's no Tom Brady.

 Brady is more the product of a  "system"  than anything.  Manning is by far the better QB.     

And the Colts' lack of more rings is the product of Peyton Manning having at least one absolutely terrible game EVERY SINGLE YEAR in the postseason. It even happened when they won... but their vastly under-appreciated defense bailed him out, and prevented him from being known as the biggest choker of all time.

Now, thanks to his defense (and partially thanks to Herm Edwards' ineptitude as a coach), Peyton's a "champion". Funny how things work, huh?

Spoiled - He's the son of a former NFL QB, so he's probably more spoiled than Brady, if anything.
Rich - He has a contract worth over $100M. So yes, he's insanely rich.
Proud - Show me a professional athlete who ISN'T proud, and I will show you someone who's lying through their teeth.
Egomaniac - Who's the one who said he had a laser rocket arm? Oh yeah...  that was Peyton. Let me know what gives you the impression that Tom Brady is an egomaniac, and I'll pretend that this even has a little merit.
Team of cheaters - I obviously have nothing to say to this. The Patriots cheated, and they got caught. Period. If you want to use that as a knock on Brady, then that's your choice. But there has been no evidence whatsoever that has proved that he knew about it, nor is it HIS fault anyway. Nor is there any reason to believe that the Patriots were the only team doing it. That's like saying that the players who got suspended for steroid use in baseball are the only ones who took them. That would be a straight up ignorant statement... just like it would be ignorant to think that the Patriots are the only team to do what they did.

If you really want to get into the Manning/Brady debate, I can do this all day, and I assure you that I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Tom Brady IS the better QB, by any reasonable standard. Just let me know. If you're not ready to dance, then leave your jealousy at home. The Rams just weren't the better team that day, and there's no reason for you to still be bitter about it.

Wow?  Who's bitter?

Ummmmmm, I must have missed that e-mail...........is the decade already over ??

I'll say this, should Brady go down again for most/all of the year, and Manning (Peyton) does his 'typical' 4,000 yd - 35 TD - 12 Int, then perhaps Manning might get the nod !!

The real travesty here is that they picked Polamalu over Dawkins at safety. A cursory glance at the stats shows that Dawk is just a prolific a tackler and has generally picked up more sacks and forced fumbles, and about as many interceptions each year as Polamalu. Plus, Dawkins has 7 Pro Bowls and 4 All-Pro selections to Polamalu's 5 and 2, respectively. Dawk's numbers might even have been higher had he not missed over half of 2003 with a foot injury. Perhaps most importantly, Polamalu has only played for 6 years this decade! How can you possibly be on an all-decade team when you've only been around for 60% of the time? If Polamalu plays at an equally high level for the next two years, then maybe he enters the debate with Dawkins. But right now, Dawkins is the better choice.

I am. I will freely admit that I'm sick of all the ignorant people out there who pretend that Manning is better than Brady just because of a few over-simplified, convoluted glimpses at the regular season and his overall playoff numbers.

Every year, Peyton Manning has a great season. That's because he's a great QB. I'm not trying to take anything away from that. And then every year, he has a game or two in the playoffs where he throws for 4-5 TD's and a buttload of yards. But then, EVERY year, he has at least one game where he absolutely craps his pants. And that's why the Colts lose. EVERY year, that has happened.

And that's why you can't say that Peyton Manning is the better QB. Postseason aside, he and Brady are actually a lot closer than people give them credit for. But 90% of the time, Tom Brady puts his team in a position to win when it matters. Even when they lost the Super Bowl, he drove down the field for the go-ahead score with about 2 mins left. Peyton, on the other hand, has personally put the Colts in a position to lose, 100% of the time.

Brady is better. Period.

is that the best you brady haters can come up with is, the Pats are cheaters? OK how about Manning choking every year but one in the playoffs? Oh ya thats the Pats fault. It is so old. Get a new arguement. If the Pats are cheaters how is it Bradys first playoff loss was to Jake Plummer? Answer that!

tom brady in my view is a great ballplayer but  he is not as good as peyton manning though but i like them both i dont hate tom brady its just that peyton manning is better

 I guess if you have not won a ring you should not be in the hof or considered a great player give me a break.

Hey Pat, No Offense, But I'm Suprised You Didn't Write This Article....

None taken. I'm proud of my man-crush on Brady. I have no problems with it.

 Pat, I want to play devils advocate here.  What if Manning was given the job in NE and Brady had to play for Indy?  A player can be rated on how well he is with the team around him but what if the shoe was on the other foot.  Will leave that at that.

But, with that said, we are talking reality and it is what it is.  Brady has what he has and he has done the most he could with it.  With that said, as much as I have never been a Brady fan, Brady is the best in the game.

Also, not being a Brady fan, I just read up on how he took less to give more to team around him.  So any feelings I had on him not shaking hands with Eli.  Or his arrogance (which all QB's have in general).  Brady is a winner and will do whatver it takes to be a winner to include making a million or more less each year.  That is commendable and with that I have a newfound respect for the man.  It pains me greatly to agree with you on this. 

I have written about truth and reality and what it takes to be a real fan before in my blog or in responses to articles.  Giving props where they are deserved is what a real fan is about.  Not hating just because that team beats your team or jealousy because a team is so dominant. 

In general I hate the Sox and the Pats...but the reality is the Sox broke the curse and the Pats have been the dominant team of the decade on all fronts.  So getting away from general.  Pat you are correct and your boy Brady deserves it. 

I'd take Moss in a heartbeat over Holt or Harrison. No offense to either guy, but for one game, you can't convince me either Holt or Harrison is a better option.

I adore Peyton Manning... I'll admit it..  He's the bomb.com..  Honestly, I believe this is stupid... Who does this???  Who in the *&().. forms a team with 1 qb anyway...  you need back up..  Manning s/b starting, Brady c/b the closer...  Now thats a winning team baby..  ;o) I'm just saying..

Tom Brady = 3 Superbowl Rings
Peyton Manning = 1 Super Bowl ring
ESPN All-decade QB = Tom Brady
DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!!! We have a winner!

Ahhh..another peice of ESPN garbage. So many stupid things wrong with this.
 
A. Someone should tell the morons at ESPN that THE DECADES NOT OVER, IDIOTS!.
B. Torry Holt over TO? Thats a joke. Wether you like him off the feild, TO is the number 1 reciever of this decade, period hands down. And he has the numbers to prove it. Plus Tory, who is a hell of a reciever, has had absolutly horrendous last two years.
C. Someone mentioned Dawkins over Polamalu, and he's absolutley right.

I really like Manning, but really is there any debate here? Brady is the better leader, the bigger winner and that's what I want in my QB.

Same reason Joe Montana is better than Marino, even though Marino has better numbers. Deal with it.

it was a team winning them rings not jus Brady

Did you read my comment? Doesn't look like it...

Either that, or you just don't get it.

Put either man in Detroit over the last decade and who does better?  Manning.  His football IQ is just superior.  He reads the D better...he makes adjustments on the line better...he calls the plays.  Hes basically the OC and QB at the same time. 

Christ...i cant believe I'm arguing for a guy i loathe with my entire being.  But still...he's just a better QB and makes average players around him seem like studs. 

"he's just a better QB and makes average players around him seem like studs."

If all I saw was that sentence, I would have thought that you were talking about a guy who made Deion Branch, David Patten and David Givens look like decent NFL WR's. He led the league in yards in 2005 while throwing to Branch, Givens, and 34 year old Troy Brown. He led the league in TD's in 2002, throwing to Brown, Patten and Branch, who was a rookie at the time.

Look at what Brady's former WR's and TE's have done with other teams, and tell me that he hasn't made LESS than average players look like studs. Everyone thought Moss was washed up, and as a Dolphins fan, you were probably one of the few who had even heard of Wes Welker before they came to New England.

I'm just saying...

Manning chokes while Brady doesn't. when we look at the  records of the two in playoff games Brady wins hands down. hence why Manning is not listed, you could almost say manning is the Mario of our generation & Brady is the Montana of our generation.

Sounds like spoiled apples if you ask me.....As far as im concerned....i'd take Peyton over Tom any day..

You are more than entitled to choose Peyton over Brady... you would just get the guy who chokes badly in the postseason, every single season, without exception. If that's what you're into, then that's cool.

And just remember that I'm not the one that came out of left field and called Peyton Manning a spoiled, rich, proud egomaniac. That was a Peyton Manning supporter, referring to Tom Brady, with claims that are completely baseless, aside from the "rich" part, which is true of every single player in the NFL.

Im not getting to far into this because Pat and I have had too many long conversations regarding the Patriots weaknesses and yada yada... 

Manning also had a defense that wouldnt choke a key possession or two. Patriots have done better overall than the colts yes but then again the colts have had a mediocre at best defense every year. When MIA played the colts i did not give a damn about their "defense" but I hated the Patriots defense because they can capitalize.

Also my most important point of all. The colts cannot survive without Peyton and the Patriots can survive without Brady (look at 2008 season). Do I mind somebody picking brady over Peyton? No but Pat you cant sit there and claim "You are more than entitled to choose Peyton over Brady... you would just get the guy who chokes badly in the postseason, every single season, without exception. "

IMHO Pat, thats a biased, homer statement. Sour grapes if you will of somebody liking Peyton over your mancrush Tom Brady. Thats my honest opinion though i do respect your decision to pick Brady. I would pick Peyton due to his ties with the Vols and I think he is a tremendous QB and would take him over anybody.

And can we stop talking about choke jobs 18-1? please?

It's not a biased, homer statement. It's a statement of fact. Look at the numbers.

And if you look at MORE facts, then you would realize that the Patriots didn't "survive" without Brady. They won 5 less games than they did the year before, and missed the playoffs. While that's better than most people thought, it's still a huge drop.

All granted and who was Wes Welker before he came to NE...Welker was a diamond in the rough.  He is tough, quick, fast, sure hands...and honestly the passes Brady chucks Welker I could chuck to him.  Welker takes most of his passes in the heart of the defense.  Granted Brady has to thread that needle but Welker is a medium route catcher and yards after the play guy.  I would want that dude on my team any day.  I have said that about him since his days with the Red Raiders.  Of course I love college football and I am a secret recruiter in my own mind. 

They would have lost those five game regardless of who was their QB last year.

Before I talk about the actual subject. Are you seriously using 2007s phenominal run as a backboard to counter my statement ? 11-5 in a hugely improved AFC East is not that bad since the starting QB was out.

11-5 is better than surviving... the fact that the patriots missed the playoffs is not because of the patriots but because the dolphins so scratch that one away. The Patriots got 11-5 but the Colts dont even have a winning record.

Without Peyton playing they are 1-2 since 2002. The one win was a week 17 victory over the 5-11 Cardinals by a 4 point margin. Yikes! Colts were 14-2 after that game.

Without Brady the Pats are 11-6 since 2002. Still a Huge drop? imagine if Peyton was hurt... that offense would be retarded along with their definition of defense. So because Peyton is more important to his teams success i assume he is a better QB to have on my team.

Yes the pats have been to superbowls but how many times is that because of their defense? Peyton could go into the Patriot offense and perhaps do the same if not better IMO. Cassel didnt start since HS and still got 11 wins during the season.

Also, Around the time that the Patriots were all offense and breaking records guess what happened? Yall choked in the postseason to DEFENSE. Dont give Tom every bit of credit by using those numbers. They are flawed in this debate because Peyton has had mostly offense to win games and no Top intimidating defense. Again your opinion is yours and thats a great QB to have on a team. But dont knock Peyton pickers as ignorant because the number can and will go against you at the same time. Stats work both ways.

"Yes the pats have been to superbowls but how many times is that because of their defense? Peyton could go into the Patriot offense and perhaps do the same if not better IMO. Cassel didnt start since HS and still got 11 wins during the season."

Thats why Brady is a "system" QB.

That's a ridiculous statement. You think they would have lost that OT game to the Jets if Brady was in there? You think they would have lost that 18-15 game against the Colts? I can't make any guarantees for the other games, but I'm willing to bet my left nut that the Patriots would have won those games with Brady in there. Have you forgotten how ridiculous their offense was with Brady at the helm? Cassel was decent... Brady is great.

The numbers won't go against me. Ever. I honestly didn't want to do this, but you're kinda forcing my hand here.

Here are Peyton Manning's playoffs choke jobs:
1/16/2000 vs Tennessee: 19-42, 227 yds, 0 td, 0 int, Colts lost 19-16
12/30/2000 vs Miami: 17/32, 194 yds, 1 td, 1 int, Colts lost 23-17
1/4/2003 vs NY Jets: 14/31, 137 yds, 0 td, 2 int, Colts lost 41-0
1/18/2004 vs New England: 23-47, 237 yds, 1 td, 4 int, Colts lost 24-14
1/15/2006 vs Pittsburgh: 22-38, 290 yds, 1 td, 1 int, Colts lost 21-18
1/6/2007 vs Kansas City: 30-38, 268 yds, 1 td, 3 int, Colts win 23-8
1/13/2007 vs Baltimore: 15-30, 170 yds, 0 td, 2 int, Colts win 15-6

In all of those losses, Peyton Manning's poor play or at the very least, his inability to get the ball in the end zone was a primary reason for their loss. In the two wins, he played extremely poorly as well, but his defense bailed him out.

Please tell me which of those games could be blamed on their defense. They only gave up a bunch of points ONCE, and that was to the Jets. But let's be serious... they could have given up 3 points, and the Colts still would have lost, since Peyton and the offense couldn't score at all.

You can sit there and blame it on the Colts' defense all you want, but facts are facts, and you are wrong. Peyton Manning is to blame.

And you can also say that the Patriots choked, but that's inaccurate as well. Brady drove them down the field for the go-ahead TD with 2 minutes left, and they were winning the game until the most ridiculous play of all time with less than a minute to go. If that's a choke, then I'll take it. But it's nothing, compared to Peyton's 4 INT's against the Pats.

"Without Peyton playing they are 1-2 since 2002. The one win was a week 17 victory over the 5-11 Cardinals by a 4 point margin. Yikes! Colts were 14-2 after that game."

Week 17 games are irrelevant. We all know that. Get that weak crap out of here.

And by the way, please point out these 3 games that you speak of without Peyton Manning. When I look at his career, it looks like he has played 176 straight games. So where are these games without him?

Oh yeah... they are week 17 games, where they removed all their starters and played scrubs. But go ahead and pretend that those 3 games are a reasonable sample size. Whatever helps your case, right?

"Without Brady the Pats are 11-6 since 2002. Still a Huge drop? imagine if Peyton was hurt... that offense would be retarded along with their definition of defense. So because Peyton is more important to his teams success i assume he is a better QB to have on my team."

Don't speculate. If you have facts, then bring them. But you have no idea how the Colts would do without Peyton Manning. You have ZERO idea. When Brady went down, everyone assumed the Patriots would go 8-8, at best. Almost everyone was wrong. So don't pretend you know a damn thing about what would happen if Peyton went down. You don't. Period.

"Yes the pats have been to superbowls but how many times is that because of their defense? Peyton could go into the Patriot offense and perhaps do the same if not better IMO. Cassel didnt start since HS and still got 11 wins during the season."

Well, it looks like Matt Cassel was a decent backup. The fact that he hadn't played since high school is irrelevant. He made it to USC,  which is known for having incredible college QB's, and he sat behind several Heisman winners, and a Super Bowl MVP once he got to the NFL. Does that mean he's not better than other starters? Nope, it just means he wasn't a better college QB than Matt Leinart and Carson Palmer, two of the best college QB's in recent history, and he wasn't better than Tom Brady, arguably the best QB of all time.

Once again, your arguments are pure conjecture and hypotheticals. Mine are based on unequivocal facts. Come back when you can compete. In other words, don't bother.

Question: Why is it that some people want to give wins and losses soley on the quarteback position? Last time I checked, its a TEAM game. Mabey the QB had recievers were playing crappy. Or mabey the oline wasnt blocking well that game, so the the d keyed off the pass? On the flip side, mabey one reciever was dominating a corner. Mabey the pass was working well because the run game had pounded the d into submission. Its not only irresponsible, but a cheap affect to blame wins and losses soley on a qb. The only true way to evaluate a single player versus another player is to look at the consistancy between the two. Yes, Brady had a hell of a season in 2007, and it was indeed, better than manning. However, over the duration of the two careers, Mannings numbers are consistanly better then bradys. Thats why Manning should be there, and not Brady.

Your arguments are EXTREMELY inconsistent. First, you say that it's a team game, and maybe the QB had crappy WR's, etc... but then you say that Manning had better numbers than Brady over his career.

Did you forget about the receivers that Brady had? Do you think that Deion Branch and David Patten are as good as Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne? Brady had mediocre WR's for his whole career, until Randy Moss showed up. Finally, he got WR's that were as good as Manning has, and he did better.

So what does that tell you? Put Brady in a system similar to Peyton Manning, and he'll do better.

You missed the point of my arguement. Its not so much the numbers, but the consistancy in the numbers.

Manning's numbers are more consistent because his supporting cast is more consistent. He has had the same #1 WR for his entire career, and the same #2 WR for quite a while, and his top TE has been the same for quite a few years as well. Brady has had different WR's every few years, and still put up great numbers. Then, he finally got some WR's that were comparable to the ones that Peyton Manning has had his whole career, and he put up monster numbers.

Brady's numbers aren't inconsistent... there are just other factors.