Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning

<"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.