Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning

"In the past 3 years he's played for the Colts he was able to gain 1000 yardage in 2 out of the 3 years he's played for them plus a pro bowl selection to add to that. " And despite this, here's where the Colts have ranked in rushing for the past three years: 2008: 31st. 2007: 18th. 2006: 18th. Even with Addai, who isn't bad, though isn't spectacular, either, the Colts have been below average to outright horrid with the running game. Here's how the Colts ranked in the passing game over the last three years: 2008: 5th. 2007: 6th. 2006: 2nd. Despite having a mediocre running game, the Colts' passing game was still among the best in the NFL. They had a one-dimensional offense, which means that the defenses played the Colts to pass, and even with that, they *still* managed to rank as highly as they did. This really helps to show just how valuable Peyton Manning is. "The colts defense is not as bad as everyone says it is. Comparing the Colts Defense to the Patriots Defense ever since Tom Brady started to start as a patriot" I believe your comparison to be flawed. Overall defense isn't always telling, because a team can be mediocre in one aspect, and good in another, which eventually balances out the overall defensive statistics. The Colts' run defense is what I'm referring to. It has been pretty unremarkable for a long time. Here's how the Colts' run defense has ranked from 2002 to last season: 2002: 20th. 2003: 20th. 2004: 24th. 2005: 16th. 2006: 32nd (last in the NFL. ) 2007: 15th. 2008: 24th. The Patriots, in comparison, have been much, much better in this regard: 2002: 31st. 2003: 4th. 2004: 6th. 2005: 8th. 2006: 5th. 2007: 10th. 2008: 15th. The Patriots were in the top ten five times; the Colts never were. The Patriots were in the bottom half of the league once; the Colts were six times. "The colts and patriots have both seen their shares of bad defenses and good defenses" However, in regards to their defense, there has been more than what meets the eye, as evidenced by their run defenses. The Colts have just been destroyed in the running game, though their passing defense was good. This, in essence, means their overall defense is based on an outlier, in a sense, which means looking at total defense is flawed in this case. "Deion Branch and Givens are no where close to approaching the level that Harrison and Wayne are at. " I never, ever claimed they were, so my opponent is essentially attacking a point nobody has ever made. In fact, the whole comparison of the Colts' and Patriots' wide receivers is a fallacious argument (a straw man), because I never claimed anything resembling the following: "the wide receivers of the Patriots have been as good as the Colts'. " I merely claimed that the Patriots' wide receivers were good -- just because they're not as good as Harrison and Wayne appear to be doesn't mean they're aren't good, either. If Harrison and Wayne are the standard for what constitutes a good receiver, then most players at that position wouldn't be too highly regarded. "Lets compare Michael Jordon who is currently regarded as the best NBA player in history. Do not get me wrong Jordan has incredible stats but their is a player who has better Wilt chamberlain(the man who holds 4 of the top 5 points scored in a single game). " Ah, but the thing is, statistics are to be taken in context. The game was completely different when Chamberlain played -- no shot clock, players could stay in the pain as long as they wanted, etc. , which made points easier to come by. Jordan's stats are simply much more impressive when you take into account league difficultly, rule changes, etc. , so my opponent's analogy just doesn't cut it. "The deciding factor amongst most experts is that Jordan had more than 3 times the amount of championships Wilt has. " This is nothing more than an appeal to authority fallacy. My opponent's logic is "experts (he didn't give any specifics) claim Jordan having more championships than Chamberlain makes him better; therefore, Jordan is better. " However, we must remember that experts are, indeed, fallible; just because they make a claim on a subject doesn't mean they're right. My opponent is essentially banking on them being right since they're in a position of authority, so clearly his argument holds no merit. Moreover, like I said earlier, my opponent didn't give any specific experts, so how are we even to know that what he's saying is true? "Experts claim Peyton Manning is much better than Tom Brady. " See how easy it is to claim that? Making the claim is one thing, but as the claimant, one has an onus to support themselves, which, in this instance, my opponent did not. This all rebuts his Montana argument, too, which is making the same point as the Chamberlain one. He claims the experts agree that Montana is better than Mariano. .. but, uh, who? He didn't give any specifics. And he's also still committing the appeal to authority fallacy. This analogy by my opponent carries just as little validity as his other analogy. "That is proof that winning is a major deciding factor on who is a better player. " No, it's proof that you claim that experts think that, which holds no water, due to it not being backed up, and is also assuming that supposed "experts" are right, which we've been given no reason to believe. "Tom Brady has broken Peyton Manning's Touchdown record in a single season and goes undefeated when given a excellent wide receiver. Which shows how good his help was the past few years with branch and givens which was mediocre. " Of course, that one receiver isn't why the Patriots went undefeated. They were exceptional on special teams, had a top ten defense, a spectacular offensive line, four very good receivers, and a good running game. This doesn't show that Branch and Givens were mediocre -- it shows that the previous Patriots teams as a whole weren't as good as this one, though I don't think any team in football history was as good at the '07 Patriots. It can show that Moss and Welker > Givens and Branch, but I fail to see how this makes Givens and Branch mediocre. Similarly to what I said earlier, just because Givens and Branch aren't as good as Moss and Welker doesn't at all mean they aren't good, either. "His MVP season of 50 touchdown passes is a result of him obtaining a star receiver. " No, it's a result of the team being built perfectly. "Brady's cool attitude in the clutch is superior to Manning, after 3 game winning drives in the Superbowl. " This is an unfair penalization of Manning. I don't know why Brady should hold an advantage over Manning because the Patriots got to the Superbowl more often than the Colts did -- these are *team* accomplishments. .. not individual ones. Moreover, Manning actually has more 4th quarter comebacks in his career than Brady does. Manning has 31 (1); Brady has 27, so my opponent's claim that Brady is more "clutch" than Manning doesn't at all coincide with the stats (of course, in the context he's using the word "clutch. ") (2) (1) = . http://www.stampedeblue.com... (2) = . http://www.patriots.com... <"Brady with 3 superbowl rings and the NFL touchdown record in a single season beating out Manning's greatest achievement in statistics shows Brady is better than Peyton Manning. "> Superbowl rings, again, are irrelevant. They're extremely dependent on contributions from the whole team; therefore, they don't carry much merit in individual player evaluation. As for one season, yeah, so? Despite that one season, Manning's stats are still better, as I've shown. Besides, individual seasons are more susceptible to being fluky. Anyway, I've sufficiently rebutted my opponent's claims, and allowed my own rationale to stand. So my opponent has not met his burden.