Originally posted by sh76
You can't compare Rodgers and Brady to what the Colts have. The question isn't whether the Colts would be winless with Rodgers or Brady (obviously, they would not), but whether they'd win with the Colts as many games as the Colts have over the last decade with Manning. I'd say doubtful in the case of Brady. As for Rodgers, it's still so early in his career that ...[text shortened]... anning's or Brady's. Right this second, of course, he's clearly ahead of both of them.
I think you are being a bit short sighted here.
I agree that Peyton is a great QB and a great leader.
However, he doesn't play defense, and Indy has won, what? One super bowl with him?
Matt Schaub will NEVER match up in a comparison with Peyton, but in the Texans
current scheme (without Andre Johnson for the last 5 games), they are chewing
teams up. So you can't say the QB is the end all be all, although it helps.
I have never believed that Tom Brady is a better QB than Peyton, but he does have
more Super Bowl wins to show. Again, the whole product allows him to function better
than if he was with the Dolphins for example.
Peyton does not deserve consideration for MVP while not playing simply because the
Colts haven't stopped anyone on defense all year, so Peyton's offense wouldn't make
as much impact. Sure they would have won more games than they have, but they
have been blown out in several.
Aaron Rodgers is a fine young player, but he isn't Montana, Marino or Farve yet.
He has a great cast surrounding him, and he is doing remarkably well with them.
But I am not ready to send him to Canton yet.